Noble, refined, masculine,... kitsch ?!

[Lukrez]

I keep coming across sword descriptions where terms such as “nobility,” “refinement,” or “masculinity” are used—often when features like the “width of the motohaba” are treated as indicators.

Until now, I have mostly left this aside, but my curiosity has started to outweigh that.

 

I am interested in whether such classifications have ever been critically examined within the community.

 

The idea of evaluating blade characteristics as “noble” or “masculine” seems absurd to me.

 

Can a mountain be more “masculine”?

 

To me, this unnecessarily drags the discussion down to a level comparable to someone trying to appear more masculine by driving a larger SUV or wearing awider Rolex .

 

One might argue that this is subjective, and that by moving to a different level of abstraction it becomes meaningful.

 

But to what end? Are traditional metaphors drawn from nature and landscape no longer sufficient? To me, this often reads like pseudo-sophisticated etiquette that ultimately slips into kitsch.

 

In my view, this is not merely subjective but reflects a collective construction of value systems. As always:A ny system requires its own value framework to affirm itself as meaningful.

 

It seems unlikely to me that capable practitioners, warriors, in a time when both body and sword were heavily worn through use, would have had the time or inclination to engage in such categories. 

 

If I had to interpret it, it seems more plausible that such attributions stem from a later Edo-period elite culture that no longer had direct practical experience of weapon use—or perhaps never had. An elite that wore “masculinity as decoration" andennobled itself through terms like “noble” and “masculine” projected onto the sword, constructing such labels because they could not derive them from lived practice, while "masculine virtues" and warrior spirit were observed only from a distance. Japanese history contains numerous examples of political and military figures rising through betrayal, broken oaths, and intrigue (corruption par excellence), and swords increasingly being used as decorative objects.

 

Within the framework of historical aesthetics, such interpretations were also often transmitted or reinforced retrospectively by scholars, collectors, and schools such as the Hon’ami tradition.

 

In other words: “The one sees art as an instrument; the other sees life as an ornament.”

[John C]

5 hours ago, Lukrez said:

I keep coming across sword descriptions

Lukrez:

Before I generate an opinion, not that mine matters, I just find this topic interesting, to which language are you referring? In other words, are words like masculinity being translated from Japanese into another language or are these words used by the Japanese when describing swords?

 

John C.

[klee]

I dont think I ve ever seen masculinity or nobility used as a motohaba description when translated to english.

 

And I do not see anything out of place when refined is used to describe a feature of a sword

[ROKUJURO]

In Japanese (translated) descriptions, I have never read these terms, so I don't think there is a problem (until we create one).

[nulldevice]

The closest I’ve seen to this is maybe the concept of in and yo when talking about taihai but it’s not the same. 

[eternal_newbie]

3 hours ago, ROKUJURO said:

In Japanese (translated) descriptions, I have never read these terms, so I don't think there is a problem (until we create one).

 

Yes, usually the original Japanese text will say something like "bold", "robust" or occasionally "heroic". It is a cultural/translation issue that a translator equates these things with masculinity. As for "noble" - in this case, "noble" is quite literal; the tapering koshi-zori sugata with fumbari and ko-kissaki that you see in Heian and early Kamakura period blades were associated with the nobles at court, rather than footsoldiers on the battlefield.

[Lukrez]

So, there seems to be no real equivalent in Japanese terms? it’s purely a Western collector’s thing ? Thank you, everyone. I might start collecting the more interesting interpretations; could turn into a fun little collection. 

[Jussi Ekholm]

Sometimes I find the more poetic descriptions of an item features difficult to understand. There are times when for example the item is described more with feeling rather than actual numerical measurements. I can understand that and sometimes even I do the same thing but at the same time it is sometimes difficult to grasp. As I am focused on size and shape, I often get puzzled when sword is described having wide mihaba but the actual numerical measurements show perfectly average sized blade. For me that is difficult to get but there are indeed swords that you can look at and think the sword has wide mihaba even though the numerical measurements would be perfectly average. To me it seems like an optical illusion that makes you observe the sword larger than it is in reality. Even someone as fixated with size and numbers as myself can fall for it. 

[John C]

4 hours ago, Jussi Ekholm said:

There are times when for example the item is described more with feeling rather than actual numerical measurements.

Sounds like classic sales tactic - selling the emotion and not the product. 

 

John C.

[eternal_newbie]

15 hours ago, Jussi Ekholm said:

am focused on size and shape, I often get puzzled when sword is described having wide mihaba but the actual numerical measurements show perfectly average sized blade.

 

I always get tripped up by kissaki definitions - some kissaki that seem barely longer than a chu-kissaki will be described as "classic Nanbokucho o-kissaki" while others with kissaki that almost look long enough to be naginata-naoshi will be described as "extended chu-kissaki".

[Cola]

For some reason I read "dignified sugata" a lot. Does anyone know what makes a sugata dignified versus the opposite (undignified? not dignified?).

[eternal_newbie]

18 minutes ago, Cola said:

For some reason I read "dignified sugata" a lot. Does anyone know what makes a sugata dignified versus the opposite (undignified? not dignified?).

 

"Dignified" generally means the same as "noble" - a long, tapering sugata, typically koshi-zori which was closely linked to the court nobles of the Heian and early Kamakura period. The wider, stouter or generally more "aggressive" a sword is, the less "dignified".

[Cola]

11 minutes ago, eternal_newbie said:

 

"Dignified" generally means the same as "noble" - a long, tapering sugata, typically koshi-zori which was closely linked to the court nobles of the Heian and early Kamakura period. The wider, stouter or generally more "aggressive" a sword is, the less "dignified".

 

Thanks for explaining that's been bugging me for a while! Are "noble" and "dignified" just two different translations of the same Japanese term?

[eternal_newbie]

34 minutes ago, Cola said:

Are "noble" and "dignified" just two different translations of the same Japanese term?

 

Most of the time, yes - but keep in mind there are several Japanese words that could be translated to either, depending on the context and the translator. "Elegant" and "graceful" are other terms used to describe the same general set of characteristics.