France And Japan Feudal Society

Despite both countries fitting the characterization of a feudal society to a great extent, France and Japan were differentiated by variations in political structure and traits. Their origins were naturally dissimilar, as were the moral and religious codes which drove the politics of the two countries.

Japan, as an island nation, was largely isolated from the rest of the world. Its feudal structure was an organic development, unsullied by political connections and fears of its neighbors. Japan wasn’t threatened by outside invasion, so immediate protection was less a concern than in France; thus, the transition into feudal structure was slower, as the main sources of turmoil were disputes over local land rights. In France, however, there was
a state of constant warfare among its own peoples and peoples of other countries. These local conditions of war and turbulence, as well as influence from both German and Roman institutions, impacted the development of feudal organization.

In Japan, unlike in France, there was an interest in centralizing and establishing government throughout the feudal period, despite the decentralized conditions from which it developed.
There was a widespread belief in not only hereditary claims to power, but that those who held power should be deserving of it. The Kemmu Shikimoku (Kemmu Code) of 1336 stated that “In selecting shugo (protectors) for different provinces, men with special talents for administration matters shall be chosen.” It was crucial that men in public offices be carefully selected. This demonstrated a divergence from the French feudal norm of continued dissociation from central power, as the shogunate maintained control over many political matters, and did its best to serve the people whom it controlled. The kings of France were often preoccupied with personal and selfish matters; they had little control over their people at this time, in any case. The Tokugawa shogunate (1603-1868) was established by Tokugawa Ieyasu, who officially divided society into four main classes. Japan’s goals of escaping feudal chaos were finally achieved in 1868, with the Meiji Restoration. The Charter Oath of the Meiji Restoration stated that the aim was to establish a national government and frame a constitution and laws. The first condition of the charter oath was that there be democratic discussion and assemblies widely established throughout
Japan.

Japan and France had different ideas about the higher and moral purpose of its noble classes.
In France, as Montesquieu said, “One cannot separate the dignity of the monarch from that of the kingdom; one can scarcely separate the dignity of the noble from that of his fief.” This sentiment was echoed in Japan, as the local samurai were more likely to defend its own lands than an army of professional troops would be, but shīdo, commonly known as the way of the samurai, demanded a higher level of honor. Yamaga Sokō, who wrote The Way of the Samurai, maintained that the samurai’s duty was to “uphold the proper moral principles in the land.” Although the warriors were not laborers or merchants, they had a function in society that exceeded being a mere bodyguard for the nobility, as the vassals in France were. The powerful in Japan were expected to use their standing for the betterment of society, to “bear in mind the the security of the sovereign, and… strive to dispel the anxieties of the people.” The pride and virtue that Japan found in a good government was not easily found in France, where in the chaos of warfare and political turbulence, it was every man for
himself.

There were religious differences in the feudal systems of France and Japan; the politics of France were much more connected to Catholicism than feudal Japan was to Shintoism. The great social force of feudal France was the fear of going to hell; it was this fear that enabled the church to extend its legal power into such secular matters as lordship and vassalage. The ability of a seigneurial estate to support Christian clerks with whom the lord could sit at their court was a show of power in France that Japanese feudalism did not and could not replicate with Shintoism. The kings’ practice of granting immunities, exemptions from taxes and public services on certain royally-owned fiefs, favored specific members of his court and created inequality and corruption in France. On immune fiefs, counts couldn’t enter the lands to collect taxes, hold court, or even to arrange military service, which was often mandatory. In this way, the king won support from his grantees, and curtailed the authority of local representatives who might pose a threat to his royal power. The interference of the Church in feudal affairs and the monarchy’s favoritism represented France’s corruption, but Japan had its own decay of ideals. The shogun’s gokenin received their benefits hereditarily, but they did not inherit the personal connections with the lords as the original gokenin, leading to a decay in the honor of the vassal. There was also class struggle between the warriors and traditional nobles, as the samurai saw themselves as having claims to nobility with their own private fiefs, but the nobles refused to acknowledge them as anything but inferior. By 1300, the mounted warrior class dominated the countryside, vassalage was widely practiced, and the samurai became lords, granting land to their own followers.