Shin Kage Ryu (re-post)

[glad2bhere]

Dear Folks:

I posted this over on SFI in orer to get feedback there. Then I thought that maybe there might be folks here who never get over to SFI. I'm posting this here in the hopes of getting some additional feedback.

"...................................

Dear Folks:

I occasionally treat myself to a splurge at the local bookstore. On this trip I picked up on a few titles including "The Life-Giving Sword" by YAGYU Munenori (trans: William Scott Wilson). One reason that I selected this was both its fine treatment of the history as well as the reproduction of various resources in the back including "Tengu's Selection" and "the Nine Items". I think I was trusting that I would be able to use my 2-book set by Watanabe ("Shin Kage Ryu Sword Techniques") to address any questions which might pop up. However, I am finding that I am having a hard time reconciling these two works.

Has anyone studied or cross-referenced the material in these two book? Might you be willing to share some clues about how one can go about understanding the relationship between these two works? Anyone?

.............................................."



Best Wishes,

Bruce

[Ron Tisdale]

I know that the first book is reviewed on koryubooks.com. Perhaps there is a review on the second book there as well. Might be worth a shot.

Best,
Ron

[DDATFUS]

I think that both books are mentioned here:
http://koryu.com/library/mskoss5.html, as reviewed by a practicing member of Shinkage Ryu. Mr. Skoss's descriptions might explain any difficulty that you're having with the books.

Best,

[glad2bhere]

Many thanks.

I was able to find a review of the Wilson translation but not of the Watanabe book. I did go on-line and found a series of brief reviews for the latter book and the concensus seems to be that it is intended for those with an existing founding in the art. Not so bad but I am still at a loss to understand how one might reconcile the contents of one book with that of the other. Perhaps this venture is fated to be accomplished only by those with particular experience or insights into the art itself, yes?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

[Ron Tisdale]

Yes. Perhaps David Lowry and Meik Skoss would be good contacts...they do post here occationally. Meik also used to post on FA.IADO on usenet. You might do a search there for Watanabe and Meik's name. Also, you might want to check with Paul Manogue (from the Edo Yagyu Kai).

Best,
Ron

[glad2bhere]

Thanks.

I jotted a quick e-mail to Master Monague and will let you know how it turns out.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

[gendzwil]

Meik also used to post on FA.IADO on usenet.fa.iaido is a mirror of the iaido-l mailing list, not a true usenet newsgroup.

[Ron Tisdale]

Yeah, but the search tool through google is fairly good if you are looking for subjects under a particular user's name.

But don't post there...no one from the group will see it. ;)

Best,
Ron (been there, done that...)

[Arman]

Well, part of the problem you are having (other than the fact that you do not study Shinkage ryu) is that much of what is in Watanabe's book is, in fact, not exactly, or precisely, like much of what is described in Yagyu Munenori's book.

But even if it was, you would be hard pressed to match up the kata with what is described in "The Life Giving Sword" because the book is not a step by step training manual. It is a combination of strategic, tactical and philosophical considerations with a lot of "code words" that make sense only to the initiated.

There are many different variations of the same kata in Shinkage ryu, e.g., armored, unarmored, variations for beginners, variations for more advanced students, and then, of course, variations among the different schools of Shinkage ryu. Then there are the explanations for the various kata, which contain subtle and critical information on timing, targeting and distance.

Even to the initiated, there are many things in Munenori's book that are open to interpretation.

FWIW,
Regards,
Arman Partamian

[glad2bhere]

Thanks, Arman:

I did get a response from Paul who provide a very similar response and a recommendation that I approach Meik (Skoss) for further guidance. Just to frame things a bit better let me explain a bit about where I look to take the information.

Within the context of Korean martial traditions there have been a series of publications which culminated in the MU YEI TOBO TONG JI (Lit:" Illustrated Comprehensive Manual of Martial Arts") published in 1795. This last work included a chapter on "WAE GUM" (Lit: "Japanese Sword") and was comprised of various hyung (J. Kata) from four schools of Japanese sword. These had been brought back from Japan by KIM Che-gun, an emissary during the reign of King Sukjong (1674-1720). According to Dr. W. Bodiford, one of the four sword methods was (Shin?)-Kage-Ryu. He determined this by accounting for various misreadings of the Han-ja (J. Kan-ji) used. Since the MU YEI TOBO TONG JI only related that Kim went as an emmissary to Japan during King Sukjong's reign, I am afraid I can't be anymore specific about the dates. What I had hoped to do was examine that form, which is thought to be Shin Kage Ryu, in terms of the two resources I have mentioned. Hope this helps a bit to clarify my goals.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

[Brian Owens]

...This last work included a chapter on "WAE GUM" (Lit: "Japanese Sword") and was comprised of various hyung (J. Kata) from four schools of Japanese sword.

...According to Dr. W. Bodiford, one of the four sword methods was (Shin?)-Kage-Ryu.

Quick question: did Prof. Bodiford write "(Shin?) Kage Ryu" or was the "(Shin?)" your question?

It's an important distinction, because the Kage Ryu and its "child," the Shinkage Ryu, existed in parallel for a time.

There is also a different Kage Ryu, the choken school that Hyaku is a member of, but I don't know when it was founded.

[fifthchamber]

If I remember correctly there was some talk a while back about the relationships between sword forms done in Korea and those from Japan, and the reference was specifically aimed at the Kage Ryu, the forerunner of what was taught to the Yagyu family. The founder Aizu Ikkosai was reputed to have travelled there I believe and some of the illustrations in the book mentioned were picked up on by Professor Bodiford when he replied.
It was however, the Kage Ryu and not the Shinkage Ryu and whether those two arts could be considered in the same breath is a long argument. The kata I would think would share some superficial similarities but beyond those would likely have changed over time and the passing of that line to the Yagyu family. The Kage Ryu is not the same as the Shinkage Ryu.
(If I remember correctly there was a monkey shown as demonstrating some of the waza?I think a copy is shown in a book I had by Osano Jun perhaps?But I left that book in the UK..).
My regards.

[Finny]

http://www.hoplology.com/weapons_detail.asp?id=1

article by Hunter Armstrong on Kage Ryu - has some of the monkey pictures Ben's refering to.

[wagnerphysed]

Could you clarify a little clearer?
("What I had hoped to do was examine that form, which is thought to be Shin Kage Ryu, in terms of the two resources I have mentioned.")
Shinkage - ryu has many forms of which Yagyu is just one. While there may be similarities, they can appear very different in some of their manifestations. What exactly are you hoping to extrapolate from your examination?

[glad2bhere]

Dear Brian:

The material brought back by KIM Che-gun to Korea and incorporated into the MU EYI TOBO TONG JI represents a kind of "snap-shot" as it were of these four Japanese traditions at the time. Generally labeled "Wae Gum" (Lit: "Japanese Sword") the individual hyung are identified as "Toyu Ryu",
"Woonkwang Ryu", "Chun Ryu" and "Ryupee Ryu". There is also a two-man hyung identified as "Kyo Jun Bo" (Lit: "Illustrations of Combat Methods").

There are a great many questions to be investigated so I will lay out only a few here.

1.) Traditionally the Koreans have used five different architectures for their sword work. Two of these are polearms (wol-do and the hyup do) and two are single-hand weapons. That leave only the Ssang Soo To (Lit: 2-handed sword) as close to the Japanese Katana. However the dimensions given in the MYTBTJ identify this item as much larger than the standard Japanese Katana. Yet almost all of the illustrations of sword work in this resource are portrayed as being done with a 2-handed To. Yet research shows that not ALL of the hyung in the MYTBTJ came from or were intended to be accomplished with a 2-handed To. Understanding material that comes from a culture such as Japan readily provides examples of hyung intended to be performed with a katana and allows for further clarification regarding those form NOT intended for sabre use.

2.) Even in the absence of KIM Che-gun's contribution, the MYTBTJ is a compendium of material which cadre and corvee troops were expected to be competent. Centuries of interaction between Japanese and Korean culture no doubt has caused some mutual incoproation of each other's material. Insights into the sword material for Japan, of that time, is invaluable in understanding the more obscure methods adopted by the Koreans for use in their swordplay.

3.) The modern practice of Korean and Japanese sword is the result of an evolutionary process. Comparing the modern practice to its older counterpart can only serve to reveal methods that were once used but later fell into disfavor or were discarded.

These are probably the three single greatest points to be served by research. Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

[Taia Swordsman]

Bruce,
An interesting research project. Which of the 4 Japanese sword methods did Prof. Bodiford think was (Shi)Kage Ryu?

I would think that trying to recognize a style from the illustrations and descriptions in the MU EYI TOBO TONG JI would be quite difficult, even for someone familiar with the style. Upon viewing the MYTBTJ and The Life-Giving Sword side by side it doesn't seem like the illustrations in the LGS are much help either as they are all combat oriented exchanges.

As for the comparison between the ancient and modern practices of these arts it was my impression that all of the modern korean sword arts are derivative of Japanese styles of kenjitsu as all of the native korean arts were irradicated during the Japanese occupation of Korea (1910-1945) and all that survived was the MYTBTJ. Is that incorrect?

Please let me say that the statement above is not intended to be disrespectful or inflammatory in any way so if I am incorrect please enlighten me.

I remember reading somewhere about a Korean swordmaster trying to bring some of the kata found in MYTBTJ back to life, not unlike Historical Western swordsmen reinventing their arts through the interpretation of ancient European fencing manuals.

[glad2bhere]

Thanks, Mark:

I need to pull out Dr. Bodifords' original post to refresh my memory.

In the meantime, your comment about the Korean sword is only about 95% correct. Into that 95% goes the overwhelming majority of Kumdo practioners--- about 80%--- who practice Kendo as adopted by the Korean culture. You can tag-on another 10% which practice HAEDONG GUMDO (a synthesis of SHINKUMDO and GICHEON) beginning in the 1960-s, CHOSON SE-BUP a recent revivification of another sword person and a myriad of split-off from the two aforementioned practices.

The portion that goes unrecognized are the obscure sword practitioners of the SHIP PAL GI, and the KYONG DANG as well as a host of tiny rural teachers who have continued to practice Korean sword, do not desire any sort of recognition on the world stage and do not suffer outsiders easily. Matter of fact, my personal opinion is that they would RATHER people believed all Korean traditions died with the Japanese Occupation as it leaves them in relative peace to preserve their arts without having to answer a lot of questions.

There was an article sometime back (TKDT??) in which KIMM He-young attended a gathering of what one could call Martial Tradition "Elite". To my memory there was not one recognizeable "household name" though the article left me with the distinct impression that one would need to stand on St Peter's shoulders just to kiss the butt of any one of these guys.

Here in the West we Americans tend to rely on whatever the folks in Korea want us to know and that is not always the whole truth. We know about folks like LEE Joo Bang and SUH In Hyuk because they are the face of KMA that the Koreans WANT us to know. There is a whole 'nuther world in Korea with a big sign that reads "Round-eyes need not apply". FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

[Taia Swordsman]

Bruce,
Thanks for the heads up.

Ship Pal Gi sounds vaguely familiar, isn't it like Korean kung fu specializing in the 18 weapons?

Kyong Dang I had never heard of do you know where I might find out more about it.

You are probably right that there must have been rural teachers who either went underground or just continued to teach out of the spotlight who kept their arts alive.

-Mark

[glad2bhere]

Yes, that right, Matt.

"Ship Pal Gi" is a sort of 'slang' term referring to a set of 18 weapons, though you will not always get everyone to agree on what those particular weapons are. Certainly everyone agrees that a standard list will include unarmed methods, staff, spear, sword and glaive (yin-neu-dao aka "kwan dao") but after that different people include different weapons. If I remember the MYTBTJ has 26 weapons in it.

As far as the KYONG DANG, I risk incurring the displeasure of the mods here, but hope they will excuse me for making a bit of a commercial announcement.

If you get a chance to visit TURTLE PRESS (See: TAEKWONDO TIMES) and check out their listings for video tapes you will find a pair of tapes which were done by the KYONG DANG demonstrating their practice of various hyung from the MYTBTJ. Personally I think this is the best way to familiarize yourself with who they are and what they do. I am not saying that these are absolutely stellar presentations but will at least introduce you to the people and their work.

Apologies to the forum for inserting this bit.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

[Taia Swordsman]

Bruce,

Thanks again I'll check it out.

-Mark