contributor
27,126
edits
Changes
From SamuraiWiki
Jump to navigationJump to searchCreated page with "*''Japanese'': 家 ''(ie)'' The ''ie'', meaning "house" or "household," was an important unit of social organization, especially for samurai, though functioning too for t..."
*''Japanese'': 家 ''(ie)''
The ''ie'', meaning "house" or "household," was an important unit of social organization, especially for [[samurai]], though functioning too for those commoners and wealthy peasants with a significant patrimony, trade, or family reputation to pass down, as well as in other similar contexts, such as the position of abbot of a given temple being passed down within a family lineage. The ''[[iemoto]]'' system followed in schools of traditional Japanese arts also bears a strong connection to the concept of the ''ie''.
The ''ie'' was the household in the sense of the sum total of the members of the household, i.e. one's relatives, but it was also an abstract concept of patrimony, encompassing material, territorial, and monetary inheritances as well as privileges, titles, or rank, and reputation. It was seen as greater than the head of household, or of the sum total of its living members, and was, rather, something to be cared for, to be maintained, to pass on to one's heirs as one inherited it from one's ancestors. For a ''[[daimyo|daimyô]]'' or other land-holding samurai, this patrimony included the [[han|domain]] itself, and its economic prosperity, stability, and health otherwise, along with the stability, wealth, and reputation of the warrior household itself. For a merchant family, similarly, this patrimony might include the shop and its reputation, among other aspects.
The ''ie'' was passed on to a single designated heir, and was not partible. In the majority of cases, the heir was the eldest son, or an adopted son, with other sons going on to form separate, branch households (''ie''). Though the sense of kinship ties played a strong role in the conceptual nature of the ''ie'', adoption was rarely seen as diluting or weakening the line of inheritance, or the legitimacy of the household.
Under the [[Tokugawa shogunate]], shogunal vassals (the ''daimyô''), shogunal retainers (''[[hatamoto]]''), and ''daimyô'' retainers were to some extent, or in some respects, seen as subordinate members of the lord's household, even as they were at the same time seen as heads of their own ''ie''. This manifested in various ways, including in the politics of [[omote and uchi|''omote'' and ''uchi'']]. Retainers were sometimes able to resist ''daimyô'' policies by arguing that a given policy would infringe upon, or damage, the retainer's patrimony, something each ''ie'' was entitled to defend, and something other ''ie'' were not meant to be able to infringe upon. It was as a result of this respect for the patrimonial rights of their retainers that many ''daimyô'' consulted with their chief retainers, and ran their domains based on retainers' counsel, rather than ruling autocratically.
However, ''daimyô'' could also nullify challenges based on retainers' patrimonial authority by subsuming the retainers into their own household; as members of the ''daimyô's'' ''ie'', not only were the retainers now subject to the directives of the head of the household of which they'd become a member, but as members of that household, the household's interests had now become their own.
{{stub}}
==References==
*[[Mark Ravina]], ''Land and Lordship in Early Modern Japan'', Stanford University Press (1999), 37-39.
[[Category:Terminology]]
The ''ie'', meaning "house" or "household," was an important unit of social organization, especially for [[samurai]], though functioning too for those commoners and wealthy peasants with a significant patrimony, trade, or family reputation to pass down, as well as in other similar contexts, such as the position of abbot of a given temple being passed down within a family lineage. The ''[[iemoto]]'' system followed in schools of traditional Japanese arts also bears a strong connection to the concept of the ''ie''.
The ''ie'' was the household in the sense of the sum total of the members of the household, i.e. one's relatives, but it was also an abstract concept of patrimony, encompassing material, territorial, and monetary inheritances as well as privileges, titles, or rank, and reputation. It was seen as greater than the head of household, or of the sum total of its living members, and was, rather, something to be cared for, to be maintained, to pass on to one's heirs as one inherited it from one's ancestors. For a ''[[daimyo|daimyô]]'' or other land-holding samurai, this patrimony included the [[han|domain]] itself, and its economic prosperity, stability, and health otherwise, along with the stability, wealth, and reputation of the warrior household itself. For a merchant family, similarly, this patrimony might include the shop and its reputation, among other aspects.
The ''ie'' was passed on to a single designated heir, and was not partible. In the majority of cases, the heir was the eldest son, or an adopted son, with other sons going on to form separate, branch households (''ie''). Though the sense of kinship ties played a strong role in the conceptual nature of the ''ie'', adoption was rarely seen as diluting or weakening the line of inheritance, or the legitimacy of the household.
Under the [[Tokugawa shogunate]], shogunal vassals (the ''daimyô''), shogunal retainers (''[[hatamoto]]''), and ''daimyô'' retainers were to some extent, or in some respects, seen as subordinate members of the lord's household, even as they were at the same time seen as heads of their own ''ie''. This manifested in various ways, including in the politics of [[omote and uchi|''omote'' and ''uchi'']]. Retainers were sometimes able to resist ''daimyô'' policies by arguing that a given policy would infringe upon, or damage, the retainer's patrimony, something each ''ie'' was entitled to defend, and something other ''ie'' were not meant to be able to infringe upon. It was as a result of this respect for the patrimonial rights of their retainers that many ''daimyô'' consulted with their chief retainers, and ran their domains based on retainers' counsel, rather than ruling autocratically.
However, ''daimyô'' could also nullify challenges based on retainers' patrimonial authority by subsuming the retainers into their own household; as members of the ''daimyô's'' ''ie'', not only were the retainers now subject to the directives of the head of the household of which they'd become a member, but as members of that household, the household's interests had now become their own.
{{stub}}
==References==
*[[Mark Ravina]], ''Land and Lordship in Early Modern Japan'', Stanford University Press (1999), 37-39.
[[Category:Terminology]]
