[IMAGE]�@�@[JP-#213-4]


#26
   26.TERAO SHIGETSUNE'S REPUDIATION OF HIS SONS, ABOUT
                                                   1277
                                 (A copy in Terao docs.; also KK, VIII.)
THIS short letter presents several points of capital importance. In the first place, the document
shows the origin of serious family dissensions which led to a series of judicial processes before the
sho-gun's court, revealing the character of feudal justice as administered under the Hojo regency at
the height of its power. (Nos. 27, 31-33, 36-41, 57, 58, 61-67, 70, and 71.)
     The document further shows how the real meaning of the term go ke-nin had changed. The sho-
gun at Kamakura, after the assassination of the last of the Minamoto lords in 1219, was a mere
figurehead, the actual power of his feudal government having fallen into the hands of the Hojo, the
family of the regent. The sho-gun's direct vassal no longer saw in him the object of his personal
devotion; without relinquishing his nominal allegiance to the suzerain, therefore, and without dis-
carding the title go ke-nin, the vassal had now chosen as his personal lord one of the Hojo,-in this
instance, the regent himself.
P155
     Still more interesting is the nature of feudal contract which obtained in this period. Homage,
strong as was the bond of fidelity it involved, required for its inception no definite form of cere-
monial act, (see the preface to No. 15), and was, so far as formality was concerned, easily made: a
father would promise the faith of his sons to his own lord, and nevertheless a son would readily
attach himself to another lord. It is true that the former act merely put into effect the principle of
hereditary following, and constituted no real difference from the successive allegiance which was
often promised in written letters of homage used in European feudalism in the later stages of its
evolution. But the free choice of a lord by a son without serious reason which he could urge against
his father's lord would seem extraordinary. Nor did the lord inflict any measure of sanction upon
the faithless son or his father. Was this because the son had not yet personally done homage to the
lord, and also because the new lord was his kin? Did the father's lord consider that the son's offense
lay between himself and the father, and between father and son, rather than between himself and
the son?

     "I HAVE the honor to inform you that, despite the fact that I had said to my lord,1
as you are aware, that my three sons would serve2 him, Yoichi Shigekazu and Shichiro
Yorishige have disobeyed my command and gone to another lord,3 and that, [for that
offense], I have forever repudiated4 them, so that henceforth we are no longer parent
and children. I report this in order that [my lord] may understand it. I beg you to
announce it to the lord at an opportune moment. Respectfully reported.
       "4th month 5th day.5                                     Jo-Butsu,6 monogram.
   "To Suwa nyu-do7 dono."




   1From the next document it would appear that the lord was Hojo Tokimune, the regent.
   2Ho-ko, service. See No. 142, n. 2.
   3In Nos. 27 and 39 this lord is seen to have been Yoshimasa, of a collateral branch of the Hojo.
   4Fu-kyo, literally, failing in filial duty, but used often in the sense of disinheriting an unfilial
child.
   5No year is given, but the letter is apparently of the same year as the next document. The date
is, then 9 May 1277.
   6The Buddhist name of Shigetsune, Jo-Shin's son, and the first lord of the Terao branch of the
Iriki-in family.
   7An attendant on the lord regent. An indirect address to the lord, out of respect for him.