docliss

I am full of admiration for David’s tsuba, but Christian? I think not …. The need for Christian symbolism to be very discrete during the Momoyama and early Edo periods has led to the imagining of its presence in numerous doubtful examples. As a result of a comprehensive review, published by Fred Geyer in the Catalogue of the 2nd International Convention and Exhibition of the Kokusai Tosogu Kai, many of those tsuba previously identified as being Tokeishi are now generally recognised as being Kirishitan in origin. But to identify mokkō-gata tsuba as demonstrating Christian symbolism solely by reason of their shape is clearly going too far. Two ‘Christian tsuba’ have appeared on the market within the last few years which may be described both as discrete – the crosses being hidden by the seppa and tsuka of the sword when mounted – and overt. But these may be examples of later modifications of earlier tsuba, added for commercial reasons. Can any members post convincing examples of such tsuba? John L. Edited to Fred Geyer - thank you. John L.

Peter, sincerest congratulations on the forthcoming publication - I look forward to reading it. With thanks, John L.

For what it's worth, electroplating of silver and gold in a cyanide solution was introduced in Europe ca 1839/40. When it was introduced into Japan I am afraid that I know not. John L.

David's post includes an incorrect kanji for the 'Nao' as was used by the Oda masters but probably he, like me, had problems posting the correct one into his message, getting a 'default' one instead. John L.

The Sōten school has previously been discussed at length on this NMB on a number of occasions, and these threads should be readily available for reference, but Jeff’s example is interesting for a number of reasons: • The marubori leaves a large area of openwork, while most generic tsuba of this group are much more solid-plate in nature. • The theme is unusual for tsuba of this group, which commonly feature multiple figures engaged in scenes from the wars of the Gempei. • Although some of the soft-metal decoration has clearly been lost, this is very sparing, lacking the profuse gold and silver embellishment that is commonly present. • The ‘shi’ kanji of Sōheishi is rendered in the appropriate manner, with the first stroke lozenge-shaped rather than horizontal. These features may be an indication either of early Sōten work or of non-generic, marubori work that has had a later signature added. The vast numbers of Hikone-bori tsuba include work by the many students of the school, all of whom signed with the Sōten name; that of the Hiragiya school in Kyōto; shiiremono by the Aizu Shōami school; and the excellent work of some Nomura artists. It is my personal conviction that, for numerical reasons, a study of the mei of this group is of little help in assigning an origin to these tsuba, and that one must simply judge them by the quality of the work. In this respect, although rather the worse for wear, Jeff’s certainly gets a ‘pass’. Regards, John L.

Since Thierry was the first to raise his head over the parapet I am reluctant to shoot him down, but I cannot agree with his Bushū attribution of Tony’s very nice daishō tsuba. I agree that they demonstrate some Bushū and Chōshū characteristics, but the influence of these schools was very strong, and many tsuba demonstrate this. The quality of the plate, with its tsuchime-ji and its beautiful lustrous, ‘melted’ and highly polished finish is not found in Bushū work. These characteristics, together with the less-than-perfect seppa-dai; the heavy niku-bori; and the absence of any soft-metal decoration all suggest a C18, Oda tsuba from the Satsuma province. The hyōtan motif is, of course, a giveaway. What a pity that we are unable to read the mei. Could Tony try re-photographing it, perhaps after dusting the seppa-dai with uchiko and wiping the excess off? Regards, John L.

Come on guys …! Adam is quite correct, and Allan’s #5 is signed BUSHU (NO) JU MASAKATA (正方). Haynes lists only one artist who signed thus, but this is not the work of H 04068.0, the second master of the Edo Itō school, but by a later artist using this name, circa 1825-50. Kind regards, John L.

This beautiful tsuba is by H 04186.0. Of the Shoami and Hayashi families, he worked in Aizu and died in 1881. Haynes gives him an extensive write-up on pp.894-5 of his Index .... John L.

Sorry - 19th century. John L. Edited, sorry my reply is repetitive.

Dear Henry ‘AKAO. This school was founded by Akao Yoshitsugu, who was born at Fukui in the province of Echizen about 1700; he was a samurai in the service of the Matsudaira family. His son, Yoshitsugu II, moved his headquarters from Echizen to Yedo, but a branch of the school continued to operate at Fukui. The latter produced pierced and modelled designs influenced by the Chōshū (Kawaji) and Kinai masters. Those of the Yedo branch, on the other hand, pursued a development of the Akasaka style, in which positive silhouettes of natural or artificial objects are reduced to forms so conventionalised as sometimes to defy identification.’ Robinson, BW. The Baur Collection Geneva, Lausanne, 1980, p.48. With very few exceptions, it is very difficult to attribute C19 work, by reason of its characteristics, to a specific school due to the intermingling of styles and influences that occurred during this period. As to the characteristics of the Bushū and Chōshū schools, you have a lot of reading to do! Kind regards, John L.

Neither ... what's wrong with the Akao attribution? John L.

Eric’s tsuba is signed TOFU (NO)JU TATSUTOSHI, using the 14–stroke kanji for ‘toshi’. It is strange that Haynes, in his Index … only lists one artist using this name, H.05505.0, and this using the 7–stroke kanji. The Baur Catalogue includes two tsuba by Eric’s artist, D 255 and 256. Each is signed Tofu (no)ju Tatsutoshi, using the 14-stroke kanji, although the mei, illustrated as #530, on p.438, is unlike that of Eric’s in several respects. Robinson describes this artist as ‘early 19th century. Personal name Ido Chūshichi. Worked in Yedo, where he was a pupil of the Akao', and lists him with other Akao artists. John L.

The National Museum of Scotland tsuba is, indeed, very similar to that of Hoanh but is not the same one, lacking as it does the sekigane present in the ryo-hitsu of Hoanh's. John L.

Dear Hoanh, Christian is a very knowledgeable and frequent subscriber to this NMB, but a combination of his significant language problems, together with a tendency to lateral thinking, do occassionally leave all of us rather bemused. Welcome to the asylum. John L.

Dear Hoanh I agree with Curran that your tsuba, which I like very much indeed, is late Bushū/Chōshū work and that H 04737.0 and/or H 04740. 0 are possible contenders. But the former artist died in 1717 – much too early for your tsuba – and the latter, working circa 1800, may also be a bit early Many of the artists of this group and period comprised several generations using the same name, and Curran’s ‘son of’ either of these artist(s) is a likely provenance. I am copying into this message the info from Haynes’ Index regarding these artists (sadly, it would not ‘cut and paste’ from the CD!). MASATSUNE F: Ito H 04737.0 N: Jin’emon, Jinsaburo W: Edo D: died 1717 at age 81 NTS: listed in the Sōken Kishō, 1781, vol. 3, p. 26. Said to be the son of Masanaga H 04238.0, or H 04247.0. The two Masanaga and this Masatsune seem to be mixed together. In addition it is said that there was a second generation Masatsunune who died in 1775. Said to have been a retainer of the Bakufu and made fittings for the Shogunal court. MASATSUNE H 04740.0` W: Bushūjū and Chōshū jū D: ca 1800 NTS: this artist worked bnth at Edo and in Nagato Province. Some say he is also the Itō school artist of this name, H 04737.0. None of this is proved, and as in so many of the Itō school artists, there seem to be several generations who used the same name during the Edo period. With kind regards, John L.

Brian, in reply to your query re the origin of Ford’s post on Funada Ikkin, it is: Token Bijutsu (English Edition), 1991 No 48, pp. 25-29 John L

Oh dear Adam - mea culpa. You are, of course, quite correct in your observation of the defaced mei on Andrey's tsuba. I shall have to think again! John L.

Adam The slot was an original feature of the tsuba and, as you correctly observe, has not been subsequently used; the metalworker obviously preferred the more conventional methods that you describe. Why? Certainly not for aesthetic reasons, bearing in mind the mess that is frequently made during the refitting of a tsuba. And refilling it to retain the shape of the altered nakago-ana would not be necessary. John L.

Brian, seppa being disposable items, I am not surprised if none have been identified with cut-outs such as you surmise. But how many thousands of fuchi have our many members seen between them but, I suspect, not a single one such as you describe. John L.

The aperture on Ron’s tsuba would clearly be covered by the seppa and by the tenjō-gane of the fuchi, and can thus have no function when the tsuba is mounted on a sword. Surely this was simply an alternative method for moving the metal of the seppa-dai in order to reduce (or increase?) the size of the nakago-hitsu? John L.

This confusion would appear to result from an error on Haynes’ part. He clearly refers to ‘a red copper plate tsuba with shakudō inlay’ and bearing the mei as described, but then must have transcribed the lot number as #1386 in error. John L.

Dear Chian, like most members, I am sure, I had assumed that your tsuba was iron, but I see that the vendor has labelled it shibuichi. Which is it? John L.

Thank you for the images, Chian. I like the tsuba very much indeed and, judging by the date and the kaō, it is a late work by the third of the three Munesuke artists (H 06242.0), supposedly the brother of Myōchin Muneyo. John L.

Dear Ludolf Some more information re Arthur Kay. The sale of his collection was held at Hotel Drouot in 1913. The hard-bound catalogue (on sale at AbeBooks.co.uk for a mere £118), is described thus: ‘Collection de M. Arther Kay, lacques de Japon, bronzes Chinois, bronzes Japonais, gardes des sabre, peinture et dessins’. John L.

Dear Chian The Tosa Myōchin group included three artists who signed their work TOSHU (NO)JU MYOCHIN MUNESUKE (士 州 住 明 珍 宗 肋). Haynes lists these as H 06240.0 – H 06242.0, gives their dates as falling between the second half of the C19 and the early C20, and gives their original family name as Nomachi. The work of the Tosa Myōchin artists is described as comprising three main work styles – Akasaka, as favoured by the lord of Tosa, and Higo works; copies of Nobuie; and katchushi types demonstrating mokume or itame. It is, of course, impossible to be more specific about your tsuba without some more information and images. John L.