Changes

[[Tokugawa Ieyasu]], the first Tokugawa shogun, officially acknowledged 185 domains in the early 17th century; by the mid-18th century, the number of domains stabilized around 260, but the total number of distinct domains that existed at one time or another over the course of the Edo period exceeds 540.<ref name=kodansha>"Han." ''Encyclopedia of Japan''. Kodansha.</ref>

[[Tokugawa Ieyasu]], the first Tokugawa shogun, officially acknowledged 185 domains in the early 17th century; by the mid-18th century, the number of domains stabilized around 260, but the total number of distinct domains that existed at one time or another over the course of the Edo period exceeds 540.<ref name=kodansha>"Han." ''Encyclopedia of Japan''. Kodansha.</ref>

Though many ''daimyô'' continued to hold their ancestral territory as their ''han'', in theory all ''han'' were fiefs granted by the shogunate. The shogunate reserved the right to give and take away lands from ''daimyô'', and often made use of this power, reassigning a given territory to a different samurai clan, and assigning the former lords of that territory to a different domain elsewhere in the archipelago, or simply denying them a territory entirely. This occurred particularly frequently in the first fifty years or so of Tokugawa control, with 281 instances of clans being moved from one domain to another, and 213 instances of clans losing ''daimyô'' status, and their domains, entirely during that fifty-year period. The latter was most often due to the absence of an heir; though shogunate policies were relaxed later on, initially, deathbed adoptions were not permitted.<ref>Schirokauer, et al. ''A Brief History of Japanese Civilization'', Wadsworth Cengage (2013), 131.</ref> The feudal bond was a personal one, between lord and vassal as individuals, not between the lord and his vassal's heir, nor between households, at least in theory, on one level. This was tempered, however, by the belief in patrimonial authority, that an enfeoffment was part of a household's patrimony, something to be passed down from generation to generation within the ''[[ie]]''. Other cases of attainder were due to lords being accused of rudeness, insubordination, or other sorts of violations of propriety or competence; roughly one-third of attainders in this fifty-year period were the result of this sort of personal failing on the part of the ''daimyô''. The emphasis here is on the personal bond between the shogun and his vassal, and on the personal behavior of the vassal. Only a very small number of cases of attainder, between three and twelve percent depending on definitions, were due to violations of policy, law, or administrative procedure.<ref>[[Mark Ravina]], ''Land and Lordship in Early Modern Japan'', Stanford University Press (1999), 36-37.</ref>

Though many ''daimyô'' continued to hold their ancestral territory as their ''han'', in theory all ''han'' were fiefs granted by the shogunate. The shogunate reserved the right to give and take away lands from ''daimyô'', and often made use of this power, reassigning a given territory to a different samurai clan, and assigning the former lords of that territory to a different domain elsewhere in the archipelago, or simply denying them a territory entirely. In the initial distribution of domains at the beginning of Tokugawa rule, many of the most powerful ''tozama daimyô'' were permitted to retain their territory - as it would have been too risky or difficult for the Tokugawa to attempt to deny the [[Shimazu clan|Shimazu]] or [[Maeda clan]]s their sizable and powerful strongholds - but explicit efforts were made to place ''fudai daimyô'' strategically as "blocks" or "guards" (押え, ''osae'', lit. "pushing" or "pressure") against the threats posed by these ''daimyô''. The [[Hosokawa clan]], for example, was placed in [[Kumamoto han]] in order to serve as ''osae'' against the Shimazu in [[Kagoshima]], and the [[Mori clan|Môri]] in [[Choshu han|Chôshû]] as an ''osae'' against all of Kyûshû. The [[Ii clan]] in [[Hikone han|Hikone]] similarly served as ''osae'' against the western provinces, and as "guardian" (''shugo'') over [[Kyoto]] (in addition to the shogun's own representative, the ''[[Kyoto shoshidai]]'', who oversaw the administration of the city). The [[Tanba clan]], meanwhile, served as ''osae'' against the northern provinces ([[Tohoku|Tôhoku]]).<ref>Yamamoto Hirofumi, ''Sankin kôtai'', Kodansha gendai shinsho (1998), 189-192.</ref>

 

Further reassignments or disenfeoffments occurred particularly frequently in the first fifty years or so of Tokugawa control, with 281 instances of clans being moved from one domain to another, and 213 instances of clans losing ''daimyô'' status, and their domains, entirely during that fifty-year period. The latter was most often due to the absence of an heir; though shogunate policies were relaxed later on, initially, deathbed adoptions were not permitted.<ref>Schirokauer, et al. ''A Brief History of Japanese Civilization'', Wadsworth Cengage (2013), 131.</ref> The feudal bond was a personal one, between lord and vassal as individuals, not between the lord and his vassal's heir, nor between households, at least in theory, on one level. This was tempered, however, by the belief in patrimonial authority, that an enfeoffment was part of a household's patrimony, something to be passed down from generation to generation within the ''[[ie]]''. Other cases of attainder were due to lords being accused of rudeness, insubordination, or other sorts of violations of propriety or competence; roughly one-third of attainders in this fifty-year period were the result of this sort of personal failing on the part of the ''daimyô''. The emphasis here is on the personal bond between the shogun and his vassal, and on the personal behavior of the vassal. Only a very small number of cases of attainder, between three and twelve percent depending on definitions, were due to violations of policy, law, or administrative procedure.<ref>[[Mark Ravina]], ''Land and Lordship in Early Modern Japan'', Stanford University Press (1999), 36-37.</ref>

These attainders, reductions, and transfers were disproportionately felt by the ''fudai daimyô'', who represented roughly half the ''daimyô'' but who experienced 75% of attainders and 90% of transfers after 1700. Only twice after 1650 did the shogunate attempt to reduce the territory of a ''tozama daimyô'': once in [[1664]], when the [[Uesugi clan]] of [[Yonezawa han]] had no heir, and once in [[1866]] as punishment for [[Choshu han|Chôshû han's]] involvement in the [[Kinmon Rebellion]]; the latter never came through, however, as the shogunate fell before it could implement the reduction.<ref>Ravina, ''Land and Lordship'', 21.</ref>

These attainders, reductions, and transfers were disproportionately felt by the ''fudai daimyô'', who represented roughly half the ''daimyô'' but who experienced 75% of attainders and 90% of transfers after 1700. Only twice after 1650 did the shogunate attempt to reduce the territory of a ''tozama daimyô'': once in [[1664]], when the [[Uesugi clan]] of [[Yonezawa han]] had no heir, and once in [[1866]] as punishment for [[Choshu han|Chôshû han's]] involvement in the [[Kinmon Rebellion]]; the latter never came through, however, as the shogunate fell before it could implement the reduction.<ref>Ravina, ''Land and Lordship'', 21.</ref>

The domain was at once a political entity to be governed, and at the same time, in some important conceptual respects, an extension of the lord's household. Though [[Uesugi Harunori]], who famously wrote "the lord exists for the sake of the state and the people; the state and the people do not exist for the sake of the lord,"<ref>Ravina, ''Land and Lordship'', 1.</ref> likely represents the attitudes of many ''daimyô'', this was certainly not the case for all lords of all domains across the period, and would in any case have been acted upon quite variously.

The domain was at once a political entity to be governed, and at the same time, in some important conceptual respects, an extension of the lord's household. Though [[Uesugi Harunori]], who famously wrote "the lord exists for the sake of the state and the people; the state and the people do not exist for the sake of the lord,"<ref>Ravina, ''Land and Lordship'', 1.</ref> likely represents the attitudes of many ''daimyô'', this was certainly not the case for all lords of all domains across the period, and would in any case have been acted upon quite variously.

Though the ''daimyô'' was nominally and theoretically the ruler of his domain, a great deal of the actual political and administrative work was done by ''[[karo|karô]]'' (House Elders) and ''[[rusuiyaku]]'' (officials overseeing matters in the lord's absence, in Edo, other major cities, or in the domain). While many ''daimyô'' certainly participated in policy discussions, and expressed opinions, desires, or orders, a great deal was often decided or performed by retainers, who then simply obtained the ''daimyô's'' formal [[seal]] of approval. Much as might be said about the shogun, the [[Emperor of China]] in many periods, or various other rulers throughout world history, it was arguably ritual and performative activity which more heavily dominated a ''daimyô's'' time, and his obligations and role as ruler.<ref>Yamamoto Hirofumi, ''Sankin kôtai'', Kodansha gendai shinsho (1998), 187-188.</ref>

Though the ''daimyô'' was nominally and theoretically the ruler of his domain, a great deal of the actual political and administrative work was done by ''[[karo|karô]]'' (House Elders) and ''[[rusuiyaku]]'' (officials overseeing matters in the lord's absence, in Edo, other major cities, or in the domain). While many ''daimyô'' certainly participated in policy discussions, and expressed opinions, desires, or orders, a great deal was often decided or performed by retainers, who then simply obtained the ''daimyô's'' formal [[seal]] of approval. Much as might be said about the shogun, the [[Emperor of China]] in many periods, or various other rulers throughout world history, it was arguably ritual and performative activity which more heavily dominated a ''daimyô's'' time, and his obligations and role as ruler.<ref>Yamamoto, 187-188.</ref>

For many domains, we can consider the administration of the domain as consisting of two often conflicting sets of concerns: ''kasei'' (家政), the management of the lord's household, and ''kokusei'' (国政), the management of the "state."<ref>Luke Roberts, "Mori Yoshiki: Samurai Government Officer," in [[Anne Walthall]] (ed.), ''The Human Tradition in Modern Japan'', Scholarly Resources, Inc. (2002), 39.</ref> To a certain extent, the domain certainly did exist to support the lord and his household, both because of basic feudal obligation, this being his feudal domain, and in order to help effect the lord's ability to fulfill his feudal obligations to the shogun. But the feudal relationship went both ways, and a lord had a certain responsibility to the people of his domain, both purely out of reciprocal obligation as their lord (service in exchange for protection), and in order to ensure the people's ability to maintain a prosperous enough domain (e.g. growing enough food, and paying enough in taxes) to support his own personal and political needs. Thus, the entire relationship was, as in most if not all polities, reciprocal to a large extent.  

For many domains, we can consider the administration of the domain as consisting of two often conflicting sets of concerns: ''kasei'' (家政), the management of the lord's household, and ''kokusei'' (国政), the management of the "state."<ref>Luke Roberts, "Mori Yoshiki: Samurai Government Officer," in [[Anne Walthall]] (ed.), ''The Human Tradition in Modern Japan'', Scholarly Resources, Inc. (2002), 39.</ref> To a certain extent, the domain certainly did exist to support the lord and his household, both because of basic feudal obligation, this being his feudal domain, and in order to help effect the lord's ability to fulfill his feudal obligations to the shogun. But the feudal relationship went both ways, and a lord had a certain responsibility to the people of his domain, both purely out of reciprocal obligation as their lord (service in exchange for protection), and in order to ensure the people's ability to maintain a prosperous enough domain (e.g. growing enough food, and paying enough in taxes) to support his own personal and political needs. Thus, the entire relationship was, as in most if not all polities, reciprocal to a large extent.