sense in only a comparatively few, exceptional instances.
As will become apparent from a cursory glance at the Table of Contents, this study embraces a variety of martial arts and covers an extensive period of Japanese history. Consequently, it revolves around and upon an immense amount of material which had to be considered, interpreted, and presented systematically if a more illuminating doctrine than the one available today were to be developed. It is not the authors’ intention to provide a definitive answer to all the problems of doctrinary interpretation found in the vast amount of literature on bujutsu, or to engage in a doctrinary monologue of their own which, however expressive or novel, would still, by its very nature, be unrelated to and radically different from that dialogue in which the “common stock of knowledge,” mentioned by Yamashita in his analysis of the secretive approach to bujutsu, is enriched through the active contributions of many individuals. In fact, the studies and opinions of many authors who have written about bujutsu, both ancient and modern, have provided the initial basis for this syncretic approach to the martial arts (as clearly evidenced by the extensive use of direct quotations, often from works presently relegated to undeserved oblivion, notwithstanding their value as pioneer attempts in the exploration of this particular aspect of an alien culture).
In this context it will doubtless be useful for the reader, wishing to retrace our steps through the oft-times confusing maze of the doctrine of bujutsu and personally refer to the sources of information we have used in preparing this work, to understand the “key” to the system of quotation and referral we have adopted. This system is, first of all, generic and comprehensive, as expressed through the lists of books collected in the Bibliography of this study and arranged in alphabetical order according to the names of those authors whose works have been invaluable in providing a first, panoramic view of bujutsu. But this system is also specific and specialized, as expressed through the many direct quotations which appear throughout the text, extracted selectively from the works of those authors whom we consider invaluable sources of information concerning particular aspects of bujutsu. The reader who wishes to explore any of these particular aspects will find, at the end of each quotation, in parenthesis, the name of the author and the number of the page in his book or article which contains the passage quoted. The reader may then turn to the Bibliography for details concerning the edition to which we are referring. For example, the first quotation in the section entitled “The Military Tradition in the History of Japan” is followed by parentheses which contain the name “Hearn” and the number “259.” The reader who refers to the Bibliography under the alphabetical listing of “Hearn, Lafcadio” will find the title of the book from which the quotation was extracted: “Japan: An Interpretation,” plus details of publication, “Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle Co., 1962.” There are, however, a number of authors who have written more than one pertinent book on the subject of bujutsu. In those cases where more than one book is listed, each work has been assigned a number, and this number appears in the Bibliography within brackets and as a superior number after the author’s name within the parentheses which follow the pertinent quotation in the body of the book. Quotations from the three studies on bujutsu by Edward Gilbertson, for example, are identified by the name of the author with in parentheses at the end of each quotation in the text, then by a superior number 1, 2, or 3 after the name (depending upon which study is being referred to), and finally by the page number within that particular study. This will provide the reader with the necessary “key” to the bibliographical listings of Gilbertson’s works.
Throughout the book Japanese names are given in the order customary in Japan, family name followed by personal name.
It would be highly gratifying if, spurred by the present study, other students of bujutsu were encouraged to overcome any narrow or sectarian barriers of doctrinal, scholastic, or organizational isolation and exclusiveness which might be separating them from one another, and plunge courageously into the study and analysis of records, manuscripts, and current practices relative to the Japanese arts of combat. The resulting dialogue or debate would enable them to share their experiences and findings with others, thus furthering the development of a more comprehensive perspective. But a dialogue, as Socrates pointed out, can only begin to stimulate the interest by starting at a certain point and at a certain moment—which is exactly what the present study, in its own way, from its own platform of observation, and with its own method, has set out to do.
Finally, it is the authors’ fond hope that this book may prove as stimulating to the reader as its production was to them, especially when they surveyed the multiform landscape of an ancient culture and the often tragic but brave attempts of its subjects to cope, in their own way, with the demands of a harsh reality. Confronted as we are today with social and political turbulence, living under the moment-to-moment threat of nuclear catastrophe, all studies of man’s experience in the art of violent confrontation have acquired a particular relevancy. Almost everyone seems to agree that we must attempt to determine whether man will be forever trapped by his apparently constitutional inclination to employ any method, however lethal, to ensure his dominance over his fellowmen, or whether he may—in time—be capable of ritualizing and then, ultimately, transforming that pattern. In this endeavor, thoughtful studies of man’s past, with all its pitfalls and bloody errors, may prove to be a necessary and valuable factor in the final equation.
—The Authors
New York
INTRODUCTION
The Martial Ethos
Definition of Bujutsu and Its Specializations
The long history and complex tradition of the Japanese art of combat is embodied in a variety of forms, methods, and weapons, each of which constitutes a particular specialization of that art. Each specialization, in turn, is known as a jutsu, a word which may be translated as “method,” “art,” or “technique” and is indicative of the particular way or ways in which certain actions are performed. Historically, each art or method has developed certain procedures or patterns which set it apart from the procedures and patterns of other arts. In the context of the Japanese art of combat, therefore, a specialization consists of a particular, systematic method of using a specific weapon.
Very often, a specialization of combat was identified by the name of the weapon used by its practitioners. An example of this system of identification would be kenjutsu—that is, the art (jutsu) of the sword (ken). However, a combat method could also be identified by the particular, functional way of using a weapon in order to achieve an opponent’s subjugation. Among the specializations of the art of unarmed combat, for example, jujutsu identifies the art (jutsu) of suppleness (ju)—that is, the art of using suppleness in a certain technical way in order to defeat an opponent. Frequently, a main specialization of combat would produce subspecializations, many of which, through constant refinement, effectively improved upon the original method to the extent of substituting for it entirely, thus becoming independent specializations of combat in and of themselves. In such a case, the subspecialization would generally be identified by the name of its main feature. Kenjutsu, the art of the sword, for example, was further refined into a deadly specialization known as iaijutsu—the art (jutsu) of drawing (iai) and simultaneously cutting with the sword; it was also the matrix for nito-kenjutsu, the art (jutsu) of fencing with two (nito) swords (ken). Finally, a specialization could be identified by the name of the master who had devised his own particular style of fighting or by the name of the school where this particular style was taught.
The specializations of the Japanese art of combat which are of particular relevance to this study are those which were developed and brought to the highest degree of systematic perfection during the feudal period of Japanese history. This period embraces a span of approximately nine centuries, from the late ninth and early tenth centuries to the nineteenth century—more precisely to the year of the Meiji Restoration (1868), when, in a manner characteristically Japanese, the feudal era was declared formally closed. During the centuries of dominance by the Tokugawa (1600 to 1867), the specializations of the art of combat inherited from the previous
