Changes

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. Generally speaking, property belonged not to the individual (e.g. the head of household), but to the household itself, to the ''ie''. Samurai [[stipends]] were paid not to the head of household, but to the ''ie '', and similarly profits earned in a townsman or villager household were accrued to the household. Thus, 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 family name (''gomyôji'')<ref>Ravina, 43.</ref> and of the warrior household itself. For a merchant family, similarly, this patrimony might include the shop and its reputation, among other aspects. The maintenance of the wealth, stability, reputation, or other aspects of the household was of chief concern over pursuits of personal, individual, wealth or power. This was the case for myriad decisions made by the head of household, including decisions regarding marriage prospects for their children.<ref>Gary Leupp, ''Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900'', A&C Black (2003), 101.</ref>

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. Generally speaking, property belonged not to the individual (e.g. the head of household), but to the household itself, to the ''ie''. Samurai [[stipends]] were paid not to the head of household, but to the ''ie '', and similarly profits earned in a townsman or villager household were accrued to the household. Thus, 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 family name (''gomyôji'')<ref>Ravina, 43.</ref> and of the warrior household itself. For a merchant family, similarly, this patrimony might include the shop and its reputation, among other aspects. The maintenance of the wealth, stability, reputation, or other aspects of the household was of chief concern over pursuits of personal, individual, wealth or power. This was the case for myriad decisions made by the head of household, including decisions regarding marriage prospects for their children.<ref>Gary Leupp, ''Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900'', A&C Black (2003), 101.</ref>

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.

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.