In practice, ritual suicide in the military dimension was performed by using a special blade to cut into the part of the body which was considered the seat of a man’s life and the source of his power: his lower abdomen (hara). Using his short sword (wakizashi) on the battlefield during earlier periods and then, in later centuries, a special knife whose size, shape, and decoration would vary according to procedural circumstances, he would draw a horizontal cut from the left to the right side of his abdomen and then, if his strength permitted, follow this with another cut upward, either prolonging the first cut or starting a new one from the middle of the first and driving it upward in the direction of his throat. Originally, the aim of the first horizontal cut with a long blade was to sever the spinal nerve centers. The second cut implemented the first, being directed toward the aorta.
Since it was not always possible to insure a quick death by such complicated cutting, the assistance of another party in this act became the custom. Such a man was generally either a comrade in arms, a friend of equal rank, or a retainer of a lower rank (when not a functionary appointed by the authorities). His duty, as explained previously, was to decapitate the would-be suicide once the latter had completed the ritual cuts and offered his neck. As the ages of turmoil receded and the martial simplicity and primitive strength of ancient customs gave way to sterile sophistication and emphasis upon procedural appearances, the role of this assistant became increasingly pivotal, until he actually came to resemble a formal executioner—many times not even waiting for the voluntary first cut before cleaving the unfortunate man’s head from his body.
Any man as thoroughly familiarized with and reconciled to the idea of his own destruction as was the bushi would obviously develop into an extremely dangerous fighter who often needed to be restrained lest he throw his life away heedlessly in combat. Upon the issuing of a command by his direct superior, any bushi worthy of the name would respond without a moment’s hesitation. Since his absolute and concentrated commitment was usually matched by that of his opponent, combat encounters often resulted in mutual slaying. In large-scale battles, then, a master was often forced to rely heavily not so much upon the valor of his individual retainers as upon their number or, in exceptional cases, upon his own strategic acumen—an area in which, as we have seen earlier, few of these leaders are said to have excelled.
The eagerness with which the thoroughly conditioned warrior of the early feudal period engaged in combat was proverbial. In times of peace, and particularly during the long Tokugawa period, that eagerness betrayed itself in gratuitous, picayune manifestations of contempt and disdain for all other classes, as well as in an hysterical tendency to overreact to even imagined indications of “lack of respect”—if not to turn just plain murderous. These degenerative qualities were clearly linked to the futility and general pointlessness of a samurai’s existence as it became increasingly parasitical during those periods of prolonged peace when he was resented and despised by the “downtrodden masses” (i.e., all other classes) behind their masks of forced servility. “Priests and warriors: dogs and animals!” (shukke, samurai: inuchikusho), as Norman tells us, was a “popular saying,” applied quite often to “these idle and gluttonous fellows” during the Tokugawa period. A retainer’s obsequiousness and servility toward his immediate superiors within the clan hierarchy was a vivid contrast to his arrogance and undisguised contempt for those commoners whom, according to Article 71 of the criminal code (Osadamegaki), he had the freedom and even the duty to cut down on the spot (kirisutegomen) should any unfortunate person, regardless of sex or age, behave toward him in a manner the samurai considered disrespectful or even “unexpected.” His privileged status in society as a whole, however, could not completely disguise the fact that he too was trapped in a system which weighed almost as heavily upon him as it did upon others. For warriors “were subjected to an elaborate, unwritten code of ceremonies and therefore their freedom of thought and liberty of action were extremely limited. They were not allowed to think freely, nor to act according to their own will” (Hayashi, 70).
The status of a warrior within the clan of his birth or the clan to which he had been assigned by a lawful superior was generally immutable. Only exceptional circumstances might release him from the bond of loyalty and turn him into a masterless warrior (ronin). The ancient ordinances issued by Hideyoshi restricting any changes in a retainer’s status and residence were further reinforced by Ieyasu. Any warrior who severed ties with his clan without permission could not be accepted into the ranks of any other clan. Moreover, the leaders of all other clans were obliged by law to return such a retainer to his former master or answer to the military authorities for lack of compliance with the law. Should a retainer attempt to conceal himself among the peasants, the system of collective responsibility (gonin-gumi) would bring disaster upon the entire town or village if the subterfuge were to be discovered.
Thus, no matter where he turned, the retainer found the way barred against him, insuring that, for the most part, he would cling ferociously to the position assigned to him within the social order.
Education and Status of the Buke
The education and status of the buke may be viewed as developing different characteristics and institutions throughout three major phases of Japanese history: during the Heian period (794-1156), during the period preceding the rise of the Tokugawa (1157-1600), and finally, during the Tokugawa period (1600-1867). In each phase there was a clear distinction between the education and status of the buke leaders—that is, the upper category and ranks of the military class—and the education and status of their retainers and vassals, the samurai of the lower category and ranks. It appears obvious, in fact, that the second category did not enjoy the privileges and status considered an inherent right by the first category, and that even the privileged status of the second category (privileged, that is, in comparison to the subordinated remainder of the nation) was still markedly inferior to the status enjoyed by the military leaders of the nation. Furthermore, the concept of education discussed in these pages in relation to the buke was clearly limited and quite strictly defined.
Many definitions of the word “education” have been advanced by scholars, both past and present. All of these definitions may be reduced for easier exposition to two major types or, more correctly, attitudes. The first is active and embraces all those definitions which refer to the role of education as an intellectual search for and within new or expanding fields of knowledge. The second is passive and embraces all those definitions which consider education as training in the mastery of various skills. The former type of education (therefore, of knowledge) embraces the entire range or as many aspects as possible of man’s reality, thus becoming an independent inquiry into the unanswered dilemma his reality proposes at almost every turn. The latter type of education concentrates mainly upon a few, supposedly “known” and established aspects of that existence which it reiterates and reconfirms. One reaches out into the unknown and in every possible direction, while the other revolves around the familiar and, therefore, moves in one direction alone. In this context, it will be seen that the military class, by its very nature and emphasis upon professional qualifications, tended to concentrate upon the second type of education, which it defined, quite conservatively, as the repetition of