Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Greetings,

I was wondering if anyone had information on a book titled "The arts of the Japanese sword" by B.W.Robinson? :D

There is one for sale that I am considering.

Thanks for any input,

Alan

Posted

Alan, This was Basil Robinson's sequel to a good little book called a 'Primer of Japanese sword-blades'. The Arts book has much more on fittings, many or all of which were in the Victoria and Albert Museum where Basil was a curator. It was the first readily available book in the UK on swords, and I had a copy from the local library on loan for about 2 years.

Ian bottomley

  • Like 1
Posted

This book was a decent attempt at the time but is completely outdated by now. Most of the big-name blades turned out to be gimei later as in many early Western collections. Unless you are interested in the history of sword appreciation in the West and its errors you better stay away from it. This book has caused too many confusions already.

 

reinhard

Posted
I had a copy from the local library on loan for about 2 years.

Ian bottomley

 

That's exactly what I did too :D ...then my girlfriend at the time finally got the hint and bought me a copy for my birthday.

 

Reinhard,

 

I actually think it's still a very handy starter book myself. The fact that many of the big name blade may be gimei is not really all that important in this case. No-one would use the book as the basis of appraisal...would they? :dunno:

The overview of development and schools etc is reasonably well presented and while there has certainly been much further research since it's publication it still provides a useful grounding, that's going to be very hard to gain elsewhere, in one book.

I still like it...but maybe I'm just nostalgic ;)

 

regards,

 

ford

Posted

Far away from nostalgic, IMHO this book still maintains it's merits despite the later detected gimei-blades. As written in the "Preface" :

 

...in writing the section on blades, therefore, I have leaned heavily on the Japanese authorities, especially Honami Koson, Fujishiro Yoshio, and Homma Junji...

The most comprehensive Japanese treatise on the whole subject (Nippon to Koza, 1935) runs to 25 volumes of 5,000 pages, and is the work of more then seven different authorities. In the rather more limited space at my disposal, therefore, my main problem has been to compress and to prune, but at the same time to avoid omitting anything essential.

 

And for those who are willing to learn to write "Kanji's" there are in Appendix E "Tables of characters used in the names of swordsmiths and makers of sword-fittings"

 

As can be seen in the pic my book has been used strongly.

Eric

post-369-14196771650978_thumb.jpg

Posted

Hi all,

In my opinion it is still a worthwhile book. I have to agree

that many of the blades were proven to be gimie. Having restored some of the said blade's for B.W. and been bequeathed the

Nobuhide plate No 23, I submitted this blade for NTHK shinsa in the U.K. It was cosidered to be by Hayama Enshin, but the jury

is still out on the elaborate horimono.

Regards,

Tony.

Posted

Hi Tony

 

Not to go off topic too much, can I just say when Les Stewart and i came down to london for the shinsa, we were chatting about the Shinsa / polishing / etc. you vanished for a few moments when you returned you produced the sword you mentioned above, can

i just say, THE HORIMONO IS ABSOLUTELY FABULOUS. :thanks:

 

 

 

All the best

 

ray

Posted

Thanks everyone for their input.I went ahead and have a copy on the way.

Most of the big-name blades turned out to be gimei later

Reinhard,do you know if their is a list of these blades or will I have to find them on my own?This may be a good exercise as my Nihonto Koza vol has a special section on gimei signatures.

Were there any signed fittings pictured?And if so,were any of these found to be gimei also?

I will keep all of this in mind as I go through the book.

Thanks again all,

Alan

Posted
Having restored some of the said blade's for B.W. and been bequeathed the Nobuhide plate No 23, I submitted this blade for NTHK shinsa in the U.K. It was cosidered to be by Hayama Enshin

 

I was just reading about this sword last night in Han Bing Siong's article on the Festing collection. According to the article the Nobuhide previously belonged to Sir Festing, but Robinson insisted on a trade for his Masayuki (Kiyomaro) daito...

Posted

Reinhard,do you know if their is a list of these blades or will I have to find them on my own?

Alan

 

Alan,

 

If someone is going to pay me a reasonable amount of money, I'll crush the book in detail, but it is not worth the pain. I know, many of the oldtimers and part-time members of sword societies are still sticking to Robinson, Hawley and Yumoto and others, for these are the guys they had learned from and their books were all reasonable information they could get at the time. Their limited knowledge gives them a cozy feeling even, or especially, nowadays, but there are so much better English introductions to the subject by now: Ogasawara's glossary for the collection in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, Harris' and Ogasawara's catalogue made for the exhibition in London 1990 or the book accompagning the present exhibition in NY to name a few.

Frankly, I'm sick of popular myths from Edo times repeated over and over again. MASAMUNE's jutetsu and other nonsense. Stuff like this has been corrected decades ago, but comes up again and again because of these few outdated books.

 

reinhard

Posted

Hi Ray,

Thank you for your post, I hope all is well with you & yours.

I am going to try to make Birmingham fair in feb, be good to see

Les & yourself their.

Best regards,

Tony.

Posted

Reinhard,I must ask about Hawley's then.I have the 2-vol paperback set and a book of shinto oshigata to accompany it.Can you explain what information that is presented in the book may be considered suspect?

What are your thoughts about the Nihonto Koza translations from H.Watson?

Also;what is your preferred source?

 

Alan

Posted

Reinhard you are spoiling the fun : if we cannot dream of Masamune in school with a blackboard surrounded by his pupils, giving lecture and having them passed MCQ exams, what will we do? :laughabove: :laughabove:

It is the same as for Roland at Roncevaux - in these old legends there is always a part of truth, rather take it as a myth.

 

For entertainment :

 

Smiths were side by side in some districts. Once upon a time, a smith heard is neighbour cutting a mei in a nakago. He sprung on his feet and run toward his neighbour forge and said : you are cutting my mei on one of your Nakago. The other replied : How did you know? the answer was the following : "Too many strokes"

 

And this one : the smith cutting the hand of another one, because this one had put his hand in the water used for the quenching process trying to steal the secret of the temperature of the water.

 

BTW, all the authors (including some mentionned by Reinhard) are not exempt from mistakes.

 

Even in History, everything can be questionned. As Our friend Guido mentionned in a post not so long ago, here is an example : Tametsugu, said as being son of Go Yoshihiro and student of Norishige, here is an extract from the MinoTo Taikan :

 

"It is said that TAMETSUGU為継was either the son of GÔ YOSHIRO郷義弘 of ETCHÛ, and that he later moved to NÔSHÛ FUWA-GÔRI, and according to one story, he was also a member of the NORISHIGE MON, but the NORISHIGE Monjin story is probably unreasonable from the standpoint of time. TAMETSUGU為継was called SHIRÔBEI, and it is said that his initial mei was inscribed as TAMETSUGU 為次, but I have not seen a sword inscribed TAMETSUGU為次.

As for YOSHIRO義弘, who is said to be the father or the teacher of TAMETSUGU 為継, his personal history is unclear, but it is thought that he was the son of GOFUKU-GÔ NORISHIGE, and that he was a kaji of around KENMU (1334-1337), and in the works of TAMETSUGU 為継, there have been pieces seen with nenki of from ENBUN NINEN (1357) to ÔAN SHICHINEN (1374), and whether we are speaking of a father/son or teacher/student relationship of TAMETSUGU為継 and YOSHIHIRO義弘, neither is unreasonable from the standpoint of time.

However, since I have not seen a sword made by TAMETSUGU 為継 with a mei inscription showing that he is living in ETCHÛ, there is probably more research necessary in regard to the relationship between YOSHIHIRO義弘 AND TAMETSGU為継.

In regard to the area in which this sword was wrought, since “ ECHIZEN KUNI FUJIWARA TAMETSUGU, ENBUN NINEN HINOTO-TORI NIGATSU HI” (A day in the 2nd Month of the year of the Cock, 1357) is inscribed, it is clear that he wrought swords from ENBUN NINEN (1357) to OAN NINEN (1369), but as to prior to ENBUN NINEN (1357), it is unclear whether he wrought swords in ECHIZEN, or whether he wrought swords in ETCHÛ in the Mon of YOSHIHIRO義弘, since there are no swords wrought which clearly establish the region.

However, the possibility is very strong that, in ETCHÛ during the NANBOKUCHO period, YOSHIRO義弘, whom was clearly divided from the UDA kaji that were thought to be kaji for the Southern Dynasty, was classified as a kaji on the Northern Dynasty side, and because of that, it is highly possible that the kaji of the YOSHIHIRO義弘 Ke that were on the Northern Dynasty side fled to ECHIZEN due to the changes in the fortunes of war, and wrought swords there. [TN]

In regard to the period in which TAMETSUGU為継 moved to MINO, since “NOSHU JU FUJIWARA TAMETSUGU, ÔAN SHICHINEN MINOE-TORA (remainder cut off) (Year of the Tiger, 1374) is inscribed on the naginata naoshi recorded in this taikan, it is clear that he moved from ECHIZEN to MINO sometime during the interval of from year two of ÔAN and year seven of that same period.

 

.....

 

Perhaps TAMETSUGU為継and YOSHIHIRO 義弘 are kaji that came from the YAMATO SENSHUIN KE"

 

Which would explain Yoshihiro's Yamato style blades ....

 

Who was Go Yoshihiro, was Tametsugu his son or pupil? where did he forge swords Etchû or Echizen, was Go Yoshihiro a son of GOFUKU-GÔ NORISHIGE, where does it fit with the jutetsu?

 

But I prefer the picture of Masamune blackboard teaching :) :) I shall never be a Nihonto expert neither anyone on the Board shall be. Every thing has to be taken with a grain of salt because archives are not precise enough to give the straight story. All we have are some dates, some facts which enable us to say : No, this one could not have been Masamune pupil or could this one has been a Goban kaji?

 

John Yumoto or Basil Robinson had the merit of introducing Nihonto in the western world and for a long time their books were the only ones in English idioma and that is why I :bowdown: :bowdown:

 

Just ask Clive Sinclaire, Ian B what could have happened, haven't they meet Basil Robinson?

 

And now, how will be considered in 200 years, today authors?

Posted
Reinhard,I must ask about Hawley's then.I have the 2-vol paperback set and a book of shinto oshigata to accompany it.Can you explain what information that is presented in the book may be considered suspect?

What are your thoughts about the Nihonto Koza translations from H.Watson?

Also;what is your preferred source?

 

Hi Alan,

 

W.M.Hawley collected an enormous amount of information and deserves respect for this achievement alone. Unfortunately he put every information he could get into his books without any critical distance. This was only partly his fault. Western "scholarship" worked like this in those days, but it should not be purported anymore. Hawley's compilation of Toko can be a quite reasonable point to start research from, but his general infos about NihonTo should be taken with great reserve. I can't comment on Nihonto Koza, for I don't have the volumes. It still has a good reputation though. My preferred sources are mainly Japanese books, but I recommend the three aforementioned books/catalogues for starters.

 

For those of you, who don't know what this talk is all about, I would like to present a few excerpts from B.W.Robinson's book. No wonder good, old Basil got it all wrong with the blades in the V&A museum. - The one about soft metal care is especially for Ford. It might cure some nostalgic feeling. At least I wish his marvellous Katsuhira utsushi tsuba he showed me recently will never be restored by the methods of Engineer Commander A.R.Newman.

 

reinhard

post-1086-14196771890782_thumb.jpg

post-1086-14196771895291_thumb.jpg

post-1086-14196771898221_thumb.jpg

post-1086-14196771907964_thumb.jpg

Posted

In this, Reinhard is right, it is absolutelly useless to try to sum up in a table the Gokkaden, things are very complex and over simplified.

 

The only advantage of such books is to give an introduction to Nihonto, inviting people to look to other sources (Japanese ones).

 

Who ever the author, Japanese all the more Westerner, Nihonto cannot be sum up in a short hand book. Too much exception. In fact, in Nihonto, exception is the rule, this is why kantei is so difficult if you are not holding a typical sword from the first or second generation of a given school. That is why, you will need to see a lot of swords (hundreds) to have in mind the characteristics of a given school or smith (more than 30 000).

 

If you want to know why these "pocket" books (which have a lot of merit) can only give imperfect and misleading info, read the following article "kantei is easy"from Late Jim Kurrasch :

 

by Jim Kurrasch

Every basic book on Japanese Swords gives basic methods of how to kantei a sword. They tell you to first look at the shape to determine the age. And then look at the grain to determine which school. And look at the hamon to determine which smith made it. And finally look at the signature to see it matches what you have come up with independent of the signature. It the name matches your opinion, then check the signature to see if it actually matches that smith's known signatures. Well I say, beyond the very basics, it just does not work that way. And I will assume that just because the reader has chosen this club, and to read this Newsletter they are interested in learning, and thus should be beyond the basics, or are at least trying to get beyond them.

Take the shape. If we go back we remember that prior to the Mongol Invasion of 1274 and 1281, the Japanese used a fine tachi shape, with a ko-kissaki. This tachi was about 30 to 35 inches long. With these invasions they went to a ikubi kissaki. At the end of the Kamakura period the Sôshû Tradition developed with it broad blades. And in Nambokuchô they went to the ô-dachi, with it's large kissaki. At the end of the Nambokuchô, the development of the katana came about, with it's ability for the fast draw, and strike. So many of the tachi and ô-dachi were cut down to katana length.

The katana shape continued with few exceptions of special order or near novelty pieces. And in the Shinshintô period there was a attempted resurrection of the Kotô blades. Much of this was in shape only. And even that shape was wrong since most of the early Kotô blades that they had for examples had been cut down to katana at the end of Nambokuchô.

Well what I am saying that these are fine basic rules. But as all rules there are exceptions, and in studding the Nihontô there are almost more exceptions than not. How about the National Treasure wakizashi in the Temple on Ômishima Island of the Inland Sea near Hiroshima. It is suppose to have been made between 925 and 950 AD I have seen it, behind glass of course, and it looked pretty much like any other chû-kissaki wakizashi. From a distance nothing abnormal to tip one off. And I am sure that it was not the only blade made like this in the Heian period, and actually that one was made pre-Heian.

One also finds that at the beginning of the mid-Kamakura period, the chû-kissaki started to come in. And that was long before the Mongol Invasions. Along with this chû-kissaki the blades started to become wider. So while the Mongol Invasions and Masamune's Sôshû Tradition did help to develop new styles, the trend for these styles was already there. Basically I am sure that the death of the ko-kissaki was being written long prior to the Mongols reaching Japan's shores.

And then there is Nambokuchô with it's fantastically large blades. But in fact about 50% of the blades made were just normal tachi, similar in shape to those made prior. And the making of the ô-dachi started to die out about 1375. But some ô-dachi were still being made around 1425. And in fact every once in a while we find a huge blade produced in just about any period. Dedication pieces for shrines, a piece de resistance for some swordsmith, or somebody just wanted one. About 20 years ago, for the wall of the Bizen Sword Museum, in Osafune there was a very large tachi made, probably 7 feet long with another 2½ feet of nakago. We also find that anytime after a style was developed, it was copied. We occasionally run across a gendaitô shaped like a Heian tachi. Or in both Shintô and Shinshintô there were wakizashi made very stout with grand points, and kiriha-zukuri wakizashi were also made. And why where these made, well why not? Or somebody wanted one.

Now how about the tetsû. Any basic student of nihontô knows about the tetsû of the 5 Traditions. Let's see they are;

Yamato = masame

Yamashiro = mokume

Bizen = mokume

Sôshû = itame

Mino = masame / itame

And Shintô was similar to Mino, with a masame mune and a itame ji. But then there are the waki groups. Waki is a term used for non-main branch of a school, and thus they were frequently of lesser quality. So it's soon becomes obvious that these groups while following the basic traditions, also had their own variations. If we find a blade that has that soft look of Kotô. And it is just too well done to be waki and it has itame, with no masame it must be Sôshû. Or must it? Actually we find that there was almost no true mokume ever produced. Except for rare individual instances, the only school that produced true mokume (known as "jurin-moku"), was Bushû Shita, down in Kyushu. And that obviously is not one of the 5 Traditions. In all other cases what is described as mokume, is really a mixture of mokume / itame. Shinshintô Naotane made "uzu-hada" - whirlpool like mokume.

Well how about something easier. Masame is not too hard to make or distinguish. So if we find a very well done Kotô blade with masame , it must be Yamato, Mino or at least be following the Yamato Tradition. Right? No - wrong. About ½ of the Kotô Bizen groups had masame mixed with their mokume. And even in single groups there were variations with smiths who worked at the same time. Such as in the Yamashiro Rai School, occasionally we find mokume / masame. One way to differentiate Niji Kunitoshi and Rai Kunitoshi is that Rai Kunitoshi used masame mixed with mokume. And as I mentioned above almost all mokume is mixed with itame. And to make matter worst there was one Kotô Mino smith that occasionally put mokume in his works instead of itame . And to make matters really worst, many Kotô smiths who would not normally using masame, would use it for their polearms. Many of those polearms have been cut down into wakizashi.

Well then how about a smith characteristic hamon. Well that is another thing that you probably do not want to bet the farm on. Let's face it if you are in the Kyô Yoshimichi School in Yamashiro around 1800, and have a IQ of 70 maybe you were completely happy using basic sudare-ba for all of your swords. But if you had a IQ of 150 or 175, and were starting your own school, you probably wanted to occasionally play around with styles of hamon. This may be for only one blade, or it could have been for a period. Rai Kunimitsu had 5 major styles of tantô, and 3 major styles of tachi. And occasionally we hear about a blade that has the provenance for certain identification of the smith. But without that provenance nobody would believe it. Well what happens if the blade is ô-suriage and lost it's provenance. Well then it is assigned to another smith.

Then how about utsuri? Well if a blade has midare utsuri it is Kamakura Bizen. With bô-utsuri it is Bizen and Ôei to Sue-Kotô. With this Bizen means Bizen and those provinces around Bizen, such as Bitchû, Bingo and Aki. Basically the Sanyôdô. Then comes shirake utsuri. Just how many of the readers can tell shirake utsuri from midare utsuri? Since shirake utsuri was more accidental than anything else it could be from all over, but mostly in the Kyushu area and Mino. Also there is a type of utsuri frequently formed when a blade has been polished down too far.

Or how about nioi deki and nie deki? Well Bizen and Mino used nioi deki while Yamato, Yamashiro, and Sôshû used nie deki. But can you tell the difference? And how about those great exceptions? Early Kotô Bizen also used nie deki. Sue Sôshû also used nioi. And then there is the problem of just what is what. Well nie deki is a hamon primarily made of nie, and nioi deki is primarily nioi. But when we say primarily, what do we mean, and where do we draw the line. Then there is always such things such as nioi deki lined with nie. And I have seen them lined with so much nie that it is very hard to see just where it is nioi. But it is still considered nioi deki.

Then we get into Shintô and Shinshintô. This gets much, much easier. According to Ishii in Nihontô Meikan there were many more swordsmiths during Kotô than post Kotô. 15,296 during Kotô, 4,574 during Shintô, and 3,138 for Shinshintô and Gendaitô combined. That is very close to 2 to 1. Here hamon, yakidashi (hamon just in front of the nakago), and bôshi really mean a lot. Actually if one can not tell just how good the smith is by the look and feel of the blade, the above characteristics are everything. This is because other than basic quality, and variations in the hamon there was not a great difference in many post-Kotô smiths. This is further compounded during Shinshintô. Many of the Shinshintô smiths wanted to become versatile in various Kotô traditions. And some of the better ones did. But for the most part the Shinshintô Revival was mostly in the shape of the blade and real high quality never returned.

What the title promised you Kantei is Easy is true. All that you have to do is study a little, and remember a few simple rules. Of course you also must remember the 45,000,000 exceptions to the rules. Happy studying. I know that you can do it. :^) Jim

 

:freak: :oops:

Posted

All, Reinhard mentions that he is sick of the Edo period myths being perpetuated. What about the Meiji, Taisho and Showa myths that are still being put forward? I have a Japanese buddy who shall remain nameless, but often when we have been chatting about armour he has remarked 'I think that also, but cannot say.' Everyone who writes on a subject like Nihonto must to a great degree accept what is written in earlier works. Nobody can go back to all the primary sources and check them personally. Indeed, in many cases the primary source, be it an earlier writing, an object or whatever, may well no longer exist. At best authors must take on trust what is held to be true by general consensus and try to exclude or verify that which is thought to be suspect. Inevitably some of the information that is used turns out to be inaccurate. Sadly that is a fact of life. We all stand on the shoulders of those who came before - many of whom were giants who did their best for their readers.

Ian Bottomley

Posted
No wonder good, old Basil got it all wrong

And nowadays ? I refer to Victor Harris "Cutting Edge, Japanese Swords in the British Museum", Nr. 50, Katana by Yokoyama Sukenaga, very dubious and others as well. Compare yourself. BTW those big named blades, namely Katana Masamune kinzogan and Yukimitsu Tanto, for instance, from the Festing Collection, in my memory they were two times at Sotheb'y or Christie's but remained unsold. Later on an antique dealer located in Geneva, Switzerland, tried to sell them, but I believe without success.

Eric

post-369-14196771999838_thumb.jpg

post-369-14196772001131_thumb.jpg

post-369-14196772002126_thumb.jpg

Posted
We all stand on the shoulders of those who came before

 

Ian, really , I am worried about the one who is going to support our friend Roger Robertshaw :D

Posted

Yes,I understand now.Just as we learn on an individual basis;we also learn collectively tho.Collectively we all should know by now not to use practices (i.e. the Engineer Commander's recommendations) that would alter the patina of an art object or antique.And even tho our knowledge base is larger and more accurate we should still maintain a certain level of skepticism towards the printed word.Modern students of human history understand that there are many "versions" of history depending upon who wrote it.

I would therefore hazard to say that even within the Japanese scholarly works we would encounter similar instances albeit fewer in number.Thanks for your insights Reinhard.

 

I am relatively new to nihonto and some of the finer points that more knowledgeable members discuss here are way beyond my level of practice.That is one of the reasons I hang around!

 

Ian, really , I am worried about the one who is going to support our friend Roger Robertshaw

Jean,your point eludes me,can you explain further please.

 

Alan

Posted
Jean,your point eludes me,can you explain further please.

 

 

Alan, you should subscribe to JSSUS newsletters and read issue May, 2009 Volume 41 N°2 P.13, line 10

Posted
What the title promised you Kantei is Easy is true. All that you have to do is study a little, and remember a few simple rules. Of course you also must remember the 45,000,000 exceptions to the rules.

 

“The only thing we can be sure of is that we aren't sure of anything”

Oscar Wilde on Uncertainty Principle

 

“On second thought, I'm not so sure of that”

Oscar Wilde on above quote by Oscar Wilde

Posted
those big named blades, namely Katana Masamune kinzogan and Yukimitsu Tanto, for instance, from the Festing Collection, in my memory they were two times at Sotheb'y or Christie's but remained unsold. Later on an antique dealer located in Geneva, Switzerland, tried to sell them, but I believe without success.

 

Off topic and just for the record: They were in the collection of Giorgio Crespo de la Serna for a while. Stubborn as he was he bought them against all reasonable advice. Latest victim of the infamous couple I heard of was Darcy Brockbank, who presented his catch on NMB some time ago. - Giorgio Crespo de la Serna was also owner of the horrible gimei SUKEZANE with hitatsura hamon shown on the same plate (No.14) in Robinson's book. This sword came to auction as part of his legacy at Sotheby's in London in June 2003 (lot 91). I've seen it in hand and it is not worth any serious discussion at all, but since it comes with the bonus of provenance (V&A museum) it will probably pop up on the Western market again.

 

reinhard

Posted
the horrible gimei SUKEZANE with hitatsura hamon shown on the same plate (No.14) in Robinson's book. This sword came to auction as part of his legacy at Sotheby's in London in June 2003 (lot 91).

It was sold for £ 2,040 :freak:

Eric

Posted

Reihard,

 

got caught me...now everyone will know where I gained all of my knowledge about patination....aaaargh! :? ;)

 

I take you point though...I suppose I've become a little blind to those sorts anomalies as over the years, as I've learned better, I simply don't read those sections :dunno:

 

regards,

 

Ford 8)

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one, unless your post is really relevant and adds to the topic..

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...