The Shōrui Awaremi no Rei and the Sword — The Transformation of Norms around Kirisute Gomen and Tsujigiri

The Context of Tsunayoshi's Rule — What Was the Shōrui Awaremi no Rei?

The series of edicts issued in stages by the fifth shogun Tokugawa Tsunayoshi from around 1685 are collectively referred to in later times as the "Shōrui Awaremi no Rei." Rather than a single legal code, it was a collection of accumulated policies: prohibitions on killing and abandoning animals including dogs and cats, protections for abandoned children and the sick, and regulations on the handling of birds and fish. Because Tsunayoshi himself was born in the Year of the Dog, the protection of dogs became particularly famous and he was spoken of with the sobriquet "Inu Kubō" (the Dog Shogun), but the scope of the policies is said to have extended beyond animal welfare, spreading in the direction of suppressing killing and violence throughout society.

The Privilege of Kirisute Gomen and Its Strict Conditions

Warriors of the Edo period had a practice known as kirisute gomen, whereby they could cut down a commoner who had shown them serious disrespect without being punished. However, contrary to the storytelling image of later ages, kirisute gomen was not an unconditional license to kill. Its exercise came with strict conditions: the other party's discourtesy had to be manifest, the cutting had to be done immediately on the spot, and afterward the warrior had to file a report and submit to an investigation. If one neglected to file a report or could not demonstrate just cause, the warrior himself became subject to punishment.

Tsujigiri — cutting down a passerby without cause — was a serious crime clearly distinguished from kirisute gomen, and if discovered it meant certain death. Warrior society of the time drew a clear line: kirisute gomen was "an exceptional act for which justification was reported," whereas tsujigiri was a crime that lacked justification from the outset.

The Atmosphere of Tsunayoshi's Era

Most of the Shōrui Awaremi no Rei were abolished in 1709 (Hōei 6) by the sixth shogun Tokugawa Ienobu, after Tsunayoshi's death. For the more than twenty years prior to that, edicts restraining killing and violence were issued one after another, and it was an era in which social scrutiny of the very act of drawing one's sword grew more intense.

It should be noted that the systematic codification of warriors' discretionary authority — including kirisute gomen — into the Kujikata Osadamegaki did not come until 1742, in the time of the eighth shogun Tokugawa Yoshimune, well after Tsunayoshi's era. The influence the Shōrui Awaremi no Rei of Tsunayoshi's time had on norms of sword use is more accurately understood not as taking the form of codification, but as manifesting in an atmosphere of aversion to killing that spread throughout society.

The Broader Shift from Military Governance to Civil Governance

When viewed in isolation, the Shōrui Awaremi no Rei appears to be peculiar legislation, but in fact it lies on the extension of the great transition from military governance to civil governance that the Edo shogunate had consistently pursued since the Battle of Sekigahara. In the early Edo period, when the spirit of the Sengoku era still strongly lingered, it was not uncommon for warriors to commit junshi — suicide by following one's lord in death — or to draw their sword over a trivial quarrel; but the shogunate gradually restricted such private exercise of force and shifted its governance toward a focus on ceremony and order. The successive policies of animal protection and aversion to killing in Tsunayoshi's era can be positioned as a moment when this trend reached one of its peaks.

The Gap Between Wearing a Sword as a Mark of Status and Actually Using It

For a warrior, wearing a sword was a symbol of status, and drawing it on a daily basis was not expected. Actual sword use was limited to restricted situations such as self-defense or kirisute gomen, and in most cases the sword remained sheathed in its saya as a symbol of ceremony and self-protection. The era of the Shōrui Awaremi no Rei can be positioned as a period when this norm of "wearing it but not drawing it rashly" was further emphasized.

While townspeople and farmers were not permitted to carry swords, for a warrior to wear two swords (daishō) at the waist was a mark of status on a par with the myōji taitō privilege. For this very reason, rashly drawing one's sword was seen by those around as not merely an act of violence, but as an act that undermined the credibility of one's status as a warrior. The increased social scrutiny of killing and violence under the Shōrui Awaremi no Rei is thought to have worked in a direction that further intensified this tension of "draw it and lose one's credibility."

• Kirisute gomen: an exceptional act recognized as a response to discourtesy, on the condition that a report was filed and justification was demonstrated
• Tsujigiri: unprovoked killing, a serious crime for which discovery meant death
• Shōrui Awaremi no Rei: a group of policies that, starting from animal protection, spread in the direction of suppressing killing and violence throughout society

The Edo-period sensibility of treating swords less as weapons than as symbols of status and beauty is not unrelated to the atmosphere of aversion to killing that intensified in Tsunayoshi's era. Behind the fact that many famous swords handed down to the present day have continued to be polished not for actual combat but for ceremony and appreciation, lies this accumulation of norms.

The Meaning of Rereading Sword History from a Modern Perspective

The Shōrui Awaremi no Rei tends to be discussed in caricature as a "bad law," but its very intent of protecting animals and the vulnerable and suppressing violence had aspects that were pioneering for the time. Tracing how the sword — "a tool with the power to cut people" — has been positioned in society and to what degree its use has been restrained does not amount to mere knowledge of legal history. When looking at swords as historical artifacts, turning one's eyes not only to the hamon and the overall form but also to the social norms in which those swords were situated should yield a different understanding. The very fact that a single sword has been passed down without ever being drawn itself becomes a historical document that speaks to the norms of its era.