Likes Likes:  0
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16

Thread: Currect state of research in change from Bujutsu to Budo

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Basel, Switzerland
    Posts
    69
    Likes (received)
    16

    Default Currect state of research in change from Bujutsu to Budo

    I have stumbled upon something while re-reading (for the ? time ) "Classical Budo" from D.F. Draeger. We all know that this book is from the 70's. Therefore I assume some changes in view of this.

    He has the opinion that the transformation process from Bujutsu to Budo was not so much a consequence of societal changes, but rather due to deliberate attempts by the shogunate to pacify the bushi class during the Edo period.

    I am wondering now if (academic) research in this matter (if available) has proven his point or not.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    3,324
    Likes (received)
    48

    Default

    Short answer? Although the bafuku did organize state-sponsored military academies, the change actually tells us more about state nationalism during the Meiji to Early Showa era than it does about Late Tokugawa efforts.

    For references, if you can find a copy, take a look at Jigoro Kano and the Kodokan: An Innovative Response to Modernisation, compiled by the Kano Sensei Biographic Editorial Commitee, edited and translated by Alex Bennett (Tokyo: Kodokan, 2010).

    If not, then take a look at the essays by Alex Bennett, William Bodiford, Lance Gatling, and Peter Goldsbury in Martial Arts of the World: An Enccylopedia of History and Innovation, edited by Thomas A. Green and Joseph R. Svinth (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2010).

    Also see Shun Inoue's essay, "The Invention of the Martial Arts: Kano Jigoro and Kodokan Judo," in Mirror of Modernity: Invented Traditions of Modern Japan, edited by Stephen Vlastos (Berkeley: University of California, 1998) and Budo Perspectives, volume 1, edited by Alexander Bennett (Auckland, NZ: Kendo World, 2005.

    The bibliographies in those texts ought to get you headed in the right direction.

    Ellis Amdur's Hidden in Plain Sight: Tracing the Roots of Ueshiba Morihei's Power (Seattle: Edgework, 2009) doesn't provide the extensive bibliographies, but at the same time, he does offer many intriguing interpretations.
    Last edited by Joseph Svinth; 6th September 2010 at 12:54.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Posts
    161
    Likes (received)
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ryoma View Post
    I have stumbled upon something while re-reading (for the ? time ) "Classical Budo" from D.F. Draeger. We all know that this book is from the 70's. Therefore I assume some changes in view of this.

    He has the opinion that the transformation process from Bujutsu to Budo was not so much a consequence of societal changes, but rather due to deliberate attempts by the shogunate to pacify the bushi class during the Edo period.

    I am wondering now if (academic) research in this matter (if available) has proven his point or not.
    The problem with Draeger's point here is the underlying premises are mostly wrong--or wrong-headed. To begin with, the distinction between "budo" and "bujutsu" he makes is modern (mostly post-WWII) and analytical, not historical, and not even universally employed. With the exception of some of what Draeger called "modern cognate arts" or "gendai budo," most schools of Japanese martial art describe the elements that Draeger identifies as "budo" and "bujutsu" as interpenetrating and interdependent--that is, few schools accept a characterization as all (or even mostly) either "budo" or "bujutsu." Thus there never was a transformation process of "bujutsu" to "budo" (again, unless you mean by this the emergence of the "modern cognate" systems).

    I've also argued that martial art in the form that we know it today--organized martial art or "ryuha bugei"--was about what we now think of as "budo" right from its inception. That is, it was always a specialized form of training aimed at broader self-developmental objectives, rather than simple technical proficiency in fighting (as Draeger posited). (See "Off the Warpath: Military Science & Budō in the Evolution of Ryūha Bugei." In Budo Perspectives, edited by Alexander Bennett, 249-68. Auckland, New Zealand: Kendo World Publications, 2005.) What happened during the Tokugawa period was not a fundamental shift of emphasis in terms of the purpose of martial art, but rather a deepening sophistication of the original purpose(s).

    Second, the shogunate didn't try to pacify the warrior class (although it did work very hard at controlling daimyo and keeping the peace). Far from it, the shogunate was constantly exhorting samurai to train diligently in martial, as well as literary arts. For better or worse, not that many samurai took this advice seriously, so that by the middle of the period, there probably weren't a lot more skillful swordsmen running around Japan than there are today. Most samurai had become sword-bearing bureaucrats, but this wasn't by bakufu design. Ironically, the shogunate's most powerful effect on bugei development was its inadvertent encouragement of the development of impractical, "flowery swordplay," which was (in part) a result of shogunal and daimyo bans on duels and contests (eliminating both the need and the opportunity to test techniques outside controlled practice situations).
    Karl Friday
    Dept. of History
    University of Georgia
    Athens, GA 30602

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,190
    Likes (received)
    350

    Default

    Permit me some meandering thoughts:

    Was the real dichotomy the social one? Not really having much at all to do with some budo/bujutsu division but rather who was practicing 'it,' and how that practice was viewed?

    Taking what was formerly the province of a class of professional warriors with a particular real need for those skill sets (and the attendant development not only of "warrior spirit" but "martial virtue" in order to temper their use), and due to changes in society allowing an increasingly inclusive approach that saw non-professionals of varying social classes able to join and practice - without an actual life-and-death need for those skills - was there a shift in emphasis in individual practice from Draeger's "combat-discipline-morals" to a more generalized expression of values that the other social classes saw as admirable about warriors and their skill?

    To put it bluntly - they could play "samurai dress up?" Not in the sense that koryu is done today, but rather in the sense that people wear camo BDUs or 5.11s and practice "combatives" in groups with a military/LE affectation.

    Then with the inevitable trend toward young men wanting to test themselves in some kind of combat, and lacking that outlet in actual combat for the most part, the early versions of the modern cognate sports-type methods arose, but with a different, if dynamic, form.

    And with the increasing lack of that "real need" - even in dueling - for the armed bureaucrats, an insidious enervation of the original schools took place, except for some of those that embraced in some ways the "sport" methods.


    Its only that I think things are pretty cyclical. The same things occur today within police and military close combat skills: you have what are essentially "ryu" of professional skills, which combine what people use in the field with training in "warrior spirit" and "survival mindset" and the need for the measured and judicious use of force both in terms of policy and liability and what is simply the right thing to do. Of course this is met with varying results.

    These professions and their fighting systems have a tremendous cachet with certain segments of the non-professional martial arts community, as noted above with the "dress up" martial arts. However, within the professions themselves (or at least LE), you see the natural human tendency toward complacency; despite regular examples of what can happen, most will never actually face a fight for their life even once in their career. Though they are exhorted to train harder, to practice their professional skills, most do not other than a mandated few times a year, if that. They instead spend their time just "pushing a patrol car" or "punching a ticket" unless they have careerist aims which drive them even further away from a need for practical skills; in other words they are "armed bureaucrats." Indeed the lack of skill on the part of most law enforcers in hand to hand combat and physical control skills is the subject of much discussion in the non-professional martial arts community. Does that sound familiar?

    Which leads to what might be deja vu territory for the end-of-Edo period warrior: turning to non-samurai "sports" practices to add some vigor back into professional skill sets.

    I realize that this does not really cover the current practice of archaic warrior systems by non-Japanese non-warriors that have never and will never fight with a sword or a spear, let alone the actual creation by modern practitioners of such sword practices, etc. but perhaps that sort of thing falls outside this discussion altogether?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    12
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Dr.Friday,
    an excellent post, I find your points on the shogunate's role in edo era bugei very interesting.

    since this topic has come up, i was wondering if I may ask a related question that has been on my mind for sometime.

    Quote Originally Posted by Karl Friday View Post
    I've also argued that martial art in the form that we know it today--organized martial art or "ryuha bugei"--was about what we now think of as "budo" right from its inception. That is, it was always a specialized form of training aimed at broader self-developmental objectives, rather than simple technical proficiency in fighting (as Draeger posited). (See "Off the Warpath: Military Science & Budō in the Evolution of Ryūha Bugei." In Budo Perspectives, edited by Alexander Bennett, 249-68. Auckland, New Zealand: Kendo World Publications, 2005.) What happened during the Tokugawa period was not a fundamental shift of emphasis in terms of the purpose of martial art, but rather a deepening sophistication of the original purpose(s).
    I read that article some time ago, but i do not have it with me at the moment so please bare with me. What do you make of the relationship between swordsmen like the Yaygu and Ieyasu Tokugawa. This is perhaps the most famous, but certainly not the earliest case of Daimyo retaining skilled, Bugei trained swordsmen, and the trend seems to have continued throughout the Edo era.
    Where these men retained for there practical knowledge of combat, the strength of their ryuha, or is there something more to it?

    thank you for any thoughts you may have.
    Daniel Mignerey

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Nagoya, Japan
    Posts
    522
    Likes (received)
    31

    Default

    I think such relationships prove the general soundness of Dr. Friday's thesis. You have Iizasa Choisai reportedly teaching Shogun Ashikaga Yoshimasa, Tsukahara Bokuden teaching Ashikaga Yoshiteru, and when Kamiizumi Nobutsuna went to Kyoto in the mid-1500s, he was teaching the high-ranked "nobility" of the Shogun's court. Ieyasu's keppan to Yagyu Munetoshi mentioned nothing about teaching his troops or even his family, but was a personal oath to learn Shinkage-ryu. None of these men were expected to "lead from the front", so the practical utility of learning these traditions as fighting arts was not very significant. Rather they indicate that the daimyo and shogun saw these arts as being philosophically relevant, in the teaching of strategy, tactics, self-improvement and human interaction. Yagyu Munenori's relationships with Hidetada and Iemitsu were very much in this vein -- Munenori's value to them was not in his strength of arms, but as an advisor and teacher. While it's tempting to classify this as being part of the changes peace brought to the Edo Period, I think it's important to remember that this is a historical distinction, looking back from our modern day. To Hidetada, Iemitsu, and Munenori, they were not in the "Edo period", or the "Pax Tokugawa". Battles were still in living memory, and all three of the above were veterans of battle (Sekigahara and the Siege of Osaka Castle). To them, their time in history was not particularly different from that of their long-warring fathers and grandfathers. And yet, the relationship that formed was not particularly focused on the nitty-gritty of using Shinkage-ryu on the battlefield.
    Josh Reyer

    Swa sceal man don, žonne he ęt guše gengan ženceš longsumne lof, na ymb his lif cearaš. - The Beowulf Poet

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    260
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hissho View Post
    ...
    However, within the professions themselves (or at least LE), you see the natural human tendency toward complacency; despite regular examples of what can happen, most will never actually face a fight for their life even once in their career. Though they are exhorted to train harder, to practice their professional skills, most do not other than a mandated few times a year, if that. They instead spend their time just "pushing a patrol car" or "punching a ticket" unless they have careerist aims which drive them even further away from a need for practical skills; in other words they are "armed bureaucrats." Indeed the lack of skill on the part of most law enforcers in hand to hand combat and physical control skills is the subject of much discussion in the non-professional martial arts community. Does that sound familiar?...
    Sounds like the film "Twilight Samurai", although fortunately for the main character (and the audience) it turned out that he was a highly-gifted swordsman. b

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    260
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Josh Reyer View Post
    I think such relationships prove the general soundness of Dr. Friday's thesis. You have Iizasa Choisai reportedly teaching Shogun Ashikaga Yoshimasa, Tsukahara Bokuden teaching Ashikaga Yoshiteru, and when Kamiizumi Nobutsuna went to Kyoto in the mid-1500s, he was teaching the high-ranked "nobility" of the Shogun's court. Ieyasu's keppan to Yagyu Munetoshi mentioned nothing about teaching his troops or even his family, but was a personal oath to learn Shinkage-ryu. None of these men were expected to "lead from the front", so the practical utility of learning these traditions as fighting arts was not very significant. Rather they indicate that the daimyo and shogun saw these arts as being philosophically relevant, in the teaching of strategy, tactics, self-improvement and human interaction. Yagyu Munenori's relationships with Hidetada and Iemitsu were very much in this vein -- Munenori's value to them was not in his strength of arms, but as an advisor and teacher. While it's tempting to classify this as being part of the changes peace brought to the Edo Period, I think it's important to remember that this is a historical distinction, looking back from our modern day. To Hidetada, Iemitsu, and Munenori, they were not in the "Edo period", or the "Pax Tokugawa". Battles were still in living memory, and all three of the above were veterans of battle (Sekigahara and the Siege of Osaka Castle). To them, their time in history was not particularly different from that of their long-warring fathers and grandfathers. And yet, the relationship that formed was not particularly focused on the nitty-gritty of using Shinkage-ryu on the battlefield.
    On this issue, I'm clear about Karl's thesis and I feel it is well-thought out. It really gives one a new perspective on a whole lot of accepted wisdom.

    However in the one ryuha which I have experienced, there is the definite potential for it to have been used to train conscripts. Tatsumi Ryu Hyoho has two core techniques that run through nearly the whole curriculum. By themselves they would have been enough to equip a noob to protect himself and maybe even prevail on the battlefield (all other things being equal). Tatsumi Ryu also contains kata for spear vs spear which is rather unusual for a ryuha that focuses on the use of the sword. There are also some spear vs sword kata where the spear, not the sword, wins. I would contend this yari awase curriculum is also a remnant of Tatsumi Ryu's battlefield heritage, although the date it was included in the curriculum is not known unfortunately.

    Finally, unlike TSKSR and YSR, Tatsumi Ryu was an otome ryu. It was the 'official' ryuha of Hotta family of the Sakura han, meaning that Hotta-ke retainers would have had to have been ready to fight in defence of their realm, or indeed, at the behest of the Tokugawas with whom I believe they owed fealty. Of course in practice I’m sure there were as many ‘armed bureaucrats’ amongst Sakura han bushi as elsewhere, and Tatsumi Ryu would also have had the same pedagogical rather than martial function as other ryuha did during the pax Tokugawa. So it doesn’t disprove Karl’s thesis, but perhaps serves as an exception. b

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Nagoya, Japan
    Posts
    522
    Likes (received)
    31

    Default

    I don't think Tatsumi-ryu represents any kind of exception. YSR has one core technique that runs through the curriculum, and is adaptable to any weapon. It was also otome-ryu to Owari-han, among others. Although not part of Shinkage-ryu proper, Yagyu Munenori devised spear techniques in accordance to YSR principles. TSKSR has spear vs sword where the spear wins.

    The question is not whether some core basics from any ryu could have been taught to Sengoku period conscripts. The answer to that is clearly yes. The issues that Dr. Friday have brought up is that there were not enough ryuha in the Sengoku Period, and not enough ryuha bugei practitioners to train the large armies that went to battle in that era. So the main purpose of the ryuha bugei of the time could not have been basic training of the soldiery.

    As for otome-ryu, actually YSR was otome-ryu, of Owari-han and others. But this is exactly in line with Dr. Friday's thesis; the otome-ryu were a development of the Tokugawa period, when you no longer had the huge armies of the Sengoku period, but rather a disperse officer corps in need of some way to justify their nominal positions as warrior-administrators of a military government. This is what led to the spread of ryuha bugei and the increase in the numbers of their practitioners.
    Josh Reyer

    Swa sceal man don, žonne he ęt guše gengan ženceš longsumne lof, na ymb his lif cearaš. - The Beowulf Poet

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,190
    Likes (received)
    350

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ichibyoshi View Post
    Sounds like the film "Twilight Samurai", although fortunately for the main character (and the audience) it turned out that he was a highly-gifted swordsman. b
    Ah yes, one of my favorites - I like to think of it as "Samurai Dad."

    I think you'd always have "go to" guys that were relied upon to get the job done when the sword slinging bureaucrats wouldn't or couldn't. Some would become trainers. The best would probably become founders of their own ryu as time went on.

    Following Friday's line of thought, it makes sense that "battlefield" arts would pretty much be gun, spear, and archery ryu, with a helping of kogusoku and short blade when things got up close and personal. Other than that, I think iai and jujutsu make sense for off the battlefield, and kenjutsu for dueling.

    Then, it kinda makes sense that many ryu would gradually lose elements of their curriculae that fell out of practical use. After a while the effort to maintain them would probably not be worth the time, for a variety of reasons - guns and massed formations would be more battlefield relevant, iai and jujutsu would become the primary practical studies for what would increasingly be off battlefield combat in brawls and ambush attacks and responses, and in the absence of the ability to prove oneself on a battlefield, dueling would take on a life of its own as the the new paradigm of the "ultimate test of warrior skill."

    Dueling (could we call it a version of "sport" - just one with deadly consequences...?) would pit man vs. man in the kind of encounter that was at once easily romanticized and highly challenging. Now that men no longer really needed to learn spear or naginata or what have you, far more time could be had to delve deep into the art of man vs. man, sword on sword fighting that they would more likely face, and practitioners could conceivably achieve levels of skill probably undreamed of when warriors really had to be more generalists, and with a focus mainly on what they needed. Sword would be a part of that, for the reasons that Dr. Friday goes into in his work - but the tide of history perhaps allowed that focus to actually come to the fore as "sword on sword" became the primary peacetime outlet to test oneself and prove skill.

    The actual reality of things like iai and jujutsu for true violence (basically the bladed equivalent of sucker punching, and "wrasslin'") would be far less suitable in the role that kenjutsu could fill as an expression of the strategy, principles, and soul of the samurai.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    260
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Thanks for the clarification on YSR's otome-ryu status Josh. Does change my argument a bit... :/

    Kit, you prompt me to wonder: perhaps it's more interesting to think about why certain ryu held onto a wide variety of weapons, past their use-by date as it were, than why certain these curricula died out in other schools.

    And then, after all this evolution, you have the strange situation of a major battle being decided by proficiency with the sword. I'm talking about the Imperial forces defeating Saigo's Rebellion. Is this because everyone had been focusing on the sword as opposed to other weapons for the previous 250 years? Was the Satsuma Rebellion a 'mass duel' rather than a Sengoku-era battlefield battle? More learned heads than mine might be able to pose an answer... b

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    12
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ichibyoshi View Post

    And then, after all this evolution, you have the strange situation of a major battle being decided by proficiency with the sword. I'm talking about the Imperial forces defeating Saigo's Rebellion. Is this because everyone had been focusing on the sword as opposed to other weapons for the previous 250 years? Was the Satsuma Rebellion a 'mass duel' rather than a Sengoku-era battlefield battle? More learned heads than mine might be able to pose an answer... b
    Both the rebel forces as well as the government army relied on rifles. Saigo's forces only turned to the sword at the very end when they had exhausted their supply of ammo and powder.

    Now I am not saying that there was no swordplay, but the importance of the sword in Saigo's rebellion has been greatly exaggerated.
    Daniel Mignerey

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,190
    Likes (received)
    350

    Default

    I have no historical basis for this, only an observation of human nature, and how that gets related to dealing with armed conflict, from the lens of modern firearms carry for professional and self defense use.

    I think the reasons fo ryu retaining, or dispensing with, or re-creating, or inventing parts of their curriculae are probably as varied as the number of ryu, the interests of the founders or inheritors, etc. Some - perhaps especially those that have secluded themselves and prevented their students from dueling - could well retain much of their stuff for the very reason that they no longer had a practical need for it - the impetus to preserve it could very well be much the same as doing koryu today - a link to the past and respecting their ancestors.

    Others may have a different outlook - an inheritor could think "I have no use for this stuff anymore outside of the jujutsu, so why practice it? I'll just keep it in the scrolls to remember it, but I am going to concentrate on what's really useful..." The next in line then gets a much different ryu.

    Or, a later generation realizes that sword is ALL they have much use for, and creates their own sword school on what the most current usage and experience of the weapon is. Or people retain the old stuff but add or adapt new stuff for current usage. Or someone laments the fact that their ryu lost the naginata, say, and creates a new curriculae or a new school from the principles they have retained in their practice plus the notes in the densho. But then, that would no longer be a "battlefield tested" system, rather a system "based on battlefield tested teachings."

    I don't think it is a surprise that there are a number of schools that seemed to have retained iai and jujutsu, or sword and jujutsu, or sword and iai, if somewhere along the line an inheritor of the ryu was of a more utilitarian mindset (for that time) than of preserving a an entire tradition intact. A later inheritor might very well think he wanted to preserve what was left of the tradition intact, after "that X-generation inheritor screwed it all up and changed or deleted too much!"

    Then again I think sword would always be useful, up to the 19th century at least, in the sense that Dr. Friday put it - a sidearm. Even if the primary weapon was a projectile weapon such as a bow or rifle. Before reliably functioning and reloading handguns, the "transition drill" from the long arm/missile weapon would have been to sword. I personally still think iai makes more sense in that context, but more likely with a shorter blade. The contraction of some ryu to iai/jujutsu (including shorter blades) makes sense in that light.

    The longer blade makes perfect sense from that perspective as well - as a modern handgun is carried today for self defense, and if and when needed in that context, drawn from a carry position.

    Post draw, you'd still have kenjutsu on the battlefield or in a fight. And kenjutsu-as-dueling would always be useful due to its role in Japanese martial society

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Nagoya, Japan
    Posts
    522
    Likes (received)
    31

    Default

    I think there's actually a simpler explanation for this.

    This is an American Civil War era rifle and bayonet. Look at the length of that thing! Here's a Civil War era cavalry officer. Notice the saber. That's not for show.

    Here are some contemporary paintings of the major battles of the Satsuma Rebellion:

    Taharazaka
    Shiroyama

    As you can see here, both sides make heavy use of artillery, rifles with bayonets, and sabers, just as the western armies of the times did. It just happened that in Japan the saber took the form of the katana.
    Josh Reyer

    Swa sceal man don, žonne he ęt guše gengan ženceš longsumne lof, na ymb his lif cearaš. - The Beowulf Poet

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Atsugi, Kanagawa, Jp and Boise
    Posts
    72
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Also if you ever make it down to Kumamoto and can go to Kumamoto Jo they have on display weapons etc from the Satsuma Rebellion. Alot of those are Civil War era weapons and designs. I used to do Civil War reenactment when I was younger and was amazed at how many of the models I could pick out.
    Like others said it was a modern conflict for that time period mostly using modern weapons between the Meiji forces being supplied w/ government weapons and Satsuma side armed w/ weapons smuggled in during Bakumatsu period would be my guess ie Thomas Glover etc.
    Jeff Collier

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •