Without undertaking to give a detailed account of the feudal system as modified and established by Ieyasu, it will be sufficient to give the classes of daimyōs as they continued to exist under the Tokugawa shōgunate.[231] It must be understood that feudalism existed in Japan before the time of Ieyasu. It can be traced to the period when Yoritomo obtained from the emperor permission to send into each province a shiugo who should be a military man, and should act as protector of the kokushū or governor, who was always a civilian appointed by the emperor. These military protectors were provided with troops, for the pay of whom Yoritomo got permission from the emperor to levy a tax. Being active men, and having troops under their command, they gradually absorbed the entire authority, and probably in most cases displaced the [pg 278] kokushū, who only represented the powerless government at Kyōto. Under the disturbed times which followed the fall of the house of Yoritomo these shiugo became the hereditary military governors of the provinces, and usurped not only the functions but the name of kokushū. They became a class of feudal barons who, during the interval when no central authority controlled them, governed each one his own province on his own responsibility. Even after the establishment of a central authority, and continuously down to the abolition of feudalism, the government of the people was in the hands of the daimyō of each province. The assessment of taxes, the construction of roads and bridges, the maintenance of education, the punishment of crime, the collection of debts, the enforcement of contracts, and indeed the whole circle of what was denominated law were in the hands of the local government. In truth, in Japan as in other feudal countries there was scarcely such a thing as law in existence. The customs that prevailed, the common-sense decisions of a magistrate, the final determinations of the daimyō, were authoritative in every community. And in all these each province was in a great degree a law unto itself.

The classes of daimyōs as arranged and established by Ieyasu were not altered by his successors, although the number included under each class was liable to minor changes. Before Ieyasu's time there were three classes of daimyōs, viz.: eighteen kokushū, who may be termed lords of provinces, thirty-two ryōshu or lords of smaller districts, and two [pg 279] hundred and twelve jōshu or lords of castles, that is two hundred and sixty-two in all. The distinction between the first two was one of rank, but the third differed from the others in the fact that the assessment in each case was less than 100,000 kōku of rice. The number of kokushū daimiates was increased by the addition of Kii and Owari, to which Ieyasu appointed two of his sons as daimyōs. A third son he appointed daimyō of Mito, which was already of the kokushū rank. He vacated this place by compelling the previous holder to accept in place of it another daimiate of equivalent value.

Ieyasu divided all daimyōs into two distinct classes, the fudai and the tozama. The term fudai was used to designate those who were considered the vassals of the Tokugawa family. The tozama daimyōs were those who were considered as equal to the vassals of the Tokugawa family, but who were not in fact vassals. Of the former there were originally one hundred and seventy-seven, and of the latter eighty-six.[232] Twenty-one of the fudai daimyōs were relatives of the shōgun's family, of whom three, as has been stated, were the “honorable families.” All the others, numbering eighteen, bore the name of Matsudaira, one of the family names of Ieyasu, derived from a small village in the province of [pg 280] Mikawa, where Ieyasu was born. This was allowed to them as a special honor.

We give here the classification of the daimyōs as enumerated by M. Appert[233] in his list for the epoch about 1850:

1. Go-san-ké (three honorable families)3
2. Fudai daimyōs (vassals of Tokugawa family)137
3. Tozama daimyōs (equal to vassals)99
4. Kamon (all the other branches of Tokugawa family)18
5. Daimyōs, not classified6
Total263

The five leading tozama daimyōs were Kaga, Sendai, Aizu, Chōshū, and Satsuma, and although they ranked after the go-san-ké, they had some superior advantages. They were classed as kyakubun, or guests, and whenever they paid a visit to the capital of the shōgun, they were met by envoys and conducted to their residences.

Besides these daimyōs of different classes, Ieyasu established an inferior kind of feudal nobility, which was termed hatamoto. This means literally under the flag. They had small holdings assigned to them, and their income varied very greatly. Mr. Gubbins, in his paper, puts the number at about 2,000. It was the custom to employ the members of this minor class of aristocracy very largely in filling the official positions in the shōgun's government. Indeed, [pg 281] it was held as a common maxim, that the offices should be filled by poor men rather than by rich.[234] The gokenin, numbering about 5,000, were still another class who were inferior to the hatamoto. They had small incomes, and were mostly employed in subordinate positions. Beneath these again stood the ordinary fighting men, or common samurai, who were the retainers of the daimyōs and of the shōgun. They were the descendants of the soldiers of the time of Yoritomo, who appointed shiugo to reside with a company of troops in each province, for the purpose of keeping the peace. They had already grown to claim a great superiority over the common people, and Ieyasu encouraged them in this feeling of superciliousness. The people were divided into four classes, arranged in the following order: samurai, farmers, artisans, and merchants. And in his Legacy Ieyasu thus expresses himself[235]: “The samurai are masters of the four classes. Farmers, artisans, and merchants may not behave in a rude manner towards samurai ... and a samurai is not to be interfered with in cutting down a fellow who has behaved to him in a manner other than is expected.” Again he says[236]: “A girded sword is the living soul of a samurai.”

The authority coming from so high and so revered a source did not grow less during the centuries of feudalism which followed. The samurai did not fail to use all the privileges which were allowed them [pg 282] by Ieyasu's testamentary law. Especially in the large cities where great numbers of them were gathered, and where idleness led them into endless evil practices, the arrogance and overbearing pride of the samurai made them an intolerable nuisance. Nevertheless it must be allowed that nearly all that was good, and high-minded, and scholarly in Japan was to be found among the ranks of the feudal retainers. It is to them that the credit must be given of the great changes and improvements which have been initiated since Japan was opened up to foreigners. They were the students who went out into the world to learn what western science had to teach them. They have been pioneers in a return to a central authority and to the experiment of a representative government, and to the principles of freedom and toleration to which the country is committed. To them Japan owes its ancient as well as its modern system of education. Its old stores of literature, it is true, are not due to them, but surely all its modern development in newspapers, magazines, history, political science, and legal and commercial codes, is to be traced to the adaptability and energy of the old samurai class.

Sword-Maker.