文武館道場 - 杉並 - Bunbukan Dojo

Imina in Shintō Musō-ryū: Continuity Without System
Part 5 of 11: Shintō Musō-ryū and the Densho Record

Within this broader context, the naming practices preserved in SMR densho can be read as one expression of these wider conventions. Figures recorded in these documents are often presented with multi-part names, combining elements such as a family name, a title or common-use name, and a final two-kanji element that corresponds to an imina. While this pattern appears frequently, it is not uniform. The densho record preserves names as they appear in transmission, but does not document the process by which those names were formed.

The recurrence of particular kanji in these records may have several causes. Some characters were simply common in personal names of the period, so their repeated appearance is not unusual. In other cases, characters may have been reused deliberately to maintain a visible connection with earlier figures. This reuse may have occurred at the time a name was assigned, or through modification at a later stage. It is also possible that once certain characters appeared in the record, later names may have drawn kanji from that existing pool. However, these patterns do not indicate the presence of a fixed or formalised system of inheritance. Because the densho record preserves final name forms rather than documenting the full process of name formation, it is not possible to determine how or when such reuse occurred in individual cases.

The following examples illustrate how these naming patterns can be broken down into recurring components:
飯篠 長威齋 家直 Iizasa Chōisai Ienao
飯篠 (Iizasa) – family name
長威齋 (Chōisai) – an additional name, possibly functioning as a gō (号)
家直 (Ienao) – likely imina

松本 備前守 政信 Matsumoto Bizen no Kami Masanobu
松本 (Matsumoto) – family name
備前守 (Bizen no Kami) – title
政信 (Masanobu) – likely imina

小神野 播磨守 定勝 Ogano Harima no Kami Sadakatsu
小神野 (Ogano) – family name
播磨守 (Harima no Kami) – title
定勝 (Sadakatsu) – likely imina

夢想 權之助 勝吉 Musō Gonnosuke Katsuyoshi
夢想 (Musō) – adopted or lineage-associated name
權之助 (Gonnosuke) – common-use name
勝吉 (Katsuyoshi) – likely imina

小首 孫左衛門 吉重 Okubi Magozaemon Yoshishige
小首 (Okubi) – family name
孫左衛門 (Magozaemon) – common-use name
吉重 (Yoshishige) – likely imina

These examples show recurring patterns, particularly the presence of a final two-kanji imina element. However, they do not indicate a fixed or formalised method of construction. While most entries follow a three-part form including a final two-kanji element, there is at least one exception, namely 香下只七 (Kōsh*ta Tadashichi), where no imina element appears.

A brief note preserved in Tenshin Shōden Shintō Musō-ryū Jōjutsu adds further ambiguity to this case. Kōsh*ta Tadashichi is described as being of merchant background, as having been unable to receive the gokui from Fujimoto Heikichi of the Jigyō line, and as having instead received the gokui menkyo from Hatae Kyūhei of the Haruyoshi line. The same entry gives his age at death as thirty-seven, though with a question mark. These details do not explain why no imina is recorded. It is possible that Kōsh*ta’s early death limited the number of documents through which an imina might have been preserved. It is also possible, though less certain, that his merchant background affected how his name was recorded.

Taken together, these observations suggest that the densho preserve a recognisable naming pattern rather than a fixed naming system. The final two-kanji imina element appears frequently, but Kōsh*ta’s case shows that it was not universal. The principles governing imina assignment therefore appear flexible, non-standardised, and dependent on circumstances that the surviving record does not fully preserve.

Next: Naming Continuity in the Shiraishi Hanjirō Line: recurring patterns among Shiraishi and his students.

Picture: Excerpt of Glen Henry’s Densho, showing earlier names in the SMR lineage.

Imina in Shintō Musō-ryū: Continuity Without System
Part 4 of 11: Premodern Naming and the Loss of Its Institutional Context

Across premodern Japan, it was common for individuals, particularly among the warrior class and within cultural or professional lineages, to use multiple names in different contexts over the course of a lifetime. These could include hereditary identifiers, common-use names, titles, and restricted personal names such as imina.

Such practices appeared across a wide range of settings, including martial traditions, tea culture, and the literary arts. Individuals might adopt alternative names reflecting lineage affiliation, professional identity, or personal circumstance. Their number, function, and importance varied according to context, status, and stage of life.

A useful example is Ishikawa Jōzan (1583–1672), a samurai who later became known for poetry, calligraphy, scholarship, and tea. He is recorded under several different names over the course of his life. His personal name changed, his common-use name also changed, and he used Jōzan and other gō, or assumed names associated with literary, artistic, or scholarly activity. This example is not intended to illustrate imina specifically, but rather the broader naming environment relevant to this discussion. It shows how one person could possess several names serving different purposes, and how those names were not necessarily fixed throughout life.

While certain patterns can be observed, such as the reuse of particular characters or the presence of multiple name components, these practices were not governed by fixed or universal rules. Instead, they reflect a set of overlapping conventions in which continuity and variation coexisted.

Premodern Japanese naming is therefore better understood not as a unified system, but as a flexible set of practices shaped by context, relationship, and usage. These practices also did not operate through a single system of inheritance. Names could be shaped by multiple overlapping relationships, including family lineage, hierarchical relationships, and systems of transmission. In many cases, family-based naming appears to have been the most consistent influence, but this was not universal, and other relationships could also shape name formation.

Disappearance of Institutional Context

The practices surrounding imina did not continue into the modern era in their earlier form. Rather than simply evolving, they lost much of the social and institutional context that had given them function. This transition occurred rapidly in the late nineteenth century as political, legal, and administrative reforms reshaped Japanese society.

Key developments included:
1868 — Meiji Restoration: restoration of imperial rule and the dismantling of feudal authority structures.
1871 — Abolition of the han system: replacement of domains with centrally governed prefectures.
1876 — Haitōrei Edict: prohibition of sword-wearing, marking the end of the samurai class as a distinct social group.
1870s–1890s — Family registration reforms: development of the modern koseki system, requiring fixed surnames and given names.

These changes removed many of the conditions under which earlier naming practices had operated. Status hierarchies were dissolved, and the relationships through which names were bestowed or used in different contexts were no longer supported in the same way. At the same time, the legal system increasingly recognised a single registered identity for each individual, recorded under a family name and given name.

A simple contrast illustrates the shift:
Pre-Meiji, in a samurai context:
An individual might use multiple names across different contexts, including a childhood name (yōmyō), an adult name (nanori), a restricted personal name (imina), and titles reflecting rank or role.
Post-Meiji, under the modern state:
Individuals were recorded under a single legal identity within the koseki system, with no formal role for multiple names in official or social structures.

These broader naming practices, and the disappearance of the social structures that once supported them, provide the historical background for understanding what remains in Shintō Musō-ryū. Recurring characters and naming patterns in SMR transmission documents may indicate continuity and deliberate reference to earlier figures, but their presence should not automatically be taken as evidence of a single formal system.

Next: Shintō Musō-ryū and the Densho Record — what the surviving transmission documents actually show.

Picture: Emperor Meiji reviewing the military at the Russo-Japanese War Victory Parade held on April 30, 1906 in Tokyo.

Imina in Shintō Musō-ryū: Continuity Without System
Part 3 of 11: What an Imina Represented

The term imina (諱) refers to a person’s personal name in premodern Japan. In historical usage, it was not a mystical “secret name,” but a socially restricted form of identification used within established naming conventions.

In classical Japan, particularly from the Heian through Edo periods, individuals of status often used multiple names across different contexts:
Yōmyō (幼名): childhood name used before coming-of-age
Nanori (名乗り): a self-declared adult name used in public or official contexts, which could change over time
Tsūshō (通称): a common-use name used in everyday interaction
Imina (諱): a personal name used in formal or restricted contexts, and generally avoided in direct address

These categories (yōmyō, nanori, tsūshō, and imina) are analytical distinctions, and were not always cleanly separated in historical practice. They were not fixed, and could change over the course of a lifetime depending on status, role, or circumstance. Titles and ranks further layered identity.

The imina was not used in everyday interaction. In practice, it appears primarily in formal records, genealogies, and contexts where a person’s identity needed to be recorded with precision. In direct address, other names or titles were used instead. Its avoidance reflects social convention: not secrecy, but the expectation that it was not appropriate for casual use.
In many cases, name elements were shaped within the family, often reflecting paternal lineage continuity, and could be assigned from an early stage. However, this was not universal. Names associated with adult identity, including imina, were often formalised or modified at life-stage transitions such as coming-of-age (genpuku), or through recognition by superiors.

A well-known example is Ashikaga Takauji, who was originally named 高氏 (Takauji). After receiving the character 尊 from Emperor Go-Daigo, he changed his name to 尊氏. This reflects a broader pattern in which name elements could be reassigned through relationships with superiors. While it is not always possible to distinguish precisely between categories such as nanori and imina in many cases, the example demonstrates that elements of formal names were not necessarily fixed at birth.

Naming in premodern Japan also operated within expectations of social appropriateness. Certain kanji, name forms, or associations may have carried strong links to status, authority, or prestige. While no universal prohibition existed, names that appeared excessively elevated or suggestive of elite affiliation may have been avoided outside appropriate social contexts. In this sense, naming involved not only selection but restraint. The suitability of a name depended partly on the individual’s social position, family context, and relational setting.

It is also important to distinguish imina from other naming practices and later interpretations. They are not equivalent to Buddhist posthumous names (kaimyō), which are assigned after death, nor are they inherently connected to esoteric systems such as Onmyōdō or to folklore surrounding “true names” with mystical power. While name avoidance could take on a taboo-like quality in some contexts, the function of imina was social and conventional rather than spiritual.

Next: Premodern Naming and the Loss of Its Institutional Context: how broader naming practices worked, and what changed with the emergence of modern Japan.

Picture: Ashikaga Takauji

Imina in Shintō Musō-ryū: Continuity Without System
Part 2 of 11: Why I began looking into the question of imina.

The subject of this article is rather niche, so I imagine that if you are reading it, you may share an interest in Japanese culture, martial culture, and history. Although I have long been interested in these areas generally, I had neither a clear understanding of, nor much particular interest in, the subject of imina until I received Menkyo Kaiden, a full teaching licence, in Shintō Musō-ryū Jōdō in 2019.

As I explain later in the article, I had heard Nishioka Sensei describe how he chose his own imina. At the time, I understood this rather simply as an assumed “Jōdō name”, something roughly comparable to an actor taking a stage name or a writer using a pen name. I had also observed that some of Nishioka Sensei’s students had taken his example as a precedent and helped establish a convention within our line of Shintō Musō-ryū. I was encouraged to do the same.

Over the following years, my teacher, Glen Henry, applied the occasional gentle pressure to make a decision on the matter. In other words: “choose your Jōdō name!” Life, as it tends to do, got in the way of any quick decision. More importantly, once I began asking questions, I realised that the subject was not nearly as simple as I had assumed. I also realised how little I actually knew about it.

This year (2026), I finally decided to investigate the matter more seriously: to research the historical background, ask questions, and look at what other teachers and practitioners had done. What followed was not an academic-level investigation, nor do I present it as such. However, I believe I have gone far enough to provide some useful signposts, particularly for future generations of Shintō Musō-ryū practitioners who may one day find themselves facing the same questions.

I often wish I had asked Nishioka Sensei about these matters while I still had the opportunity, not only about imina but about a great many things. I have therefore been very fortunate to speak with several senior practitioners who were generous enough to share their recollections and perspectives, and their insights helped shape my understanding of the subject.

Writing this article also helped me think more clearly about the personal question that originally prompted the research: how, as a Menkyo Kaiden of Shintō Musō-ryū, I should approach the choice of an imina for myself. For that reason, I suspect the article may be of particular use to future practitioners who inherit a similar responsibility for transmission.

Beyond the immediate question of imina, this investigation also suggested something more general about the way traditions develop. The naming practices found within Shintō Musō-ryū seem to demonstrate convention without complete rigidity: recognisable patterns and precedents exist, but they do not necessarily amount to a single fixed rule.
There is always a danger, particularly in the transmission of traditional arts, that the example of one generation becomes the convention of the next, and that convention is later treated as though it had always been an established requirement. Understanding that such distinctions exist may be as important as understanding the names themselves. Tradition can provide continuity and guidance without requiring us to invent rules where none previously existed.

Next: What an Imina Represented: the place of imina within premodern Japanese naming.

Picture: Glen Henry and Adrian Knight, 2019.

Imina in Shintō Musō-ryū: Continuity Without System
Part 1 of 11: Introduction

This introduction is the first of eleven posts examining the historical background of imina, their appearance in Shintō Musō-ryū transmission, and the conventions that have developed around their modern use.

Imina, often translated as “true name,” were part of the broader naming practices of premodern Japan. Put simply, a person could possess several different names during their lifetime, used in different social or formal contexts. Even the idea of a single fixed “given name” was less straightforward than it is in modern Japan.

This series looks first at what these names were and how premodern Japanese naming worked more generally. It then considers how those practices changed as the social structures that supported them disappeared, before turning to the way imina have been preserved and adapted within modern Shintō Musō-ryū.

Elements of imina are preserved in Shintō Musō-ryū (SMR) transmission documents. They appear as a final two-character name following a teacher’s family and given names. How those two characters were selected historically, and how they are selected today, forms the central discussion of this article. In contemporary SMR, their use follows observable patterns, but those patterns do not appear to constitute a codified system.

This article does not attempt to reconstruct a definitive historical method of imina assignment. Rather, it examines the patterns that can be observed, how they may be interpreted in their broader historical context, and what they may tell us about continuity within a traditional martial lineage.

Next: Why I began looking into the question of imina.