Samurai rank by tsuba

[kusunokimasahige]

Jean is correct, these are not Kamon........

 

 

 

They are simple flower motives, just like these :

 

 

 

 

(http://www.samuraisword.com/nihontodisp ... /index.htm)

 

 

Kamon were used on clothes. :

 

 

KM

[Jean]

I am always right H-J, that's the only thing which I have left (good pun :D )

[Lance]

Mon were on clothes

 

I'm aware that Mon were on almost everything, and was only using it as an example that I've read in Western books, Christies auction catalogs on fittings as well as in past JSSUS articles. I've never given it much thought one way or the other but it sounded plausible

 

Also, I still think the Edo period rules for koshirae would be a good research point for those so inclined for something more concrete, I would assume some form of it still exist in writing and that there might be something dealing with what was allowable for different classes/ranks in it if such rules existed.

This would actually be proof of a sort if it was written that way, the other alternative basically amounts to an unspoken rule on what was just etiquette or "socially acceptable" at the time and I thought it would be a little more constructive than arguing what the meaning of "is" is.

Regards,

Lance

[Lance]

Jean is correct, these are not Kamon........

 

Maybe they were just like the markings fighter pilots used to put on their planes for kills..........

Regards,

Lance

[kusunokimasahige]

At the moment, this Edo period tsuba is for sale at Nihonto.Au :

 

 

A marriage of Mon. Saw a mix like this once in an Obi during a Japanese period film, concerning a marriage.

 

Based on many tsuba we see without Mon, and of various quality as well as design, could/should/would the quality then be regarded

as the so called "badge of rank" ? I am still not convinced at all about this.

 

KM

[John A Stuart]

Numerous sumptuary regulations were issued throughout the Edo period (1615-1868) to control the expression of ideas that were deemed a threat to public decorum, safety, or morality, or that were subversive to the ruling Tokugawa shogunate. Ostentatious and inappropriate behavior and display for all the classes was proscribed. The earliest sumptuary laws were based on similar practices from China, where consumption was correlated positively with status. In Japan these regulations were called ken'yakurei ("laws regulating expenditures": 儉約令) for all classes of society. They did not constitute a distinct body of laws, but rather were part of the occasional regulatory proclamations (ofuregaki: 御觸書) issued by the rôjû ("council of elders": 牢中) and disseminated through various intermediaries to the intended group or class. Although the chônin ("persons of the town": 町人) often complained about the repressive measures, the government generally relied more on threats and exhortations than on imposing punishments. There were only a limited number of recorded cases of arrest for violating sumptuary edicts cited in Tokugawa-period legal documents or the popular literature. Throughout the Edo period the sumptuary regulations frequently referred to previous edicts, suggesting that many were not considered permanent or practically enforceable, and that compliance among the targeted groups was often a problem. An expression of the time, mikka hatto ("three-day laws": 三日法度), suggested that violations of sumptuary laws often followed after only brief periods of compliance.

 

Sumptuary edicts had an impact on two of the principal areas of social and political life, "Content and the Expression of Ideas" and "Appearance and Expenditures."

 

Content and the Expression of Ideas

 

There were during the Edo period various periodic restrictions on "content," such as edicts that prohibited publishing about current events, unorthodox theories, rumors, scandals, erotica, government officials, or anything directly related to the Tokugawa rulers or the Imperial Family. One of the most repressive set of edicts was known as the Kansei Reforms, named after the era name Kansei (I/1789 - II/1801) in which they were enacted. With the death of the shogun Ieharu in 1786, his successor Ienari (1773-1841; ruled 1787-1837) remained a minor until 1793, and the real governing power was in the hands of Matsudaira Sadanobu (1758-1829), a grandson of the shogun Yoshimune and the daimyô (military lord, literally "great name") of the Shirakawa domain. Sadanobu held the post of chief councilor (rojû shuseki) from 1787 to 1793. He initiated reforms that he believed were needed after a series of riots in various cities in the summer of 1787 were precipitated by high rice prices following several years of poor harvests and famines. The early stages of the Kansei Reforms focused on the removal from power of corrupt officials and the institution of various specific measures to check inflation and stabilize prices. The reforms were later extended to the field of publishing in 1790. In the fifth month of that year, no new books were to be published except by special permission. Current events were not to be depicted in prints, and gorgeous and extravagant works were to be avoided. No unorthodox theories were to be published, while the publication of erotica was to be gradually halted.

 

The first and most sensational prosecution under the new Kansei publishing laws was the punishment of the popular artist and author Santô Kyôden (1761-1816) and his publisher Tsutaya Jûzaburô (the publisher of Sharaku and Utamaro) for three sharebon ("books of wit and fashion," popular light literature set in the Yoshiwara) published in 1791. Kyôden was the proprietor of a shop selling smoking accessories and had been active as a skilled ukiyo-e artist under the name of Kitao Masanobu before turning to fiction. The three offending books were Seirô hiru no sekai - Nishiki no ura ("The Daytime World of the Brothel: The Other Side of the Brocade"), Ôiso fûzoku - shikake bunko ("Manners of Ôiso: A Library of Contrivances"), and Tekuda tsumemono - shôgi kinuburui ("Padding of Coquetry: The Courtesan's Silken Sleeve"). The books had superficial historical settings and labels on their covers proclaiming them to be "didactic reading matter" (kyôkun yomihon), but these gestures were apparently considered insufficient by the new censors working under the Kansei Reforms. Following an investigation, Kyôden was sentenced to fifty days in handcuffs, Tsutaya Jûzaburô was fined half of his entire net worth, and the unfortunate gyôji (judges or censors) who had approved the books for publication were exiled from Edo. The severity of these punishments was remarkable given the mildness of the offense. Although they dealt with "courtesans and depravity," the books were neither political nor pornographic. It seems likely that the real motive of the shogunate was to intimidate all writers and publishers of light literature by making an example of Kyôden, who was far and away the most popular and skilled author of sharebon.

 

Appearance and Expenditures

 

Other sumptuary edicts attempted to proscribe "appearance" and the expenditure of wealth as appropriate to each class. As some of the merchants began to amass large fortunes and live in a manner previously reserved only for the samurai class, the bakafu ("tent government," the shôgun's ruling officials) issued sumptuary laws to reinforce the distinctions between the classes, to encourage frugality, and to maintain a Neo-Confucian system of moral conduct. The government was particularly concerned that the morale and discipline of the samurai class should not be undermined by ostentatious displays of wealth among the 'chônin'. Many regulations proscribed the consumption of goods and services and placed limits on luxurious entertainment, identifying what was appropriate for members of each social level and closely correlating consumption with social status.

 

The bakufu recognized that fashion could be used to cross over the class boundaries, which were often differentiated by styles of clothing and accessories. The potentially seditious nature of dress and fashion during the Edo period was reflected in a startling number of repressive edicts involving clothing, although the edicts actually touched upon many aspects of behavior and life style. Edo-period sumptuary edicts were, in a practical sense, directed at controlling the more visible displays of social status, and they were issued with increasing frequency beginning in the 17th century. Edicts as early as 1617 prohibited gold and silver leaf appliqué on courtesans' clothing. Other edicts banned gold thread. In 1649 the first comprehensive list of restrictions for chônin was issued for Edo, which included a ban on gold lacquer decoration, houses with gold or silver leaf trimming, and gold lacquer riding saddles. Gold or silver clasps were occasionally forbidden on tobacco pouches for being too ostentatious.

 

One notorious case of flagrant violation occurred in 1681 and involved a wealthy Edo merchant named Ishikawa Rokubei. The Rokubei household, including his wife and her servants, had proudly adorned themselves in magnificent dress in order to view the fifth shogun Tokugawa Tsunayoshi (1646-1709) when he visited Ueno. Thinking she was the wife of a daimyô, the shôgun inquired after her, but when he was told she was only the wife of a merchant, the shogun was infuriated, believing they had shown disrespect to their superiors by dressing beyond their station. Tsunayoshi had the couple summoned to the office of the town magistrate, whereupon all of Rokubei's property was confiscated and the family banished from Edo. Soon afterwards, in 1683, Tsunayoshi and his officials issued sumptuary regulations in unprecedented numbers regarding the clothing of chônin (ironic given Tsunayoshi's own profligate spending and ostentatious life style), and it is tempting to speculate that the Rokubei incident provoked Tsunayoshi to enact more clothing laws.

 

When the sumptuary regulations were issued as frugality measures, expenditures were to be appropriate to one's social status: One had not only to avoid excessive spending but also had to live according to one's social position; in other words, a failure to spend in a manner appropriate to one's social position could also mean falling short of fulfilling one's obligations. It might be argued that the frugality edicts were not entirely negative, especially for the samurai class. Samurai were likely to understand that frugality was both virtuous and practical. The chônin, however, probably viewed these regulations in a negative light, as repressive measures aimed at limiting their success, and, in effect, protecting the samurai estate at their expense. Most of the chônin appear to have controlled their public displays, and a few of the practical guides of the period (such as Chônin bukoro, "The Townsmen's Bag," by Nishikawa Joken, 1648-1724) admonished the chônin not to exceed their superiors, while teachers of the Shingaku social and ethical philosophy (such as Ishida Baigan, 1685-1744, and Nakazawa Dôni, 1725-1803) urged the chônin to observe their social position for fear of bringing disorder into the hierarchy and offending the natural order.

 

Sumptuary proclamations occasionally had a chilling effect on personal or artistic expression, even if actual arrests or punishments were limited. Some edicts were surely enforced longer than the so-called "three day laws" of conventional wisdom. From 1790 on, single-sheet prints published commercially were required to include a seal indicating the approval of the censor, who would be held personally responsible for any violations. This system of censorship, or a variation thereof, would remain in place for more than 80 years, even beyond the demise of the shogunate in 1868 (see Censor Seals).

 

Ukiyo-e researchers have long cited examples of edicts that affected printmaking, such as the banning of prints with bust portraits of women in the first month of Kansei 12 (1800). The edict was a curious one, as it admitted that there was nothing really wrong with such prints, but that they were to be proscribed as medatsu ("conspicuous"). Another example was the ban in 1793 on prints with the names of women other than courtesans. The intention appeared to involve a desire to maintain social distinctions by protecting the reputations of women who, although connected with the floating world, were not actually prostitutes, such as geisha and teahouse waitresses. One interesting response to this was Kitagawa Utamaro's series Kômei bijin rokkasen ("Famous Beauties Selected from Six Houses"), the last word also being a pun on Rokkasen and thereby offering another meaning, "Famous Beauties as the Six Poetic Immortals." The title of each individual print, giving the name of the women, was not written out but rather was obliquely indicated by a rebus drawn inside a rectangular inset beside the series title cartouche (that is, it contained pictures of objects whose names, when spoken, were homonyms for the name of the woman portrayed in the print). Such designs were called hanji-e ("puzzle pictures"). The bakufu responded (whether coincidentally or in direct response to Utamaro's series we do not know) by subsequently banning hanji-e in 8/1796, and thus when Utamaro's second edition of these designs was issued, the series title was changed to Fûryû rokkasen ("The Fashionable Six Poetic Immortals") and the small rectangles redrawn and carved to contain imaginary portraits of the six poets instead of the rebus elements. The women were therefore unidentified, with the exception of the only courtesan, Hanaôgi of the Ôgiya, whose name was written on the second edition version (still allowable under the law due to her low status as a prostitute). Other examples of repressive measures included limitations on the number of colors that could be used on ukiyo-e prints and the proscription against mica dust on backgrounds.

 

Among the worst of the later set of edicts were the repressive Tenpô kaikaku ("Tenpô Reforms") of 1842-1847. They were particularly onerous for printmakers. In Edo (1/1842) and in Osaka (7/1842) the edicts included a ban on prints with theatrical subjects, thus effectively halting almost all print production in Osaka until around 5/1847. Edo fared better than Osaka, however, because its publishing industry did not rely as heavily on actor prints (nearly every print published in Osaka depicted a theatrical subject). As for officially recorded punishments for infringing Tenpô, edicts, there was one case involving excessive display by the enormously popular actor Ichikawa Danjûrô VII (1791-1859). In 1842 Danjûrô was banished from Edo because of his extravagant lifestyle and ostentatious stage productions. The specific infraction was Danjûrô's use of genuine samurai weapons and armor on the stage instead of using the usual imitation military stage props, a clear infraction of the separation of the samurai and commoner classes (actors were ranked below peasants and merchants in the social hierarchy). The weapons and armor were apparently loaned or given to Danjûrô by wealthy samurai admirers. Danjûrô's exile lasted 10 years, although he did not actually suffer much, living well in Osaka and performing to great acclaim. © 2000-2001 by John Fiorillo

[Toryu2020]

Henk -

You may have read my use of the word harass too literally.

 

There is a style of instruction where you take the student by the hand and lead him through all he needs to know. Then there is the class that challenges the student from the beginning to read his surroundings and copy the actions of others or suffer for his inattention. The student is forced to dissect the techniques himself and all his realizations are earned by him rather than given. As a "westerner" I am criticized by my teacher when I try to explain things to the students; "talking to them makes them stupid!" is something I often hear.

 

As for "ranking" folks, it is important to know who is a teacher or senior student and to address them properly. I think in any large gathering we unconsciously do this. It is not to be critical or to point out others and certainly not something verbalized.

 

We might push people hard but we are always polite :D

[kusunokimasahige]

John, thank you for that magnificent article/chapter by John Fiorillo, a great read !

 

Thomas, thank you for your explanation, I understand what you meant now.

 

 

KM

[sanjuro]

To return to topic, 'Samurai rank by tsuba', I confess to some disappointment in the product of the discussion. Please correct me if I am in error but it seems that all that has been observed and decided upon is that rich samurai can afford better tsuba than poor samurai.

Obviously, wealth begets power and power begets wealth. Wealth buys a better tsuba than the guy whose stipend is smaller and he in turn can afford a better tsuba than the guy on the next income rung down on the social ladder. Ergo more powerful samurai own better tsuba. You dont need to be a graduate in economics to work this out and yet for all that has been said little more than this has been arrived at. There is no code, law or recognised social convention of social or rank indicators pertaining to tsuba beyond the fact that only the Imperial family and the Shogun are allowed to wear a sword with gold fittings. Family mon have lost their exclusivity since the downfall of the clan system and the use of mon is almost universally corrupt. Where then is the meat to support the contention that tsuba were an indication of rank beyond the mere fact of economics and what each individual samurai could afford?

 

Were this a true assertion, that tsuba were indeed an indicator of rank then it would be a tsuba collector's dream. I cannot help but think that this is partly the motivation behind the assertion in the first place. That however, is the cynical part of me. Were the assertion true it would also just about rewrite the book on how important various tsuba were and make tsuba almost a form of currency among collectors according to how high the rank of the original owner of any given tsuba was estimated at. What then would the art value of say a Yamakichibei or a Nobuie become or what would it descend to?? Would there then be a double system? on the one hand the tsuba's worth according to rank of owner , and on the other the aesthetic value of any given tsuba? Is this not what is already to some extent in operation?

[george trotter]

I've read all the posts (whew!) and for me it comes down to evidence. The question was asked, but no evidence was presented.

The simple fact (for me) is that if tsuba were indeed an indicator of rank then it would have been something that would have been mentioned for a century by dealers who buy and sell tsuba (eg: "this is an exquisite example of a 3rd class ashigaru of the Onin period"...or "this is a forceful example of a Matsuyama Clan rice storehouse assistant bookkeeper"...etc, etc)...logic says that without a written set of rules promulgated throughout Japan it would have been impossible for the samurai class to know what the ranking system was or what its symbols were. Thus, since no evidence exists for this ranking system and no dealer uses it to sell his tsuba...it is concluded that the system never existed.

 

Whoever said that rich people bought rich fittings and poor people bought poor fittings is probably the most accurate...this is the only system in existence which allows us to determine the rank of a previous owner IMHO.

Regards,

[ROKUJURO]

....Whoever said that rich people bought rich fittings and poor people bought poor fittings is probably the most accurate...

I agree to that with the addition that, depending on taste, any rank of SAMURAI might have liked a TOSHO-style or YAMAKICHIBEI-style TSUBA at the end of the EDO period and bought some revival piece which were in fashion then but probably not expensive.

[Curran]

I haven't read Skip's article. Some pre-Edo tsuba clearly indicate rank.

Clearly.... I thought it was public domain knowledge.

 

Nope- can't evidence it at the moment. Only know of a few examples in the west. Would need to have two or three images along with period koshirae to illustrate, and I know it is verboten to use the images shared with me. Even then, I'd have doubters until I got an NBTHK letter to back it up (love how they still do the whole red-white-blue airmail hand written thing). I think I can illustrate it with some in the Tokyo Museum book or with books I have, but not sure. Thanks to Storm Sandy, my wall o' books are stored up north for the winter.

 

Sorry guys, but you asked an interesting question at an awkward time.

If I didn't know better, I'd say this thread was set up to jerk around some of us having a private correspondence not too far back.

 

That is as far as I can go into it now.

[Jean]

Some pre-Edo tsuba clearly indicate rank.

 

Curran,

 

Can you affirm that tsuba was the only ornament in the samurai wearings which indicated the rank?

 

I'll bet not

[Curran]

Jean,

 

You would be correct.

 

However, in the instance I am thinking: it was the tsuba that indicated specific rank.

Ie. I'm a 5 star general, you are a 3 star, and he is a 1 star general.

 

When you discuss the pre-edo fittings where it is not about the tsuba, but the other items- there I still have much to learn.

Seen the images, text, and diagrams in the books discussing such stuff, but not gotten myself and translator to that end of the rather big pool.

I don't know what is written in English and where.

 

I just know the answer to, "did tsuba *ever* indicate rank" = yes. (at least in some pre-Edo instances)

[Jean]

In fact, what I would like to emphasize is that Tsuba is only part of whole outfit, so the whole outfit must indicate the rank and of course some parts of the outfit.

 

What I mean is that tsuba was certainly not the only sign of a ranking within an outfit.

[cabowen]

As they say, without photos, it never happened....

[Henry Wilson]

I don't know if this has been stated, but there was a time when the daimyo /　shogun fittings became quite simple. Uchigatana Goshirae by the National Museum has a few.

[Steve Waszak]

I was ready to move on from this thread, but I simply have to take exception to two notions I keep seeing repeated here.

 

The first of these is the idea pertaining to tsuba denoting “rank,” and, relatedly, that there would have been some sort of widespread “system” existing throughout the land that would support and reinforce the semantic framework of tsuba denoting rank. As I have stressed in previous posts, in my view, there would not have been any FORMAL, OFFICIAL, DENOTATIVE relationship between tsuba and RANK. Not in the same way, for instance, the double bars would DENOTE the rank of Captain in the U.S. army. If those of you who keep using the term “rank” mean the term in the same way that the U.S. army would understand it, well, I would just say you’re using the word FAR too literally.

 

The same goes for the notion of there having been some sort of “system” or codified, formal structure in place that would sustain the “tsuba-as-denotive-of-rank” dynamic. Outside of a few esoteric, perhaps localized exceptions that may have existed, there was no such “system” in place, and tsuba did not DENOTE “rank.” Otherwise, as has been said here, we would all have been aware of this eons ago.

 

However, the lack of such a formalized sign system does NOT mean that there was not an INformal, but no less substantively powerful connotative dynamic existing in the culture of the bushi. Hence the tsuba as semiotic agent. More on this in a moment.

 

The second sentiment or conclusion I am seeing regurgitated in this thread is that, since there is no “evidence” to the contrary, all we are left to conclude is simply that wealthier samurai owned more expensive (“nicer”) tsuba, and those less wealthy owned lesser pieces, and that this is pretty much all there is to understand. Moreover, the suggestion that there is anything more to it than this is mere “wishful thinking” on the part of tsuba collectors who wish to invest their interest with greater weight than is warranted...

 

Sigh...

 

Frankly, I am surprised and disappointed to see such simplistic thinking here. Such an understanding is so demonstrably and profoundly false that it is a little difficult to know where to begin to address it.

 

I suppose a quick start would be simply to refer those of you who hold the viewpoint described above to the concept of sign-exchange value. This is a key pillar in Marxist Criticism, and while I would have thought that the ideas associated with the concept of sign-exchange value would have been familiar to most by now (they are quite ubiquitous, after all), there is just no way that one could conclude that the only semiotic meaning tsuba had or could have had would be that of signifying the simple economic status of the owner, not if one were familiar with how sign-exchange value works.

 

Relatedly, and most directly as a response to those who insist that the signifying of wealth (or lack thereof) was all a tsuba could “mean” (and that anything beyond this is “useless conjecture” or “rubbish”), I would say this:

 

It wouldn’t have been (and wasn’t) the demarcation BETWEEN the “wealthy” bushi and the “poor” bushi that sign-exchange value found its most potent (though still relatively subtle and allusive) expression and resonance. It was AMONG the wealthy bushi that it would have been and was a force. Why is it that there is a distinction between “new money” and “old money,” and who is it that makes this distinction? Is it the middle or lower classes that make the distinction? Of course not: for the lower classes, there is no difference in how one came into his money or when or from where; it’s the simple fact that one is rich that is relevant. No, the answer to who it is that makes the distinction is those of the old-money crowd. They do so in order to maintain, reinforce, or rebuild the status difference between themselves and those who are now economic class equals, but who are NOT (in the eyes of the old-money crowd) SOCIAL equals.

 

Among the Japanese, it wasn’t the lower classes who would have identified subtle semiotic function in the details (including and especially tsuba) of a koshirae; it may not even have been lower-level bushi who would have seen and understood such meaning. For the most wealthy and powerful bushi, the same sort of desire to make distinctions as that seen among the old-money crowd would have existed. When your fellow high-level bushi are your economic and political equals, the primary way by which to create or maintain one’s superiority over them is socially/culturally, that is (in this case), via expressions of one’s taste, one’s sensitivities, one’s sensibilities in art, design, etc... To be seen or known as a man of good taste had no small impact on the social standing of a high-level bushi. It elevated him to an INFORMAL (but no less significant for that) position of superiority over his economic and political equals, and the result of THAT could be and sometimes was that he would rise to a higher economic and political stations. Even a passing knowledge of the Tea Culture of the Momoyama and early Edo Periods would illustrate this easily enough.

 

So, for such high-level individuals, the choosing of a tsuba (among other elements) for a koshirae would have been far more than simply selecting something that one “liked,” or making a decision based on how that tsuba might denote wealth. While there could of course have been efforts made by some to show that he was “even wealthier” than his neighbor, given the circles such an individual would have been traveling in, this would not have been the dominant factor influencing his choice of tsuba. And it CERTAINLY would not have been the only factor, as some here seem to want to believe. No, the far more likely factors would have been those concerning prevailing notions of taste within those circles, and/or those which allowed the owner of the tsuba to suggest the refinement of his aesthetic sensibilities. And again, within such circles, aesthetic concerns and matters of taste were NO small matter. Incidentally, this explains the phenomenon Henry observes in his post above.

 

So THIS is where the semiotic power of tsuba most resonantly resides, not in the simplistic notion that tsuba merely (and obviously) denoted the wealthier samurai, and not in some denotative one-to-one relationship of tsuba to “rank.” And to pre-empt the inevitable comment that tsuba would not have been alone in this semiotic function, no one is saying they were. The point is simply to say that tsuba (too) had this function, and in a much more complex, nuanced, sophisticated way than some seem to want (or be able) to recognize.

[kusunokimasahige]

For the most wealthy and powerful bushi, the same sort of desire to make distinctions as that seen among the old-money crowd would have existed. When your fellow high-level bushi are your economic and political equals, the primary way by which to create or maintain one’s superiority over them is socially/culturally, that is (in this case), via expressions of one’s taste, one’s sensitivities, one’s sensibilities in art, design, etc... To be seen or known as a man of good taste had no small impact on the social standing of a high-level bushi. It elevated him to an INFORMAL (but no less significant for that) position of superiority over his economic and political equals, and the result of THAT could be and sometimes was that he would rise to a higher economic and political stations. Even a passing knowledge of the Tea Culture of the Momoyama and early Edo Periods would illustrate this easily enough.

 

So, for such high-level individuals, the choosing of a tsuba (among other elements) for a koshirae would have been far more than simply selecting something that one “liked,” or making a decision based on how that tsuba might denote wealth. While there could of course have been efforts made by some to show that he was “even wealthier” than his neighbor, given the circles such an individual would have been traveling in, this would not have been the dominant factor influencing his choice of tsuba. And it CERTAINLY would not have been the only factor, as some here seem to want to believe. No, the far more likely factors would have been those concerning prevailing notions of taste within those circles, and/or those which allowed the owner of the tsuba to suggest the refinement of his aesthetic sensibilities. And again, within such circles, aesthetic concerns and matters of taste were NO small matter. Incidentally, this explains the phenomenon Henry observes in his post above.

 

Steven, please state how many of those "Wealthiest" Samurai would have cared more about the aesthetics of tsuba as social denominator than about military prowess and knowledge of how to handle weaponry.

 

There were but a few Daimyo. There were a lot of retainers. Where do you lay the boundary ? How many "gorgeous" and back then, very expensive tsuba were made ? Do we have price lists of the day and age during the centuries including inflation ? Furthermore, we only know in but a few cases if a fancy tsuba was owned by a Samurai, and not by a merchant, even when the rule for merchants to carry only one sword is taken into account.

 

There are simply too many fancy tsuba in existence to make any claim about them having been used for social conventions of the super rich. Especially! with the anti-frugality instructions/rules/laws several Tokugawa Shoguns put out.

 

There were also far less of these High-level individual people you mention around than you might think.

 

To have mastered a known/famous sword/weapon style probably meant infinetely more to those high-level as well as low-level bushi as whichever fancy tsuba one would have owned.

 

http://www.koryu.nl/koryu.nl/artik.a2.E ... ition.html

 

KM

[sanjuro]

Steve.

 

OK...... So this social distinction conveyed by what kind of tsuba one wore on his sword was only an important function (among many others) in court circles? If I may draw a modern parallel, at a dinner party in a room full of guys wearing tuxedo's, the best tailored tuxedo (plus a Rolex and a Freemason's sygnet ring) denotes older or more money, better taste and therefore a slightly superior social standing than someone who wears an off the rack tuxedo, a Timex and a wedding ring? Doesn't this demean the tsuba to some degree and relegate it to the level of a geegaw, bijouterie and mere male jewellery?

This may, and I am yet to be totally convinced, have had along with other indicators some impact among one's peers. At any point in history prior to the Nanbokucho period and the subsequent age of war, when merely the display of ones kamon either on clothing or on a Tsuba denoted the quality of one's heritage and power, this may have been so. In Edo period Japan however, I somewhat doubt it.

Intellectual arguments aside, there is yet no proof, nor any overt or covert tradition that supports the theory that a mere tsuba could convey some sort of indication of social standing beyond that which wealth in the form of a tsuba's obvious quality could convey.

Its OK to say that tsuba quality was an 'informal' form of social differentiation, but even such informal things were assiduously recorded in Japan, and such records as far as I am aware have not yet been brought to light.

 

I might add here that the presence (or not), the colour of ito cord, the style and the metals from which an entire sword mounting was made (on tachi at least) denoted ones rank and function (and thereby the power that one wields) at court, and that furthermore this is recorded. There is no mention of tsuba or their quality specifically in those records as far as I am aware.

 

I am as always willing to be proven wrong. :D

[Steve Waszak]

Henk-Jan,

 

You present a false dichotomy here. It is not an either-or proposition. Studying and mastering weaponry does not preclude or exclude anything I have said. If you have not done so, you might invest in examining the life of Hosokawa Tadaoki. He was the daimyo of Higo province in the early Edo period, was a seasoned martial man, having fought in many campaigns, and was obsessively devoted to poetry, the Tea Ceremony, AND essentially was responsible for establishing the fantastic tsuba "schools" of Higo in the 17th century. He is, of course, but a single example. But it is sufficient to prove wrong the dubious notion that a devotion to improving oneself in the fighting arts therefore excluded a deep interest and investment in the "other arts."

 

Your claim that there are "simply too many fancy (not sure what you mean by "fancy") tsuba in existence to make any claim about the social conventions of the super rich" is one I disagree with on two counts: 1. There are not "too many fancy tsuba in existence" when we consider that we are talking about hundreds of years across dozens of provinces for a class that comprised roughly 10% of the population. 2. You seem to be drawing a conclusion about "the social conventions of the super rich" based on the number of "fancy" tsuba in existence. This is a non-sequitur: conclusions about the conventions of the "super rich" (I never used this term, by the way; perhaps you are reading "upper-echelon" to mean "super rich," but I wouldn't equate the two) cannot be drawn based on the NUMBER of "fancy" tsuba in existence.

 

And your questions about a "price list of the day and age," and how many "very expensive tsuba were made" indicates you didn't understand my points. Sheer "price" or "market value" become irrelevant for those who can afford anything (or at least, can afford to choose from many excellent items), as I stressed. One's taste, and the implications of the choice one has made, given that he could afford many possibilities, becomes the "currency" at such levels of culture.

 

In asking me to "please state how many of those 'Wealthiest' samurai would have cared more about the aesthetics of tsuba as a social denominator than about military prowess and knowledge about how to handle weaponry," you, of course, are merely being rhetorical, right? I mean, it is a silly request. Perhaps I should ask you to specify exactly how many of these wealthy samurai cared more about military prowess than about aesthetics? Can you supply a number, and cite your source (since this would be THE difference maker for some...)? And when you say "cared more," can you quantify exactly how much more?

 

Finally, as concerns the number of "high-level individuals" around, I would say again that we are talking about HUNDREDS of years across DOZENS of provinces. There wasn't just a tiny handful of important clans/families; there were many (across centuries and many provinces). Also, it doesn't require the absolute wealthiest .00001 % for what I'm saying to apply. When I speak of upper-echelon bushi, I mean daimyo, sure, but also their high-level retainers, and all of the families of these men.

 

I'm not quite sure what your post here is meant to accomplish, but it certainly doesn't put a dent in anything I've said, as far as I'm concerned...

 

Steve

[kusunokimasahige]

Glad you caught my drift Steven !!

 

I did indeed ask you to falsify your own theory.

 

 

KM

[Curran]

As they say, without photos, it never happened....

 

So Jimmy Hoffa ain't dead?

[Steve Waszak]

Glad you caught my drift Steven !!

 

I did indeed ask you to falsify your own theory.

 

 

KM

 

Sorry I couldn't comply, Henk. I'm afraid I reinforced it instead... :lol:

[Steve Waszak]

Keith,

 

Think of it this way, since you bring up wrist watches: the proper analogy is not one guest wearing a rolex and his own tuxedo versus the other wearing a timex and a rented tuxudo; the proper analogy is closer to this: both own their own tuxedos, as do all guests at the party. Between the two guests in question, though, one is wearing a gold rolex with a diamond dial; the other is wearing a platinum A. Lange & Sohne with a simple, black dial. Both watches cost, let's say, $30,000. For you and me, to spend that on a watch is absurd. BUT, for those for whom $30,000 isn't a huge sum, the sign exchange value of these watches is very, very different and would be seen as such among the other guests at the party who would be in the know. They may make judgments of the two men (their respective tastes, sensibilities, sensitivities, etc...), based on the decision each respectively made on which watch to choose. Such judgments could affect their perception of the men in question when it comes to other choices these men might make. Certainly there would be opinions of the two men concerning the taste each shows via his choice in watch. For you and me, such distinctions may not have any weight whatsoever in our various social interactions. But in those circles, where economic status among the member is essentially equal, and therefore cancels out economic status as a social marker, it is matters of taste that ascend. This is a fundamental argument (and a correct one) coming out of theories of sign exchange value. Again, the old money vs. new money distinction, one which the would-be dominant social group would advance and amplify, and which the new-money group would attempt to deny or weaken as to its significance.

 

I would also say that such dynamics are not limited to the closed contexts of fancy dinner parties, or if you prefer, high-court contexts. They would be especially resonant in such contexts, but there would still be an effect in "lesser" circumstances.

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

[cabowen]

Tsuba, like other kodogu, have obviously had motifs that allowed the owner to communicate a message- from the Christian tsuba, the Yagyu, those with Buddhist and Confucian imagery, to others with symbols of good luck, etc. It is clear that they were chosen for any number of reasons, known with certainty only to those making the choice. Did some consciously chose their tsuba (and other accoutrements) to engage in some sort of personal taste one-upmanship, making considered choices to display their wit, taste, and erudition? Doesn't take much to imagine that might be the case among a certain slice of the samurai class, after all, samurai were not immune to the foibles of human nature. While there are certain historical personages known for their refined taste and sensibilities, I have a hard time imagining a samurai class stealing glances of each other's tsuba and constructing personality profiles and social rankings as if they were characters torn from the pages of "American Psycho"......Sometimes a pipe is just a pipe.....

[sanjuro]

Steve.

 

Both yours and Chris's statements bring up a question. Are we not ascribing modern values to a society that existed in antiquity? I am at fault in this case since in order to make a point, I drew the dinner party analogy. But we draw analogies from our modern experiences, observations and social interaction that may not have existed in a tradition bound society such as pre Meiji Japan.

Theirs after all was a society organised strictly along class lines and each persons place in that class was defined. Social ascendancy aside, those classes and social positions within it were based on the amount of land one owned. Land was power and power was influence. That power and influence was somewhat rigid unless one had an endless supply of daughters to marry off to the successive Emperors, such as was the case with the Fujiwara, or your lands were seized and redistributed according to allegiances by the powers that be, such as was the case after many periods of conflict.

The point i'm reaching for here is that we cannot imprint our values and perceptions of society as we know it upon an ancient feudal system.

[Steve Waszak]

Keith,

 

I think what you really mean is that we cannot know whether we can accurately apply our values and perceptions to ancient cultures and have our conclusions be valid. I mean, in the same way we can’t know for sure if applying our values and perceptions would yield accurate, valid conclusion, we also can’t know for sure that doing so wouldn’t yield those conclusions. I would add that, according to what seems to be your premise here, there would be little point even to attempt to understand the beliefs, values, assumptions, biases, perceptions, judgments, and so on of any ancient culture based on the distance, culturally and temporally, between them and us. But I don’t really agree that this is the case.

 

In the first place, we do have some writings contemporary to the periods we’re discussing which provide insight into the values and perceptions of the people of that time and place. We also have the objects themselves to consider. Even if the writings or objects in question do not immediately pertain to the specific topic we are interested in (in this case, tsuba), via extrapolation, careful inference, and “educated conjecture,” we might advance hypotheses concerning other aspects (i.e. tsuba) of that culture, attempting to employ, as best we can, our understanding of their values and perceptions, not only those of our own.

 

Secondly, if it is true that access to the “psychologies” of ancient cultures is impossible for us due to those culture and time gaps, then what does that say about the work of historians, archeologists, and anthropologists? Is there little point to those fields, then? Won’t their conclusions or even hypothesis automatically be faulty, since one cannot completely erase the cultural biases informing how one sees the world?

 

Thirdly, certain theoretical principles may be understood by some/many to have fairly universal applications (that is, the principles may or may not apply to cultures that are exceedingly alien to the more modern cultures out of which the theories sprang and to which the theories were initially applied, such as those so primitive that they are essentially stone-age. But these principles would be seen to be applicable to a culture as relatively modern and recent as that of Edo Period Japan). So for instance, the principles informing the theory of sign exchange value would still find useful application to the Japan even of Heian times, never mind Edo. Wherever you find a culture that produces and embraces as much nuanced meaning as that which you find in Japan, in all kinds of media, the likelihood of there being no presence of sign exchange value dynamics in that culture is virtually nil.

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

[kusunokimasahige]

It is like Michel Foucault said, we cannot break through our own episteme because we live in it.

 

Or, what historians have named :

 

Historical empathy.

 

You cannot debate a historic problem by assessing it through your own time framed mores, social conventions and your own contemporary ideas, like Keith and Steven already stated.

 

Perspective taking is the key tool to tackle any historical problem.

 

Subjects such as history are examined via various processes, skills and concepts, which allow for both a broader and deeper understanding of people, places and situations. The application of such concepts to historical information permits individuals to thinking critically.

 

What is Historical Empathy?

 

In the historical context, the concept of empathy is much more than just seeing a person, idea or situation through the eyes of another, but rather is a much deeper understanding of the circumstances and concepts surrounding the event. Questioning how and why someone acted in a particular way would need to involve knowledge circumstances and an understanding of bias. Moreover, there would need to be an inquiry into the author of the text and an idea of the time and place in which the event occurred, while also considering changing social practices and ideals over time. Evidently, it is an empathetic understanding rather than just an emotional understanding; an individual must instead adopt a third person view where it is not what they personally would do in the situation, but what the individual in question did in relation to their own circumstances. Such positioning would encourage a more balanced, equitable view of history, which allows for a greater depth of understanding and insight into the content which is being discussed.

 

Barton and Levstik (2004, as cited in Brooks, 2008) defines historical empathy as being a ‘process of understanding people in the past by contextualizing their actions’. Moreover, Lee and Ashby (2001, as cited in Brooks, 2008) identify the concept to concern ‘where we get to when we know what past agents thought, what goals they may have been seeking, and how they saw their situation, and can connect all this with what they did’.

 

 

Foster (1999) finds that historical empathy possesses six qualities:

 

Historical empathy is a process that leads to an understanding and an explanation of why people in the past acted as they did

It involves an appreciation of historical context and chronology in the evaluation of past events

It is reliant upon a thorough analysis and evaluation of historical evidence

It involves an appreciation of the consequences of actions perpetrated in the past

It demands an intuitive sense of a bygone era and an implicit recognition that the past if different from the present.

Requires a respect, appreciation and sensitivity in relation to complex human actions and achievements

 

 

Moreover, the concept of historical empathy can further be linked to other historical aspects:

 

Evidence (examining and interpreting evidence to come to a conclusion or investigate an empathetic point of view)

Significance (consulting evidence to determine what is relevant to the investigation)

Continuity and change (knowing that socio-cultural practices change and evolve over time – where some things are acceptable in one time or place, this may not be the case for others)

Cause and effect (what has impacted upon or caused the actions of an individual or occurrence of the event)

Perspectives (recognition of the establishment, change and development of different views)

Contestability (of evidence)

 

(Hoepper, 2009)

 

If the ground rules for the debate, or the techniques how to historically investigate that which we do not know for certain are not there, the debate will be usesless. No matter how much you know about Tsuba or even the Samurai history, Tokugawa Edicts etcetera, without perspective taking you cannot fully grasp the questions which are posed or even see the problem which people try to tackle, in its own time frame, without the blinding predjudice all of us have received inherently through our own upbringing, culture and surroundings. Objectivity must be the key.

 

This forms a large part of the basic tools and viewsets we try to teach our pupils ( I am a history teacher by profession )

which is continuously researched, debated and scrutinized amongst historians and other scholars.

 

And yes, I also often am guilty of these blinding prejudices, but at least I know it full well.

 

An article on research into development of Historical empathy through debate in the classroom :

 

http://www.socstrpr.org/files/Vol%203/I ... /3.1.4.pdf

 

 

KM

[sanjuro]

Steve.

 

OK.... You dont agree with what you see as my premise. However, the fact remains that we do not know what social implications may have been attached to tsuba. Your reasoning therefore is unsound in as much and to the extent that this is so.

 

I see the point you are making and I do not totally disagree with you in the general assertions you make, it is the extent of the influence and importance of tsuba as a social indicator that I believe you are exaggerating. I put it to you that the overall social importance and influence of tsuba in a social sense was in fact minimal. I cannot however prove it any more than you can prove your assertions.

 

I love these little get togethers we have occasionally....... :D