Gekken-kōgyō (撃剣興行; exhibition matches), which Sakakibara Kenkichi began in 1873 (Meiji 6) at Asakusa Saemon-gashi, modeled themselves on sumo promotion and were at first approved by the Tokyo governor Ōkubo Ichiō. These matches were eventually banned due to their popularity causing public disorder, possibly much like football (soccer) sports fans at times do today.
As the Restoration stripped the swordsmen’s livelihood — the dampatsu dattōrei (散髪脱刀令; the 1871 edict permitting the topknot to be cut and the sword laid aside), the chitsuroku shobun (秩禄処分; the abolition of hereditary stipends), and the haitōrei (廃刀令; the 1876 sword-abolition edict) — the men who had taught swordsmanship for a living were left without a trade. The former Kōbusho kenjutsu instructor Sakakibara Kenkichi, taking sumo promotion as his model, conceived of staging fencing as a paying spectacle supported by gate money (kido-sen 木戸銭); the Tokyo governor Ōkubo Ichiō (大久保一翁) approved it, and the first gekken-kōgyō ran for ten days from the fourth month of 1873 (Meiji 6) at Asakusa Saemon-gashi (浅草左衛門河岸) to overflowing houses (Nakamura Tamio et al. 1975; Nakabayashi Shinji 1993).
The term gekiken (撃剣) dates at least from the Gekiken Sōdan (撃剣叢談) from Kansei 2 (1790) of Mikami Genryū (三上元龍), a samurai of Bizen Okayama domain (common name Sadayū, 左大夫), which inventoried in its five volumes, the kenjutsu schools and master-houses he saw and heard about while moving between Okayama and Edo across the 1760s–1790s.
Success bred imitation. Sakakibara’s gekken-kai (撃剣会) was followed by rival companies until there were dozens of Tokyo venues and touring troupes reached the provinces, the spectacle taking on the apparatus of commercial entertainment — ranked-fighter charts, nishiki-e (錦絵; colour woodblock prints) of star swordsmen, and the addition of naginata and other weapons alongside straight bouts (Japanese Wikipedia, n.d.). The boom was short: proliferation lowered quality, the judging was opaque to lay spectators, and some venues were repurposed to draw crowds for political speeches, so several prefectures banned it and interest faded (Japanese Wikipedia, n.d.).
The verdict has always been double, and the debate is itself the substance:
- Contemporaries condemned it as degrading the sword to a sideshow, and a specific technical charge holds that its performative excesses — exaggerated kiai (気合) and the habit called hikiage (引き上げ; disengaging upward after a strike) — left a mark on later kendō (Japanese Wikipedia, n.d.).
- It is also credited with keeping the art’s lifeline intact through its leanest years. Takano Sasaburō defended Sakakibara on exactly this ground, holding that it was wrong to disparage a man who was gravely troubled by kenjutsu’s decline and who began the exhibitions so that the art would not die out (Dōmoto Akihiko, n.d.). One source-critical note: Takano’s recollection places the start after the 1876 haitōrei, whereas the documented first kōgyō was 1873 — his account compresses the chronology, a reminder that the “degradation” verdict descends largely from within the kendō tradition that later distanced itself from the exhibitions.
The commercial channel did not stay separate from the state one. Sakakibara sat on the Keishichō panel that later vetted the police fencing instructors, and the Keishi-sōkan (警視総監; Superintendent-General) Mishima Michitsune (三島通庸) is said to have taken capable swordsmen into the force without condition — so the exhibition circuit fed the police adoption that was to give kenjutsu its institutional home (Japanese Wikipedia, n.d.).
