Bilateral Contracts of Feudal Lords

　When bilateral contracts appeared in Kanto, medieval Japan began and the ruling body of the medieval era was formed. And it played in supporting the state from the ground up for 700 years from that time on.
　Bilateral contracts are generally explained simply as an exchange of protection and loyalty practiced by feudal lords and samurai. Both parties to a bilateral contract had heavy obligations. The subordinate's duty was to show loyalty to his lord and fight against his lord's enemies, while the lord's duty was to give his subordinate land and support his living. It is an explanation of it as a give-and-take situation.
　However, this explanation is too superficial an explanation that does not adequately express the importance of bilateral contracts.
　The bilateral contract between Yoritomo and the feudal lords was the first bilateral contract in Japanese history. Bilateral contracts were developed for building a mighty force, in reality, to expel the power of ancient dynasties from the Kanto region, but essentially, they were entered into to ensure the safety of both contracting parties.In a word, bilateral contract was for the contracting parties to form a community of destiny.
　Bilateral contract did not exist in ancient eras. The contract that existed in ancient was a one-way contract in which one party controlled the other by force. For example, it was a contract between an ancient king and a provincial commissioner, in which the contractual obligation to maintain public order and collect taxes was held only by the provincial commissioner. The ancient king had no obligation whatsoever in any contract.
　On the other hand, the two parties entering into the bilateral contract were equal; by signing a bilateral contract, Yoritomo and feudal lords recognized each other, stood on an equal footing, and faithfully fulfilled each of the obligations, forming an overwhelmingly strong military force. The advent of bilateral contracts strengthened people's spirits, changed their consciousness, and literally brought about a new time called medieval eras.
　The author will now explain in detail the historical value of bilateral contracts.
　Yoritomo recognized the right to land ownership of the feudal lords who ruled over the land they owned. He created land registries, giving them to feudal lords to certify their land ownership. It was an official certificate of land ownership, certifying that certain land belonged to a certain feudal lord. That was what the feudal lords desired the most in a lawless land. Furthermore, Yoritomo recognized a feudal lord's impressive military exploits during the wars and granted him new land. Yoritomo responded faithfully to their wishes.

Written by Minamoto no Yoritomo (1192), Kanagawa Prefectural Museum collection

The above letter of notice is a certificate of recognition of land ownership given by Yoritomo to a feudal lord. The feudal lords fought against Yoritomo's enemies and protected him in exchange for receiving this letter of notice.

　What the author already said,Yoritomo provided the feudal lords with their land and at the same time recognized their lordship. Lordship was the right of a feudal lord to rule over his people (samurai and peasants). It meant self-reliance of feudal lords. They were no longer the pitiful servants of ancient kings.
　 At this point in history, they are officially called “feudal lords”.
　In return, the feudal lords protected Yoritomo from his enemies using military force. That was their duty. And it was also their voluntary action. Because, their land ownership was, after all, only possible because of the existence of Yoritomo (and the Kamakura shogunate). If Yoritomo died (and if the Kamakura shogunate were to fall), they would lose their land ownership and return to being land thieves. Hence their campaign was for Yoritomo's sake, but in the end, it was for themselves, too, to maintain their territory. Yoritomo was also able to protect himself by closely protecting the feudal lords.
　Yoritomo protected the feudal lords by recognizing land ownership, and the feudal lords protected Yoritomo by their military campaigns. Their acts of protection were vital, and if either of them did not fulfill his duty, their mutual aid would disappear and the survival of both sides would be endangered. This mutual aid structure was the source of strong solidarity.
　The bilateral contract is the core of the medieval era. The medieval era began with two things: the emergence of the samurai and the development of their bilateral contracts. In this respect, therefore, the simple explanation that 'the medieval era began with the advent of the samurai' needs to be treated with caution, as it is incomplete, if not wrong, and too superficial. The fact that Yoritomo and the lords concluded a bilateral contract was decisive. It was decisive because from it was born the medieval system of rule, with its decentralised system, lordship and lord-subject politics, and at the same time the extermination of ancient despotism.
　If Yoritomo and the lords had not signed a bilateral contract, the coup they carried out would be the same as Taira no Kiyomori's rebellion against the ancient king. In that case, Yoritomo, like Kiyomori, would have centralised power within the ancient hierarchy, and reigned as a new ancient king, unilaterally subjugating the lords, warriors and the people.
　It is only the emergence of a new ancient dynasty. The lords did not turn into feudal lords (medieval warriors), but remained ancient warriors who obeyed Yoritomo and owned neither fiefdoms nor lordship. And neither a decentralised system nor a lord-subordinate government came into being, and the Kamakura Shogunate was never established.
　The naive explanation that the medieval era began with the birth of the samurai should be withdrawn. Not only would this miss the historical value of the bilateral contract, but it would also miss an important opportunity to clarify the divergence between antiquity and the medieval era. The bilateral contract is not a mere decoration of the warrior class.
　The medieval era also began in Western Europe with the development of bilateral contracts by knights. From this emerged the specific medieval institutions and organisations, such as the decentralised system, territorial relief and lordship. Here, too, ancient despotism was liquidated.
　Why, then, were bilateral contracts developed only in Japan and Western Europe, and decentralization was promulgated? That's a very interesting question. Before we validate it, we must say that 2,000 years ago and today, all the people of the world have equal abilities: physical strength, intelligence, and sensitivity. People are people, there is no difference between the citizens of a democratic country and the citizens of an autocratic country.
　Despite this fact, there are two types of countries in the world that remain in antiquity and countries that have evolved from ancient times to the medieval eras. Why did humanity go through two different histories?
　I believe that one of the reasons for the birth of the decentralization system only in Japan and Western Europe was geography. That is, Japan and Western Europe were well-positioned and fortunate countries to establish a decentralized system, while other countries were not.
　Japan is an island country away from the Eurasian continent, and the sea spreads between neighboring countries, and it is not connected by land. This location is very advantageous in terms of national defense, because the sea is a natural fortress. The sea kept Japan away from its neighbors, making it difficult to invade Japan.
　Western Europe, like Japan, is bounded by the sea to the north, west and south, and the east is covered with high and steep mountains. The sea and mountains are the fortresses of Western Europe. This location isolated Western Europe from other countries, making it difficult for them to penetrate.
　Over the past 1,000 years, Muslim armies have made numerous attempts to invade Western Europe with little success. Parts of Western Europe were occupied for a time, but the whole of Western Europe was not dominated. This was because the sea and the mountains stood in front of the great army. As a result, there was little need for them to unite their national strength to confront foreign enemies. Therefore, both Japan and Western Europe were insensitive to foreign attacks.
　On the other hand, most of the countries of the Eurasian continent were connected by land with their neighbors. That's a big difference from locations in Japan and Western Europe. There are no seas or mountains on the border. Therefore, it is easy for a large army to cross the border and advance in a short time, and thus, the Eurasian continental states must always have a sense of urgency and pay attention to the movements of neighboring countries. It is too obvious, but it fixes their regime on the only regime - centralization. But decentralization was an impossible choice for them.
　Still, location isn't the whole reason. The question is, why and how did the division of state power begin?
　There is a period of lawlessness in the ancient country. It is a time when ancient dynasties come to an end, law and social order disappear, and the country is in turmoil. Those who appear and expand their power are some local nobles and nearby invaders. They then go through a series of battles, and in the end, one winner is decided. He unifies the country, becomes a new ruler, and begins tyranny. This is a general state-forming procedure in ancient countries.
　The tyrant is a king who controls all the land, the people and state power, while, it is worth noting, but the tyrant’s soldiers do not own land, and thus, are not self-reliant. It means that the ancient king is not obliged to protect the land of his soldiers. Relief does not occur, and bilateral contracts are not developed between the tyrant and his soldiers. That is why there was no decentralization in ancient countries.
　In contrast, many people in medieval countries owned land. This was because the manorial system was well established, in particular, it was decisive that the samurai owned the land. Whether the land was large or small, the samurai employed farmers, engaged in agriculture in his land, and accumulated wealth. They became self-sustaining as lone wolves, no longer had to submit to ancient kings and nobles. It was a major turning point in history. For people, there is no greater difference than the difference between a submissive and an independent. Therefore, it was natural that the samurai had a passionate attachment to the land and devoted himself to land development.
　But they had a conundrum. If the ancient king exercised royal power stably and carefully adjudicated the land ownership of the people, the land problem would not arise. However, when a region or country beyond the power of the king falls into a period of lawlessness, no one could determine people's land ownership. Aa a result, people would have no choice but to start fighting over the land.
　Then bilateral contracts were needed and developed among the samurai. A contract was made between a medieval king and a feudal lord, and between a feudal lord and a samurai in order to acknowledge and protect land ownership. It was almost a life-threatening contract, because it would determine whether they could stand on their own or not.
　As a result, the land became divided into hundred territories, each of which owned by a medieval king, feudal lord and samurai. It was the disappearance of the ancient king’s land and the establishment of the territorial system, that was the beginning of decentralization.
　From the above, the development of bilateral contracts and the emergence of the decentralization system could be attributed to three causes; one was the establishment of the manorial system, one was the decline of ancient dynasties and the emergence of the land of lawlessness, and the third was the samurai land ownership.
　 In other words, the manorial system was the division of land in the first place, and in the process of repeating the division of the land, the samurai appeared to own land and develop bilateral contact. Samurai’s land division necessarily caused the division of the people(peasants) and the division of state power at the same time, establishing a decentralized system.
　On the other hand, the manorial system also existed in some ancient countries, but it was not well established. Almost all manors were owned by only a limited minority, such as nobles and local magnates. However, many people could not own land and lived as peasants in the manor. In particular, it was decisive that each warrior did not own land. It was the cause of the warriors not being self-reliant, but continuing to submit to the ancient kings and magnates. Naturally, the warriors did not experience disputes over land ownership, and therefore did not develop bilateral contracts. Thus, the royal power remained one, not segregated, and the people and the state power were not divided. The state system remained centralized and did not turn into a decentralized system.
　That was why bilateral contracts arose only in Japan and Western Europe.
　Now, back to the land of Kanto. The Kanto region restored order under a new ruling regime with Yoritomo as authority. It meant that bilateral contracts were useful in times of disorder and war.
　However, the bilateral contract was not a universal contract sought in every situation, because the samurai's bilateral contract was, after all, of little use in times of peace. For example, in a peaceful time like the Edo period, when the law exercised a certain amount of power and established order, the use of bilateral contracts was limited.
　 For more than two centuries, no armed struggles had broken out between feudal lords in Japan, and their bilateral contracts had lost its substance, because the samurai's bilateral contract was useful in times of war, but it was not very useful in times of peace.
　Well, bilateral contracts also contributed greatly to the formation of medieval society. This was what gave rise to egalitarianism in the medieval era. Under the bilateral contract, the two parties each have heavy obligations to help each other. For example, the protection that Yoritomo gave to the feudal lords was of equal value to the loyalty that the feudal lords gave to Yoritomo. Both would be on an equal footing in a give-and -take relationship, and the hierarchical principle would disappear between the two. The birth of “equality between two” was an epoch-making event in Japanese history, and also marked the beginning of the medieval era.
　In contrast, the ancient king was the commander, and the ancient warriors were his followers. Since the ancient king was an absolute ruler, he had no obligations to them. The ancient king gave rewards (promotions, etc.) to the ancient warriors for outstanding performance, but it was not the king's duty to do so. It was nothing more than an arbitrary reward from the king. Only ancient warriors held duty. Theirs was a one-sided relationship. This was because the ancient world was an unequal world. The two parties continued to be in a superior/inferior relationship, with a high barrier erected between them.
　In Japan, “equality of the two” would turn into “equality for all people” through the modern revolution in the 19th century. The revolutionaries of the Meiji Restoration abolished all medieval bilateral contracts and created new modern bilateral contracts in their place. It was a contract between the state and the people, in which the state protected the people, guaranteed their safety and security, and in return the people paid taxes and worked for the state. It meant that egalitarianism under the medieval king turned into egalitarianism under the law, and egalitarianism was established in earnest. This shows that the medieval era were preparing for the modern era.
　There is one more matter to note about the bilateral contract. The bilateral contract brought a new way of life to medieval Japan. It brought a sincere way of living. It necessitated both parties to fulfill their respective contractual obligations. Since the purpose of a bilateral contract was to guarantee mutual security, the performance of duties was vital, and sincerity was a necessity.
　Of course, living with sincerity was not easy. To be sincere, it was necessary to have a strong, unshakable spirit. If they did not fulfill their obligations, abandoned them on the way, or cheated, their safety could not be guaranteed, and both sides may have fallen into danger or even lost their lives.
　For example, this can be seen in bilateral contracts between feudal lords and samurai. If the samurai did not complete the military campaign and fled the battlefield, the feudal lord would be considered to have lost and may have been murdered. Or if the feudal lord did not judge the samurai's military exploits fairly, and did not give him new lands, there would be strife between the two, and the contract might be broken. That would lead directly to mutual crises.
　Therefore, the fulfillment of the contract was absolute. Samurai learned how to live with sincerity from bilateral contracts, and they practiced that way of life daily. Bilateral contracts were eventually concluded between feudal lords and peasants, too. Hence most people in the medieval era were party to bilateral contracts, and medieval Japan became a contract society. The result has been that the spirit of the Japanese people was tempered over the centuries, making it a matter of course to honor contracts and promises. That sincere way of living has also been passed down to Japanese people of the 21st century. The emergence of bilateral contracts was thus a milestone of Japanese history.The change from a one-way contract to a two-way contract strengthened people's spirits and made them evolve from a submissive being to a self-reliant being.
　It is up to samurai to fulfil his contractual obligations in good faith, as the bilateral contract gave him the < freedom of choice>. It is the emergence of autonomy, meaning that medieval people have achieved true independence and are able to take charge of their own lives. And in exchange for their freedom, they became responsible for their own speech and actions. Responsibility is equally held by those who enter into contracts, whether they are medieval kings or feudal lords. Medieval people, especially samurai, therefore trained themselves and enhanced their military and spiritual strength.When he still failed to take responsibility, the samurai made up for it by committing suicide.
　This is also important, but bilateral contracts worked to foster mutual trust in medieval society. People gradually came to trust the other party by faithfully fulfilling the bilateral contract for one or two years. As a result, trustworthy partners were recognized throughout society beyond small gatherings of blood ties and relatives. It was a breakthrough, a wide-open society based on trust emerged.
　Medieval society was a society of trust. Contracts and promises were indeed kept, and society grew into an orderly, sturdy, and large-scale society. In addition, people became highly cooperative with others in their work and life, and they facilitated and efficiently collaborated on small and large projects, whether public or private.
　On the other hand, in ancient countries< freedom of choice > severely restricted. Even if the people obey the king's instructions and orders, they were not granted autonomy, and therefore independence was not guaranteed. It was very difficult for the ancients to live their lives to the fullest.
　Above all, the ancient king had the right to kill and take the life of the people. It meant that whether the ancient people owned the land or not, they could not be self-sustaining. It was not surprising that some people ended their lives tomorrow at the whim of the king. Their freedom was nothing compared to the freedom of modern people.
　Ancient kings did not allow people to be self-reliant. This broke people apart and made people not trust each other. As long as state rule is tyranny, the spirit of the people will not be strengthened. Naturally, in ancient societies, no bilateral contract arose. The ancients lacked the basic power to form a medieval society by themselves.
　Mutual trust for the ancients occurred only in kinship groups. It was a primordial sense of trust based on blood. But stepping out of a small group of blood relatives, they could not trust anyone. This was because in ancient societies where there were no bilateral contracts, people had no means of gaining mutual trust. Naturally, there was no open and broad society. Ancient societies were a collection of small nepotistic groups.
　The ancients were not good at solidarity of people and cooperation. Thus, almost all of corporate management were run by a small number of people who were related by blood or were related. It was and is the cause of the frequent occurrence of fraud and corruption in ancient countries. Nepotism in Russia and China is notorious worldwide today.
　Ancient people were hardly able to form order on their own, and what was used to unite the many kinship groups that exist in the country was dictator violence. It was the fundamental reason why the ancient people have been ruled by tyrants for the past 2,000 years.
　This concludes the explanation of the bilateral contract. The bilateral contract rejected ancient tyranny, fostered egalitarianism, strictly disciplined the people, and greatly improved Japan society. Again, a two-way contract is not a samurai ornament.
　History textbooks should shed more light on bilateral contracts and introduce their historical value to children.

Duality in the Medieval Era

　The human relationships of medieval people were quite interesting. Medieval people obtained equality through bilateral contracts, but this did not mean that the modern era was established immediately. This was because even though they achieved equality, they still carried on the ancient hierarchical relationships.The equality in the medieval eras was different from equality before the law of today.
　Between Yoritomo and the feudal lords, conflicting relationships of hierarchy and equality coexisted. Yoritomo was the king of the feudal lords, and the feudal lords were Yoritomo's vassals, it was a hierarchical relationship since ancient times. Yet both parties were equal through a bilateral contract.
　Hence medieval people had a contradictory relationship of hierarchy and equality. This mysterious duality was because the medieval era sat between the ancient and the modern. It was a mixture of ancient (hierarchy, despotism) and modernity (equality, democracy). And this strange relationship was a normal human relationship for people in the medieval era. That, then, was the medieval lord-subject relationship.
　The power of an ancient king was absolute, but the power of a medieval king was relative. The medieval king’s command stood as long as they did not infringe on lordship; it was restricted command. The equality between the two parties placed a brake on the ruler’s strict command to some extent. No order could violate a feudal lord's right to life, property, or territorial sovereignty. This was contractually guaranteed. Therefore, lordship can be said to be a kind of human right. For the first time in Japanese history, the command of the medieval king was humane and accompanied by rationality.
　The term “lord-subject relationship” should therefore be used with caution. This is because there were two types of lord-subject relationship: the ancient one and the medieval one. A strict distinction should be made and used between the ancient one-sided lord-subject relationship (hierarchical relationship) and the sophisticated medieval lord-subject relationship (a relationship in which superiority and equality existed side by side).
　Likewise, attention should be paid to the differences between the medieval warrior and the ancient warrior. The ancient warriors were like slavishly obedient servants to their lord, but the medieval warriors loyally submitted to the feudal lord so long as his protection (granting of rewards) was sufficient and just, at the risk of his own life. This was obedience in return for protection, or relative obedience. This was what was known as loyalty. If a feudal lord obtained unfair or inadequate protection from the king, he would protest against the king, defect from the king, or kill the king.
　Without protection, there is no loyalty, and without loyalty, there is no protection. Therefore, both the king and the feudal lord strictly disciplined themselves, took responsibility for their actions, and strived for the faithful fulfillment of their duties. Thus, today, if loyalty is understood as something ideal, this perception must be changed.
　In contrast, in ancient states there is no such thing as loyalty. Loyalty to the ancient king is an oxymoron. It should be corrected to “submission” to the ancient king. There is no such thing as loyalty in today’s ancient states such as Russia and China since there is no such thing as bilateral contracts. Naturally, there are no contractual obligations, no egalitarianism, no human rights, and no right of resistance.
　Therefore, the obedience of ancient peoples cannot be called loyalty. That is the incorrect expression. The obedience of ancient peoples is unquestionably absolute obedience. Loyalty can only be established in states where bilateral contracts are developed.

The Rise and Fall of Realism

　The bilateral contract gave rise to egalitarianism in medieval society. At the same time, the bilateral contract also gave birth to realism. Medieval people started living with an emphasis on reality. This is because what mattered to the parties of a bilateral contract was not the form, such as status, age, or precedent, but the outcome (reality) of whether the contractual obligations had been fulfilled.
　For example, in the medieval era, the medieval king appointed military inspectors to investigate the performance of the samurai on the battlefield. Samurai wore flags to indicate they were in battle. Facts mattered to them. This was because duty for a medieval king was guaranteeing fair land for samurai, and military exploits for the samurai directly linked to the maintenance and increase of wealth (land).
　Samurai competed on the battlefield based on their actual ability, eradicating formal factors such as age, family background, blood ties and connections. Not only samurai, but also medieval judges eliminated the abuse of power, as well as nepotism and divination, by those with authority. They also used facts--evidence, testimonies, and witnesses to investigate people and incidents. Both peasants and merchants confirmed facts by exchanging testimonies. This was the principle of documentation.
　Realism blossomed in the Muromachi period. This was because the Ashikaga shogunate had weakened, society had lost order, and people had to defend themselves on their own. Thus, people no longer believe in any authority, any formality, or any existing things, but only in the reality in front of them.Might became justice and meritocracy surged across the state.
　The authority of the ancient king and the organization and rules of the ancient dynasties were wiped out by samurai. They were a shadow of their former selves. And in samurai society, too, power was everything, and those with power rose to the top to become rulers. There were no such things as precedents. Even if there were, they were not recognized. The Muromachi shogunate itself then collapsed in this confusion and turmoil.
　Old systems, traditions, and cultures were eliminated, and new industries, organizations, and cultures emerged one after another, which greatly changed medieval society. The system of the country became neither decentralized nor centralized, and there was no system of any kind. This lawless society freed the people from what had previously controlled them. It was literally the advent of a free world, albeit for a moment, and in spite of the conflict-filled world, they enjoyed freedom. In fact, the people of this period had some of the purest facial expressions in Japanese history.
　They formed the basis of Japanese society today. For example, Japanese architecture, Japanese gardens, kimono, the growth of the monetary economy, the establishment of wholesale markets and wholesalers, the establishment of permanent stores, urban development, flower arrangement, the tea ceremony, Noh play, and the culture of wabi and sabi.
　Realism was also steadily growing in western Europe. It was the period of the Renaissance. In northern Italy, commerce, finance, trade as well as agriculture flourished, accompanied by new inventions and discoveries that were arising one after another. Clocks (visualization of time) also emerged, alongside perspectives (visualization of space), double-entry bookkeeping (visualization of money flow), anatomy (visualization of the inside of the body), musical score (visualization of sound), etc. They were the result of people trusting reality and making it the basis of their lives, and therefore trying to understand reality accurately. And those new inventions and discoveries were successively transmitted to western European states.
　That does not mean, however, that the medieval era was a world of established realism. Unfortunately, such a society would not come into existence before the modern era. Medieval society was still steeped in ancient evils. For example, even in the Sengoku period, discrimination based on blood ties and connections, contempt for women, and unscientific things were still deeply rooted and obscured reality. The same was true in medieval Western Europe. For example, geocentrism, witch trials, and various forms of discrimination were rampant. These were often practiced by feudal lords and priests in western European states. Of course, they are not allowed today.
　Therefore, it should be said that the medieval era was not a history in which realism and egalitarianism were fully established, but a world in which these two first emerged. In the medieval era, ancient formalism and inequality still remained, but it was a world with dual aspects in which they coexisted with newly born realism and egalitarianism.
　The realism that grew strongly in the Sengoku period suffered a major setback in the Edo period. This was because the Tokugawa shogun actively spread Confucianism (the Cheng-Zhu school) within samurai society. It was the Tokugawa shogunate's ruse. Confucianism is an ancient Chinese philosophy, and the Tokugawa shogun planned to use this to shield himself from resistance of the samurai (right of resistance) and turn them into slaves. The goal was to maintain the peace of Tokugawa.
　Since Confucianism is an ancient philosophy, it does not have elements of egalitarianism. Therefore, this thought masked egalitarianism, and instead idealized hierarchical relationships. It was thought that made hierarchical relationships absolute. Naturally, this resulted in the elimination of meritocracy, the denial of free competition, and the maintenance of the status quo as the top priority. Due to this, the existing system would continue unshaken.
　Confucianism was a very convenient philosophy for rulers and superiors. The Tokugawa shogun instilled in people the idea of slavery called selfless service based on Confucianism. It said that whatever the situation, one should give up one's own self-interest and serve one's lord or one's superiors, and that the ideal samurai refers to such a samurai.
　 Samurai did not serve to protect their lords in the peaceful Edo period、as no war of any kind took place in Japan. In addition, samurai were strictly prohibited from using force by the shogunate.
　Nevertheless, they were still protected by the feudal lords and given land. It showed that the relationship between the two was never equal, and that their bilateral contracts was not working normally; the samurai did not fulfill their duties, but unilaterally owed their livelihood to their lords. Hence the samurai had no choice but to submit to their lord in absolute obedience. It was a miserable give-and-take. And confucianism fit perfectly into this particular situation.
　The Tokugawa shogun crushed the egalitarianism and realism. It made discrimination such as status, age and gender absolute. In the end, the samurai were stripped of all might, and along with the peasants and townspeople, they were enslaved for two centuries.
　The servile act of blind obedience to superiors and those in power spread throughout the state. The realism was nowhere to be seen. It had become a society robbed of the fluidity and changeability that society essentially should have, and a society emerged where anything new or outstanding was prohibited and existing things were simply maintained.
　The Tokugawa did not want to send Japan back to the Sengoku period, nor use force or cause conflict; with this in mind, Confucianism was the best means to maintain the peace of Tokugawa without bloodshed. As a result, Edo period society had become safe , but instead became a society sullied by a gloomy, halfhearted nature.
　Based on this rigid ideology, the Japanese people stubbornly maintained their existing social systems, industry, culture, and lifestyle for two centuries without change or development.　Japan was far removed from world trends; When the Western power entered Japan at the end of the Edo period, the weapons samurai had in the ready were 200-year-old guns.People focused on defending their lives rather than taking on challenges. As a result, medieval Japan did not move in the direction of development, but in the direction of maturation of existing ones.
　However, in the 19th century, Japan gradually distanced themselves from the teachings of Confucianism with the modernization revolution. It was triggered by the Japan advance of the Western powers, which struck a blow at the peaceful world and confronted Japanese people with a harsh reality. Then, the authority and power of the Tokugawa crumbled with a thud. It was a complete erosion of traditional values, similar to what people experienced in the past during the Warring States period.
　This was an opportunity for the Japanese public to face reality and act on reality. It was like a return to the Warring States Period, and people had awakened from a long slumber of two centuries.
　Confucianism is hasty in preaching morality, but it is unrelated to realism and egalitarianism, which are the original way of life of man. Today, Japanese people are almost free from formalism and kinship based on confucianism. Of course, confucian classes do not exist in elementary and secondary schools.
　Even so, the influence of Confucianism has not been completely removed from Japanese society. This is because the morality preached by Confucianism has a certain amount of power, and even in the 21st century, its teachings sometimes are talked about by old people, and some age-based discrimination remains in the field of sports and entertainment.
　East Asian states are still sullied by Confucianism. The people of East Asia believe in the teachings of Confucianism and see things in hierarchical relationships, such as ancestors and descendants, parents and children, masters and servants, rulers and subjects. They are tightly bound within that hierarchical relationship, where the latter is expected to obey the former. This represents the making of hierarchical relationships locked and absolute. In that respect, Confucianism is a philosophy that underpins despotism and decisively ignores egalitarianism. Therefore, Confucianism is ideal for rulers and superiors.
　Even now in the 21st century, fearsome dictators and dictatorial parties in China and North Korea still wield authoritarianism, deny human rights, and severely restrict freedom of speech and the press. But, for nations deeply influenced by Confucianism, this is nothing out of the ordinary. It is not a special circumstance for those with authority to wield power and the people to obey it, but a matter of course. This pitiful situation has been going on for 2,000 years and may continue to be the case in the future.
　South Korea is a democratic country that has a constitution, runs a parliament, and establishes democracy. Nevertheless, the reality of Korea is ancient. For example, over the past 50 years, four presidents have been arrested and jailed as soon as they completed their terms of office. They and their relatives wielded power privately and made fraudulently money. Of course, that was a crime born out of self-interest, but distinctive in that it was underpinned by Confucian authoritarianism, blood ties, and lack of law-abiding spirit. This shows that the rule of men and the rule of law remain intricately intertwined in today’s South Korean society, and formalism and realism are still at odds and intermingled.
　Furthermore, the judicial power has not been established firmly in South Korea. Because, court decisions are sometimes overturned by the power of politics and the masses.
　Now, one of the big problems in today's world is that social media threatens realism. SNS is a medium that has arisen from innovations in information transmission and is of great use in people’s lives and work. Yet, it is often used as a means of spreading lies and throws individuals, societies, nations and the world into chaos. This is a liquefaction of facts that underpin realism. Humankind is desperately looking for a way to get along with social media in order to protect realism.

No One Can Serve Two Masters

　This section offers another example of the failure of egalitarianism. It covers the expression in samurai society that “a loyal person never serves two masters”. This word describes the image of the ideal samurai, meaning that the best samurai is a warrior who continues to serve a master for the rest of his life, no matter what the case. This expression is so famous that even Japanese today know it. But it was the words of a slave and the way of life in the ancient country. The original samurai never lived such a way of life.
　As explained earlier, the medieval era was a relative world. So, there was no such thing as absolute obedience to the master. Loyalty can only be achieved with sufficient protection from the lord. Therefore, the absolute saying that a loyal person never serves two masters was not the words of the (medieval) samurai.
　Who made this expression popular in the samurai society of the Edo period and why? It was originally a saying from ancient China. What is more, they were the words of an official, not of a warrior. This expression was cleverly embellished by the Tokugawa family and their feudal lords and thinkers, who defined the ideal samurai as one who served one lord all his life.
　It was their scheme, their propaganda, so to speak. They demanded absolute obedience from their samurai. Even if the lord was a dark ruler, they demanded that the samurai continued to obey him like slaves. It was an attempt to thwart samurai autonomy and deprive them of their right to resist.
　This propaganda was successfully disseminated. The majority of samurai in the Edo period lived like slaves, albeit in formal terms. Because, for a long time, there was no war, so meritocracy did not work and there became no reason for existence for samurai. That’s when the propaganda struck them. As a result, whether or not they followed propaganda, the samurai had no choice but to serve one master all their lives.
　In contrast, history from the Kamakura period to the Sengoku period was a series of battles. Both the samurai and the feudal lord believed in realism, and acted in accordance with it. Loyalty did not come without anything in return. Thus, they did not deal with such naive propaganda and never blindly obeyed their lords.
　The right of resistance was at the heart of the warring states period in the medieval era. It necessarily gave tension to the society, and forced medieval kings, feudal lords, and samurai to live sincerely, establishing a strict samurai society at its core.
　Yet, no matter how carefree the Edo period, the true lord-subject relationship never disappeared. The lord-subject relationship worked clearly, for example, in the existential crisis of the feudal states.
　The crisis of the feudal lords in the Edo period was caused by the Tokugawa family. The Tokugawa shogun had also issued peace edict and constantly ordered the feudal lords to maintain order in their fiefdoms. Therefore, as soon as they found a spendthrift feudal lord or a drunken feudal lord who was unserious about the administration of the fiefdom, the Tokugawa reprimanded him, cut off his protection, and deprived him of his lordship.
　 In such a crisis, samurai stood up for themselves. They first accused the feudal lord of being an unworthy lord, imprisoned him, and then chose a new lord from among the lord's relatives. They took the initiative before the Tokugawa shogun. In this way, their territory would overcome the crisis and regain peace.
　Imprisoning a feudal lord might seem like a samurai betrayal at first glance, but it was merely practice of the original lord-subject relationship. This was a demonstration of the samurai's right of resistance. If the lord's protection was not sufficient, the samurai would protest against the lord, or defect from him, or kill the lord, or replace the unworthy lord with a proper one. The samurai's act of choosing a lord was natural, and was the foundation of the samurai society.
　Yoritomo, for example, was chosen by the lords of Kanto as their ruler. Hideyoshi, Ieyasu, and all other medieval kings, whether active or passive, were recognized by the feudal lords before they assumed the throne.
　It is the same as today's people demanding a constitution suitable for them. If the constitution, which is the ruler of Japan, is not suitable for the present age, the people will revise it into a suitable one. It is a citizen's right. Amendment of the constitution is expression and execution of the people's right to resist.
　Therefore, the samurai of the Edo period did nothing more than the people of today. They were only fulfilling their lord-subject relationship sincerely. In this way, even during the peaceful Edo period, the lord-subject relationship continued to exist, albeit in small ways.
　At the end of the Edo period, when the western European powers advanced into Japan, the lords and samurai again formed a strong lord-subject relationship. They united, and either sacrificed themselves to the perishing old system, or formed a revolutionary force for the sake of a new Japan, which threw them into chaos.

Separation of Religion and State in the Medieval Era

　Ancient peoples generally had fierce religious belief. The ancient kings of Japan and the Japanese also believed in Buddhism, worshipped its power and followed the discourses of the temple priests. Ancient kings and temples jointly ruled Japan as two wheels of domination. The ancient kings not only enforced various policies, but built many temples and nunneries across the country to protect Buddhism. And the monks helped the ancient kings’ rule with their prayers and wisdom.
　Temples were granted tax exemption, because they were co-rulers. Remnants of this can still be seen in Japan today. Religious organization are tax-exempt on the income they earn from their original religious activities.
　Now, then let’s look specifically at the historical process of separation of politics and religion. It was the development of the manorial system which the relationship between the ancient dynasty and the temples gradually changed with. The temples began their own journey, taking an audacious step from the world of faith to the real world.
　Temples developed many large-scale manors and became the lords of large manors on a par with influential nobles. In addition, temples were donated a large number of developed farms from nobles, samurai and wealthy peasants. These were donated manors. As a result, the temples grew a great deal.
　Based on the enormous wealth they obtained from their manors, temples ran a moneylending business, worked hard to accumulate wealth, maintained even more warrior priests, and ruled their own vast manors by force of arm. Soon there was nothing to distinguish priests from samurai.
　The secularization of the temple continued further. The 11th century was a time when the decline of ancient dynasties began and the rise of the samurai dynasty. Society had changed drastically, the existing order had been lost, and strife had occurred throughout the country. People were stricken with anxiety and fear, and relied on Buddhism in search of peace in the afterlife. Against this backdrop, new sects of Buddhism sprang up one after another.
　Around the 12th century, priests such as Honen (1133-1212), Shinran (1173-1262), and Nichiren (1222-1282) appeared and traveled around the state preaching new teachings of Buddhism. No longer only ancient kings and aristocrats, but also the lower strata of society at the time -- peasants, merchants, craftsmen and samurai -- became new followers. Through their faith, they followed the policies of temples, and gradually gathered in an area around a temple. This marked the formation of sect territory.

Shinran
A Buddhist priest active in the Kamakura period, who founded a new sect of Buddhism.

　In the 15th century, the temple and the believers became united not only through faith, but also in search of common benefits of this world, and fought together against samurai rule. Believers gathered around the temple, formed a huge cult fiefdom there, and often fought with the samurai over land, property, and rights. The cult fiefdoms were literally equal to the feudal fiefdoms.
　In this way, temples obtained large numbers of followers in addition to economic and military powers. Particularly noteworthy was the formation of armed groups by the followers. They took up arms as requested by their temple and fought against the temple's enemies. This power even rivaled that of feudal lords. In fact, in Hokuriku region, the followers of the Ikko sect drove out the feudal lords of the land and established their sect territory, which survived for about 100 years, even defending against attacks by neighboring samurai.
　The temple was completely changed, more attached to this world than to live in the world of faith, and spent all its time fighting for the rights of the manor or power struggles with other temples. Temples also fought against shoguns and feudal lords, or even formed coalitions with them to attack other provinces. Temples were no longer groups for prayer; rather, they had become huge armed groups.
　At that time, Japan was a world of rivalry among warlords, with the Sengoku daimyo competing to maintain and expand their own domains. For such Sengoku daimyo, the temples were troublesome armed groups that were a hindrance to the progress of samurai.
　Hieizan Enryaku-ji Temple was famously burned down by Nobunaga Oda, a feudal lord of the Sengoku period. Enryaku-ji was a Buddhist temple founded in the 8th century. It was a powerful temple with a long history and tradition and that had built close ties with the king's lineage and nobility for many years.
　Nobunaga advanced his army with the aim of unifying Japan, but Enryaku-ji Temple stood in his way. He did not spare it; his warriors attacked the temple and killed thousands of temple priests, disciples, women, and even children. It was an unprecedented event and people at the time were astonished at the horrific deed of killing all the temple priests. However, Nobunaga continued to advance his army and crushed even the sect territory that had ruled the Hokuriku region for many years. This was the result of neglecting their original work, religious activities, acting arrogantly, and intervening in the rule of the samurai.In the end, the temples were defeated by the professionals of war.
　It became a kind of religious reform, as it resulted in restoring the temples to their original form. With this, the decline of religious power had begun. The temples no longer intervened in the rule of the samurai, the priests abandoned swords, bows, guns and war funds, no longer recruited followers, and devoted their lives to prayer and scripture. This was the establishment of the separation of religion and state.It also accelerated the end of the ancient ruling system.
　 As already mentioned, Hideyoshi conquered Sengoku Japan and established a new feudal society. He began to rule the temple in a medieval-style form of rule. It was domination through bilateral contracts. He entered into a bilateral contract with the temple. Hideyoshi’s contractual obligation was to relieve the temple lands and protect the monks, while the temple's duty was to devote himself to prayer and learning, laid down his weapons, and did not intrude on the rule of the warriors. Hideyoshi granted the temple autonomy to the temple priests and did not intervene in the temple's internal affairs as long as they complied with this contractual obligation. It was the same as the medieval kings acknowledging the lordship and not intervening in the administration of the fiefdom as long as the feudal lord fulfilled his contractual obligations of war. Or as long as the samurai and peasants performed their duties (military merit and tax payment), the feudal lords did not intervene in the management of the samurai's estates or the village autonomy of the peasants. It showed that the spirit of the bilateral contract, in which there is no loyalty without protection, and no protection without loyalty, was pervasive throughout the medieval eras.
　And that spirit has been inherited in modern countries. The duty of the modern state is to ensure the safety and security of its citizens, while the duty of its citizens is to comply with the law and faithfully fulfill taxes and work. It is a modern bilateral contract. If this is the case, then the state guarantees the basic rights of its citizens and does not interfere in their speech, behavior, residence, or occupation. The people are free. However, those who break the law or refuse to pay taxes will be punished by the state, and their rights and freedoms will be restricted or extinguished.
　On the other hand, in ancient times, there were no bilateral contracts, and people lived in a hierarchical society with little freedom. Thus, it can be said that the bilateral contract determined the shape of the country, and ultimately led the country to either a democratic country or an autocratic country.
　Hideyoshi still had a strong faith in Buddhism and sometimes listened to the excellent opinions of the temple priests. However, even the religious Hideyoshi no longer allowed temple priests to participate in politics. The temple priests were not co-rulers of Japan, politics was only in charge of the samurai, and the samurai were supposed to face reality. It was a clear distinction between faith and politics.
　 Feudal lords were largely indifferent to which sects of Buddhism the peasants and samurai believed in、and granted people freedom of religion since the Kamakura period. Hideyoshi, too, allowed freedom of religion. However, he did not approve of Christianity. This was because at that time, Christianity was one with politics.
　The Spanish and Portuguese came to Japan in the 16th century. They not only carried out missionary activities in Japan, but also became the vanguard of the invasion of Japan according to the instructions of their home countries. Politics and religion were inextricably linked.
　Hideyoshi did not forget that during the Sengoku period, temple monks and laity united in a fierce battle against the samurai. The tight bonds of deep faith and military power was a nightmare for the samurai. Therefore, Hideyoshi feared that the missionaries might mobilize their followers and challenge the samurai rule, just as the monks of the temple had done in the past. The result was the deportation of missionaries from Japan and the massacre of Christians.
　In other words, Hideyoshi suppressed the movement of unity of church and state rather than persecuting Christianity.
　The Tokugawa who succeeded Hideyoshi, allowed trade with the Dutch, because Dutch merchants specialized in trade, but did not try to intertwine religion with trade. They were Protestants and had already achieved the separation of church and state. The Netherlands was one step ahead of the rest of Western Europe.
　From the above, we can see that human history has also been the evolution of politics. It was to remove the villains from the political realm and to ensure political independence. Villains are those who flock to politicians, use state power for personal use, and engage in fraud and corruption, and those who threaten political independence. For example, it can be blood relatives of politicians, nepotism, privileged, religious people, and eventually merchants, military men, and ignorant crowd.
　The people of democratic countries are those who have gained political independence and purity over a long period of time by removing politicians' relatives, priests, military personnel and others from the political sphere. Then corruption rarely occurs in democracies. But there are exceptions even in the democracies. And those who were corrupt were thoroughly condemned by the press and people and brought to justice by law.
　On the other hand, in despotic countries politics is often not self-sustaining, because politics and villains are one in the political sphere. Many politicians themselves engage in fraud and corruption, and share state power and money with their relatives, religious people, merchants and others. However, the media does not condemn this ugliness and the public is silent.
　During the Edo period, the Tokugawa shoguns created a special law to control temples, and strictly ruled the priests. They restricted the role of priests to prayer and learning. Thus, the temples were cut off from the world and removed from politics. This separation of religion and state continues in modern Japan.
　The separation of religion and state was also enforced in medieval western Europe. Beginning in around the 16th century, through the Reformation, the Thirty Years' War, and the Treaty of Westphalia, the military force of medieval kings and feudal lords dominated the real world, gradually driving out religious power. It was a historical transition period from the time of joint rule by medieval kings and clergy to a time in which medieval kings broke away from the clergy and became autonomous. Especially in protestant states, the pope and the church began to rapidly lose their worldly influence. Medieval kings expelled clerics from the realm of politics, implemented realism thoroughly, and strengthened their sovereignty.
　 　However, even in the world of the 21st century, many states integrate religion and state. Especially in Islamic states, the two are one. This is because Islam is not only aimed at salvation of the spirit, but also regulates real life such as clothing, meals and law in detail, and it tries to save society as a whole politically. In that respect, Islam is both a religion and politics. And, Islamic leaders (religious scholars) are religious people and politicians at the same time.
　In this regard, Islam is very different from Buddhism and Christianity, which aim only at the salvation of the spirit. This is a fundamental impediment to the modernization of the Islamic State.

Village Autonomy of Peasants

　In general, a lord of a manor owned a number of manors, assigned tax collectors to each as an agent or contractor, and collected an annual tribute. In particular, contractors changed over time; for example, low-level aristocrats, influential peasants, samurai, priests, and merchants became contractors. Those in charge of managing such manors were intermediate managers positioned between the lord of the manor and the peasants, and many of them embezzled part of the land tax under various pretexts.
　In the Muromachi period, the lord of the manor entrusted the peasants themselves with the collection of land tax. It was a revolutionary system, eliminating middle managers, agents and contractors, and it was possible because the peasants had matured and showed a strong bond of solidarity. In fact, it could be said that the only people a lord of a manor could rely on were the peasants. More than 600 years had already passed since the manorial system began.
　However, the Muromachi period was the special era when the manorial system collapsed. From the 14th century to the 15th century, the internal strife of the Muromachi shogunate continued, throwing the state into extreme turmoil. The lawlessness then resulted in expanding the samurai and a new norm of eroding the manors.
　Against the backdrop of such times, the lord of the manor again hired a new contractor. That was the shugo. A shugo was an influential feudal lord,and like a military commander who maintained public order. They were positioned in every region under the Muromachi shogunate. Therefore, the shugo was a suitable contractor in an age of lawlessness.
　However, this choice may not have been what the lord of the manor had hoped for, as the reality was that there was no longer anyone other than the shugo to whom he could entrust the management of the manor. The shugo would be the last contractor for the lord of the manor.
　The Muromachi shogunate entrust great power to the shugo of each territory in order to quell the chaos throughout the state. This gave the shugo military funds, and furthermore, gave them power comparable to the prerogative of the land ownership rights held by the leader of the samurai. This entrustment meant that the shugo had acquired the de facto prerogative of land ownership rights as well as lordship over the territory. The shugo gathered large numbers of soldiers and legally seized manor after manor through exercising their prerogatives. The manager of the manor had transformed into a usurper of the manor. At first glance, it may have seemed wild and outrageous, but it was inevitable in the historical transition.
　During the Sengoku period, most of the manors had been embezzled and disappeared, becoming the territory of the samurai. Amid endless wars, ancient kings, lords of the manors, Ashikaga shoguns, existing feudal lords, and even many of the Shugo daimyo, all fell.
　As already mentioned, the powerful lords who appeared during the Warring States period and ruled over their respective territories were called Sengoku daimyo. They were rich in military power, wealth, and intelligence and about 120 of theme throughout the country.
　They fought fiercely over each other's land, but the ultimate victor was a warring daimyo named Hideyoshi Toyotomi. It was the unification of the Japan. The Sengoku daimyo agreed on Hideyoshi as the king of Japan. It was the final end of the two-capital period, and the time when the samurai became the only king of Japan.
　These new feudal lords to build a new Japan devised a new land system and tax system to replace the manor system. What was remarkable about this feudal system was that the samurai entrusted all the work of paying taxes to the peasants.
　The medieval eras evolved a notch. This was because the feudal lord entered into a bilateral contract with the village (peasants), whose duty was to protect the safety of the village, and the duty of the peasant was to pay regular taxes to the lord. The two parties formed a community with a shared destiny of life and death.
　A Sengoku daimyo's duty was to protect his village from surrounding enemies and guarantee their farming. Meanwhile, the village paid an annual tribute to the Sengoku daimyo every year, guaranteeing the finances of the territory. This agreement put feudal lords and peasants on equal footing, and for the first time in Japanese history, tribute takers and tribute payers cooperated to overcome conflict.
　Why did the village join hands with the Sengoku daimyo? It was the result of the collapse of the manorial system. The disappearance of the lord of the manor also meant the disappearance of the manager. Many of the managers were evil individuals, but they still did their part to protect the village. But those managers disappeared, consequently leaving the village completely bare. There was no village ruler.
　Sengoku daimyo, was on his way to rule the village. It was a period of power vacuum, a transition from manorial lord rule to feudal lord rule. Peasants had to protect their villages by themselves.
　However, the state was a lawless land, and samurai, villains, and thieves were always roaming around the villages. In addition, if neighboring Sengoku daimyo started fighting each other, and if caught up in it, the villages would be destroyed. Villagers' houses would be set on fire, their fields destroyed, and their crops robbed. Villagers and children were then captured and were forced to do tough jobs as slaves or sold. There was no way in which peasants could resist their force.
　So, peasants sought protection from the neighboring Sengoku daimyo. Having the military might of the Sengoku daimyo protect their villages was the only way for them to find safety. In return, the village paid an annual tribute to its Sengoku daimyo and provided young peasants as foot soldiers in times of war. It was another vital cooperation between the two in a lawless land, similar to what Yoritomo and the feudal lords once did in the land of Kanto.
　Meanwhile, the Sengoku daimyo also found a way out of difficulty through a bilateral contract with the villages. This was because the annual tribute supported the Sengoku daimyo's financial base and was essential for continuing the war. A sufficient annual tribute that came yearly without fail was the lifeblood of a Sengoku daimyo. And if the village was safe, farming could proceed as planned, which brought in bountiful harvests. Their bilateral contract meant mutual support indeed.In fact, feudal lords actively supported the villages, such as teaching the peasants new farming techniques and introducing new crops to them.
　Therefore, for peasants, tax payment was no longer a symbol of submission and humiliation. Tax payment became a means, a weapon, to ensure their own safety. This made peasants truly self-reliant. It is the same as modern people gaining security from the state by paying taxes. It is not humiliating.
　Feudal lords and lords of the manors differed greatly in their policies toward peasants. The lord of the manor did not enter into a bilateral contract with the village, because he could not protect the peasants, and he did not have the military strength to defend the village. Moreover, he had never thought of protecting the peasants, because to him peasants were slaves. Also, he was incapable of understanding the medieval egalitarianism of bilateral relationships. He was an ancient man who lived in hierarchism. For him, an equal human relationship was beyond comprehension.
　Naturally, medieval people no longer tolerated the existence of manorial lords, and so the feudal lords and peasants in the Sengoku period did not deal with the lord of the manor any longer. As a result, they gave up on the lord of the manor. This also symbolically represents the end of antiquity and the establishment of the medieval era.History can be said to have ruled people by strictly implementing their will without allowing for compromise.It is an example of people not evolving because of their mental weakness. And those that do not evolve will be weeded out.
　The Sengoku daimyo ruled the village and at the same time, maintained equal relations with the village. This was also the duality of the medieval era. He ensured the autonomy of the village as long as they did not default on their annual tribute or adversely affect his territory. Their autonomy was based on the sincere fulfillment of bilateral contracts.
　The samurai family was fundamentally dependent on the peasants; if the peasants did not grow rice, the samurai family could not survive. Therefore, as promised, if the annual tribute was paid properly, the lord was satisfied with it, and hardly gave any orders to the peasants. Of course, the peasants were aware of this complicated position of the samurai family, so when the order of the lord was too harsh or misguided, the peasants sometimes condemned the lord or simply even ignored it.

Four seasons in the village during the Edo period

Village Autonomy and Japanese Society

　The village was a country of peasants. Because of the bilateral contract, the feudal lords, rulers of the village, recognized the autonomy of the villages and did not intervene in the internal affairs of the villages, as long as the peasants carried out their tax payments in good faith. The　peasants enjoyed freedom of speech, work and expression in the village.
　Peasants were free to prepare for farming, adjust water supplies, hold village trials and village festivals, etc. They then shared expenses to organize annual village events and forest management. It shows that they gained the right to exist in a way similar to feudal lords and samurai. This marked the establishment of peasant rights.
　Feudal lords obtained lordship, samurai obtained samurai rights, and peasants obtained peasant rights. The medieval era of Japan was deepening and steadily preparing for the modern era. (The terms samurai rights and peasant rights were coined by the author.) 　Village autonomy is comparable to urban autonomy in western European states. Although the scale and content between the two differ greatly, the fact that autonomy was carried out is the same. The peasants in the village were all equal; there was no ruler or ruling class in the village. The rulers of the villages were therefore the peasants themselves.
　The peasants created a true ruler to rule over them. That was village law. The village law was the guideline for running the village and the standard for village life. The village laws set out annual village events, joint farming of peasants, prohibition of stealing and gambling, village holidays (5-6 days every month) and penalties. And the peasants held meetings to discuss problems in the village under the law. In that respect, the village was a small country ruled by law and the origin of the modern country.
　It was similar to how the feudal lords of the Kanto region once chose Yoritomo as authority. Because there were no absolutes both in the medieval villages and in the land of Kanto, and therefore they had to build authority that everyone would obey for the formation of order. It was a form of rule unique to the medieval eras.
　Village law was essentially strict. Those who did bad things within the village and those who disturbed　the security of the village were punished according to the village law, and the person and his family were expelled from the village. Such village autonomy continued for more than two centuries, instilling in the peasants a spirit of self-governance and law-abidingness.
　The village law was the equivalent of today's constitution. The village was a small law-abiding society. After the Meiji Restoration, this village autonomy developed into national autonomy. National autonomy is the rule of law on a national scale; or in other words, democratic politics.
　Interestingly, though, only the peasants who owned the fields were involved in the management of the village.There were also a small number of tenant farmers in the village who did not own fields. They were not considered regular villagers and therefore could not participate in village management.
　At first glance, these village communities may appear to be unequal groups. But it is not a question of medieval villages, nor of medieval society, nor is it a question of status.
　It is a severely conflicting picture of egalitarianism and realism. This discrimination or distinction exists even in modern society, and can be said to be an eternal issue for humankind.
　For example, the United Nations. The United Nations highly values egalitarianism, yet the United Nations is an unequal organization made up of a few privileged nations and many ordinary nations, with an unequal system in which the ordinary nations obey unconditionally the arrangements of the privileged nations. In this respect, the United Nations is the same men-governed organization as in the ancient era and the medieval. Will the day ever come when international law will become the true ruler of the world, without a few big bosses and small bosses?
　A village was a community owned jointly by peasants . It was the first time in the history of Japan that the public has emerged. Then the peasants had to live for the public as well as for the individual, because they tried to keep going the self-government.
　Now, the core of autonomy is the unity of the peasants. They attached great importance to unity within the village and strived for collective agreement of the villagers.. Because discord and division within the village cracked the order within the village and made village events and agricultural collaboration difficult. But that was not all. The division was a disruption to the village, and at its worst, the village was intervened in or raided by neighbouring villages, samurai or feudal lords who saw this as an opportunity. As a result, the village lost power, the villagers lost sovereignty and freedom.
　The farmers therefore placed great importance on collective consensus. While it was necessary for them to express their own opinions at village gatherings, it was also important to bring these opinions together and reach a consensus. the peasants lived not only for themselves, but also for the public. Sometimes advocacy and public maintenance and interests overlap neatly, while at other times the two collide.It was then that learnt restraint.
　The birth of self-government was a historic event. It inevitably brought a new act of collective agreement to human society and fostered a strong spirit of restraint in the people, the peasants withdrew their own claims when they considered it necessary to achieve consensus.Or they used their wits to come up with various compromises and persistently tried to build consensus.
　This was learning of self-control and compromise. They lived, then, this difficult way of life for more than two centuries, acquiring the autonomy to balance private and public at will. As a result, peasants had an advanced and strong spirit, which could be said to have been the foundation for correctly establishing democracy.
　The peasants solved the problems in the village not only by majority vote, but also by mediation. It is to seek reconciliation. For example, when two peasants had a problem with something, mediation was used as a means of resolving the problem. It was to obtain the consent of the two, that is, to compromise with self-restraint by the parties concerned. Mediation not only solved the problem, but also helped to remove hatred from them and maintain the cohesion of the village.
　Most of the disputes in the village were settled by such mediation, but when they could not be resolved, the peasants left it to their feudal lords and settled them in court.
　Majority rule and mediation have been practiced in villages across the country for two centuries, and self-control has become one of the essential means of resolving matters.
　It was a way of life that values the harmony of society as a whole. And people got used to collective consensus and consent, as if they were breathing.
　Village self-government eventually developed into national self-government after the Meiji Restoration in the 19th century. National autonomy referred to the rule of law on a national scale and democratic politics. Although there were differences in the scale of both village autonomy and national self-government, they were built on the same spirit of self-government for the first time.
　The fact that the Japanese people of the Meiji period, who had just emerged from the medieval era, quickly understood democratic politics and were able to run it, albeit not in a perfect form, because they had already acquired a spirit of self-government in the villages. In this respect, medieval municipalities can be said to be the mother of Japan's democracy.
　Japanese society is generally peaceful with a harmonious look. Because modern Japanese people have inherited the way of life of medieval people. Japan society is undeniably built on medieval society, and the 700 years of divisionism and 200 years of village autonomy are still deeply rooted in Japan society.
　By the way,　the Japanese, who are good at collective agreements, have formed a unique character. They speak euphemistically instead of clearly, it takes a lot of time to solve problems, it seems to be ambiguous who is to responsible, people dislike authoritarian group management, insisting on equality among them, and successfully carry out collaborative work with others.
　These are the characteristics of Japanese society that many people around the world often point out. At the same time, it may be said that Japanese society lacks frankness, speed, and decisiveness to some extent.
　For better or worse, they are habits that have been cultivated to reach a collective consensus. In reality, collective consensus fosters mutual trust among Japanese people, and as a result, order is formed quite naturally, providing safety and security in the country. And the people become strongly united, with an impetus for the rapid and efficient advancement of state projects and other joint ventures.
　However, this explanation only shows the general trend of Japanese society. This does not mean that there are no strong leaders in Japanese society, nor does it mean that distinctive opinions have disappeared, nor does it mean that injustice has disappeared from the society.
　Every Japanese has their own ideas, Japan has politicians who exert strong leadership, there are scholars who make amazing inventions and discoveries, there are outstanding painters and novelists, and there are Japanese who do evil deeds.
　Japanese society is not only seen as mysterious by people overseas, but also misunderstood. In particular, people in ancient countries misunderstand the collective consensus of the Japanese people as an act of losers or an act of submission, that is, the rapid unity of the Japanese people is like the unity of robots, in which people blindly obey those in power without having their own opinions.
　Because, ancient people have not experienced living for the public, as there are not any municipalities in ancient countries. Therefore, they have totally nothing to do with voluntary unity or collective agreement. Their unity is forcibly created by the dictators. It is not surprise that they cannot figure out the self-restraint that Japan people exercise for the public.
　This incomprehensible situation of theirs symbolically represents the insurmountable gulf that exists between the modern and the ancient.
　Now, the main reason why ancient people do not adopt democracy is that dictators do not allow it to be established in the country. But that’s not the only reason. There is also a problem with the public. It is that the people have very little of the basic ability to operate a democratic government.
　People in ancient countries were generally not allowed to own land. Even then, people sometimes held land temporarily. It was done at a time when the king was struck by a political or economic crisis, as in the ancient dynasties of Japan. Then, of course, these landowners (nobles, landlords, peasants) paid tax to the king.
　But an ancient country was a despotic state. Paying taxes did not mean duties to the king, but only obedience to the king. Because, the king did not enter into a bilateral contract with any person and therefore the give-and-take relationship did not appear. It was only strict hierarchical principles. The people had no independence or freedom.
　In addition, the king held the right to take the life and death of the people in any case. There was no way that people who did not have a guarantee of tomorrow's life could be self-reliant. Therefore, whether they got the land or not, people did not own land as municipalities.
　Thus, the ancient people could not stand on their own and thus, could not recognize others. As a result, they failed to develop a spirit of autonomy and were largely unconnected with restrain for public good.

Incomplete Egalitarianism

　Samurai, peasants, and townspeople all secured their own land, and assured themselves of self-reliance and experienced the joys and rigors of self-government. It was one of the wonderful aspects in the history of Japan. However, their independence was only the independence of the medieval eras, but it was not completely guaranteed. This was because the rulers in the medieval era were men. Samurai, peasants, and townspeople were still under the control of feudal lords.
　Unfortunately, men were not always good rulers, and feudal lords sometimes, or often, ruthlessly violated the samurai's rights, the peasants' rights, and the townspeople's rights for their own convenience. This is a decisive flaw of rule of men.
　Feudal lords, for example, recognized the people’s right to life and property in peacetime and treated them almost as equals, which was a splendid aspect of the medieval era. But when they failed to manage their territories and faced financial crisis, they broke bilateral contracts especially with peasants, trampled their rights without question, and imposed heavy taxes on them.
　Men were halfhearted. Rule of men was halfhearted. As long as rulers were men, both egalitarianism and realism were as delicate and fragile as glass. Thus、it has to be said that the rights acquired during the medieval era were imperfect.
　Tyranny, as already mentioned, was badly defeated by the samurai in the early medieval eras, but tyranny stubbornly survived even after that and tormented the people. The reason why despotism survived was because the rulers were still men. In other words, the eradication of despotism necessitated the abolition of man-made rule. The ruler had to be the law. Alas, as long as ancient kings, medieval kings and feudal lords were rulers, despotism would never cease to erupt.
　Here are some examples of despotism that arose in the medieval Japan. One was that a feudal lord trampled on the samurai rights of his subordinates, and as a result, he incurred the wrath of the samurai and was assassinated. And the other was that the feudal lords ignored the rights of the peasants and imposed heavy taxes on the peasants.
　The first case was of Oda Nobunaga. He was one of the leading Sengoku daimy, not only winning a number of battles, but also doing the decisive task of overthrowing the Muromachi shogunate, a defining task and aiming to become the new ruler of Japan. But he could not achieve his ambitions. Because he was assassinated by his subordinates. It was one of the most famous assassinations in Japanese history.
　During the Warring States period, the samurai's bilateral contract was fulfilled in good faith. The samurai risked his life to fight his enemies for the sake of his lord, built splendid war achievements, and received substantial fiefdom from his lord. It was a normal relationship between a feudal lord and a samurai.
　But Nobunaga was different, he did not recognize the rights of the samurai at all. Despite the samurai's great military achievements, Nobunaga did not appreciate it and did not give him the land that he should get. In addition, he gave the hard-earned lands of the samurai to his sons who had not even achieved war merit. It was to treat the samurai as slaves. He likened himself to an ancient king, and sought to build an ancient dynasty of the Oda family.
　But a tyrannical rule could not have been in the medieval era. Nobunaga broke his bilateral contract with the samurai with an ugly blood relationship. It was the destruction of medieval relativism.
　No protection, no royalty. The samurai turned his back on Nobunaga, wielding the right of resistance, killed him. It was an inevitable consequence in the medieval world and a manifestation of the will of the medieval man, who would never allow despotism. Nobunaga was an anachronism and a traitor.
　Such incidents were rare in the medieval Japan. Normally, many feudal lords respected the samurai's right and faithfully fulfilled the bilateral contract, forming a community of destiny with the samurai.
　There is another case in which feudal lords trampled on the rights of the people and made them suffer. It was unfortunate, but it happened all over the country in the late medieval Japan. In peacetime, feudal lords recognized the peasants' right to life and property, sometimes helping them to farm, and protecting them heavily. It was a wonderful medieval aspect.
　However, when the administration of the fiefdom failed, and especially in the face of a financial crisis, many feudal lords suddenly broke bilateral contracts with peasants, ignored their autonomy, blackmailed them, and ran to collect harsh annual tribute. The villages became in a moribund state.
　In the late Edo period, many feudal lords suffered from financial difficulties. That was because the rapid development of the monetary economy was confronting samurai clinging to agrarianism. At that time, merchants were the main protagonists in Edo, a city of one million people. They sold various goods and services to townspeople, samurai and peasants. Samurai living in Edo also purchased new products and received new services. As a result, their spending increased. But samurai income did not increase because it was limited to an annual tribute. Both feudal lords and samurai were forced to live frugally.
　Basically, the samurai relied solely on the peasants for tax revenue. It is called agrarianism. The annual tribute was their income, and therefore an increase in tax revenue meant an increase in the annual tribute. That was, the samurai could only blackmail the peasants, impose heavy taxes on them, and extort taxes from them. It was, of course, to betray the peasants. As a result, peasants were deprived of most of their harvests, had little to eat, and even pawned their farm tools to stave off hunger.
　However, the samurai did not take taxes (income taxes derived from business) from merchants. Was it because of agrarianism, or was there a reluctance to collect taxes from merchants that feudal lords looked down on, or was it because it was practically impossible to examine the contents of each merchant's business and ascertain their profits? In any case, the samurai was a man of the medieval eras.
　The exemption and free business led to the rapid development of commerce, producing a number of wealthy merchants. Hence, the town of Edo went from being a samurai town to a townsman. What moved society was no longer military power, but money power.
　In addition, feudal lords established monopolies within their own territories. The feudal lords held a monopoly on the production and sale of commodities such as sugar and salt, and local specialties. As a result, they and some privileged merchants made vast amounts of money. On the other hand, peasants and merchants were deprived of their jobs, which had been their livelihoods until then, and were left hanging between life and death.
　Therefore, it was natural that peasants in the late Edo period abandoned their fields and fled from villages, or that peasant uprisings occurred. Peasants exercised their right of resistance and protested against the feudal lords, but the feudal lords ignored them and took over their villages by force. In the end, the peasants were robbed of their property by the feudal lords, and they ended up in extreme suffering. This was the dark side of the medieval era. Many feudal lords acted like ancient kings. These evil deeds illustrate how fragile medieval human rights were and how imperfect medieval egalitarianism was.
　 The medieval era maintained a delicate balance between the ancient and modern eras. It oscillated precariously between the cruel hierarchies of the ancient era and the total egalitarianism (under the law) of the modern era. And, unfortunately, it often swayed greatly to the ancient side.This type of tyranny will not disappear as long as the rulers are men.
　The tyrannical rule of the feudal lords devastated the village. Many of the peasants, especially the poor ones, gave up farming, sold what little farmland they had, abandoned their villages, moved to towns, and started businesses. It was the abandonment of agriculture and the tokenization of the status　 system. The abrogation of bilateral contracts by feudal lords resulted in not only the peasants but the samurai being forced into a crisis of survival. It was in the medieval era that liquefaction began. And it shows how unreliable human rule was, how fragile human rights were in the medieval era, and how imperfect egalitarianism of the medieval eras was.
　Naturally, in the latter half of the Edo period, many peasant revolts swept across Japan. The peasants exercised their right of resistance, joined hands with neighboring villages, or even joined the townspeople, and sometimes with arms, fiercely resisted the vicious feudal lord. However, these uprisings ended as mere uprisings and did not develop into a nationwide revolution.
　One of the reasons for this was that the uprising did not take place nationwide, but confined to some poor provinces. One was that a certain number of feudal lords did not raise the tax rate, but instead borrowed money from the wealthy merchants or even from the Tokugawa family and continued to protect the peasants.
　One was that the Tokugawa and feudal lords maintained a close relationship, and cooperated to quell the rebellion. And the other was that the peasants only demanded a reduction in the tax rate, but did not aim to kill the lord.
　These were the reasons why the revolution did not occur in the Edo period. In other words, Japan's medieval society still had plenty of room.
　By the way, historians tend to point out and emphasize only a part of the dark side of the medieval eras, rather than the whole picture. For example, the oppression of the peasants by the feudal lords of the Edo period is laid out and the miserable lives of the peasants are depicted in detail. It is a commentary that unilaterally denounces the feudal society of Japan, which is why many people today view the medieval Japan in a negative light.
　Many scholars rarely paint the great parts of the Edo period. They rarely talk about that the peasants enjoyed autonomy of the village, that the peasants made the village law and made it the ruler of the village, that there was no dictator in the village, that the feudal lords did not intervene in the village in peacetime, that the peasants decided things by majority vote, that the peasants fostered a spirit of law-abiding, that the peasants engaged in mediation and emphasized reconciliation, and that they enjoyed the two-month Ise pilgrimage.
　It is a malicious interpretation of history that looks down on medieval Japan, and history is chopped up, only the dark side is chosen, and then dramatized even darker.
　As the author has repeatedly said, medieval eras have a duality: they had negative aspects of antiquity and positive aspects of modernity. And the negative aspects in the medieval eras are exactly reminiscent of the tyranny of antiquity. This is the reason why people confuse despotism with feudalism, and thus confuse the ancient with the feudal state.
　As a result, many people confuse despotism with feudalism. As a matter of fact, newspaper and television reports are often spreading this misconception. When they explain crimes and bad deeds in Russia or China, for example, they report them as the result of feudalism. But these badness are attributed to dictators and ancient societies。 As needless to say, this is a matter of an autocratic state, not a feudal state.
　Researchers should explain about the duality inherent in the medieval eras, pointing out both aspects of the good and the bad. Otherwise, the history of Japan will be fabricated.
　It should be noted that researchers have to acknowledge the evolution of history in order to explain the duality. Because the duality of the medieval eras can be recognized only by accepting the theory of evolution of history.
　Then the modern revolution occurred and abolished such imperfect medieval rule. The revolutionaries abolished the rule of men and introduced the rule of law. They banished the Tokugawa shogunate and all the feudal lords from the political arena. The people seized real power, and saw the introduction of democratic politics. The people created a constitution as a national consensus and made it the ruler of the state. The constitution governed the people, and the people obeyed the constitution. This was the establishment of the rule of law.
　It was the birth of a new Japan. The Meiji Restoration was an epoch-making event that changed the human rule that lasted for the past 2000 years to the rule of law. The Meiji Restoration was not just a story about heroes. And the reason why Japan was the only country in Asia that succeeded in the modernization revolution was that Japan passed through the medieval eras with village autonomy and bilateral contracts
　Laws does not change, except as amended by the people, because laws are, unlike men, not affected by self-preservation or self-serving convenience. Therefore, the people can trust the law, obey it and form order. The law does not discriminate against citizens by blood, kinship, status, power, age and gender, and treats everyone equally. The law guarantees the people the right to life, property and human rights in their entirety, especially human rights, which in the medieval era were the rights of feudal lords, samurai and peasants, which have been consolidated, upgraded and turned into fundamental human rights. Furthermore, the law guarantees freedom of occupation, residence, association, speech and expression.
　 　History has progressed step by step from ancient era to the medieval era and from the medieval era to the present day. And mankind now has the best system of state control in history.
　Even so the modernization revolution may have just begun, it may take several centuries to complete.