Tsuba Masterwork

[Ford Hallam]

another Higo....I mean Myoju tsuba for comparison.

[christianmalterre]

 

Christian

[Grey Doffin]

Cool tsuba, Grey. Thanks for posting. Any attribution?

Hi Steve,

I'm not much good at tsuba kantei, but I suspect this is from the commonly encountered Forsale School.

Grey

[cabowen]

I would agree that the aesthetics of tsuba appreciation are more akin to pottery in general and tea ware in particular, as well as all other traditional arts with roots in the wabi-sabi aesthetic.

 

Just to clarify, ( note the underlined qualifier) We're not speaking of all tsuba but specifically those that are expressive of the philosophy of Tea.

 

Yes, I should have qualified my statement as I was referring primarily to the appreciation of iron (tsuba). Clearly Goto and other such soft metal is judged by different standards....

[Mark Green]

I'm with Ford.

Having looked at as many Myoju tsuba that I could find before finding this post, (which has been great fun gang)I just have the gut feeling that "the" Myoju was unlikely to have made these Higo looking tsuba. (papers of not)

To me, it just doesn't look like something he would do. I could be wrong, but if you just look closely at all his other iron tsuba,( at least that I have seen) these just do not 'feel' right for him.

Ford just may be on to something. Now that all these pics of the very close design Myoju signed tsuba have appeared, I would just about bet that is the case.

They just don't look Myoju to me. :?

[Ford Hallam]

Mark,

 

I appreciate the vote of support but what I'm suggesting may be considered even more heretical ( it's in my job description ) I'm suggesting that the real Umetada Myoju made swords....period.

[paulb]

Ford,

I can feel the inquisitors reaching for the stake and the fuel to ensure they save your soul!

My understanding was that he was first and foremost a fittings maker. Certainly the number of his swords in existence would suggest he was either very slow or did other things to earn a living.

I have always had a problem with his designation as the father of Shinto, there just dont seem to be enough of his works around. Kunihiro has a longer pedigree and more pieces to evaluate. What cant be disputed is Myoju's influence on one of the best Shinto smiths (IMO) Hizen Tadayoshi.

Again it is probably one of those theories that must be impossible to prove or disprove but can make or break reputations on the way. It is a little like the "Masamune never existed" idea hich gained fame in the 1950's and has rumbled around ever since.

Regards

Paul

[Steve Waszak]

Fascinating discussion...

 

 

There is also some question, in some circles, as to whether the tsuba that bear his mei are in fact by the same hand that made the swords. Personally, I see the greatest similarity in his inlay designs with the paintings of Ogata Korin. The problem with this link is that Korin lived from 1658 - 1716 while Umetada Myoju apparently lived from 1558-1631.

 

For myself I find some very suggestive stylistic and technical traits in this work and that of certain Higo masters. The Early Higo masters were coming to the fore at the same time Ogata Korin was active. It's also interesting to me to note that the use of enamel is associated with the Hirata, albeit the later generations, and we also see a few remarkably similar tsuba with enamel that are signed by the Myoju. Could the legendary tsuba -shi known as Umetada Myoju really be a clever marketing ploy by an early Higo artist? Providing " bits of the true cross" where there was a demand.

 

I have a couple of thoughts/comments on the above... First, how do the mei on the tsuba and those on the nakago of his blades compare? I haven't examined the two in any comparative way before, but obviously, this would have been the subject of much scrutiny. For those who doubt that the Myoju who made the blades is the same man who made the tsuba, I would imagine that there may be a bit of doubt in your minds as to the similarity in the respective mei, no? As to the issue with Myoju's dates vs. Ogata's, if the blade Myoju was one man, and there was another Myoju who made the tsuba, it would be theoretically possible that the tsuba man came later (i.e. during Ogata's time)...

 

However, Ford, when you say that the early Higo tsubako were "coming to the fore at the same time Ogata Korin was active," I'm a bit confused. According to my information, Hirata Hikozo died in the 1630s, Shimizu Jinbei died in the 1670s, and both Hayashi Matashichi and Nishigaki Kanshiro died in the 1690s. If Ogata Korin was born in 1658, he'd have been just over 30 years old by the time all of the four Higo masters were dead. So unless you're speaking of second-generation "early Higo masters" in your statement here, the dates would seem to pose a problem.

 

Why is it not possible (it would seem) that, rather than it always being the painter who inspires the tsubako, it is the tsubako who inspires the painter? If Myoju did make the tsuba he is credited with, and if he made them when he is supposed to have, given his illustrious name, and given that his work would have been very well known among the upper class, why couldn't Ogata Korin (and for that matter, any of the four Higo masters) have been influenced by Myoju?

 

If the mei on the nakago and the mei on the tsuba align (and if the experts who are anal about examining mei so closely assert that they do, in fact, align), then what seems at least as likely to me as any of the ideas expressed thus far in this thread is that Myoju did indeed make both the blades and the tsuba, and it was (one or more) of the Higo masters who borrowed from Myoju. The one guy to look at, especially, is Hirata Hikozo. He is the earliest of the Higo men. He was the teacher, I believe, of Shimizu and Nishigaki. He is the master of soft metal among the Higo men (as Myoju is a master of soft metal, also). I know that Hirata Hikozo came to Higo later in his life, but I can't recall off the top of my head where he migrated from. If it turned out that he and Myoju lived in the same area for a while earlier on, perhaps this may explain, in part, the resemblance of some Higo work to that of Myoju.

 

As I say, a fascinating discussion. I'll look forward to further thoughts...

Cheers,

 

Steve

[Steve Waszak]

Two more Myoju tsuba...

[paulb]

Steve,

for the record you are attributing someone elses (Ford's) comments to me. The style and information is much too learned for me!

[Steve Waszak]

Sorry, Paul... I selected the text and hit the "quote" button... Not sure what happened. Maybe Brian can get in there and correct it? It was Ford I was looking to quote, I believe... ;o)

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

[Mark Green]

Mark,

 

I appreciate the vote of support but what I'm suggesting may be considered even more heretical ( it's in my job description ) I'm suggesting that the real Umetada Myoju made swords....period.

 

 

Ok I see. (da)

 

I would think that kinda unlikely. But I would believe in a second, that people, (mostly from his school I would think) did make use of his famous name. Likely others as well. I'm sure it happened all the time. Just look at how many gemei swords are out there.

Looking at that Ho bird tsuba. My gut feeling is "the" myoju, had nothing to do with that one. What is up with that Nakago ana? It looks like it would go on a naginata or something.

I love the bottom one. That mimi had to be done while hot. And, that rim looks just like most of the nice alloy tsuba attributed to him. He seemed to love that funky rim look. You see very few other tsuba makers of the time going that wild.

 

Of course, I only know enough to be dangerous. But, when I look at tsuba made by all my favorite makers, you can 'see' their work in them.( yes Steve, even the old crusty ones ) But, I have never seen any Myoju in hand, so who am I to say.

 

Some more.

 

Is this one too?

[Ford Hallam]

Steve,

 

I suppose I was sort of thinking of a slightly more established "Higo school" ie; second generation.

 

The comparison of mei on the tsuba and those on blades is something I've only looked at superficially. Lack of blades to compare, so if anyone can supply a few I'd be keen to see them. His mei do appear to include a kao though, notably absent on the tsuba. The other thing to consider is the way mei are cut or struck. Those on swords are much larger and bolder. Most, though not all, of the tsuba are in soft metal so there are bound to be significant differences in the two types.

 

It's also certainly possible that the tsuba designs gave rise to the painting style but I would find this unlikely given that the decorative arts, and tsuba have to be seen in this light given they are such obvious status signals, tend to reflect the styles and aesthetics of the major arts of painting and sculpture. It is possible he really was a genius in two, very different, disciplines, was the father of Hizen-to, AND inspired Ogata Korin and a new style of painting. There is, for me anyway, a very clear connection, aesthetically speaking (both the actual visual expression and the technical way this is achieved) with a couple of the Higo men. I wonder about their relationships and the sort of exchange that may have taken place.

 

Paul,

 

I appreciate the concern :D but I have no soul to risk . I should say though, this "theory" of mine isn't any sort of major thesis I've been developing at all. It's more of a thought experiment offered to provoke ( in a positive way ) some discussion.

I was under the impression the view was that he was first a sword-smith, a fairly major force in fact, who then got into making tsuba as a sideline.

For me, whoever made these guards was undeniably a mature and original artist. What bothers me a little is there is no explanation of how his facility, not to mention technical knowledge, came from in relation to the tsuba. The techniques and materials he used can hardly be regarded as common at the time, not to mention the actual designs.

 

Steve's idea regarding Hirata Hikozo may be worth investigating, particularly considering the enamel link between the two groups.

 

Mark,

 

the toad tsuba may be a Umetada school piece but much later than the first 2 or 3 generations I think. The other work is very suggestive of Tsuchiya Yasuchika I (1670 - 1744) or II so later than the period in question. He worked Edo (Tokyo) whereas Myoju was in Kyoto. I'd say that Yasuchika may well have been inspired by much of the same sort of aesthetic as the artists we're discussing. This example, a wonderful masterpiece , well illustrates his style.

[paulb]

Hi Ford,

I also have no specific research to support my opinion. It is interesting how people can read similar sources but their perception can be totally opposed. I guess thats how a lot of conflicts start.

My understanding from reading what is available in English was that Myoju was first and foremost a metal worker producing fittings. This to some extent is supported by the relatively few swords extant compared to the number of tsuba and other work attributed to him.

On the other side of the debate is that the swords he made were of very high quality and he had major influence on the sword making world counting Kunihiro and Tadayoshi amongst those he taught/influenced. He must therefore be regarded as an important maker (or a least teacher) and hence the designation of "Father of Shinto" that appers to be linked to him.

Either way if one of his swords became available at an even vaguely affordable figure I think I would be one of the first in line.

Regards

Paul

[sanjuro]

Great topic........ Once again I stress my lack of qualification to make comment, but it seems to me that on the question of Myoju being primarily a tosho or a tsubako, then it depends on what set of dangerous assumptions you are making.

 

1. That Myoju always signed the swords he made, and since there are so few signed examples that this must prove he was predominantly a tsubako.

2. Alternatively that all the tsuba bearing his signature were in fact made by him, and since they are so prolific (comparatively), then he must have been a tsubako.

 

Neither of these has been (or even can be) proven.

 

On the other hand his fame as the father of Shinto must have foundation in the fact that he made swords. He may certainly have been a teacher, but in order to become one, then his reputation as a swordsmith must have been established in works done by him. That reputation must also have been relatively well known and this points to the fact that there were once at least a number of his swords, signed or otherwise in evidence.

Perhaps Myoju the tosho and Myoju the tsubako were not the same person(s) as Ford suggests.

[IanB]

This has been an interesting discussion - despite the fact that I wouldn't know a good tsuba from a dustbin lid, other than the fact that the latter has a handle. What I do detect from Ford's comments is a flicker of a conclusion that I came to long ago with regard to armour makers - large parts of the accepted genealogies are absolute rubbish made up by later workers to sell their products to the gullible. Unlike tsuba, which can only very rarely be linked to historic persons, plenty of armours survive whose original owners are known. One slight problem is that some of these have been enhanced by later generations of the family along the lines of - 'this is great grandpa's armour he wore at Seki ga Hara but it was a bit plain so I've had it re-lacquered and relaced and added a few kanamono and a better helmet etc' kind of thing. Despite this, search the surviving armours from the Sengoku Jidai and find one with a piece of Miochin work in it. They don't exist because the Miochin didn't make armours then. Sure they made helmet bowls with early dates in, but all are part of Edo period armours. If this state of affairs applies to tsuba makers I can understand the confusion. Just to finish I add an image of my only posh tsuba which I was told is a late Umetada piece.

Ian Bottomley

[Mark Green]

Ford, Yes, Yasuchika is my favorite. I'm acually making that tsuba you pictured now. As well as another Yasuchika tiger in iron, with nunome stripes. (a labor of love for sure)

It seems that the Old tsuba attribution world is just a foggy, or more so, then that of swords.

 

Ian, I really like that one!!

[Eric H]

Myoju‘s legacy is extremely poor regarding the existing swords he has left...a Tachi 64.7 cm now in the Kyoto National Museum, a shinogi-zukuri Wakizashi, a Ken, and some Tantos. Most of his Tantos are katakiriba-zukuri, his Horimono are of the highest quality.

 

Umetada Myoju is known as one of  “the best three artist in the Momoyama era”  along with Kaneie, and Nobuie in the toshingu world. His family was working for the Ashikaga shoguns, and they did a lot of work to shorten and make swords suriage which was common at that time, along with making zogan mei, and toso kanagu. Myoju was a sword smith, and he was known as a founder of  the Shinto school and he was a very good toshin-bori smith ( carving or making horimono on swords).  Myoju has two types of tsuba, and one type is made of iron with raimon, and sayamon (geometric regular) patterns with some gold nunome zogan, which is a classic elegant Ko- Shoami style used since the Muromachi era. The other style uses brass or red copper for a base, and uses gold, silver and copper for hirazogan, with patterns of trees or vines such as grape, kunenbo hakugi, and shochiku mon (graphic patterns). These are very elegant and gorgeous typical  Momoyama period patterns. (NBTHK Journal)

 

Eric

[Steve Waszak]

Great discussion, guys...

 

There is another Myoju tsuba whose photo really should be reproduced here: it is illustrated in the Haynes Catalogue, #7. I don't have a scanner at the moment. Could anyone who has this catalogue scan that image and post it here? Thanks... ;o)

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

[Ford Hallam]

It perhaps odd that given Myoju celebrated for his horimono this technique is never seen on his tsuba...in fact the technique of high relief carving is not seen at all on his tsuba.

[Steve Waszak]

For me, whoever made these guards was undeniably a mature and original artist. What bothers me a little is there is no explanation of how his facility, not to mention technical knowledge, came from in relation to the tsuba. The techniques and materials he used can hardly be regarded as common at the time, not to mention the actual designs.

 

Ford, you allude here to one of the long-time "mysteries" concerning Myoju: how to explain his emergence when there is so little (if any) indication of where he could have learned his skills, found the inspiration for his motifs/designs, etc... There are exceedingly murky references to the "ko-Umetada," but even this group is not, as I understand it, to be seen as the foundation from which Myoju emerged, since the ko-Umetada are taken to be an un-related group working concurrently with Myoju, rather than earlier. So, as you say here, Ford, how to explain his skills and designs?

 

The idea that there actually may have been two Myojus---one the father of Shinto blades, and the other a talented tsubako---is actually reminiscent of the debate about whether the katchushi Myochin Nobuiye was the same man as the tsubako Nobuiye (the thinking at the time of this debate being that there was only one tsubako Nobuiye). I believe this latter debate has now been "decided," with the conclusion drawn that the katchushi and (one of) the tsubako were not the same men. It is worth noting that, in no small way, it was close scrutiny of the respective mei involved that allowed for a reasonably confident determination to be made (in addition to observations made concerning techniques in forging, the likelihood that a famous armorer would have the time to develop the skills to make such superb tsuba and then also make so many of them, etc...). So, I go back to the matter of the mei on the blades' nagako and that on the tsuba: are these mei of the same hand, or not? It seems likely that it would require actually having the blades and the tsuba on a table together to have any chance of knowing for sure, but maybe not, I don't know...

 

In any event, the "precedent" set by the Myochin Nobuiye example suggests the possibility, at least, that there were indeed two Myojus. This "precedent" is even more plausible given that the time periods involved (Nobuiye, Myoju) are not too distant from one another, and that the practice of signing tsuba was at those times still relatively novel (thus suggesting the lack of a firmly-established tradition prescribing the do's and don'ts of signing tsuba).

 

Tangentially speaking, I think more research has to be done on Momoyama practices as regards the possible formation of ateliers in which small groups of talented artisans produced pieces under the supervision of "masters" and who, with the master's approval, "signed" their pieces with the workshop "mei." In such a scenario, we would have excellent tsuba being produced not by one great artist with a famous name, but by two or three, or even more, perhaps, all signing with the same mei. Likely? I don't know. But worth considering, I think... ;o)

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

[Mark Green]

Steve wrote "Tangentially speaking, I think more research has to be done on Momoyama practices as regards the possible formation of ateliers in which small groups of talented artisans produced pieces under the supervision of "masters" and who, with the master's approval, "signed" their pieces with the workshop "mei." In such a scenario, we would have excellent tsuba being produced not by one great artist with a famous name, but by two or three, or even more, perhaps, all signing with the same mei. Likely? I don't know. But worth considering, I think... "

 

I feel this is very likely. Probably common place in all the big tsuba schools. Likely in all the big sword schools as well.

Mark G

[docliss]

Attached are the scans of Haynes catalogue #7, as requested by Steve. Jiohn L.

[Eric H]

The pictures from the G. Oeder Collection

 

Eric

[Mark Green]

Thanks for posting guys, these are great examples.

There's that rim again.

I love those dice :lol:

[Lorenzo]

Thank you Eric, your last examples are wonderful.

[reinhard]

The aesthetical concept of this interpretation was already introduced by the Ko-Shôami group. It is based on a contrast of round (the shape of the tsuba), angular (the masume), and round (the tsuka/saya) when worn.

 

I fully agree with Markus. Have a look at this one.

 

reinhard

[Mark Green]

I love that one Reinhard. Is that silver inlay?

Everyone loves Amida-yasurime.

Thanks for the pic. That is simple elegance.

Cheers, Mark G

[nihontoau]

Here's a few pictures of a Yasuchicka style tsuba i have in my collection.

 

regards

John

Nihonto Australia

[nihontoau]

Here's also a reference i have, not sure what book i got it out of, it discusses another tsuba of this design made of iron. I hope the picture attaches..John

 

'The first Yasuchika is considered to be one of the three great Nara masters (Nara San-saku), with Nara Toshinaga and Sugiura Joi. the style of Yasuchika owed more to his heritage in Shonai as a student of the Shoami than to his tenuous relationship with Toshinaga and Joi.

113. Signed Yasuchika (1670-1744). Iron plate with inlay of shakudo, gold and silver. A brass plate tsuba with this subject has been known in Japan for many years. This iron example was only recently discovered and is considered to be one of the masterpieces by the first Yasuchika. Thickness at center, 4.25 mm; at edge 5 mm.

114. Signed Kikan. This is Noda Kikan (ca. 1700). Until recently only two or three examples of the work of this artist were known to exist, such as the famous tsuba with snake design in the Furukawa Collection, number 194. In the last few years, a few additional examples have been discovered, leading one expert to believe there were several generations of this name. Thickness at center 5.5 mm.

115. Signed Morichika. This is a student of Tsuchiya Yasuchika VI (ca. 1835). Kozuka copper plate with inlay of shakudo and gold.