Talk:Forty-seven rōnin

Page name

A Google search revealed the following counts:

• 47 Ronin - 4,540
• 47 Samurai - 615
• Fortyseven Ronin - 11
• Forty-seven Ronin - 925
• Forty seven Ronin - 967
• Fortyseven Samurai - 0
• Forty-seven Samurai - 535
• Forty seven Samurai - 535

so I'm moving it to "47 Ronin". I would have preferred "Forty-seven Ronin", but that's life, I guess. Noel 16:50, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Rewrite

Since it's been so long (with apologies to Noel, who said he's hard at work on a rewrite): {{fac}}

I would definitely ask for a short temporary hold on this for the first phase of the rewrite. The article as it stands contains a number of factual errors (long story - see below), and these really need to be fixed before it's ready. I'll see if I can do this in the next couple of days. Noel (talk) 03:43, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Needless to say, I never got around to this - see comments below. Noel (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Done -- llywrch 22:46, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Errors

It turns out the current version (as of 17/Nov/2004) of the pages contains a number of errors, all traceable to my reliance on Mitford as a source. (In my defense, I will note that B. W. Robinson - the noted scholar of Japanese decorative arts - said that "Mitford .. remains the best source for a strict historical account of the episode". So I think I can be somewhat excused for going wrong! Alas, it's not true - Mitford contains a number of errors.)

After being alerted to this with the posting of the Prof. Henry Smith site link by User:Fg2 (thanks!) I contacted Prof. Smith, and I've been working with him to gather more data. He has provided a lot of really useful information (reprints of various articles, etc), as well as (via email) some commentary which he has graciously allowed me to post here on Wikipedia.

i would like to say both WP:OR and WP:IGNORE here..88.88.102.248 (talk) 09:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm gathering steam for a re-do of the article. See below for discussion of the re-write. Noel (talk) 03:43, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

DIDN'T KNOW WHERE TO POINT THIS OUT, BUT SOMEONE HAS VANDALIZED Genesis of a Tragedy (yet again apparently). Just trying to be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Made in DNA (talk • contribs) 03:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The article relates the same date "Genroku (year) 15, 14th day of the 12th month....Tuesday, January 30th, 1703" under the heading "Genesis of a tragedy" - as the date of the assault that began the events and also under the heading "The attack" as the date of the revenge. The assault and revenge occurred approximately 2 years apart, not on the exact same day. I don't know which is correct, but one of the dates must be wrong D18av74 (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Names

The way the names are done in this article is a little off; I didn't change it when I expanded it, but I should have. E.g. the chief of the Ronin, Ōishi Kuranosuke, was called "Ōishi" throughout, and I didn't want to change that. However, his son is Ōishi Chikara, so when I added him, I was forced to call him Chikara throughout - i.e. we call the father by the family name, and the son by his given name. I'm not sure what's optimal, either calling them "Ōishi Kuranosuke" and "Ōishi Chikara" throughout, or just "Kuranosuke" and "Chikara", but what's there now is the worst of all possible options... Noel 16:05, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

How about "Ōishi" for the father, and "Ōishi Chikara" for the son? Like John Adams and John Q Adams. +sj+ 10:20, 2004 Mar 21 (UTC)

Works for me! There are few enough references to Chikara that it's not clunky to refer to him as "Ōishi Chikara" throughout. Noel 12:38, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Ronin and Homer

Rather than "Homer" how about "Japan's OK Corral" as a metaphor.

It's a bit *weird* to call it the "Homer" of Japan for several reasons (quite apart from the clumsy grammatical structure of that statement):

• Homer's is a work of mythic legend and poetry; whereas the story of the 47 Ronin is a known historical fact.
• The story of the 47 Ronin is said to embody the spirit of Japan, the Japanese attitude, or way of thinking; in what sense does Homer (a) represent the "spirit" of modern Greece or (b) represent a consistent national attitude of any sort? Homer is no more representative of Greek attitudes, than is Arthurian legend of English attitudes! The comparison is completely specious.
• There are ancient Japanese folk tales (such as Heike monogatari) that are far more sensibly compared to Homer.

-- User:62.252.128.13 19:43, 15 Apr 2004

Well, no, actually. For one thing, although it is based on historical events, the story of the 47 Ronin as it was made known later to e.g. Mitford had been changed a lot in the re-telling - and those changes are indicative. (Something similar happened with Homer, of course.) Second, Homer doesn't of course play that role for modern Greece; it is historical Greece that people are thinking of when they say that. As to whether the Ronin are really central to attitudes of the late-Edo period chonin and samurai, that's a long discussion, and one I want to read up on (e.g. in Eiko Ikegami's book "Taming of the Samurai") before I go round on it. But I do think there is a case that as Homer represented an ideal for the Greeks of the 5th/4th century, the Ronin represented an ideal for the Japanese of the late Edo period - which is precisely why the Chushingura was the most popular kabuki play of the era. (It isn't any longer, of course - just as Homer isn't for the Greeks any more.) Noel (talk) 15:49, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Historical accuracy

See also email discussion with Prof. Henry Smith which he has graciously allowed me to post here. Noel (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The accuracy of the account given here is disputed -- nobody knows what happened when the samurai confronted Kira, many other details of the first and second attack can only be speculation and should be indicated as such, and it is agreed that only 46 samurai committed suicide; the 47th didn't take part in the attack, and lived to old age.

They did not have to become ronin; what happened to his family, his successor? the less faithful of his samurai found new masters. in contrast to the simplified popular story, merits further research.

Sj 18:07, 12 Mar 2004

Can you provide references for any of your changes? I am going by Mitford, which Weinberg, a recent (1996) work of very careful scholarship, calls "the best source for a strict historical account of the episode" - but does note that "it must be remembered that it was first published .. 170 years after the event", so I can easily believe that it contains some errors. I know that Yamamoto Tsunetomo (in Hagakure, 1964) had negative things to say about the Ronin, but the historian Ishida Bunshiro has criticized his views as "isolated prejudice". As to the details:

I don't know of any sources (in English, my Japanese is not good enough to read Japanese-language sources) that claim the 47th ronin was not taken on the action, and outlived it. Certainly, the note written by the ronin (still preserved at the Sengaku-ji) to place on Asano's tomb says "we have come this day to do homage here, forty-seven men in all". I know there are sources (e.g. the Chushingura) that say that one of the ronin (Hayano Kampei) comitted seppuku before the action, although he was declared an honorary member of the 47. However, Mitford records that there are 48 graves at the Sengaku-ji - one for each of the 47 ronin, and one for the Satsuma man. Was the grave for Hayano Kampei moved to the Sengaku-ji? Perhaps the premature death of Hayano Kampei was one of those plot twists that were added to the Chushingura? If, on the other hand, the 47th man outlived the other because he was not allowed to come along, why would he have been buried with them? If the count of graves given in Mitford is correct, I'd say it's good evidence for all 47 having been in the attack.

Why do you think that what happened inside Kira's mansion was not known? The ronin all lived on after the attack for some time before they were sentenced to seppuku, and their account of the events could easily have been given out during that time.

According to Weinberg, the fact that Asano's samurai became ronin was part of the punishment handed down by the Shogun for the violence in his palace grounds; they had no choice in the matter.

What sources do you have for the claim that contemporary feeling was mixed? If the account of Mitford is to be believed, the ronin were honoured by all who learned what they had done. Weinberg notes that there were "petitions by the populace to the Shogun". Seward records that Lord Hosokawa Tsunayoshi (who hosted the seppuku of 17 of the ronin) stopped his vassals from finding someone to perform a purification ritual afterwards because he didn't feel that their deaths would offend the deities. Etc, etc.

Noel 01:15, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You're right that they were forced to be ronin; forgive my hasty comment on that score. I just went to check and added my source to the last section; I was in a rush, and this was a side-note to updating the numbers lists for 47 (number). (-: If you've never read it, you might invest in/check out a copy of Sources of Japanese Tradition (the 2d edition came out two years ago), which has many excellent primary/2dary sources, some of which I quote below.

As to the mixed reception of the attack, there was always popular support for the samurai action. But among scholars and government officials, there was initially no such consensus. The text notes that in some cases, critiques of the ronin incurred barrages of criticism directed at the author and his writings, so the protagonists of the event certainly had enthusiastic supporters then as now.

Here are some quotes from Chapter 31 of the 2d ed:

The Debate over the Akō Vendetta

Few events both fascinated and frightened the peaceful world of eighteenth-century tokugawa Japan as much as the Akō vendetta of 1703 did. [...] After learning of their master's death, the now masterless samurai of Akō disagreed about the appropriate response. Some advocated the peaceful surrender of Akō Castle. Others recommended defending the castle to their death. Still others called for immediate revenge on Lord Kira. The matter was resolved when most... agreed to surrender Akō Castle in the hope that the Asano family would be allowed to continue as daimyo of Akō. After the shogunate decreed that Naganori's branch of the Asano family would be discontinued and the domain confiscated, the castle at Akō was surrendered and Asano's retainers became ronin. A number of them had vowed in Akō to protest what wsa seen as an unjust punishment by the bakufu, and after many months of debate on how to accomplish their goals, in the late summr of 1702 they resolved on revenge. A contingent of forty-seven of the Akō ronin, led by Oishi Yoshio (Kuranosuke) took their revenge on Lord Kira one year and ten months after their master's suicide... the shogunate decided that the ronin had broken the law and would have to [die] by seppuku.

A lengthy debate over the revenge vendetta soon followed, centering on issues of the samurai code, duty, and ethics but also, imnplicitly, issues related to religious practice, such as the possibility of venerating figures otherwise sentenced to death as felons.

[pgs 683-684]

Here are translations of writings by people over the next hundred years about the event. Note the choice of "forty-six" or "forty-seven", and the choice of "samurai", "men", or "ronin", depending on the feelings of the author about the glory and honor of the retainers:

Hayashi Hookoo (1644-1732), appointed the first head of the Confucian academy in 1691, from his essay On Revenge (fukushuu ron):

Forty-six men, including Ōishi Yoshio's^[2] samurai retainers of a certain Kansai daimyo, united their hearts in forming a league to avenge the death of their deceased lord.

...First, I will view their vendetta from the perspective of the hearts of the forty-six men. It was imperative that they "not share the same sky with their master's enemy"... To hang onto life by enduring shame and humiliation is not the way of the samura. We must also consider the vendetta from the perspective of the law. Anyone who sees the law as his enemy must be put to death... Stubbornly rebellious, they blatantly defied the authorities. They were arrested and punished in order to clarify the laws of the nation for the realm and for posterity.

[2] (footnote): although forty-seven ronin took part in the revenge attack, one of the group, Terasaka Kichiemon, was apparently ordered to leave before the group reached the Sengaku Temple and thus neither surrendered himself to the bakufu nor was forced to commit suicide with the others, living instead another forty-five years to the ripe old age of seventy-eight. Essayists have thus variously referred to the participants as being either forty-six or forty-sven in number, with those seeking to justify the bakufu verdict citing the number of those sentenced to die, forty-soix, and more sympathetic writers referring to forty-seven.

[pg 692]

Ogyuu Sorai (1666-1728), 2d son of a physician serving Tsuyanoshi (tokugawa heir who became the fifth shogun), later in service to Tsuyanoshi's grand chamberlain Yanagisawa Yoshiyasu, from his Essay on the Forty-seven Samurai (Shijuushichi shi ron):

...Asano Naganori, because of a personal grudge... attacked, inside the shogun's palace, the major general of the Right Division, Kira Yoshinaka... Everyone concluded that the forty-seven men had decided to sacrifice their lives following their lord's death so that they could act loyally, without desire for reward. People thus praised them as righteous samurai (gishi).

In my view, however, their behavior was as senseless as that of the five hundred men who followed Tian Heng [ref. to a chinese group] in death by committing suicide on a desolate island. After all, it was Lord Asano who wanted to kill Lord Kira. Lord Kira had no desire to kill Lord Asano! Therefore, we cannot say that the forty-seven men took revenge on their lord's enemy. Furthermore, it was because the lord of Akō had tried to kill Lord Kira that the Asano family lost their domain. Lord Kira did not destroy their domain. Therefore, again, the forty-seven men cannot be said to have e3xacted revenge for their lord's death

...At best, the forty-seven men can be said to have deftly carried out their master's evil intensions. How can that be called right(gi)?

...Even if we try to empathize with them, how can the whole matter not be deemed an enormous tragedy?

[pgs698-699]

Other sources he lists who wrote condemnations, often stronger than Sorai's (note that some scholars think the Sorai essay above is a forgery, since later in life he wrote a more sympathetic essay about the 47 ronin), include:

• Satoo Naokata (1650-1719), neo-Confucian scholar under daimyo in Fukuyama, Maebashi, and Hikone domains; denounced the ronin as utterly lacking righteousness.
• Yamamoto Tsunetomo (1659-1719), samurai forbidden to follow his master into death; wrote the Hagakure (In the Shadow of Leaves) (Hagakure kikigaki), which became rather famous in the 1930s. Criticized the Akō vendetta (as you noted) for its delayed response, instead of taking immediate, direct action.
• Dazai Shundai (??-??) can only find secondary reference to his criticism.

and more recently:

• Fukuzawa Yukichi (1830-1901), scholar of western ideas and son of a lower-level samurai; one of his most popular writings, An Encouragement of Learning(Gakumon no susume), criticized this incident as an instance of vigilante justice, while explaining sociopolitical ideas found in Francis Wayland's Elements of Moral Science ("Private vengeance is evil... In no instance can even the son of the murdered parent take it upon himself to kill this criminal in place of the government...").

Thanks for getting me to go back and reread about this (the text also includes the original translations and the original japanese sources from which it took excerpts, if you want to trace them back). +sj+ 04:31, 2004 Mar 13 (UTC)

More references

Wow, thanks for the excellent material! It's going to take me a while to fully digest it all (and track down references), but in the meantime here's another tidbit. Your mention of Sources of Japanese Tradition (which I don't have, alas) made me think of Louis Frederic's massive Japan Encylopedia, a most useful reference which was just (2002) published in an English translation (the French original was 1996). (Alas, he doesn't list his sources, but you wouldn't expect that in a paper encyclopaedia - as it is, it's 1100+ largish pages!)

Its entry (under Akō Vendetta, pp. 21-22) says there were 47 attackers - and gives the complete list of names, dividing them up into the seven different tactical groups (of 9, 6, 3, 5, 10, 11 and 3 men, respectively). It further goes on to say that:

.. only Terasaka Kichiemon escaped the fate of his comrades, having been charged by them to go to Akō and inform their confreres that vengeance had been carried out. When he returned to Edo and turned himself in to the authorities, the Shogun pardoned him. But another Akō samurai, regretting that he had not participated .. proceeded to Asano's tomb and committed seppuku. The samurai who was pardoned died of old age and was buried beside his companions.

I've seen a number of sources that say the youngest was spared; one says it was the youngest who was sent back with the news (as described above). This also agrees with the footnote to Hayashi Hookoo's commentary which you gave above, which says that "Terasaka Kichiemon, was apparently ordered to leave before the group reached the Sengaku Temple" (emphasis mine) - which I would assume means after the attack on Kira's mansion. If this is accurate, and there really were 47 in the attack party, it might explain the origin of the "46" number - because 46 were sentenced to death. It would also explain why the 47th man was eventually buried with the others - because he had been at the attack, and not rejected beforehand. Scholars commenting on the sentence would speak of "46", since it was that many who were sentenced to death. So I would consider that to be the explanation of all the confusion about the number.

Also, if the other Akō samurai were also buried there, that might be the 48th tomb - in which case the story of the Satsuma samurai might be apocryphal. I think you've got a good case that at the time among the intelligensia at least there were mixed feelings about their actions. Let me ponder that aspect a little more. Noel 18:01, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have updated the page in line with the results of all this. Take a look and see how you like it. Noel 18:50, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, that was a satisfying sidetrack! I was thinking about revenge and its ironies all day today... I had a sudden yen to see Ronin; didn't realize it paid homage to this story.

Yes, Kichiemon must have returned after the attack. It's exciting to hear that Frederic makes note of even the details of their attack strategy; the story is still a historical black box to me -- I don't have a sense of how all 47 of them survived the attack, or what the epilogue was for Kira's family. As for the 48th grave, we just need to get someone from jp: to go visit the site and read the inscriptions... it could be that it was the former Akō samurai who ran into Ōishi and insulted him. (Why should a Satsuma man care so much?) But that also sounds like the kind of flourish a good storyteller can hardly avoid adding, were it not already there.

I like the updated article. I'll leave further updates to you; now you know everything I do about the event. One final thought: some day, names should be updated with long vowels as appropriate; Ōishi, Akō, etc. +sj+ 07:37, 2004 Mar 14 (UTC)

Quick note: Frederic doesn't include details of the actual attack. The only English-language source I know of that does is Mitford - which I urge you to read, it's really quite neat (even if a bit purple, in the proper Victorian mode :-). Other points: I had that same thought about the 48th grave. And yes, I know we're missing the diacriticals - I was hoping someone else would fix them! Noel 15:23, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

According to Bell, Chushingura, there's another volume which reprints a lot of eyewitness accounts (e.g. of the trial); Legends of the Samurai, by Hiroaki Sato. I have ordered a copy and we'll see what it has when it gets here. Noel 13:38, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Now that's fascinating... I didn't realize there was much of a trial, I thought it was just private deliberations by the emperor and his administrators for a while. Also, I want details on what the slight was that lead to the suicidal attack; I read rumours that the attack took place after the visit with the Emperor; that it was slightly premeditated, revenge for the point of manners which Kira neglected to pass on to Asano; but that sounds so understated as to be almost sarcastic. Then others say that it was just a spur of the moment thing, in response to a specific insult -- about being a country boor? really? I'd be happy to hear an eye-witness report, if there was one, rather than a historian's recration of the scene. [your mention of eye-witnesses to the trial reminded me...] +sj+ 10:18, 2004 Mar 21 (UTC)

I've seen (in what ought to be authoritative source, like Frederic) differing accounts of what motivated the attack. I'm not sure we'll ever know for sure, but most accounts do seem to agree that Kira felt the gifts weren't enough, and also that he insulted Asano (perhaps in part because he was a generally obnoxious person, on which many accounts also agree). The version that it was a post-visit thing (of the Emperor's ambassadors, not the Emperor himself - the latter never left Kyoto) is one I hadn't heard before. However, I wouldn't be surprised. Sato's book's not here yet - I'll look for details on this (e.g. dates of the visit, and Asano's attack) as well when I have it. Noel 12:38, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, I've finally got around to checking out what Legends of the Samurai (by Hiroaki Sato) has to say. Most of the originals texts given there are later scholarly commentary, which I don't think is of much use in trying to ascertain the facts. Sato does retell the story in his own words, and his reading basically agrees with ours: there 47 attackers, but only 46 were sentenced to be executed; he says most sources agree that the 47th, Terasaka Kichiemon, was sent on a mission,although he reports that possibly fled before the attack.

His text gives a number of other details:

• their master's situation was carried to Ako by two groups of two retainers each, one after the arrest, and another after his seppuku;
• there was then a lengthy debate over what to do, with three factions of retainers, one wanted to give up peacefully, one wanted to defend the castle and die, and the third wanted to hand over the castle and the either commit seppuku themselves, or attack Kira;
• the "acting lord president" of Ako disappeared with a good deal of the money before the Shogun's agents could arrive to take over the castle (Oishi was not in overall charge);
• Oishi's faction numbered 61 at the time they were ordered to give up the castle.

The one original document that is really good, though, are memoirs by Okado Denpachirō who was one of the "deputy inspector-generals" on duty (out of the complete complement of 24) the day (the 14th of the 3rd month) when Asano attacked Kira. He didn't personally see the attack, but arrived on the scene very shortly thereafter (the two men were still being restrained at the site of the attack), and was there for most of the rest of the events of that day. He personally questioned Asano about his motivations, but Asano would only say he had a grudge against Kira, became enraged, decided to kill him, and regretted that he had not succeeded. There's a lot of detail about the decision making process (apparently a number of Lords with the rank of "Governor", "Deputy Adminstrator" and "Administrator" were involved, with the final decision being taken by Lord Matsudaira Yoshiyasu - so you were right, it wasn't a trial as we think of it, just private deliberations, although both sides did give their story; the deputy inspector-generals tried to get the Shogun to review the matter, because Kira was let off scott-free, but their request was denied). He was also present at Asano's seppuku, later that day.

I will work some of the additional details here into the page "soon". Noel 01:13, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mitford

Makiko Arima writes (http://www.columbia.edu/~hds2/chushinguranew/retelling/Mitford.htm): "Whoever told A. B. Mitford the story of the forty-seven rōnin clearly told a different version from the one told to Alcock. ... He conveys a legendary aspect of the Akō incident, not a historical account, but merely repeating what he had heard in the oral tradition." And in the section "Story vs. History" concludes "His attention to detail reflects his attempt to retell the story as was told to him, and as close to the actual course of events--as he understood it--as possible, which results in a fairly accurate account of the Akō incident, embellished by famous legends as the story of Kamei and Murakami Kiken." Fg2 10:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

For additional information see http://www.columbia.edu/~hds2/chushinguranew/retelling/47_ronin.htm. Fg2

Article contents - Chushingura, etc?

I'm about to do a major re-write of the page, with two goals in mind. The primary goal is to get rid of all the factual errors which I introduced by relying too havily on Mitford (who has a whole host of problems, don't want to get into that now, though). The second is to cover a number of topics that are important, but aren't currently covered, such as:

• What the role of the Ronin story was in the development of Japanese society, culture and ethics (e.g. the kind of material covered in Eiko Ikegami's The Taming of the Samurai) in the Edo period.

• Cover the various accretions to the story as it was handed down (e.g. the Satsuma man), which in themselves are illuminating (not to mention historiographical).

My question is "what do we do with the Chushingura" (i.e. the play)? My sense is that the article, as rewritten to cover the material above, is already going to be pretty long, and so I wouldn't want to cover the Chushingura in the kind of detail I think it deserves (e.g. plot outline). So I'm proposing we make that a separate article. What do people think? Noel (talk) 13:46, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think I'm going to do this all in several phases, because of the Featured Article nomination. First (and quickly) will be a re-do to i) remove the errors, and ii) fix the style issues raised in the first FA nomination (I agree, it is a bit breathless). I'll add more extensive "meaning" stuff later. Noel (talk) 03:46, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm doing the re-write now - offline, alas (visiting family, I have to dial in), so I won't be able to respond online right away. The new version should be back later tonight. Noel (talk)

This is taking longer than I expected (the sources I'm working from are poorly arranged for this), so I'm going to remove the notice and keep working. Don't bother editing it, though - it'll all just get written over when I upload the (totally revised) new version. Noel (talk) 18:58, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Many confusion

Just now I scanned this talk and found some misunderstanding - or confusion fictional Chushingura and the historical fact of Forty-seven Ronin.

• Hayano Kanpei had no grave - because he is a fictional figure in Chushingura, thus no grave in our real world. His model, 萱野三平重実 Kayano Sampei (Shigemitsu, not for sure) is buried to Kayano family's graveyard along their former house in Minoo, Osaka.
• Sj said "they did not have to become ronin" - defnitely yes, because the House of Asano in Ako was abolished, hence all of former Ako men became ronin at that momment - like a company bankrupts and all is former employees turn to unenployed. But if you meant participants of this vendetta, no, they didn't have to.

--Aphaea* 06:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

This article is supposed to be about the facts of the 47 ronin. Of course, a section on fiction would be a good part of the article, but Chushingura might be worthy of a separate article. (Presently, it has no separate article). Some months ago, a user proposed to rewrite the article, but it's been a long time, and maybe it's a good time to start editing again. Fg2 06:50, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

That was me who was going to do the re-write. I got distracted (doing the rewrite proved to be difficult, with the fragmentary English sources I was using) and I never finished it.

As far as separating the Chushingura and the historical story of the 47 Ronin, you will find that I suggested above that we do just that, so no argument on that from me! Noel (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I found that the excessive use of the phrase "There is no question that..." distracted from the main topic, making it near impossible to read (personally, anyway). I suggest finding alternate ways to express this idea without using the same phrase too much. - Anonymous

Star Wars

Not a surprise to be sure but, Dark Horse published a Star Wars story based off of this called, Crimson Empire, inwich a number of Imerpial Guards seek vengence of the Emperors death.

Delisting from GA

Main problem: No References. Without any references, an article cannot reach GA or FA status. External links and further reading aren't references. If the references are stated, the article should surely be restored to GA status.

Similarly, the article fails B-class criteria for WP:MILHIST. I think this is a great article, one of the longest, most detailed and well-written of the Japan-related articles on the 'pedia. And there's a great list of "Additional Reading", which could be easily renamed "References". But without inline citations, I'm afraid, moving beyond Start-status (for MILHIST) or B-class will be difficult. LordAmeth 23:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't move it up in quality on anybody's list until it's completely rewritten without any reliance on Mitford. See the email discussion with Prof. Henry Smith,[1] which he has graciously allowed me to post here. Noel (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The accuracy of the account given here is disputed -- nobody knows what happened when the samurai confronted Kira, many other details

This is not really true; the ronin lived on for quite some time in captivity, and provided their recounting of the events of the attack in great detail, which have been retained in the records. See the email discussion with Prof. Henry Smith, which covers this exact point. Noel (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Just adding link to Columbia University, Weatherhead East Asian Institute -- bio/blurb for Prof. Henry D. Smith II --Ooperhoofd 14:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Dates

It would be wonderful if someone can look into the dates presented here. Many seem to be inaccurate translations of the Japanese lunar dates into the Western calendar. (i.e. ２月４日 is the fourth day of the second lunar month; I do not know what Western date that corresponds to in Genroku 6, but it's not February 4.) Thank you. LordAmeth 08:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If the dates in the current version of Forty-Seven Ronin were accurate, the nengō/Gregorian conversions would be the following:

• Genroku 14, on the 14th day of the 3rd month (元禄十四年三月十四日) = Thursday, the April 21, 1701
• Genroku 15, on the 26th day of the 10th month (元禄十五年十月二十六日) = Thursday, December 14, 1702
• Genroku 15, on the 19th day of the 12th month (元禄十五年十二月十九日) = Sunday, February 4, 1703

This data was easily retrieved from the Tsuchihashi database using the online "Nengocalc" algorithms maintained by the German University of Tuebingen.--Ooperhoofd 22:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: I moved the following from the article page. –RHolton≡– 04:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

As a research astrologer, I checked the date of the attack and its conversion to the Gregorian calendar - I believe the December 1702 date is incorrect; (this is from a references file I keep): Forty-Seven Ronin attack: I was inspired by book of fiction based on the real event: “The Tokaido Road” by Lucia St Clair Robson; decided to try for date of attack; Encyclopedia Britannica (1965) had article about the event, & gave “night of Jan 30, 1703”; Robson’s book had given “Hour of the Tiger” - with her info about hours given at beginning of her book, I used 4AM. Since event was early morning, I thought Jan 31st might be actual date, so to check this, called Japan Society librarian - she said she knew the date was Dec 14-15/1702!! (said Japanese celebrate this day each year). The Japan Cultural Society referred me to Kinokuniya Bookstore in NYC; woman named Yuka looked it up in Nihon No Rekishi (History of Japan) Vol 10, published by Syogakukan, 12 20 93, which gave “morning of Dec 15 1702”, and Yuka, also, told me that that is definitely the day the Japanese celebrate the event each year. I assumed that was that, and was disappointed because the January planetary patterns worked much better (they describe a violent event). I decided to try one more check on the January date; I called the author of Tokaido Road on the chance she might have information that could help; she graciously went thru her papers, told me that at that time Japan was still on an old agricultural lunar calendar, and came up with “11th month, 14th day” (she had been given this by scholars in Japan). Knowing that the Japanese calendar, like the Chinese, started the year with the Aquarius New Moon, (2nd New Moon after the Winter Solstice), I used the CCRS Program to calculate the New Moons for December 1701 thru February 1703 and counted the months from the 2nd (i.e. Aquarius) New Moon after the 1701 solstice: 11 months + 14 days came to Jan 30, 1703; considering that Japan Society librarian had said 12/14-15 & ref book had “morning of the 15th” I again considered that it was probably early hours of Jan 31, rather than Jan 30. Thus the chart (i.e. horoscope) I use is for January 31, 1703, 4 AM LAT (Local Apparent Time), Edo (Tokyo), Japan. Later Hirotatsu Fujiwara (a Japanese astrologer) wrote me, in response to my inquiry, to say that it was indeed January, 1703 (not Dec 1702). Ancientskies (talk) 04:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

There's plenty of opportunity for confusion about the dates. The Japanese and Western calendars were different in two relevant ways: first, the Japanese was lunar, the Western solar; second, the Japanese new year does not align with the Western.

The break-in occurred, according to the Japanese lunar calendar, following the tea party held on the night of the 14th day of the twelfth month in the year Japanese call Genroku 15. See Genroku. Most of Genroku 15 was the same as the Western year 1702. However by the twelfth month the Western calendar had already switched to 1703, and Genroku 15, twelfth month 14th day was January 30, 1703 in the West. According to the Western calendar, the break-in occurred on the night of January 30 (ending in the pre-dawn hours of the morning of January 31), 1703. Nengocalc confirms this conversion (Database=Tsuchihashi, select Year, in the drop-down lists click (1688)元禄Genroku, click 十五年, click 十二月, click 十四日. The outcome is Japanese date: 元禄十五年十二月十四日. Western date: 30.1.1703 (Tuesday).)

To confuse the matter further, the Japanese do commemorate the event on December 14 or 15 according to the modern Western calendar. This leads some people to think the event occurred on the 14th and 15th of December in 1703; when these are converted to Genroku dates the result is as Ooperhoofd noted above. The Japanese are commemorating the event several weeks before the actual anniversary.

Further information:

• ja:元禄赤穂事件
• 1700年代 Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (Japan): the first entry for 1703 says "・1月30日(元禄15年12月14日)- 浅野長矩の遺臣が本所の吉良屋敷に夜討をかける(元禄赤穂事件)"
• 事件はどう語りつがれてきたか」　墨田区公式ウェブサイト (government of Sumida, Tokyo) gives date as 元禄15年12月14日

Fg2 (talk) 07:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Intro

The Intro to this article needs dates. Marquess (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Marquess, a wording like "at the beginning of the 18th century" or such at the very beginning would be fine. Also, when start reading the article from top, due the use of such words as "story", "legend", "tale" it does not become directly clear that these incidents really happened (despite a lot of legends and fiction around it). Maybe I will have some time to update the article, in the meantime I leave it on the talk page. --Cyfal (talk) 08:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've placed the events in the proper century and stated that the tale is true. Further suggestions are welcome, and of course anyone may edit the article to improve it. Fg2 (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you're quick! It's perfect, what you did, I think. --Cyfal (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Using Mitford as a source

I have been researching 47 Ronin story for more than 18 years and I think that Mitford is an indispensable source of information for westerners interested in reading the story in English. Tales of Old Japan contains only unintentional, minor factual errors and gets the core story correctly.

To call Tales of Old Japan "significantly fictional narrative" is an exaggeration.

I strongly encourage everyone to read Mitford's excellent book available here online:

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/13015

http://www.munseys.com/disktwo/tajadex.htm html version

The book is good because as a member of the British Legation to Japan, Mitford actually witnessed many of the events he wrote about. He made a serious attempt to document the end of feudalism and the Samurai way of life. Mitford was wise enough to see that something old and ancient was being quickly replaced.

1. He was the first person to translate the statement left on Asano's tomb, Letters carried by the Ronin, and the receipt for the return of his severed head to his relatives. I have not seen this translation anywhere else.

2. He witnessed the decline of feudalism and saw people kill themselves at the grave site of the ronin. (see the descriptions of the seppuku)

3. He witnessed and wrote about the seppuku of a Samurai who ordered an attack against westerners after he was found guilty at trial.

4. He provides important descriptions of marriage and death customs as well as child rearing and seppuku rituals for the different ranks of samurai. He gave great detail. For folk stories, I also recommend Lafcadio Hearn (all of his works are online)

My point is that this information is hard to come by in English and you probably won't find it elsewhere. If you want to know what it was really like at the end of the Tokugawa era, READ THE BOOK. This should be near the top of your reading list if you want to learn about Japanese History and feudalism.

Seppuku

Why did only 46 of them commit it? --212.121.193.251 (talk) 10:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

its answered in there.

Also in a prior talk comment, thus I quote:

Terasaka Kichiemon, was apparently ordered to leave before the group reached the Sengaku Temple and thus neither surrendered himself to the bakufu nor was forced to commit suicide with the others, living instead another forty-five years to the ripe old age of seventy-eight.

Criticism

there appears to be no sources for this criticism, perhaps it should be removed if they can not be found. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 06:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be difficult to reference it, it is justified however. Apart from that, what about the family members of those killed on both sides? One wrong was "avenged" with another wrong, because the 47 created widows and took the fathers away from their children. Maybe that should be put into the criticism as well. Gryffindor (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Disorganized and disjointed factoids

I've just tried to read the article from the top to the bottom, and in my opinion it is highly disjointed and consists of a series of disconnected factoids which are strung together into an article without any proper organization. Can someone please do a rewrite so that it becomes possible for a reader to learn the basic information without stumbling over disjointed bits and pieces. JoshuSasori (talk) 07:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• {{sofixit}} GraniteStateGrump (talk) 11:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. There appears to be no agreement about either decapitalizing "Ronin" or introducing the macron. Cúchullain ^t/c 20:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

---

---

Forty-seven Ronin → Forty-seven rōnin – There is no reason for this title to have a capital "R": the prose of the article itself doesn't use one. elvenscout742 (talk) 06:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Tentative support - yes at the moment it looks like a film title rather than just an article on rōnin. But because it is definitive "THE forty-seven mercenaries" would welcome comment on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters: Forty Martyrs of England and Wales, Forty Thieves etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
• Has someone hacked Elvenscout's account? Why isn't the proposed lemma shijū shichishi? Kauffner (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Shut up. Your constant personal attacks, and your following me to all these RMs that you clearly don't understand (or are you following IIO?), are beginning to get on my nerves. By the way, the Japanese name for this legend is not "The Forty-Seven Ronin" (四十七士, Shijū-shichi-shi), but "The Treasury of Loyal Retainers" (忠臣蔵, Chūshingura).[2][3] If I was trying to move all of these articles to "orientalist" titles, I would point out that over 20,000 English-language sources call it by the latter name. elvenscout742 (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose use 47 ronin instead. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Why? I'm not personally opposed to your suggestion, but I can't seem to find the NC or MOS page that covers this. It seems counter-intuitive to use the Arabic numeral when the article text spells the number out. elvenscout742 (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It's simpler, and usually when numbers exceed 20, you start using Arabic numerals instead of English words (or so I recall from English class) as they are all compound words from then on (except on the tens, up to a hundred) ; It's also not that likely people will spell out numbers anyways. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 13:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

English classes don't count, unfortunately. I'm not sure where you're from, but in Ireland, and I think the UK, we were told that we usually use English words in good prose. Anyway, if this page is to be moved it needs to be based on some Wikipedia policy or guideline. elvenscout742 (talk) 13:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:PRECISE "forty-seven" is many more characters than "47" -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 07:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

What? You have stated a completely obvious fact with no indication of its importance: Wikipedia doesn't select its titles based on character-counts. I have no idea why you linked me to WP:PRECISE, as both spellings of "47" are exactly as precise as each other: did you mean to draw my attention to the part where it mentions energy vs. energy (physics)? Because that seems like a very flimsy reason to use Arabic numerals: why not then 4 Horsemen, 12 Apostles and so on? elvenscout742 (talk) 07:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Those are less than 20 in number though. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you think of any (non-trademarked) examples that support your proposed move, though? I can't honestly think of a good example either way. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed IIO already cited the Forty Martyrs above. Your argument is invalid. elvenscout742 (talk) 06:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Regards the macron; "47 ronin" is common English. And the capitalisation seems consistent with Four Horsemen or Twelve Apostles (disambiguation), i.e., if the entire phrase is a proper noun, then we don't only capitalise the number: we're not writing an article about just any groups of forty-seven ronin, but about the one in particular. (If it resembles a film title, maybe that's just because film makers deliberately choose titles to imitate those of legendary stories such as this?) Cesiumfrog (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, would you be averse to Forty-Seven Ronin? The title as it is now, the form "FsR" just feels kind of awkward. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

No. But really, if you find the change so important, maybe should take this discussion to the MOS? I mean, there are different conventions that might make sense (for starters compare the three/trois at [4], which doesn't even get into hyphenated words), and might each be favoured by different editors. It seems inefficient to try to have this whole discussion anew each time one editor finds one page that doesn't accord to their own arbitrary taste/local-schooling/convention/feeling-of-awkwardness (note recent xkcd criticism [5]). Cesiumfrog (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I thought my move would be uncontroversial, apart from possibly the macron. I came onto this article while trying to move another related article, and noticed that the title of this article just seems weird. Admittedly I remember this article having severe stylistic and sourcing issues way back last time I edited it (over 6 years ago), but this time I did notice that the actual body of the article doesn't capitalize, and so one way or the other I think we should be consistent. The sources vary dramatically on how they format the name, as well. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't actually check until now, but actually Wikipedia doesn't have an article called "Twelve Apostles"; the related article that has the number 12 in its title is "Commissioning the twelve apostles". If that page is moved, then we can use it as a precedent for this page. (Additionally, Four Horsemen is a disambig page.) elvenscout742 (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a dab that points to such articles as Four Horsemen (Supreme Court) and Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

The MOS:RETAIN guideline states:

An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one valid use of English to another.

The current usage is not "wrong", just different; there clearly exists a plurality of different conventions we might plausibly choose between following. Elven, I understand you have a pattern of attempting to rename articles to address your personal preferred feel, and often leading to lengthy arguments. I strongly advocate first seeking to have MOS endorse any one particular convention; until then I see no point in arbitrarily cycling from one editor's vague notion of sounding-awkward to the next's. Cesiumfrog (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Where were you at the dozen or so RMs that demanded the removal of macrons from the titles? MOS guidelines seem to routinely take priority over "retaining valid use of English". Can you point to my pattern of moving articles to address my particular feel? Almost all of my recent RMs have been to move articles to the names by which they are most-widely known in reliable sources... elvenscout742 (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Please note that despite your usage of quotation marks, I never said the current usage was "wrong". The article itself spells it "forty-seven ronin" throughout the text. For WP:CONSISTENCY's sake, we need to either remove the upper-case "R" from the title, or add an upper-case "R" to every other place in the article where they are mentioned. Additionally, WP:RETAIN refers only to national varieties of English: it does not ban the use of accurate romanization of Japanese words. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Also I should probably draw your attention to the activities of a certain user in the past few weeks has made hundreds of changes to the spellings of Japanese names: should this user be told off for not WP:RETAINing perfectly valid variant spellings? elvenscout742 (talk) 06:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

WP:GOCE Copy Edit, article text matches title

I have just completed a copy edit as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors March 2013 copy editing drive. Since the title of the article has settled at "Forty-seven Ronin" for now, I changed almost all references within the article from "forty-seven ronin" and "47 ronin" to the capitalization used in the article's title.

If there is future consensus about changing the title of the article, consider changing the many instances of "Forty-seven Ronin" in the text to match the new title. Jonesey95 (talk) 05:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Why would you do that? The above RM was closed as no consensus, not consensus to change all instances to the faulty orthography of the title. It'll take forever to undo what you did manually, and my being 7 months late means reverting you is also out of the question. I might as well open another RM to see if anyone opposes my original proposition other than two largely inactive edits who never edit in this area. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Forty-seven Ronin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930014735/http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/geschichte-japans/nengo_calc.htm to http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/geschichte-japans/nengo_calc.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100503121807/http://web.me.com:80/meyer.eva/www.yukikurete.de/nengo_calc.htm to http://web.me.com/meyer.eva/www.yukikurete.de/nengo_calc.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft rewrite in progress

I've started rewriting the bulk of the article based on the Japanese article (ja:赤穂事件) at User:Achurch/47 ronin draft. I'm not a historical scholar by any means, but based on what I do know of Japanese history, the events as described in the Japanese article seem much more likely to be accurate than those in the current English article; of note, it seems that a lot of the references are to recent (2012-2014) work.

My intent is to replace the beginning of the existing article up through the "Criticism" section with a translation of the Japanese article through the "sequence of events" section (section 3, with 29 subsections). I don't know if/when I'll have the energy to get through all of that, but comments and edits are welcome.

Achurch (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The Aftermath section includes an unsourced parenthetical phrase implying that Kichiemon was pardoned due to his youth. But the dates given for the revenge and for his death suggest he was 30 or 40 years old at the time of the incident, at least double the age of Oishi's son. Can someone resolve this contradiction? Martindo (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

alternative names

Alternative readings are listed in italics.

Eh? At the moment, the whole list of names is in italics. What happened? —Tamfang (talk) 06:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Wives

The article says the "wife of Onodera Junai" committed suicide too. Was she the only one? If there were others, this should be added. And do we know her first name? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Reverse copyvio

In this [6] and [7] edit. {{Copypaste}} and {{Non-free}} tags were added with a source of http://parlaylabs.com/tale-of-ronin.html.

Looking at that source, it looks like a strong case for reverse copyvio. Its dated 2019-07-18, much after this wikipedia page. The source seems to be a game/movie review site. It does not make much sense itself seeming to take paragraphs from various sources, starting the plot halfway through. There various links scatter throughout the site to rather dubious sites. --Salix alba (talk): 21:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Genroku era

@Danial Bass: The use of Genroku era does not appear to be a mistake. This is a quote from one of the citations provided in the lead:

“ On the 14th of the 3rd month of the 14th year of Genroku (1701), Asano Takumino-kami Naganori, prince of Akō, who had been several times treated contemptuously by Kira Kōzukenosuke, having received a fresh affront from him in the palace of the shogun, drew his sabre with the intention of revenging the insult. ” — Isaac Titsingh, Timon Screech (editor), Secret Memoirs of the Shoguns: Isaac Titsingh and Japan, 1779–1822 (2006), p. 91

Yue🌙 02:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Yue for checking that out. The era ended in 1704 and I didn't thought all the reforms would have happened within a 2-3 year span since the 47 ronin event happened very early in the 1700s (decade). But I guess it did. Thanks again, I'll further check sources next time, but good thing I didn't removed it. Danial Bass (talk) 09:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Missing huge chunk of the story

These diffs have completely butchered the story: everything between Asano's death and the revenge attack two years later is now missing, with the bizarre claim "unreferenced" even though it (mostly) was. I'm on mobile so I'm not in a position to fix this up though. Jpatokal (talk) 09:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)