Samurai Research: Evidence of Samurai from Wilson’s Translation

Samurai Research: Evidence of Samurai from Wilson’s Translation

Introductory

In this week’s arrangement, we are required to read part of the book, The Way of the Bow and Arrow. The Japanese Warrior in Konjaku Monogatari, which the author is William Ritchie Wilson, from page 177 to 233. After reading this material, we are required to answer several questions such as “who were the first Samurai”; “what evidence we find in Wilson’s translation that Samurai were a distinct class in the Heian Period”; and “were Samurai similar to ordinary warriors or did something set them apart”. To answer these questions, I read through the material carefully, trying to locate any important clues. From page 177 to 189, this part mainly tells us the background of the Konjaku tales and related history; from page 190 to 233, it demonstrates those tales for us.

According to the online lecture materials and the background, the first Samurai were called by temporary court by year of 1100. By searching the key words such as “Heian Period”, those supportive tales give me deeper understanding of how Samurai were distinct class, and I will list them below. As for the last question, the reading material gives me a chance to analyze the reason what aspects set Samurai and ordinary warrior class apart, like it mentions and compare what their origins and treatment are different.

First Samurai

According to the text, the first Samurai derived from “shoen” and “court”. “With the growth in shoen-a device for removing land from the authority of, and avoiding the obligation of paying taxes to, the imperial institution-groups of warriors throughout the country began to enlarge in response to the need for their services (Wilson, pp. 185)”. Since the land became private and that phenomenon was prevalent, driving the “rebellion of Masakado (Wilson, pp.185)”. “The founders of these noble houses, in the case of the Minamoto and Taira, …, where they made their fortune, capitalizing on their connection with the Court (Wilson, pp. 186)”. Because those noble families depended on their prestige and strengthened their link with courts, leading local warriors to “sought service with them in return for protection in their position as hereditary officials entitled to income from certain parcels of land (Wilson, pp. 186)”. Those materials combined together in order to tell us the truth: the economic situation brought out the birth of political class, like Samurai.

Distinction of Samurai in Heian Period

Before reading the tales starting page 190, I noticed there are similarities between Samurai and armed force in the U.S.   I also noticed the author Wilson mentioned there’s distinction in Konjaku between men of force. “Yasumasa (Tale VII), who were not members of warrior houses, and men, such as Yorinobu, who were (Wilson, pp. 186)”. I guessed that due to the Yorinobu had warriors as hereditary retainers, leading the later differences of Samurai in Heian Period. Then I started reading those stories, hoping I could find answers.