Definitely not THE Nobuie, but what do you think?

[Katsujinken]

Picked this up today. Obviously not capital-N Nobuie, but I’d be curious to know what some of our resident tosogu experts make of it. The iron is nice. Not very thick. But I always enjoy Satsuma-ana and it has a little wabi-sabi going on with the asymmetric sukashi...

 

[Bazza]

And while pondering - that lovely, textured, granular look to the surface is - what???  Minute hard inclusions in the body due to ??, ummm - sand casting marks??

 

Musing BaZZa
(who-really-doesn't-know-much-about-tosogu-except-what-he-likes...)

[Katsujinken]

It’s definitely not cast.

[Rivkin]

Not an expert on iron tsuba but the signature looks fresher then the rest and even the rest is very uniform and sort of flat.

 

19th century?

 

Kirill R.

[ROKUJURO]

This kind of matte surface is probably caused by pickling/etching, a normal finishing process. All features speak for a nicely and competently handcrafted item, but indeed it lacks the vivid expression of some older TSUBA in NOBUIE style.

I like it and I think it is a good find! 

[Bazza]

And while pondering - that lovely, textured, granular look to the surface is - what???  Minute hard inclusions in the body due to ??, ummm - sand casting marks??

 

Musing BaZZa

(who-really-doesn't-know-much-about-tosogu-except-what-he-likes...)

Oh, pickling is the answer then.  I didn't mean to be casting (pun intended) aspersions upon Michael's tsuba as I do like it a lot and would have it.  I was curious about the nature of the surface, so thank you Jean C.  Could I further speculate that the surface appearance mirrors the internal structure of the forged iron??  Micro-tekkotsu, as it were!

 

BaZZa.

[Ford Hallam]

Well I'm still waiting to see some actual evidence of who these supposed first and second Nobuie were. Real names, dates of birth and death, where they lived...anything really. And how anyone has divined which mei, fat or thin, was the first and which the second.

 

It seems plausible that the 'Nobu' part of the name might have been bestowed on a workshop by Oda Nobunaga....but it's just a bit of speculation without any literary evidence to support it. If it could be verified it might provide a start for dating at least some of these pieces. But we also know that at the start of the 17th century, as the Shogunate was in a headlong rush to establish itself as the legitimate government and foundation of Japan and not some upstart 'tent government' many of the accompanying warriors and suppliers to the shogunate invented spurious lineages to give themselves the socially required and appropriate ancestry. 

 

 

And the "Ie' part means family or house/household. As in 'the House of Goto". So it seems to me that Nobuie is a studio or workshop name. Trying then to ascribe specific pieces baring this label to specific individuals who are unknown and anonymous seems like a fun fantasy game worthy of theologians. 

 

Having thrown my kittens into the pigeon loft I would go on to say that there are some tsuba with the Nobuie mei that are wondrous, and many that are just so so, and some that are dire. 

[Ford Hallam]

And yes, I read with interest and great care Markus Sesko's excellent translations and assembly of the various bits and pieces of Nobuie "scholarship".  

[IanB]

Ford,  I am reminded that around this time there was, or was supposed to have been, a Myochin Nobuie, almost certainly a different person from the tsuba maker and judging by some of his supposedly early signatures, probably a later fabrication. In the case of the armourer, there is a distinct lack of proof of age, despite the fact that quite a few helmet are dated. What is telling I think is that every one of these helmets is now incorporated into an Edo period armour and nothing signed any Myochin occurs in any Sengoku era armour. Unlike tsuba, helmet bowls couldn't be swapped and changed readily so I think we can say with confidence that these dated helmets are definitely spurious. We know that Myochin Munesuke  wrote a fictitious genealogy in the 17th century simply for the 'new boys on the block' to get commissions.from officialdom. By chance I am working on a diary of various Myochin Bakamatsu smiths in which Munechika states he repaired a Nobuie helmet dated Tenmon 3rd year (1534). Clearly he believed it was genuine and presumably so did the owner who paid over 19 ryo for the repair.

Ian bottomley

[Steve Waszak]

Ford,

 

I'm pretty sure we've covered this Nobuie thing in the past (though a quick search didn't turn up our dialogue on the subject).  Anyway, while I like a good heretic as much as the next guy, I'm afraid your dubiousness regarding the matter of Nobuie doesn't get much traction.  There are several problems with what you say above.

 

First, your saying that you're "still waiting to see some actual evidence of whose these supposed first and second Nobuie were," followed by a plea for "[r]eal names, dates of birth and death, where they lived...anything really," is patently disingenuous, and really, you should know better.  In this field of Nihonto and Tosogu, how often do we EVER know the "real names, dates of birth and death, [exactly] where [artists and smiths] lived" or much of "anything, really"?  How many swordsmiths and tosogu artists, say pre-1700, could you provide that information for with confidence?  And since for smiths and artists after 1700, and especially after 1800, our knowledge of such biographical information is greater and more reliable, the very lack of this information pertaining to Nobuie is suggestive of their having worked (much) earlier.  Is it proof?  Of course not.  But it is one brick in the wall.

 

You then go on to to ask "which mei, fat or thin, was the first and which the second."  Since you say you've read all the "bits and pieces of Nobuie 'scholarship'" (why do you have "scholarship" in quotes?), "with interest and great care," I'd have expected you to arrive at the likely answer to this question.  Sasano and others see the "fat mei" (Futoji-mei) Nobuie as the first because of the highly dubious criteria of "looking older" and "being more consistently excellent," both of which reasons are hopelessly subjective, AND the latter of which would have nothing to do, anyway, with establishing which man was first.  It is the "thin mei" (Hanare-mei) Nobuie who is much more likely to be first.  As I do not have my library handy at the moment, I cannot access the specific content in Markus Sesko's translation of Nobuie Tsuba Shu where the point is made by one scholar that the Christian iconography seen on Hanare-mei Nobuie guards is strongly suggestive both of the particular period this smith was working in, as well as his being the Shodai.  The connection between Oda Nobunaga and the Nobuie name is one I have seen for a long time, and Oda was a big fan of European imports, including his tolerance/support for Christianity (even if this support had at least something to do with his being "at odds" with certain Buddhist factions).  The Christian iconography we see on some Hanare-mei Nobuie tsuba would not have been permissible with the Tokugawa, of course.  And since Nobunaga dies in 1582, and having been effectively in power (or some degree of it) for around 20 years while Christianity's presence is taking root, locating Hanare-mei Nobuie within that period (and beyond by perhaps a decade or two) is not unreasonable.  And since we do not see many, if any, Christian motifs in the tsuba of the Futoji-mei Nobuie, this suggests his being a bit later than the Hanare-mei smith.  

 

There is more we can consider here, too.  The Futoji-mei Nobuie made more guards which were similar in finish and (apparent) technique to Kanayama and Yamakichibei works (heavy tekkotsu and yakite).  We don't see many such works with a Hanare-mei signature.  This peculiar Owari combination of bold and dramatic tekkotsu and yakite is not only especially, if not exclusively connected with Owari, it is also a late-16th-century phenomenon, continuing into the early 17th-century, fairly convincingly connectable to Furuta Oribe's sensibilities as the Tea Master of Japan for nearly 25 years in the 1590s on to his death in 1615.  

 

Neither of the above points proves which Nobuie was first, but to ask "how anyone has divined which mei, fat or thin, was the first and which the second" is answerable, as I have just done.  As to whether this answer settles the question, well, go back to my earlier point:  in this field, how much pre-Edo knowledge/"knowledge" is really reliable?  Which leads me to the next weak point in your post.

 

You deride "speculation without any literary evidence" as though speculation is an utterly worthless and dubious undertaking.  There are at least two problems with this line of thinking.  First, there is a rather large difference between wild speculation with nothing informing such conjecture, on the one hand, and the sort of speculation that is based on legitimate scholarship leading to knowledge in relevant contextual areas (e.g. Tea culture, Christianity's presence in Japan, political associations, etc, etc, etc), which, of course, is what we have with the topic of Nobuie.  You seem to be implying that speculation not only isn't a valid exercise in intellectual inquiry, but that any (tentative) conclusions pointing to probability, rather than 100% definite fact, are thereby wrong.  This is illogical, and in fact points to a biased agenda informed by strong leanings toward heresy.  The fact is that since much of what we do know in any field began with informed speculation (inquiry), and in particular as concerns a complicated field whose focus is often on periods dating to many centuries ago, to hold or even suggest that anything less that 100% KNOWN fact means that prevailing ideas are then LIKELY to be wrong, as you seem to be doing, is itself demonstrably wrong-headed.  

 

There is more.  Your comment that "trying...to ascribe specific pieces [bearing] this label to specific individuals who are unknown and anonymous seems like a fun fantasy games worthy of theologians" is really curious:  it ain't exactly rocket science to look to tie certain and idiosyncratic design, motif, construction, and finish details to a particularly-rendered mei.  Isn't this how kantei is pursued?  If and when we can identify specific patterns of design, construction, etc... with a mei chiseled in a particular manner, again and again, the last thing we should conclude is that we have engaged in a "fun fantasy game" with zero legitimate understandings.  And with the Nobuie men, such patterns and tendencies linked with the Hanare-mei smith and the Futoji-mei smith can be seen.  It is not foolproof, of course, but again, working under the assumption that anything less than 100% certainty creates so much doubt that we cannot say we can be confident of anything is an extreme approach that does not hold up well to scrutiny.  

 

Your final comment may be the most head-scratching of all, Ford.  You note that "there are some tsuba with the Nobuie mei that are wondrous, and many that are just so-so, and some that are dire."      Huh?  Let's see, could it be, just maybe, that the "wondrous" ones are authentic early Nobuie (those with the Hanare-mei and Futoji-mei signatures), that the "so-so" ones are (the better) efforts of students and/or those looking to copy the masters, and the "dire" ones are the product of hopeless hacks?  How many works carrying the name/signature of a famous artist could your words be applied to?  Hundreds?  Thousands?  Sheesh.  

 

Seriously, Ford, your various posts casting so much doubt on Nobuie scholarship and understanding seem so driven by a biased agenda that it seems to have warped what is your usual on-point critical inquiry and frequently resulting heresy.  At least two of your points above make no sense even as abstract positions, never mind in direct application to Nobuie.  Since this is so unlike you, I have to wonder what is causing this.  

[ROKUJURO]

.....Could I further speculate that the surface appearance mirrors the internal structure of the forged iron??  Micro-tekkotsu, as it were!

 

BaZZa.

Barry,

 

in principle, yes, but it seems that we have here a well homogenized iron, so the patination process does not reveal a crystalline or other structure as we might see in MOKUME TSUBA. The nature of TEKKOTSU is perhaps not what we are thinking it might be - I am working on that. TSUBA are not hardened like sword blades  and thus we should not expect Martensite particles to protrude from the surface. 

 

 

[IanB]

Steve,  I'm afaid I must disagree to some extent with your argument. Some of the craftsmen working during the Edo period and earlier did leave considerably more details of their existence other than a name. Documents do exist is some cases and all it takes is for someone to take the trouble to search for and then publish them. I have in front of me a copy of a diary compiled by the famous armourer Myochin Muneyasu, admittedly a Bakamatsu smith, in which he lists the dates of commissions placed with his workshop, who placed them, what they ordered and what the cost was. He also lists the names of pupils who studied under his tuition, their original addresses, when they started their studies and how long they remained in his workshop. I happen to have an armour made by one of the pupils listed in that diary who declared that he had been a pupil of Myochin Muneyasu on various parts of the armour. Interestingly the diary states that in fact this tutor was in fact Myochin Munechika who seems to have be a junior partner in the workshop and was given the task of tutoring.

 

Entirely separately, Orikasa Sensei took the trouble to study the surviving documents of the Maeda family in Kanazawa library. From these he compiled a complete list of the armourers who worked for the Han during the Edo period, their family relationships, their pupils, when the died and were superseded and who they trained as pupils. In some cases the papers list their stipends and their official position in the workshops. Many were members of the Haruta family, but others are listed as independents who given the coincidence of their dates probably did some of the routine work. Only rarely do we have any details of when they started work for the simple reason many were taken on as pupils and hence would only be performing mundane tasks for an indeterminate  time.

I accept that this sort of detail is unlikely to come to light with regard to most tsuba makers, but even the most humble would have been recorded somewhere at the time. This does not of course solve the problem of the chronology between workers who used the same name. The only resolution of this problem would be if someone, whose dates are known, wrote about an identifiable signed tsuba. Unlikely yes, but not impossible. 

Ian Bottomley

[Steve Waszak]

Ian,

 

Running out the door here, but real quick:

 

1.  Your first point doesn't really counter-argue my position.  You say "some of the craftsmen working during the Edo period and earlier did leave...details..."  Sure, no doubt.  Some.  During the Edo Period especially.  Some does not equal most, nor of course, does it equal all.  And I specifically make my points concerning PRE-Edo workers.  Your Muneyasu example doesn't accomplish anything to undermine my concerns, Ian:  you note that he is, "admittedly, a Bakamatsu smith."  So that's 19th-century, some two hundred and fifty years plus after the period I am speaking of.  I did say that post-1700, information was more plentiful and probably reliable, didn't I?  I'm not sure what your Muneyasu illustration has to do with the early Nobuie smiths.  It seems not to be germane to the points I was making.  If anything, it helps to support them.

 

2.  At the end, you observe that the problem of the chronology between workers who used the same name persists, saying that "[t]he only resolution of this problem would be if someone, whose dates are known, wrote about an identifiable signed tsuba."  Yes, perhaps so.  But when you use "resolution," you seem, too, to be speaking of arriving at 100% known fact, and would appear to be discounting anything short of that as useless speculation.  This line of thinking, as I said earlier, is problematic.  There is a reason that circumstantial evidence is known to convict:  if you have enough of it, especially in the absence of any other reasonably plausible explanation for the existence of the evidence, probabilities may be arrived at with some confidence.  And I'll say it again:  PRE-EDO, much of what we understand about swords and fittings is based on informed speculation, circumstantial evidence, and logical likelihoods, if not necessities.  

 

So, sorry, Ian, but your points here don't really take away from anything I've said, as far as I can see.  

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

[IanB]

Steve,  You asked the question as to how often do we know the names dates etc of crafts men, and I simply showed two examples where we do. The information was there in full when somebody took the trouble to look for it. In my own field Orikasa Sensei is one of few who seeks out information and perhaps more importantly considers his findings, argues its significance and publishes it. Nowhere did I deride useless speculation.. Yes I did quote the diary of a Bakamatsu armourer, but what I did not do is mention that the armourers working for the Maeda are fully documented back to the time of Maeda Toshiie (1538 - 1599) which is well within reach of Nobuie and his tsuba. .

Ian

[Steve Waszak]

Ian,

 

Well, two examples, both from later periods, hardly suggest that "information is [usually or even often] there in full when somebody took the trouble to look for it" to any degree where we should be suspicious about any lack of such information pertaining to 16th-century smiths.  Your singular example of the armorers for the Maeda functions as the exception that proves the rule, or at least, certainly could.  Think about it:  there is no more illustrious name in Tsuba than Nobuie.  Those two early smiths, the Hanare-mei and Futoji-mei Nobuie, represent the pinnacle of steel tsuba making in the history of Japan, with good reason.  IF the "information [were] there in full [for] somebody [to take] the trouble to look for it" as concerns the "real names, dates of birth and death, where they lived...[as Ford would like]," of these two unsurpassed masters of the craft, how on earth could/would it be explained that far more information than merely real names, dates of birth and death, and where they lived wouldn't be known?  There would be no other smith more deserving of such dogged and relentless inquiry, investigation, and interrogation than these Nobuie.  And yet, virtually nothing is known (as fact) about them, biographically.  This would seem to be the rule, not the exception:  how many 16th-century tsubako do we have reams of reliable biographical information on?  Are there any at all? 

 

Essentially, what we have as regards the Nobuie are their sword guards...and also critically examined, carefully considered, informed speculation that allows us to arrive at likelihoods, however tenuous or otherwise.  Even the most tenuous likelihoods reached in this manner, though, are a far cry from knowing "nothing" about them.  The guards themselves say A LOT.

 

*Note:  my comments about "useless speculation" were not directed toward you, Ian.  Ford had implied earlier that speculation carried little if any value.  Since this sentiment is incorrect, and since much of his post appears to have relied on it, I needed to refer to it again.

[Ford Hallam]

Steve

 

I think that as you've presented the case for the presently accepted dogma it does in fact illustrate exactly how uncertain all of these speculations really are.

 

You referenced circumstantial evidence as being adequate in some cases, yet here the circumstantial is by no means firmly connected to the objects. Even that link has not been tested, it's all very tentative but presented as some sort of edifice of evidence.

 

A great deal rests on the appearance of essentially two style of mei.  In a workshop or group. Consider for a moment that many, if not most, crafts people of that period were illiterate and we my even be looking at one or more 'signers' in these production. centres. Yet first we have Akiyama saying there's 7 makers, then the next generation narrow these variants down to two. All on the basis of the mei alone, not material or workmanship really. I've always been struck by the difference in that respect in terms of workmanship and the two mei. There is no clear correlation to my craftsman's eyes.

 

I must confess the Christian themed work seems to have escaped me, or perhaps it's not really all that obvious. But again it feels a little too contrived a way to posit the time of production.

 

The real problem I have with the Nobuie dogma is in fact well illustrated by this exchange. As long as these theories are so valiantly, albeit in a rather wooly sort of way  , defended and advanced the less likely a more reasoned reappraisal is possible.

 

As for my use of the word scholarship in inverted commas, my point was that it lacks anything substantive to actually be scholarly about, just like theology really. Speculation is all good and well, and may indeed offer enticing possibilities and fresh insights but ultimately it does little other than to close off alternative speculations that don't fit a growing consensual dogma.

 

Your final comment may be the most head-scratching of all, Ford.  You note that "there are some tsuba with the Nobuie mei that are wondrous, and many that are just so-so, and some that are dire."      Huh?  Let's see, could it be, just maybe, that the "wondrous" ones are authentic early Nobuie (those with the Hanare-mei and Futoji-mei signatures), that the "so-so" ones are (the better) efforts of students and/or those looking to copy the masters, and the "dire" ones are the product of hopeless hacks?  How many works carrying the name/signature of a famous artist could your words be applied to?  Hundreds?  Thousands?  Sheesh.  

 

 

Well it might be as you would like to suppose but in fact we really don't know, it might equally be just as plausable for there to have been loads of mediocre precursor pieces and here and there one or more more refined makers along the way. The idea of the singular genius being the progenitor and the subsequent decline in vigour of a group is only one art historical tale. There are many others that illustrate a very different pattern. And we really have little to go on to be sure which story is most accurate. Christian and tea themed/informed works may or may not be in evidence, these are not, imo, anywhere near a reliable an area of evidence as your argument would seem to suggest. 

[Steve Waszak]

Hi Ford,

 

  Okay, well, I guess we'll just always have different requirements for our epistemological confidence about this topic.     If I ever make it out your way, or you mine, we'll have to sit down over a bottle of 18-year-old something and hash this out properly!       As can be seen by my ponderous posts, fora have their limitations, and given that I have a lot more speculation/circumstantial evidence than what I've scratched the surface of here, a good two- (or four-?) hour conversation, books and tsuba at the ready, is what we're primed for...    

 

Cheers

[Brian]

Would love to be a spectator to that discussion

[Rivkin]

Not being Nobuie specific, but in any realm of arms and armor there comes time when someone has to appraise a pile of objects with no clear dates and references, and often with a predomination of a particular signature.

Europeans generally point out the likely period the items are coming from, as well as the possible origin of the signature, commenting that its widespread use prevents more precise identification.

Russians find pieces of more or less uniform craftsmanship and length, to be declared as the "pattern adopted by the Royal guard", and then all the way down to a mish mash of poor quality pieces which are "ersatz examples provided by unscrupilous makers".

Japanese take best pieces and say - that's the first generation. Then come somewhat different and wilder ones - that's the second. The rest is "later generations".

 

Kirill R.

[Jussi Ekholm]

Some very good points thrown from both sides. Long discussion like that with examples and references and various views... that would make a heck of a Youtube (or any other platform) video too.

[Katsujinken]

So in summary, the tsuba at the top of the thread (remember that?) is journeyman work from Edo signed by either 1 of 1000 Nobuies or perhaps signed by a more “aspirational” creator. (The plate does exhibit this very nice gradual and uniform thinning from the rim in towards the center, which I imagine was not easy to do.)

 

Oh, and people disagree about, well, A LOT with regard to the original Nobuie.

 

:-)

[ROKUJURO]

.....The plate does exhibit this very nice gradual and uniform thinning from the rim in towards the center, which I imagine was not easy to do.)


Michael, 

while good iron TSUBA are indeed not so easy to make, as design and craftsmanship have to be on a high level, giving the plate an even or tapering thickness is not so difficult!

 

[Katsujinken]

.....The plate does exhibit this very nice gradual and uniform thinning from the rim in towards the center, which I imagine was not easy to do.)

 

 

Michael,

 

while good iron TSUBA are indeed not so easy to make, as design and craftsmanship have to be on a high level, giving the plate an even or tapering thickness is not so difficult!

 

 

Fair point! Still impressed me though. My excuse is that I’m primarily a blade person.

[Ford Hallam]

All theologies are straws His sun burns to dust;

Knowing takes you to the Threshold, but not through the Door.

Nothing can teach you if you don’t unlearn everything

How learned I was, before Revelation made me dumb.

 

- Jalal-ud-Din Rumi

 

 

 

[Steve Waszak]

...and let us remember, too:  sometimes, it really is only the bath water that needs to be thrown out, rather than the baby, the soap, and the whole damn tub.  :beer:  

[Pete Klein]

and now for something completely different:

 

[Mastiff]

Wakizashi signed bishu ju "Nobuie"??

[ROKUJURO]

David,

you are posting (bad) NAKAGO photos in an existing thread in the TOSOGU section. Perhaps try again in the translation section.

[christianmalterre]

hmph....???

 

BIG LOL from me here!

 

but yes! why not?

 

Christian