One of my minor passions is to try and gain a better understanding of Okinawan Karate’s past, and one tool for that are the publications made in Japan in the 1920’s and 1930’s. I must clearly state what follows is a personal interpretation from my studies, it is not a complete early publication history guide, rather one directed from my perspective.
No work can describe an art, but they do represent a portion of the art in question. And for all they do not show, what they do show is still revealing.
All the early works were written to introduce the Okinawan arts to a Japanese martial public, to help gain acceptance in the overall Japanese martial structure, and perhaps as an aid for one’s students. But one also sees the works as a dialogue of sorts between the people writing them.
Funakoshi Ginchin began this with his 1922 work “Ryukyu Kempo Karate” (republished with pictures in 1925 as “Rentan Goshin Karatejutsu”) explaining his art. For one thing his publication set the standard of what a karate text should contain. This publication reflected his art at the time he went to Japan, before later generations of changes would occur..
Probably for economic reasons in the 1920’s and 1930’s, as much as a desire to spread karate into Japan, other instructors followed suite. They taught, courted recognition from Japan’s controlling martial structure, and occasionally recognized the need to explain their arts publicly. Of course it could have been also an exercise in one-upmanship.
This behavior was very un-Okinawan, where the standard was always direct transmission.
Certainly none of those early books were to provide instant instruction. But faced with larger groups of students they may well have perceived such books could help their students.
One might wonder how the Okinawan martial arts community felt about these publications. The closest I’ve seen comes from Charles Goodin relates how instructors Migi and Mutsu visiting Hawaii in the early 1930’s were ignored by the Okinawan instructors in the islands. ….. because they were known to be writing a book (which was already completed), and the still prevalant Okinawan belief, “In Okinawa we learn Karate from teachers. In Japan, they learn from books." [from a cyberdojo discussion],
This seems to suggest that compared to the Okinawn culture not documenting their arts, retaining older secrecy concerns, these martial publications may have been a real question on Okinawa too.
Funakoshsi expressed his art and the basic kata (Pinan’s 1-5, Naihanchi 1-3, Koshukan, Sheshan, Passai, Wanshu, Chinto, Jutte, Kion) he was teaching. His book did contain some specific throwing techniques but no kata technique applications where shown.
About 7 years later a friend, Mabuni Kenwa (founder of Shito Ryu), did the same. Funakoshi and he both had Itosu as one of their instructors, and Itosu’s teachings formed a basis of both their arts. But in that Funakoshi had concentrated on Itosu’s teachings, Mabuni chose to concentrate on the art of his other instructors, Hiagonna Kanryo and friend Miyagi Chojun. His first two works [“Kobou Jizai Goshin-Jutsu Karate Kempo” and “Seipai no Kenkyu”] showed Sanchin, Seiunchin and Seipai kata from the Naha/Goju tradition. His two books also showed some Seiunchi and Seipai kata applications.
You’ll note Mabuni didn’t choose to cross the lines of his senior and friend, Funakoshi. It might lead one that they were working together to present the range of Okinawa’s arts, and between their two publications, significant information from the Okinawan Bubishi was also revealed.
In fact at that time Miyagi was working Japan (and really everywhere including Hawaii) hard to promote his own teachings in Japan, and that Motobu’s books may have been part of the reason Miyagi didn’t feel a need to write himself. Those two publications really shared as much of his art as he would normally present to a student, Sanchin and one or perhaps two more kata.
I find it fascinating that almost everyone in 1932 in Japan had the same idea at the same time.
Okinawan instructor, Motobu Choki, wrote “Watashi no Karate-jutsu”, the major focus being his study of Naifanchi karate, and his specific sparring practices. He was also teaching in Japan, and while his work was much more than just Naifanchi kata, it still is thought of the central practice of Motobu.
I find that Motobu was engaging a more than a direct dialogue with his reading public. What is interesting is that he felt the need to deride the stance technique in his view of the Itosu lineage Naifanchi studies. He had strong feelings about Funakoshi’s karate abilities, and perhaps this was indirectly directed towards Funakoshi, but the criticism he makes is not present in the photographs of Funakoshi performing Naihanchi in his 2nd book. In fact, and solely based on my observations of a number of different Shito-ryu practitioners video clips of the kata, perhaps his criticism is directed towards Mabuni.
So then as now, works can support one another, or they can be used to level charges about stronger technique.
But 1932 is not complete for at almost the same time, yet another author, the Japanese karate-ka Mutsu Mizuho previously mentioned, wrote his 2nd book called “Ryukyu Kempo”. He had been a student of Funakoshi (though he doesn’t mention that in his book), studied in Okinawa in 1930, and this book crafted a very large selection of Okianwan kata, and spent ½ the book showing applications for kata technique. (the applications were broken down into responses against types of attack or principles involved).
Mutso’s “Ryukyu Kempo” (aka ‘Toudi Kempo’, ‘Karate Kempo’) remains a very unique book, and I believe we can see that its publication threw down the gauntlet by revealing so much and forcing greater depth in subsequent works.
In 1935 Funakoshi Ginchin responded by publishing his “Karate Do Koyan” in 1935, an updating of his art, the changes to kata names, the changes to technique, the retention of his throwing techniques, and the inclusion of some 20 specific karate technique applications.
Unfortunately I have never seen a copy of this 1935 publication. (since when I wrote this I have seen a .pdf copy of the book)
Funakoshi or perhaps more accurately his students republished “Karate Do Koyan” in 1955. It was published either just before or just after his death. That publication updated the kata and technique photographs. The throws were retained, but self defense applications were not included.
Not having access to a copy of the 1935 text I’ve often wondered what those applications may have been. But almost no place else that I have found were they discussed. Leaving questions, why were they dropped?, at least in my mind.
Then several weeks ago Patrick McCarthy sent me a gift, out of the blue, a copy of his book “Watashi no Karate-jutsu” on the short writings of Motobu as well as Funakohsi Ginchin. It included those self defense applications from the 1935 text. While hardly extensive (20 or so of them) they are still startling, for they reflect more of what Mutsu’s applications show than most other karate texts hint.
My characterization is that most Blocks being followed by grabs and drags before striking. This is very different from the normal block then strike one thinks of in Funakoshi’s Shotokan Karate. Kicking into the legs was shown as the primary target. Karate being shown as a locking, controlling art, instead of just a percussive one. Most are well aware this is not what Japanese karate became know for, yet here was one of Japanese karate’s prime movers, showing something very different.
In fact what is being shown really resembles another contribution Patrick McCarthy has made, the translation of Mutsu’s interview with Kyan Chotoku (found in his book Motobu Choko Karate My Art’). [Note how Mutsu keeps cropping up in this!]
Here are a several quotes by Kyan from the interview that also apply to Funakoshi’s karate application demonstration.
“If you seize an opponent's wrist, garment or arm be certain to maintain a pliable strength all the time being prepared to exploit his reaction. This way you can maintain control of the opponent's movement.”
“It is not necessary to use your hands in defense of an opponent's kicks. They can be trapped, thwarted, or even swept away by your own leg while simultaneously countering with your hands. In case of the opponent falling or being knocked down, be careful not to rush in carelessly and be caught off guard.”
Somehow I never expected to see a link from Funakoshi’s art to that of Kyan or that demonstrated by Mutsu, but it does seem they did spring from similar beginnings and then diverged in approach as time passed.
When we consider a work, it may be most important to try and understand the audience that work was written for.
In some sense these books opened what seemed like a floodgate of others sharing. Mabuni appeared in several others, including Nakasone’s 1938 “Encyclopedia of Karate”, making him perhaps the widest published, but a wider range of the Okinawan arts was disclosed (and of course preserved for others) because of these publications.
In the sense they all shared a desire to open up a piece of their art for a ‘public’, they had similar goals. That opening their art for wider view would help their arts grow in different ways.
Victor Smith
Hi Victor Sensei,
Thanks for your contributions...very interesting perspective and much appreciated, too. Also, appreciate the compliment, too.
I read your response, I couldn't help but think about the various personal
perspectives which exist about this issue. Given what we already know about this art and tradition, I do believe that filling in the blanks is not as difficult as we may think. I agree that no work, or at least no work that I know of, can be a definitive explanation of the art, and certainly not the early publications by Funakoshi, Mabuni, Nakasone, Mutsu etc. I also agree that, in spite of this, they are very informative, especially knowing what we now known about its history and evolution, local knowledge of the era, and the ever expanding body of information surrounding that cultural landscape and social mindset. I have an extensive library, but the following publications, including the combine works of Kinjo Hiroshi, Konishi Yasuhiro, Nagamine Shoshin, Miyagi Tokumasa, Fujiwara Ryozo, and Kinjo Akio, have been the most informative about karate of that era.
Principal works of/about that era:
1914-1934 A Series of Newspaper Articles by Funakoshi Gichin & Sasaki Gogai
1922 Ryukyu Kenpo Karate-jutsu by Funakoshi Gichin
1925 Rentan Goshi-jutsu by Funakoshi Gichin
1926 Okinawa Kenpo Karate-jutsu Kumite Hen by Motobu Choki
1930 Kenpo Gaisetsu by Miki Nisaburo & Mutsu Mizuho
1932 Watashi no Karate-jutsu by Motobu Choki
1933 Karate Kenpo by the Tokyo University Karate Research Society
1934 Karate Kenkyu by Nakasone Genwa
1934 Karate-jutsu no Kenkyu by Itoman Seishin
1934 Karate Kenpo/Seipai no Kenkyu by Mabuni Kenwa
1934 Kobo Jizai Goshinjutsu karate-kenpo by Mabuni Kenwa
1934 Karatedo Gaisetsu by Miyagi Chojun
1935 Karatedo Kyohan by Funakoshi Gichin
1935 Karatedo Numon by Mabuni Kenwa
1938 Kobo Kenpo Karatedo Numon, by Mabuni Kenwa & Nakasone Genwa
1938 Karatedo Taikan by Nakasone Genwa
1939 Karatedo Hanashi by Nakasone Genwa
1943 Karatedo Nyumon by Funakoshi Gichin
1947 Sports Karate Magazine
1957 Kempo Karate-do by Chitose Tsuyoshi
1964 Shorinji Ryu Kenkokan Karate by Kudaka Kori
1971 Shiryo Meiji Budoshi by Shinjin Butsu Oraisha
By contrasting what those author's did write about with what they did not write about makes for interesting analysis, especially in lieu of no other testimony being available. Of course, nothing beats hands-on master-to-student instruction across the course of one's life. However, for the Japanese of that era, books had to be the very next best thing.
I am not denying that what Charles Goodin wrote about the locals in Hawaii
ignoring visiting Japanese instructors of that era, however, there could
certainly be other reasons explaining such behaviour. It could have been there age, their disposition, perhaps even the source of their sponsorship. Perhaps they didn't properly acknowledge the local instructors. They might not have brought omiyagi [gifts]. Maybe the instructors didn't like them, or perhaps didn't like Funakoshi [like Mabuni, Funakoshi was also invited to Hawaii but declined] which is where they came from. Who's to even say that the incident was even such a big deal or blown out of proportion? We all know that much can be learned out of a book, at least that what I think. I know after my first visit to Hosei University's Anthropology Dept, headed up by the venerable Prof. Hokama Shuzan, gazing over twenty-thousand volumes of original pre-war Okinawan work, I don't believe for a moment that those folks were shy about writing and publishing books.
Admin
I am a big fan of the Chotoku Kyan interview. I believe it to be his only
written interview or writing of any kind.
Just a point. When Miki and Mutsu visited Okinawa, I understand that the
Okinawan teachers did not give them the time of day. Even here in Hawaii,
when Mutsu and Higashionna came in 1933, the oldtime Okinawans here said, "In Okinawa we learn Karate from teachers. In Japan, they learn from books."
Since Miki and Mutsu were writing a book, I believe that the Okinawans were even more suspicious of them.
But, I have also heard that Mutsu was a fine gentleman and that the people
who met him here in Hawaii respected him. So, Kyan Sensei might have opened up to Miki and Mutsu to help them get a better grasp of Karate in Okinawa.
This generalization about Japanese Karate and book learning seems to be an Okinawan stereotype.
Respectfully,
Charles C. Goodin, yudansha
Kishaba Juku Shorin-Ryu, Honolulu, Hawaii
No comments:
Post a Comment