The Early Modern Order and Samurai
In the face of widespread warfare and the increasing scale of violent death on the battlefield, political leaders (daimyo) in the late sixteenth century, and later their Tokugawa successors of the seventeenth century, placed a high priority on establishing and maintaining political and social order.
The military hegemon Toyotomi Hideyoshi (1537-98) promulgated policies in the 1580s that have been described as having resulted in a ‘sixteenth-century revolution'.[382] This involved a largely successful effort (known as the ‘sword hunt') to take weapons out of the hands of the peasantry.[383] The revolution also involved an official policy, formally enunciated in 1591, to draw the samurai off the land and into the castle towns - in other words, to separate peasant and warrior both physically and functionally. Agricultural work and military service, in principle, became exclusive occupations. Peasants were not to abandon their fields and go into trade or wage labour, and warriors were not to return to the land. In effect, this was an attempt to ‘freeze' the social order, although in reality some movement across status lines was still possible.The separation of samurai and peasantry was in fact a process that spanned about half a century and was in no sense ever complete, particularly on the peripheries of the archipelago. Nevertheless, it resulted in a profound transformation of the social group, from a feudal military class with close ties to the land to an economically dependent, urban-based, underemployed elite. As a member of the daimyo's retainer band, the samurai became part of a stratified and intricate civil administrative body that ran the government for urban, rural, temple and shrine, financial and social affairs. In a time of peace, loyalty to the person of the daimyo morphed into a more general loyalty to the domain; and loyalty itself came to be redefined as bureaucratic service rather than as something to be demonstrated through bravery on the battlefield.
As a result, a formal, Confucian-based education necessary for service became essential, such that by the end of the seventeenth century an illiterate samurai could find himself the subject of ridicule.The daily life of a Tokugawa samurai was quite a contrast from that of his predecessor in the Warring States period. For samurai, the ‘great peace' created tensions between a long and proud martial tradition and the newfound reality of bureaucratic service or chronic under- or unemployment. There were far more samurai retainers than available positions, so many samurai either shared jobs on a rotational basis, lacked administrative jobs or spent significant amounts of time in the unsuccessful pursuit of one.[384] (They were not, in principle, allowed to perform manual labour.) Adding to these strains, for most retainers, was the reality of living in castle towns and drawing what amounted to a salary in rice, paid largely from the daimyo's warehouse.
Samurai intellectuals during the seventeenth century became concerned about the inactivity of samurai. As the noted samurai and Confucian scholar Yamaga Soko (1622-95) wrote, ‘[T]he samurai eats food without growing it, uses utensils without manufacturing them, and profits without buying or selling. What is the justification for this?' Accordingly, he and other intellectuals articulated a new role for the samurai in peacetime: ‘The business of the samurai consists in reflecting on his own station in life, in discharging loyal service to his master if he has one, in deepening his fidelity in associations with friends, and with due consideration of his own position, in devoting himself to duty above all'.[385] Reflecting the changing times, this formulation inverted traditional relationships, which would have placed that of lord and subject at the top.
Through education, both formal and informal, samurai learned about their special role in society, their monopoly in terms of their birthright to bear arms and the social expectation that they would be able to use them effectively.
In fact, samurai were compelled to exercise violence in certain circumstances in order to maintain their honour and position as retainers in the daimyo's political organisation, his retainer band. The samurai Mori Hirosada (1710-73) from Tosa domain, for example, was part of a study group of fellow samurai ‘in which they studied how a proper samurai was supposed to behave in various situations'.[386] In one lesson they learned that when a samurai had need to execute a servant he should call him out, saying, ‘Bring your weapons and defend yourself as you may, because I accuse you of such-and-such a crime and I will slay you.'[387] Depending on the status of the servant, he might be allowed to carry one or two swords, but the assumption conveyed in the story was that a samurai's authority rested with his superior martial skills, which would allow him to defeat an armed opponent. Samurai also learned that their monopoly on the use of violent force was not unrestricted. In the interests of civil peace and to regulate the actions of their samurai retainers, political authorities imposed social and political controls on the samurai's ability to use the weapons that helped define their status, a long and a short sword (collectively known as daisho). These controls can be seen as concessions by state authorities to the samurai's martial spirit and legacy as warriors.