On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 19:43:33 -0400, M. R. Williamsさん wrote:
Much too much is made of "the" ceremony of seppuku. There are
relatively few first hand accounts of this kind of ceremony. What
accounts there are, vary based on geography, time, and other
particulars.
I think that our modern notions of the seppuku ceremony are
tremendously impacted by the fact that seppuku was formally outlawed
in the Tokugawa period. It seems to me that the ceremony became a
kind of romanticized part of the warrior past; made to look more
uniform than it actually was.
>The
>angle(s) of the cut to the stomach are highly debatable but the most common
>one that I have seen is horizontally left to right then vertically up the
>center into the heart.
It's my understanding that the angles are pretty limited by
biology and physics - there's not much debate in what I've read
about the angle per se that has to be taken.
If by debatable angles, you mean there are various ways that seppuku
was actually done then yes I agree. It appears that the most "popular"
cuts were the ichimonji which is the cut straight across from left to
right, and the juumonji, which is the 'cross' cut you describe
above.
>The assistant has the most important job
Tell that to the guy slicing his gut open. :)
>If the one performing seppuku
>manages to go through the whole procedure then the second decapites him to
>end his misery. The decapitation must be done just right or else the head
>will roll away and disgrace both men. Ideally the neck must be cut and the
>head drop down into the lap.
This again is a bit stylized. As the seppuku ceremony evolved and
changed, there were cases where instead of a sword, a fan was placed
in front of the person committing seppuku. In other words there was
not a bit of the ideal described above. The man was trotted out and
his head sliced off without any opportunity to show his bravery.
There are said to be over 50 ways that this could play out: i.e., with
a second (kaishaku) or not; straight cut or cross cut; further
stabbing of the throat, or heart, etc.
In other words, just like most things in life, there was no one way
that seppuku (or even more broadly, ritualized suicide) was, ehem,
executed. It's a complicated picture that surely had an idealized,
romantic, stylized archtype. But the reality that we can see via
historical record doesn't necessary match that archtype.
--
Jay Kelly
oyakata@...
>Jay et al-
> This again is a bit stylized. As the seppuku ceremony evolved and
> changed, there were cases where instead of a sword, a fan was placed
> in front of the person committing seppuku. In other words there was
> not a bit of the ideal described above. The man was trotted out and
> his head sliced off without any opportunity to show his bravery.
>
>
> My understanding of the useHere I've made a mistake, in my minds eye it's a woman but that would
> of the fan was that it was often used for ladies or persons of high
> rank who weren't expected to perform the same rough ceremony of the
> rank and file soldier.
> the fact that seppuku was formally outlawedI'm interested in this statement as A.B.Mitford in Tales of Old Japan
> in the Tokugawa period.
>> the fact that seppuku was formally outlawed(that was from a message of mine)
>> in the Tokugawa period.
>I'm interested in this statement as A.B.Mitford in Tales of Old JapanBakumatsu is really past my normal area of interest so I'm not
>relates being a witness to what he calls hara-kiri - a judicial execution
>on the orders of the Mikado in Hyogo in 1868.
>Correct me if I'm wrong, Jay, but junshi does not
> Bakumatsu is really past my normal area of interest
> so I'm not
> familiar with the case you mention. But the edict
> banning seppuku
> was published in 1663 by the 4th Tokugawa Shogun,
> Ietsuna. To be
> precise it is actually all ritual suicide (junshi)
> that was outlawed,
> not seppuku only.
> Might it be that in 1868 - after the formal close ofWell, junshi seemed to have been 'legal', though the
> the Bakufu - the
> laws established by the Bakufu were now obsolete and
> seppuku was now b
> ack in play, or at least the status was now unclear?
>Correct me if I'm wrong, Jay, but junshi does notJunshi is a bit of a tricky word. It certainly holds the meaning
>equal seppuku, and seppuku does not equal junshi. The
>definition of junshi, as I understand it, is the
>specific act of suicide (usually seppuku) committed by
>a retainer upon the death, natural or otherwise, of
>his lord.
>It wouldn't make sense to outlaw the act of punishmentAgreed. Although I'm not keen on Edo history, this has always been
> (i.e. seppuku) the bakufu used to punish it's own
>retainers.
> Junshi is a bit of a tricky word. It certainly holdsThis still doesn't sound right to me--I'm going to
> the meaning
> that you describe above. It also is used to refer to
> ritual
> suicide in a looser way. It is my understanding -
> and I could be
> wrong - that the edict from Ietsugu was meant to
> stop all forms of
> ritual suicide not just the one you describe.
> This still doesn't sound right to me--I'm going to�}��? Seems to be all I can find for the moment. Jay,
> have to do a little research. Can you send me the
> kanji for "junshi"? And what year was Ietsugu's
> edict?
> I'll see if I can dig up the original and figure
> this
> out.
> 殉死? Seems to be all I can find for the moment. Jay,Yup, that would be the correct Kanji for 'Junshi'.
> do you know if this is correct?