The story of the vendetta by the men of Akō, Harima, is of course known throughout the land. But it appears that doubts are expressed from time to time: Even though there is no room for debate about what the forty-six men did for their master, some have said that in killing someone whom the government allowed to live in a state of grace, they proved themselves disloyal to the government. This argument has produced a variety of strained theories. From a number of places people have written to me to ask if this or that interpretation is right or wrong or better or worse....
Kōzukenosuke [Kira], as chief officer for Great Imperial Rites and for the shogunate, appears not to have cared, because of his personal greed and willfulness, whether or not Takuminokami [Asano] committed clumsy errors, and made him disgrace himself in front of people in the Palace Splendor. This infuriated Takuminokami and made him do what he did. Fundamentally, Kōzukenosuke's crime of taking advantage of shogunate authority and acting as he pleased was of the kind should not have been allowed to stand without punishment by death. Even if Takuminokami had not struck at him first, he should not have escaped that crime. If the penalty did not go as far as death, he should have resigned his post; or he should have been stripped of his holdings. . . . .
From the viewpoint of the Great Law, the law to be applied was the one that holds that the two parties involved in a personal quarrel are equally punishable. If you say that Takuminokami had to be punished for having disturbed the place for a Great Imperial Rite, it must be pointed out that he did not do so for no reason, but that all that happened was because of Kōzukenosuke's personal willfulness. It follows that if Takuminokami was to be punished, as he was, then Kōzukenosuke should also have been punished. Yet, even though Takuminokami was put to death because of his crime of disturbing the place for a Great Imperial Rite, the other party, Kōzukenosuke, was let go without any kind of penalty. It follows - and let there be no room for further argument about this-that Takuminokami must be said to have been killed by Kōzukenosuke. In the circumstances, if those who considered themselves Takuminokami's subjects had not acted to kill Kōzukenosuke to carry out what their master had wanted to do with his sword, the Great Cause would never have been served. . . . . .
Someone said: "The forty-six men formed a large group, equipped themselves with weapons, and used passwords and identification marks, as if fighting in a battlefield. That was a great crime. What do you say to that?"
I say: "If you put it that way, it may sound as if these men were acting to defy the shogunate authority. But even if you make it sound as if they formed an army, a small group of men were stealing into a mansion of a man of stature with the determination not to fail to kill the enemy of their lord, so they could not help making those preparations. They had no intention of defying government authority or disturbing it.
"Even when you try to kill your parent's enemy, you may end up creating a commotion, depending on your opponent or on the place, but that is not part of your intention. If this is the case, if you think only about government authority and fail to kill the enemy you'll have to say that thoughts of your master or father are second to YOU.
"Further, the way these men had made their plans, they gave no trouble to the neighboring mansions and, once inside the targeted mansion, tried not to kill anyone who gave them no trouble. Also, as they left the house, they took care lest a fire break out by accident. If you accuse such men of defiance of the government simply because of their military outfit, you are deliberately ignoring what they truly wanted to do.
from Sato, Legends of the Samurai