About the 9th and 10th centuries the gov ernors of the provinces were not only ap pointed from Kioto, where was the seat of government, but were usually dispatched from among the court nobility, much like the pre fects of the Roman Empire. They served a number of years in the country, feeling like exiles, always yearning to go back to the court and the capital. While such feeling was gen eral there was little danger of local life becom ing strong or turbulent, but as the population grew throughout the empire, and villages de veloped into towns, the service of a prefect changed to one less onerous and fatiguing. The more ambitious shared with Cmsar the senti ment that they would rather be first in a mountain village• than second in Rome. Such men would willingly stay in their provinces, where they would surround themselves at least with a body-guard and perhaps with an army, particularly if they had danger to fear from any source. They took pains to have ready a Certain number of trained fighters for emer gency. Governors who by these and other means gained influence and power in their localities were soon rooted in them, so that when their term of office expired they either begged for postponement or flatly refused to be moved. Oftener still did it happen that the offspring of the prefects were left behind in the provinces and these were naturally treated with deference by the people. As they and their relatives increased in number, they came to form a class between the high nobility and the rest of the population. They were naturally possessed of landed estates; for in spite of the fact that private ownership of land was forbidden by law, as there was little control exercised by the court, the local magnates actually owned large tracts of land in their own names. It was the owners of large manors (shaven) who were called "great names') (skimps), and these surrounded themselves with armed protectors, to whom the ancient title of or samurai, was applied. This was a quite common origin of hereditary governorship, which later developed into feudal relations. It is not to be inferred that this was the chief cause of feudal institutions. The growth of feudalism was so gradual that no definite dates can be assigned to each step of its progress; but in the 12th century, when Yoritomo inaugurated the regime of feudalism, the samurai order was in full swing bf dew velopment and continued to flourish during succeeding centuries, until it was abolished in 1871.
We must bear in mind in following the history of the samurai that they never formed a close corporation. The class was kept up by heredity, but was never wholly exclusive. It was recruited from among the peasants, or even from the much despised merchants, pro vided the candidates proved themselves effi cient in any branch of military art. It was also possible for the samurai to adopt promising boys from other classes than their own. While the order could thus be replenished from out side, such of its members as proved unworthy of its privileges could be excluded,— as for instance, by being deprived of their rights of samurai by their lords (daimyo) or by having their lands expropriated. This would leave them without the means to maintain their live lihood, not to speak of their pretensions. Even at present the samurai are recognized under the appellation of shisoku (ski-class); but this is only a name, implying neither rights nor duties. In 1871, when they were mediatized, many of them surrendered even their title. Their revenues, which had been given them in so many bushels of rice a year, were commuted into interest-bearing bonds and their peculiar privileges were taken away, to make place for the general conscription whereby the whole nation was, so to say, raised to the rank of the samurai, as far as the right of fighting for the country was concerned. Still the order contained about 400,000 families, or 2,000,000 souls, and in every way formed a formidable power in the empire. Primarily a fighting order, the samurai were political rulers in times of peace. In the four-fold classification of the people, they were at the head,— the rest being the tillers of the soil, the artisans and lastly the merchants.
As an army they comprised the bravest and cheapest defense of the nation; as an economic factor they were the most important land owners; and considered merely as consumers they created the chief demand for the finer products of manufacture and art; as an intel lectual power they were scholars in every field of knowledge, whereas the priests, if deeper in their studies, confined themselves to Buddhistic lore; as a moral potency they set the standard for the entire nation, and it is in this last aspect that we shall treat the samurai in this article. The moral teachings of the
samurai are contained in an unwritten code of ethics,, which, for want of a better name, may be called Bushido.
Bushido.— Literally '
Before proceeding with a résumé of its pre cepts, it may be well to dwell more fully upon the fact that Bushido is not a written code of morals. It possesses neither a Bible nor a Koran, and though the writings of Confucius and Mencius furnish it with no mean ethical principles, Bushido is neither Confucianism nor Mencianistn. There is no systematic treatise on the principles or precepts of Bushido, and if now and then an attempt was made at one, it failed of general acceptance. Like a Yolks lied or proverb, it is the product of many minds that put a word there or changed it here, and which the mass of its followers sanctioned as true to their experience; or— to take a more dignified example, its growth was like that of the British Constitution, unfonnulated and un written, but not the less with mighty power to accuse or excuse man's action. It consists largely of the modus operandi of right conduct and soul discipline. The last expression — soul discipline— is used advisedly, as I hesitate to use freely a more exalted term — spiritual culture. If asked to enumerate the articles of faith and of the ethical doctrines of Christians, one might answer by presenting a copy of the Bible or perhaps the Nieman creed or a treatise on theology; but if asked to tabulate the duties of an English gentleman, one would feel the inadequacy of any systematic treatise. The letters of -Chesterfield cover but a small frac tion of a gentleman's duties, and Froissart's Chronicles and the Waverley novels do not form a system. This is exactly the case with Bushido. Japanese literature is not altogether wanting in attempts at a more or less orderly presentation of the samurai's duties and privi leges; but none rose to the rank of a classic and none was adopted as a standard. The samurai belonged to different clans, being re tainers of different lords. Though the daimyo were usually in hostile relations one to another, and though their retainers necessarily shared in these relations, still there was the conscious ness of a common bond, the sense of identity of interests among them. They knew their vocation and interests, as distinct from those of other classes of the community, were the same regarding themselves, irrespective of the differences of the clans in which they served. Bushi wa aimi tagai (ethe samurai are the same one with another"). Being so closely allied in their calling and interests, it was only natural that they should come to adopt— even without mutual consultation or joint session the same rules of conduct, primarily, as I imagine, in their public quasi inter-state, or literally inter-clan relations, and later in their private conduct.