questions on tachi

[Yves]

Hi,

 

I was looking at an exquisite tachi in koshirae dating back to the nanbochuko period. The comment made by the seller is that the sword was shortened in the Edo era due to regulations. I was not aware that there were edicts passed that required the tachi to be shortened. If so, is that correct at all? 

 

Also, what would be considered to be a correct tachi length. I know that for the uchigatana the length was in relation to body length and arms lengt, but how was that determined for a tachi? 

[Brian]

Good read and links here:
https://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/47265-edo-period-length-and-ownership-restrictions/

Markus' article is particularly educational.

 

Quote

In the eighth year of Kanbun (寛文, 1668), the Tokugawa-bakufu issued the so-called mutô-rei (無刀令) with which it prohibited all persons not belonging to the samurai class to wear swords with a blade length over that of a ko-wakizashi (小脇指). Therefore a ko-wakizashi blade was determined to measure maximally 1 shaku 5 sun (~ 45.5 cm)

 

[ROKUJURO]

Yves,

many TACHI were shortened due to requirements of a different fighting style in the EDO period compared to NANBOKUCHO times (not nanbochuko). But there was no official order to shorten TACHI, as far as I know.

Also, TACHI did not have a fixed length; they came in 2 SHAKU + as well as O-DACHI. 

[Lewis B]

I think there may be some confusion with the length of blade permissible for the Merchant Class during the Edo period. The length of blade for the Samurai was not dictated but rather dependent on fighting style, convenience, height, reach and proficiency. I read recently that some successful battle tested Samurai were perfectly happy with a blade length around 60cm, a lot shorter than the more common >64cm and better suited for single handed use. In one hand the increased reach compensates for the reduced blade length.

[Brian]

Yeah, but bear in mind that the vast majority of swords that we would love to dream were carried by Samurai were likely carried or owned by regular merchants etc. Swords attributed to Samurai are out there, but are in the minority.

[ROKUJURO]

Brian,

don't you think that this applies to WAKIZASHI only?

[Jacques D.]

Wearing a sword should not be confused with owning one. It has never been compulsory to shorten a sword you keep at home. Many swords have been hoarded from the moment they were made, and have never been worn and then never suriage

[Brian]

1 hour ago, ROKUJURO said:

Brian,

don't you think that this applies to WAKIZASHI only?

The fact that they required people to shorten their swords says to me that people must have been free to own katana and tachi before that. I don't think they required everyone to shorten their wakizashi by 1-2cm.
But perhaps @Markus can enlighten us.

[OceanoNox]

8 hours ago, Brian said:

people must have been free to own katana and tachi before that

I think it started with Oda Nobunaga who wanted to assert his power: He ordered sword hunts to both enforce class distinction and decrease the likelihood of rebellion. Indeed, this should mean that anyone who could get a weapon was allowed to own and carry it.

In the book War and Tsuba by Nagaoka, he mentions that although there were rules about koshirae, many did not obey, and although there were complaints, he says that the rule was not enforced. It's also known that Kage Ryu uses the so-called "chouken" (長剣), which is like a nodachi. They decided to practice in secret because of the length standardization in Edo period (they can wear it and draw from the belt).

[ROKUJURO]

17 hours ago, Brian said:

.....I don't think they required everyone to shorten their wakizashi by 1-2cm......

Brian,

I don't think that was ever the question. I have only the information that non-SAMURAI were not allowed to wear a long (NI SHAKU) blade. For me, it remains open if rich merchants could have a collection of swords or had expensive KOSHIRAE for show. 

[Rivkin]

Its an interesting point. As far as I aware there were no strict restrictions on sword length for samurai aside specific duties, though there were consistent practices and wearing a much longer blade could be uncomfortable.

Yes, wearing a sword was the act which was being regulated, to the point it has been for a time a legal question whether it can also be done by an aristocrat and whether this implies a strictly inheritable "blood right" or one can be bestowed on a personal basis with the right to wear swords in regular life. Which was the highest honor since wearing one to a procession can be done by anyone who was by nature of position held was part of the procession of sword-wielders.

 

Obviously shops (polishers, but most importantly pawn brokers) could own blades and armor despite being of lower class. However, their ownership had to be on a temporary basis - and this has been specifically noted at times, as holding onto blades and armor long term deprived the realm from protection.

Generally with a few notable exceptions a non-samurai should not have permanently owned a daito. Naginata, yari and wakizashi were indeed appropriate.

In regards who owned good swords of today - these are ex-Daimyo blades with little doubt to that.

Tradition dictates that when a family sells a blade it is a deeply shameful act (never mind even such horror as potentially going to a foreigner) and any possible connection allowing it to be traced back is severed. Sayagaki sanded, the name is scratched off the storage boxes, even early NBTHK papers which had submitter's name would have it covered with ink.

Its not unique to Japan, in fact such behavior is common.

 

Edo society on paper was exceptionally stratified and formal. It was also very moralistic in a sense that everything was addressed not through the letter of the law, but in a sense "does it satisfy the moral requirements?".

Owning something above your station was either outright prohibited or very much socially questionable.

For example, selling swords abroad was generally illegal, but even selling items of iron was seen as inappropriate - since iron is a manly, warlike material and for a foreigner soft metal objects are more appropriate.

I often state the idea that European, Middle Eastern (Judeo-Islamic) and East Asian legal basis are actually completely different in nature. European explicitly implies a contest between individuals that needs to be resolved; Judaic implies a clear, divine postulate from which lesser laws are derived in a very formal fashion, while East Asian societies are generally based on status-quo (i.e. proving that something was always done is the best court argument) and morality (i.e. proving that something is "good" is also a court-worthy argument); East Asian formal laws are by comparison sparsely covering all possible situations, seldom form proper codex, and they are often interpreted "in spirit" rather than "as letter".

[Brian]

My research shows that many of the laws were not strictly enforced. There were no home raids to see if you had a katana. Certain non-samurai were given permission to carry longer swords. Some did it anyways. I think the earlier it was, the "looser" the regulations were enforced. Never mind non Samurai like the ashigaru etc. Although there were prohibitions, I would imagine longer swords were not that rare among other classes until the mid to late Edo period.
But I could be wrong. Reports do seem to indicate that there was a lot of fluidity though, with no very strict enforcement. Maybe it was more of a cultural norm that kept people in line.

[Yves]

Just a thought, but wouldn't a samurai who saw a non-samurai class citizen carry a sword be required to cut that person down just for the fact they were doing something that was against the law. 

[Jacques D.]

The samurai had the right of life and death over the other castes, armed or not...