（Token Bijutsu No.613）

Nihon Koto Shi

(History of Koto)”

By Dr. Honma Junji

(52)

(P.22)

18. Smiths of Kyushu

(Continued from the previous period)

The Sa school had thrived in the previous period in Chikuzen Province but there were few distinguished smiths existed in this period. There are oshigata of ‘Chikushu Ju Minamoto no Sa and ‘Sa’ with production years of the Oei Era. Also I have seen a few tanto of the Muromachi Period with the mei of ‘Sa’ of which chiselling style is different from that of Samonji, but the mei appears to be genuine. They show a workmanship of Sue-koto. The Sa school fell into a decline in this period and the Kongohyoe school represented by Moritaka became to thrive. It is said that the found of the Kongohyoe school is related to the founder of the Sa school, Nyusai, but there is no such early extant work of Moritaka. As far as I know, his earliest work is the one with a production year of the Shohei Era. The smiths of this school used a character of ‘Mori’ for their smith names. There are also extant works of Moritaka with production years of the Oei, Eikyo, Choroku and Tenbun Eras. The smiths names of Moritaka, Moriaki, Morishige, Moriyoshi and Moritoshi were succeeded to, even after the Tenbun Era and their extant works are occasionally seen. The later generations of the school made stout sugata with thick kasane, forged visible ko-itame-hada combined with some o-hada and powerful jigane that looks black. They tempered chu-sugu-ha and hoso-sugu-ha in ko-nie-deki accompanied by a subdued nioi-guchi and sunagashi are seen inside the hamon. Their tanto has a short ha-watari then hamon is not bright and jigane is not clear either. They made a unique nakago shape, so-called sotoba-gata that was succeeded from the previous period. I have seen a katana by Moritaka of the Oei Era which has an unusually slender sugata, the hamon is sugu-ha in ko-nie-deki accompanied with thick and bright nioi-guchi and many sunagashi are seen inside the hamon. The jihada is itame-hada combined with nagare-hada and the jigane is clear. This particular katana is in good enough quality for appreciation differing from other works of the school made for practical use. There is an extant work of Moritaka with the mei of ‘Chikushu Dazaifu Ju Hyoe Minamoto no Moritaka’. The inscription tells us where they lived.

(Oshigata)

“MINAMOTO (NO) MORITAKA”

“KONGOHYOE MORITAKA SAKU”

“HISHU MITSUYO SAKU” “EIKYO ? NEN 8 GATSU HI”

(P.23)

I already described that Miike Denta Mitsuyo lived in Chikugo Province in the Heian Period. The smith name of Denta Mitsuyo appears to have been succeeded through up to this period. I have seen extant works with sugu-ha and the mei of ‘Mitsuyo’ and ‘Denta’ but their workmanship is totally different from their early generations and they carved hi in normal width (their ancestors carved wide and shallow hi skilfully). The following works of Mitsuyo exist; a tanto with the mei of ‘Aki no Kuni Mitsuyo Saku’ and a production year of the Meitoku Era, a katana with the mei of ‘Hizen Omura Ju Mitsuyo Saku’ and a production year of the Oei Era, a wakizashi with the mei of ‘Omura Ju Mitsuyo Saku’ and a production year of the Bun-an Era and a wakizashi with the mei of ‘Sasshu Ju Mitsuyo’. It is speculated that they are the smiths who moved from Chikugo to other provinces.

A smith called Ienaga and his group migrated to Oishi of Chikugo Province around the Bun-an Era and they are called ‘Oishi-Sa’. It is said that they are the descendants of Sa of Chikuzen Province (a theory says that Ienaga was a grandson of Sadayuki). Yoshinaga and Sukenaga were the younger brothers of Ienaga. Norinaga and Takenaga were the sons of Ienaga. There are extant works of Yasunaga, who was active in the same period, but he is listed in no swordsmith directory (meikan-more smith). He tempered midare-ba based on gunome and hitatsura. Ienaga tempered hoso-sugu-ha, gentle o-notare and gunome on his tanto and carved elaborate horimono such as tokara-tenjin on the omote and bonji on the ura, and plum flowers with a twig on the omote and bamboo on the ura.

Sadamitsu who was the third generation of Nobukuni of Yamashiro Province, moved to Buzen Province and it is said that he changed his smith name to Nobukuni later and his descendants thrived. They signed their smith names like Nobukuni Yoshisada, Nobukuni Yoshisuke and Nobukuni Yoshizane, but there are few extant works by them. They tempered sugu-ha and gunome but their workmanship is somewhat different from that of Kyo Nobukuni. It is believed that Nobukuni of Buzen Province was the ancestor of Chikuzen Nobukuni of shinto times. Nobukuni Yoshikane already existed in this period. There is a possibility, however, that some of the Nobukuni school were already active in koto times.

A smith called Ryokai Yoshisada, who was a student of Ryokai of Yamashiro Province, moved to Bungo province around the Oan Era and his descendants thrived in the Muromachi Period and signed ‘Ryokai ..........’. The school includes Ryokai Yoshizane, Ryokai Naoyoshi, Ryokai Shigeyoshi, Ryokai Masayoshi, etc. They tempered sugu-ha mixed with ko-midare and ko-gunome, and forge more powerful jigane than that of Kyo Ryokai, but the former is inferior to the latter in beauty. In addition, there is a smith group related to the Bungo-Ryokai school and I have seen an oshigata with the mei of ‘Buzen no Kuni Ryokai Moriyasu’ and a production year of the Kansho Era.

(Oshigata)

“FUJIWARA (NO) NORINAGA”

“CHIKUSHU JU OISHI IENAGA”

“NOBUKUNI YOSHIZANE SAKU” “BUNMEI ? NEN 2 GATSU HI”

(P.24)

The Takada school of which founder is Tomoyuki of the previous period lived in Bungo Province as well and demonstrated more powerful and characteristic workmanship than that of the Bungo-Ryokai school. The school thrived through to shinto times. There are three groups in the school, one is the smiths who use a character of ‘Yuki’ for their smith names and others are the ones who use characters of ‘Mori’ or ‘Shizu’ for their smith names. Incidentally, almost shinto smiths of this school use ‘Yuki’ for their smith names. Shigeyuki is a student of Tomoyuki and Nagamori is a student of

Shigeyuki. Shigeyuki and the smiths of his lineage use the clan name of ‘Taira’ in their mei and then all smiths of this school came to use the clan name of ‘Taira’. Therefore the smiths belong to the lineage of Nagamori is called ‘Taira-Takada’. Swordsmith directories say that there are two generations of Nagamori, the first generation was active in the Oei or Choroku Era and the second generation in the Eisho Era. Though, we can see their extant works with production years of the Eisho and Daiei Eras, these correspond to the second generation. It seems that the main lineage of the Takada school was not very active in this period, but the smiths who used ‘Mori’ and ‘Shizu’ for their smith names, left many extant works. The first and the second generations of Nagamori were skilful smiths, but Shizumori and Shizunori are only mediocre smiths. As a whole, the Takada school tempered gunome-midare, ko-notare and sugu-ha and forged jigane with chikei and a kind of chafe, particularly the hataraki of the ji is emphasised in the jigane of Shizumori and the smiths of his lineage. Nagamori tempered hoso-sugu-ha, gunome mixed with choji and hitatsura and occasionaly forged dense ko-itame-hada (sometimes nashiji-hada) and carved koshi-bi and elaborate kurikara in relief. The horimono was one of their traditions started by Yukihira. They tempered hoso-sugu-ha on tanto and forged nashiji-hada and in this case therefore, the tanto looks like one of the Kamakura Period at a glance. There is an extant work of Shizumori with a production year of the Tenbun Era. Shizunori appears to have been active a little later than Shizumori. There is an extant tanto of Shizumori with wide mi-haba and the hamon is gentle o-notare. Shizunori was the maker of famous ‘Gondo no Naginata’, which looks like Yosozaemon no Jo Sukesada at a glance and it is no exageration to say that the naginata is the best work of the school. The nickname of Gondo’ comes from a retainer, one Gondo of Kuroda Josui who is said to have killed a tiger with the naginata during the expedition against Korea.

(Oshigata)

“TAIRA (NO) NAGAMORI”

“RYOKAI SADAYUKI”

TAIRA (NO) AKIMORI”

“TAIRA (NO) MORI ?”

(P.25)

Shichiro Saburo Morihiro and his son Moriyoshi had lived in Hirado of Hizen Province in the previous period. There are extant tanto by them with the hamon of gunome and notare-midare in ko-nie-deki. It is said that Morihiro belonged to the Sa school and so the smiths of his group are called ‘Hirado-Sa’. ‘Koto Mei Zukushi’ says that Sadahide, who was a student of Sa Sadayoshi lived here, but no extant work by him has been confirmed yet and the relation between Morihiro and Sadahide has yet to be studied. There appear to be several generations of Moriyoshi from the end of the Nambokucho to the Muromachi Period and all of them tempered gunome-midare. ‘Kokon Mei Zukushi’ also says that smiths called Shigezane, Shigenobu and Shigenori, who have nothing to do with the smiths described above, lived in Hamazaki and notes that Shigezane tempered sugu-ha. I have never seen their extant work, but I know that there is an extant wakizashi of Shigetsugu with the mei of ‘Hirado Ju Shigetsugu Saku’ and a production year of the Bunmei. The hamon of the wakizashi is hoso-sugu-ha in ko-nie-deki accompanied with subdued nioi-guchi and the jihada is dense ko-itame-hada combined with a little masame with chikei. It looks like a good work of Kongohyoe (Kongobyoe or Kongobei). An oshigata with the mei of ‘Hishu Hamazaki Ju Shigetsugu’ is listed in swordsmith directories and I believe this is the same smith as the maker of the wakizashi with a production year of the Bunmei.

A certain number of smiths who belong to the distinguished family ‘Enju’ from the Kamakura Period were still active in Higo Province in this period. Though, they are inferior to the ones of the previous period in forging skill and there is no smith of any distinction, even though they succeeded to the workmanship of their school tradition. The later generations occasionally tempered gunome-midare after the middle of the Muromachi Period. There are two smiths called ‘Ishinuki Koreyoshi’ and ‘Ishinuki Masakuni’ who are believed to belong to the Enju school. There are some extant works of them with production years of the Oei and Entoku Eras. Their hamon is hoso-sugu-ha or gentle notare in ko-nie-deki and the jihada is combined with masame-hada. They belong to the Sue-Enju school inferring from their workmanship, as old sword books say. In addition, swordsmith directories also list Masasuke and Masasuke (a different Chinese character of ‘Suke’ is used) in the Ishinuki school

There is one more school called ‘Dotanuki’ that departed from the Enju school. Swordsmith directories list an oshigata of ‘Higo no Kuni Kikuchi Ju Dotanuki’. They normally signed their mei like ‘Kyushu Higo Dotanuki Kozuke no Suke’. The school includes Hyobu, Samanosuke, Uemon, Nobuyoshi, Noriyasu, Masakuni, Matahachi in addition to Kozuke no Suke. A theory says that the family name of Kozuke no Suke is ‘Oyama’ and his early smith name is Kunikatsu then his lord Kato Kiyomasa gave him a permission to use one of the Chinese characters of Kiyomasa, ‘Masa’ for his smith name and he changed his smith name to Masakuni. This theory also says that Masakuni is the same smith as Kozuke no Suke. Though, I am a little doubtful of the theory after I had at look at an oshigata of ‘Hishu Ju Fujiwara no Kunikatsu Saku’ and realised the difference of their workmanships and the chiselling style of the mei. Also it is said that the personal name of Dotanuki Kozuke no Suke is Kunihiro and he was the founder of the school, although, I have never seen his extant work with his smith name of Kunihiro. It is speculated that there are two generations of Dotanuki Kozuke no Suke. They demonstrated totally different workmanship from that of the Enju school. It is unfair appraisal that the smiths of the Dotanuki and the Kanabo schools are a synonym for poor-quality sword makers. They usually made very stout sugata with wide mi-haba and thick kasane, tempered wide midare-ba in a large pattern. Meanwhile Kozuke no Suke made refined sugata with a little thin kasane and extended kissaki, tempered a little pointed gunome-midare that reminds us of Naoe-Shizu. Masakuni midare-ba similar to that of Taira-Takada and unique chikei are seen in his jihada, therefore, their relation with the Takada school should be examined.

(Oshigata)

“HIRADO JU MORIHIRO SAKU”

“HISHU JU FUJIWARA (NO) KUNIKATSU”

“KYUSHU JU DOTANUKI KOZUKE NO SUKE”

(P.26)

Shinano no Kami Kunihiro is one of the greatest shinto smiths and fostered many talented smiths. He was born in Hyuga Province and finally settled in Ichijo Horikawa of Kyoto, after travelling across the country. There are some extant works by Kunihiro, which were made in Furuya of Hyuga Province and they are called ‘Furuya-uchi’. I would not tell the whole story of Kunihiro since the main subject is to describe the whole story of koto smiths. I would like to explain of the lineage of Kunihiro, mainly the part of his activity in Furuya here.

It is a commonly accepted theory that the grandfather of Kunihiro was Tanaka Sanetada who came from Kuma in Higo Province then moved to Hyuga Province and was retained by Lord Ito. Kunimasa was a son of Sanetada and also used the personal title ‘Ryohaku-an’ as a smith name. Kunihiro was a son of Kunimasa and his early smith name was Hirozane and he was also retained by Lord Ito. Ito Yoshisuke (father) and Yoshimasu (son) waged war against Lord Shimazu of Satsuma Province, but were defeated and took refuge with Lord Otomo of Bungo Province. Kunihiro also lodged with Lord Otomo temporarily at that time and then later went up to Kyoto to become a student of Umetada Myoju. He gradually became famous and had an opportunity to forge a sword for Emperor Ogimachi. He was then awarded the title of Shinano no Kami and at the same time, was given the smith name of Kunihiro.

There are extant works of Sanetada, Kunimasa and Kunihiro with production years as follows; Eiroku 10 and Tensho 3 in Furuya of Hyuga Province by Sanetada, Tensho 14 in Furuya by Kunimasa, and Tensho 4, 5, 6 and 14 in Furuya, Tensho 17 in Hishu (Hyuga Province), Tensho 18 in Ashikaga Gakko of Yashu (Shimotsuke Province) and Tensho 19 in Kyoto (with the title of Shinano no Kami) by Kunihiro. Taking into account the above production years, the theory that Kunimasa was Kunihiro’s father is unrealistic, but a theory that Kunihiro was a son or student of Sadazane seems to be more realistic chronologically. Though, there is an extant tanto with the mei of ‘Ryohaku 70 Sai (70 years old)’. If this Ryohaku is the same smith as Kunimasa, it is understandable that Kunimasa who lived long, and Kunihiro had engaged in sword forging together at a certain time. Though, this theory could make the theory that Sanetada is the father of Kunimasa unjustifiable. Also his designation by Emperor Ogimachi as Shinano no Kami, could not have happened before Tensho 14 if this theory is accepted. It is said that Sanehiro was the early smith name of Kunihiro but I am doubtful of the theory since the chiselling style of Hirozane is rather different from that of Furuya-uchi by Kunihiro. ‘Shinto Koto Taikan’ says that there was a collaboration by Kunihiro and Hirozane with the mei of ‘Hishu Furuya Ju Fujiwara no Kunihiro Saku Tensho 12 Nen 8 Gatsu Higan’ ‘Dokoku Hikosa Ju Fujiwara no Hirozane Saku’. This document demonstrates that they are different smiths, but closely connected. Then Kunimasa is said to have used the smith name of Ryohaku-an and swordsmith directories list his mei of ‘Tanaka Ryohaku-an Kunimasa’ whilst also it says that Kunimasa and Kuniaki are the same smith and there are the mei of ‘Kuniaki Ryohaku’, and ‘Kuniaki’ on the omote and ‘Ryohaku’ on the ura. I have seen his tanto with the mei of ‘Ryohaku 70 Sai’ and wakizashi in hira-zukuri with the mei of ‘Ryohaku’ also there is an extant tanto with the mei of ‘Ryohaku-an Shu Kunihiro’ (the chiselling style of ‘Kuni’ is different from that of other Kunihiro) and it appears to be one of his earliest works considering the low quality of the tanto. It can be confirmed of the relation between Kunimasa and Kunihiro from the extant works with the mei of Ryohaku. It can be said that they demonstrated a similar workmanship. In my opinion, the workmanship of Sanetada has a close resemblance to that of Kunihiro. I have seen three extant works of Sanetada. A wakizashi with a production year of the Eiroku amongst them reminds me of the hamon of Furuya-uchi by Kunihiro, that is to say, midare-ba in nie-deki and by the combination of Sue-Soshu and Sue-Bizen in style. The wakizashi is never inferior to that of Kunihiro in quality. The other two swords are katana. On one the hamon is midare-ba in nioi-deki and the other is gentle notare in thick ko-nie-deki. He appears to have challenged old master Soshu smiths with the latter one and it is superior to the wakizashi, with a production year of the Eiroku, in quality. The chiselling style of Kunihiro has a close resemblance to that of Sanetada. There is no doubt that Kunihiro learnt a lot about sword forging from Sanetada, apart from the theory that the father of Kunihiro is Sanetada or Kunimasa. I believe that Kunihiro learnt two different workmanships in Furuya of Hyuga province, then came to challenge old master Soshu-den smiths like Masamune and Shizu Kaneuji, because he had many opportunities to examine old fine swords after he went up to Kyoto. Finally he established a peculiar forging style called Horikawa-mono.

(Oshigata)

“RYOHAKU” “KUNIMASA”

“EIROKU 12 NEN 5 GATSU 5 KA”

“HISHU FURUYA NO JU SANETADA SAKU”

(P.27)

The Naminohira school of Satsuma Province had been succeeded to for generations since the Heian Period and considerable numbers of smiths like Yukiyasu, Ieyasu, Kaneyasu and Hisayasu existed in koto times, although no distinguished smith of the school existed in this period. They tempered sugu-ha according to their tradition, occasionally notare and gunome-midare. Their ancestors used to produce beautiful jigane but it is an undeniable fact that the forging techniques of Naminohira smiths was on the decline in the Muromachi Period. This was the result of their excessive adherence to their old traditions and that they had no ideas of innovation.

The End