Nobility wearing katana in Japan today

[Haibane]

Hi everyone, new to the forums.

I'd like to pick the brains of people aware of modern, current Japanese custom. A friend of mine insists that the highest nobility and royalty may still wear the daisho in public, though this is very rare.

I was very surprised by this, clearly to me royalty would only wear swords on state occasions and at formal events but the idea of any senior member of the samurai class still being permitted to walk about in public wearing a daisho openly seems incredible.

Does this still happen, or technically is it still permissible even though it is never/rarely practiced?

 

[Sukerkin]

I'd be interested in knowing why your friend thinks this?

The Samurai were abolished as a class in the Mejii Restoration so, whilst the families that once had such status still exist, the rank does not and neither does the right to wear the pair of swords that were once a symbol of that status.

The following link is an interesting thumbnail sketch of the transition and has a bibliography that would be worth following up:


http://samurai-archives.com/mds.html

 

[Haibane]

I'd be interested in knowing why your friend thinks this?

Me too I'll have to ask her.

Yes I know the samurai class was abolished but she asserts that noble families still exist and carry that right.

If the fact is that 'nobility' (which I also understand to equate directly to 'samurai') does not exist in Japan today then her assertion must be wrong and the only people legally entitled to carry a katana in public are members of royalty and then presumably only on formal occasions.

I'm thinking too, that while this is a technical right, it is in fact not done for political and social reasons (i.e. the dismantling of the samurai class and the connotations that title holds is something the emperor's family would not wish to highlight).

 

[Masshiro]

i lived in japan for 3 years and never saw a thing like that but that isnt to say it's not true. i do however think that a grand master in kenjutsu can walk around with his sword with some sort of permit. i am not realy sure but if you want to know i can call a few Japanese people i know and have them find out.

 

[MattB]

Japanese Law forbids branishing of all weapons in public, kives, swords, guns ect. The only exceptions are ceremonial/religous functions and martial arts demostations. I am also sure that when transporting a sword it has to in some sort of case.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hi Haibane,

Well, where to start? First off, welcome aboard, this should be fun. Ready? Okay, here we go....

To give a bit of historical information here, I thought we might explore exactly who/what the Samurai were, where they came from, and what rights they had. The term "samurai" comes from a term meaning "to serve", and the initial use takes itself from the employed lower members of the nobility who would serve as bodyguards/attendants on the higher ranked. As time went on, it began to take on more of a warrior meaning (earlier terms for warriors were not samurai, but bushi [bu - martial, shi - person] or mono no fu [person of things, meaning weapons]).

As the term samurai began to be used, anyone could become one. I know, this goes against what most people think, you have to be born into a samurai family, etc etc, but we'll get to that, I promise. At this point, it was really a rule of force that determined your status. Someone could go from being a lowly member of an armed force, and through sheer luck, skill, and determination, become a samurai, or a Daimyo (fuedal lord). This continued until Hideyoshi (16th Century), who began just such a way, making his way from a low-level foot soldier (ashigaru) to becoming Taiko (basically Shogun, military leader of Japan, but he was not elligible for that title due to his low birth station). It was Hideyoshi who then decreed that Samurai could only come from Samurai families.

In terms of the weaponry for the Samurai, for most of their history, the sword was not the main weapon associated with them. Originally the primary weapon was the bow and arrow, and mounted archery was the focus of a Japanese battlefield. The early name to refer to the way of the Warrior was Kyuba no michi, or The Way of Mounted Archery (Kyu - bow, ba - horse, no - of, michi - path, or way [or street...]) and warrior nobility families were refered to as Kyusen no iie, or bow and arrow families.

Moving into the Nambokucho period, and through the Ashikaga Shogunate, weapons such as Naginata took prominence, and the Sengoku Jidai (15th - 17th Century) saw spears take the lead (most commonly su-yari, or straight spears, leading to changes in armour to smoother less laced styles such as okegawa-do ni-mai-do gusoku, as the spears tended to get caught up in the lacing of the older styles, resulting in more danger for the guy in the armour). Swords during this time was only really as a secondary weapon.

When Ieyasu Tokugawa took control of Japan, becoming Shogun and unifying the country for two and a half centuries of peace, rules were created to keep the Samurai in check and to maintain their dominant place in the society. These included rules for the wearing of daisho, and the fact that only Samurai were allowed to wear them. It should be noted that other members of society were permitted to wear swords, but only Samurai could wear the two swords. As established, though, some Samurai were nobility, but the nobility were not necessarily Samurai, and Samurai were not necessarily nobility. So these rules applied to Samurai only. As stated, during the Meiji Restoration, a number of decrees were brought into effect, amongst them the abolishing of the Samurai class (along with the rest of the caste system), and the banning of wearing swords.

Hope that clears a few things up.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

If the fact is that 'nobility' (which I also understand to equate directly to 'samurai') does not exist in Japan today then her assertion must be wrong and the only people legally entitled to carry a katana in public are members of royalty and then presumably only on formal occasions.

I'm no expert, but Japan indeed has a noble class. They have an Emperor to this day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_of_Japan

However, I would tend to doubt he goes about with a sword. Just a guess, though.

 

[Chris Parker]

But the Emperor is not a Samurai. That is what I was getting at above, Samurai are sometimes nobility, but not necessarily, and nobility are sometimes Samurai, but not always. In fact, the Samurai came about primarily to protect the interests of the nobility, and to serve them (and the Emperor). A major reason the Nambokucho Period happened (Period of North and Southern Courts, when two different lines of Emperors were ruling from different locations) is that some of the Samurai supported the Emperor Go Daigo, and others supported the nobility, such as Ashikaga Takauji. In serving the different factions, the court was split, and although Ashikaga came from a warrior (Samurai) background, he was a Daimyo, and the Emperor was not a Samurai at all. So Haibane's fundamental precept there is incorrect to begin with.

The last members of the Japanese populace who regularly wore swords (to the best of my knowledge) were members of the military in World War II. Not Samurai, nor nobility, and not royalty. But due to their station in the society, they were permitted to carry swords. In fact, it was part of their uniform. It may help to think of the Samurai as similar (although still different).

 

[MA-Caver]

I find it sad all around that the leaders of the various countries are gone without weaponry at all on their persons. It's a dual edged sword if you'll pardon the pun.
On the one hand it was a show of trust that leaders would meet while carrying weapons (swords, ceremonial --but functional, knives, pistols, et al.) a trust that those weapons would not be brought to bear against the other leader but still representing a show of strength.
It's a show of trust (now-a-days) that no-one carries any weaponry on their persons... (not including security personnel ) during meetings, etc. Trust that weaponry isn't needed.

I doubt highly that any leader of any country would be so armed (openly or even secretly) when meeting with another leader of a country these days.
Words/pens have become indeed mightier than the sword.

 

[David43515]

I`ve seen pictures of sumo wrestlers being attended by a servant who carries the wrestler`s sword during very rare opening ceremonies for a tournament, but I don`t even know if it`s a real sword.

I`ve never seen any occation or ceremony on tv when the royal family carried a sword. And people who own real swords must have a special liscense that they carry with them when transporting them. They are always transported in a case/bag, NEVER carried or worn (except during martial arts demos, then they are promptly returned to thier carry case.). I think that would be the fastest way to get yourself surrounded by the police here.

I think a J-cop might actually consider a sword a more deadly weapon than a pistol because you don`t need to reload.

 

[Bruno@MT]

I`ve seen pictures of sumo wrestlers being attended by a servant who carries the wrestler`s sword during very rare opening ceremonies for a tournament, but I don`t even know if it`s a real sword.

Yes, it is.

I`ve never seen any occation or ceremony on tv when the royal family carried a sword. And people who own real swords must have a special liscense that they carry with them when transporting them. They are always transported in a case/bag, NEVER carried or worn (except during martial arts demos, then they are promptly returned to thier carry case.). I think that would be the fastest way to get yourself surrounded by the police here.

Are you sure about the license?
It was my understanding that as long as the weapon was traditionally made, it could be transported in a closed bag without requiring a special license.

 

[Bruno@MT]

I find it sad all around that the leaders of the various countries are gone without weaponry at all on their persons

...

I doubt highly that any leader of any country would be so armed (openly or even secretly) when meeting with another leader of a country these days.
Words/pens have become indeed mightier than the sword.

Not entirely, but imo that's a very good thing in international politics.
My parents grew up in the aftermath of WW2, and my grandparents lived through WW1 and 2. Speaking as someone who has drawn upon the living memories of those who survived, I'd much rather have ink than blood being spilt.

 

[pgsmith]

It was my understanding that as long as the weapon was traditionally made, it could be transported in a closed bag without requiring a special license.

The last time I checked into it (about 8 or 9 years ago) the rules were as folows: All steel swords in Japan must be licensed, and the license kept with the sword. Only traditionally made swords are granted a license, all other steel swords are illegal. Swords, including non-steel swords such as iaito, must remain in a closed bag when transported.