Honami Koson

[Paul Martin]

Hi,

 

I hate to get drawn into this (especially as I started the thread), but I just wanted to clarify the position of Facts and Fundamentals. I think that the book is pretty honest, Nakahara sensei's opinions can appear to be extreme at sometimes, but generally honest.

 

It is a fact that Koson was a turning point in the Hon'ami family, as he realized the future, and devised the Goka-den that we all still use today thus simplifying and 'going public' with what was previously oral transmission within the family. Also, the book does criticize the family.

 

p 80 on the attribution of a Masamune.

 

p 99 (if you read between the lines) Third paragraph.

 

p 120 Questions a Hon'ami attribution to Kunitoshi

 

p130 'In the past, as the main branch of the Hon'ami school had the monopoly on the issuance of origami, if truth be told this authority was exploited when authenticating mumei blades. Furthermore, you might say that this was the reason so much effort was taken to promote Soshu works (Masamune, Sadamune, Go Yoshihiro) as a mainstream school'

 

He also, states somewhere that Koson was a very good man, but had made some mistakes, but I cannot find the page at the moment.

 

Remember! Nahahara's words not mine...

 

Best

[Jacques D.]

Hi,

 

Eric,

 

I agree with Chris.

About an another subject, gifts were a good reason for making numerous gimei. Relationship between Shogun/Daimyo/samurai were often more subtle than we can think.

[Eric H]

Swords were given as gifts by Daimyos or Commanders as rewards at various occasions and times.

 

In the official events calendar of the Muromachi-Bakufu, the so-called sword-gifting of three Governors (on-dachi-kenjo no gi) to the beginning of the year was started. It was strictly regulated, how much was worth a blade or its "state" (signed, unsigned or unshortened).

 

As an example following an excerpt from the etiquette rules from „Ouchi-mondo" by the Ouchi-family, Eisho 6 (1509)

 

About sword gifts should be mentioned that those who have become a cropped nakago and resulted as Katana, or on the other hand Tachi with originally no signature, were not appropriate as gifts for the Shogun, the highest classified category. Each piece should first be checked for its usefulness as a gift. As far as unsigned blades, these are not suitable for a celebration at a large scale, but not objectionable for an ordinary celebration.

Samurai receives kneeling a sword as a reward

 

from the book "Geschichten rund ums japanische Schwert"

by Markus Sesko

 

Eric

[Lance]

From what I've read over the years, swords were given as gifts instead of land when there weren't any major wars being fought, so these domains didn't change hands too much. I think it was 1st generation Echizen Yasutsugu who made some of these swords for the shogun, attributed to famous koto smiths with origami, given as gifts and that these were often given back as a gift later on, both sides knowing what was going on and that it was the ceremony and idea of the gift that were more important. I'm sorry I can't reference a specific book but below is a link from the Token society of Great Britain, top part of the article that explains the whole thing better than I could.

 

http://www.to-ken.com/articles/giftspresentations.htm

 

Lance

[Wah]

G'day Eric,

 

I'll probably get myself in trouble for this opinion. So I had better make things clear

 

CAUTION: HYPOTHETICAL ASSUMPTION APPROACHING!

 

I said that I have seen 29 Masamune ( I didn't count some I have seen 2 or 3 times :D ) . Out of that total 22 are recognized and have some paper or designation. Now I can tell you that there is two or even three distinct levels of workmanship in these sword. My theory is this. The Hojo Bakufu were preparing for a potential 3rd invasion from the Mongols. For the purpose of equipping an army and becoming self sufficient in the northern provinces for weapons, the Hojo "summoned" three of the best swordsmiths in Japan and established the Soshu school. These smiths still worked in their own style, the first Soshu blades being produced by Kunimitsu. From that time relatively few smiths names appear in the "direct Soshu line" for the next 100 years. My point and my hypothesis is that the factory had assistants working for them, recruited from the local smiths (refer connoisseurs book pg 198, first paragraph) whose names are not left to us. I feel a multitude of weapons were produced in a '"standard grade in Soshu style " and only special order pieces were made of the highest quality by the masters hand. Therefore my very contentious statement is , "out of 29 Masamune's I've seen, only few are special order pieces of the highest quality and artistic merit, the others may well be of the second grade or later work"

 

That brings me to this tanto. First, wrong sori, wrong nakago (my opinion) . I can see some glimpses of chikei and inazuma , but no yubashiri. Maybe Soden Bizen, would need to see it in my hand.

 

cheers,

 

Hope everyone is well,

Wow, This sounds interesting Adrian! You lucky dog!

You've seen 29??

 

since were talkin' Kosan Sensei, here's my part.

A story I heard of Kosan sensei, was that in 1943 he was neighbors

with Iemasa Tokugawa. This explains how Kosan saw the Tokugawa

family Masamune (still lost).

Yamanaka’s Newsletters talks of this event and when Kosan saw the blade

he noted that he did not think it was that exciting or impressive.

Sounds like he thought it was a second rate Masamune.

Maybe someone was trying to attribute a Yukimitsu to Masamune when it was

papered.

By the way Chris, thanks for posting the page from Jissen to dan by Naruse Kanji!

There is some very interesting info there.

Happy Holidays,

Stephen T

[Paul Martin]

Hi all,

 

Still in the Honami line of enquiry. I have some more questions just to put out there...

 

There are 9 masamune blades listed as national treasures in the Mainichi Shinbun National treasure catalogue. Not one of them are signed, including five tanto which should not need shortening or mei removal. One of the three hocho included in these has utsuri, and is disputed by some to be (rin) Tomomitsu. Additionally, the nakago-jiri is different on all three. The vast majority of all the other National treasure blades including three tanto by Kunimitsu and one by Yukimitsu are all signed, or if they aren't they are other signed example NT's that are. Does no-one find this strange?

 

There are only supposed to be three authenticated signed examples of Masamune, but these are disputed too. So, I think that my question is, how can you base so many blades on only three signed examples that are in dispute? Sorry, thinking out loud and applying Ford's scientific sense of reasoning.

 

Adrian, can you tell us more about the 29 examples that you have seen? Were they all mumei, kinzogan, etc?

 

Best

[Jean]

I have seen three, all mumei. two with Kinzogan mei, one with Hon'ami kanteisho.

[Eric H]

Among the three Hocho-Masamune there is one with a clear, white prominent bo-utsuri and a hamon that deteriorates. If you call a blade with a deteriorated hamon an important work (meito), then a blade beeing considered a meito has nothing to do with good or bad quality and is a contradiction in terms. (Nakahara)

 

1 - HYUGA-MASAMUNE - 24.8 cm - kokuho - mumei

2 - KUKI-MASAMUNE - 24.8 cm - kokuho - mumei

3 - FUDO-MASAMUNE - 25.1 cm - juyo-bunkazai - signed

4 - DAIKOKU-MASAMUNE - signed

5 - HOCHO-MASAMUNE - 21.8 cm - kokuho - mumei

6 - KYOGOKU-MASAMUNE - signed

 

Eric

[runagmc]

Here's the other 2 Hocho Masamune's... I wonder which one Nakahara was talking about... I would guess the one at the bottom

[cabowen]

I have seen maybe 6-7 and handled a few over the years.....a few were amazing, a few were underwhelming....I liked the sukashi hocho the best......A friend has one that I have yet to see but from what I hear it is exceptional....

 

Personally, I have found other bona fide works by bona fide smiths as impressive as any Masamune I have seen....

[Jacques D.]

Hi,

 

It's the one shown by Eric

[Adrian S]

G'day to Eric and all,

 

Meito literally refers to a sword with a name. The naming of famous swords goes right back into Japanese mythology and pre-history. Watanbe writes an excellent and detailed article on naming of swords as a foreword to the current Meibutsu Exhibition on at Sano. These days Meito are also refered to as swords that have been listed in famous old sword books like Kyoho Meibutsu Cho. Just because a sword is tired, it dosn't loose its status as a Meito.

 

I remember seeing the Kyogoku many years ago and thought it was very tired. The hamon indeed drops very close to the edge. Considering it is one of three accepted signed pieces and is in the Imperial collection, it is still a Meito.

 

There is nothing wrong with any of the three hocho Masamunes. What you are seeing is not Bo Utsuri as in late bizento. It is in reality yubashiri forming midare jinie utsuri. This is a defining characteristic of Masamune. I vividly remember Mishina sensei explaining that to me as we were both looking at the three hochos. Did you know there is another hocho Masamune? I call it "mega-hocho" Masamune :lol: , it is a huge hocho shaped wakizashi at the Yasukuni Jinja ( although my personal opinion is that it is in the doubtful class )

 

cheers,

[Wah]

Did you know there is another hocho Masamune? I call it "mega-hocho" Masamune :lol: , it is a huge hocho shaped wakizashi at the Yasukuni Jinja ( although my personal opinion is that it is in the doubtful class )

 

cheers,

Adrian, Thank you for your information. This is very interesting.

Is this "mega Hocho" the one found in "Tsuguhira oshigata" page 99? I can't tell if it has a Shumei or Kinzogan mei. ?? Maybe this is not the same one?

 

BTW, Do you consider the Masamune swords graded "den Masamune" to be of the higher class, or are these considered by you to be low quality since some of their features may not exibit "Masamune" characteristics? Thank You,

 

Stephen Thorpe

[Adrian S]

G'day to all,

 

Stephen, the problem with "Masamune Den" is that not many smiths working with Masamune are known by their names. Of course there are the obvious famous smiths in the Soshu line, but what about the others? His so-called 10 famous students didn't work there either, he is said to have travelled around Japan training sword schools in the new techniques. With all that travelling and teaching, how many swords did he have time to make himself anyway? So what exactly is "Masamune Den" supposed to mean? My opinion, as stated earlier is that there were 2 or even 3 classes of swords produced in the Kamakura workshops at the time of Masamune. Now to classify the lesser classes as Masamune Den would be the normal practice of kantei as demonstrated with other Den classifications for other schools. My feeling is that if a sword is found to be even of exceptional quality of the highest standards and clearly a Masamune, if it is unknown or unrecorded then it will be designated "Masamune Den" (if you are lucky). If a sword falls short of known Masamune workmanship, and it is unknown, then it won't get Masamune Den at all. I'm waiting on a copy of Tsuguhira's oshigata, will let you know if it is the same mega-hocho.

 

Paul, sorry I missed your reply. 22 recognised Masamune, 7 unrecognised. As far as mei is concerned and your point of lack of signed Masamune pieces. I have a contenious opinion about that. I had better put in my warning

 

HYPOTHETICAL APPROACHING, ALL THOSE WHO BELIEVE EVERYTHING WRITTEN IN OLD Japanese BOOKS AS GOSPEL, READ NO FURTHER!!

 

I think all signed Masamune are ato-mei, I think he did not sign at all. Why? I have read somewhere that it was an Imperial edict at the time that swordsmiths sign their work. Anybody else read that? So why didn't he sign? Was he illiterate, I doubt it since he was capable of horimono, signing his name couldn't be that hard. Maybe because he was an outsider, not a recognised smith with a pedigree of illustrious ancestors. That may also explain the tradition of Masamune being either an "adopted son" or "illegitimate son" of Yoshimitsu. After all, if you are going to travel around the country teaching the famous smiths of the time, you need your pedigree right? Very much a feature of Japanese culture at the time. Maybe his ancestry was Emishi and he was from the line of Mokusa smiths working the area before the foundaton of the Kamakura workshop. One of the assimilated local unknown swordsmiths who did not leave signed works.(again, Connoiseurs Guide pg. 198). He could for that matter have come from the continent as a refugee from the Mongol takeover during the Yuan. Many Chinese and Korean artisans did the same. Maybe the characters in Masamune's name can tell us something because you would expect him to have a "Kuni" or at least a "Mitsu" character in his name following the usual teacher and student traditions. If he wasn't Wajin then maybe he wasn't worthy or was not allowed to sign his name? No signed Sadamunes either, right. Just a theory folks. I'm alway good for a theory or two. Anyone want to hear my theory on what type of sword Masamune wore as his personal weapon?

 

cheers for now,

[Eric H]

There are only supposed to be three authenticated signed examples of Masamune, but these are disputed too. So, I think that my question is, how can you base so many blades on only three signed examples that are in dispute?

 

 

From the most reliable source - Nihon Koto Shi

 

An old swordsmith directory

‘Noami Mei Zukushi‘ says, “Masamune rarely signs his smith name on his tachi and katana since he is the best swordsmith in Japan“.

 

The style of workmanship that Masamune established came to be the basis of Soshu-den. The forging method combining soft and hard materials and the expression of many beautiful chikei and kinsuji are the accomplishment of Masamune. Then he started tempering midare-ba based on notare in large pattern which differed from midare-ba based on choji and gunome by the smiths of the former period, also nie is more emphasised than that of Yamashiro and Yamato swords. It seems that the combination of soft and hard materials was practised before Masamune and such examples are seen in the works of Ko-Bizen and Shoso-in swords too. Though, Masamune employed that forging method and tried to emphasise the conspicuous hataraki of nie intentionally. Hamon in nie-deki is tempered at higher temperature than in nioi-deki and Masamune expresses the most exquisite sword forging technique in nie-deki..

 

After the intense study of the extant works of Masamune and old documents, it becomes very clear that Masamune really existed and it is fact that his swords had been highly appreciated in the Momoyama and the Edo Periods much more than the Muromachi Period. There had been a great demand for Masamune blades and many „Masamune“ were invented by those in power supplying mumei katana with origami (papers) as a result. We need to re-examine swords attributed to Masamune from now on and to sort out real Masamune from amongst them.

There is a term „Masamune Juttetsu“ (Ten Students of Masamune) that was probably made after the Edo Period and it includes Go Yoshihro, Norishige, Shizu Kaneuji, Samonji, Rai Kunitsugu, Osafune Kanemitsu, Osafune Chogi, Hasebe Kunishige, Kinju and Sekishu Naotsuna. Swordsmith directories of the Muromachi Period exclude Rai Kunitsugu and Sekishu Naotsuna or add Kongobei Moritaka to Masamune‘s students. Anyway extant works of all of these smiths have been confirmed but they are not equal to Masamune in skill. Also some of them are inappropriate to add to the students of Masamune considering their active ages and workmanship.

 

Eric

[runagmc]

"We need to re-examine swords attributed to Masamune from now on and to sort out real Masamune from amongst them."

 

Good luck with that...

 

Researching these things is great as long as we don't loose sight of the reality that most of the truths from the early periods will never be solidly proven or disproven. It's like trying to put together a million piece puzzle to which most of the pieces are missing or broken. We can't force the pieces to fit or make up new pieces, and try to pass it off as history.

[Eric H]

That may also explain the tradition of Masamune being either an "adopted son" or "illegitimate son" of Yoshimitsu.

From the most reliable source - Nihon Koto Shi

 

It has been said since the Muromachi Period that Masamune was a son of Yukimitsu and a student of Shintogo Kunimitsu. There is no extant work of Masamune which is dated but there are old katana-ezu (drawing of nakago and hamon) of Masamune („Osaka Cho-mei Masamune“ with a date of the Kareki Era and „Edo Cho-mei Masamune“ with a date of the Showa Era). Meanwhile there is an extant work of Yukimitsu with a date of the Gentoku Era and this puts into question the relationship between Yukimitsu and Masamune as father and son.

 

Kareki (Karyaku?) - 1326-1328

Showa - 1312-1316

Gentoku - 1329-1330

 

Eric

[Ford Hallam]

 

 

 

[Eric H]

Doubt about what?

 

Gabriel von Max - Judges of...1889

 

Eric

[cabowen]

Likely we will never know who Masamune's teacher or father was, or if he really even existed. Likewise, which swords were actually his, if any...But it does make for interesting speculation.....

[Adrian S]

G'day Eric, Ford, Chris and all,

 

 

Eric, I didn't say I believed that Yukimitsu and Masamune were father and son. My point is, that " if " all Masamune signatures are ato-mei, then an accurate account of his working period from mei is also in doubt. Further, if the story of the father and son relationship is false, then for what reason was the story perpetrated in the first place?

 

Chris is quite right, we will never know the answers for sure. For my own part, relying on a hand drawn oshigata of a lost sword for dating Masamune's work period is dubious, we no longer have the swords to examine in detail. The Showa (1312-1316) dated oshigata in particular is too early for my liking. Even making assumptions from the extant work of Masamune is questionable as some pieces have the shadow of doubt. The convention for dating a sword has been based on sugata. When you look at the body of Masamune's work ( Note: a couple of Tanto I would class as highly dubious from a sugata point of view and are probably earlier school work), his grand sugata suggest much later dates, as in early Nambokucho. Compare Masamune's work to the body of Yukimitsu's work, then Yukimitsu looks earlier and closer to Shintogo. Just my opinion folks, we will never really know. Whether they were father and son or not, I still believe Yukimitsu was earlier and Masamune later.

 

Moving on.... all funny pictures and comments aside. I think the influence of the Mokusa smiths on the Kamakura workshop needs to be examined thoroughly. This was the point of my previous light hearted supposition that Masamune might have been a Mokusa smith. For those who don't know what I'm talking about, I'll fill you in on another thread I will put up as this one was Paul's thread on Honami. Every generation of sword scholars needs to re-evaluate the opinions of the previous research in the light of new information. Archeological evidence and scientific analysis is a relatively new addition to the knowledge of Nihonto. We can not just sit back and cut and paste the old books and think we are doing the Nihonto community a service. I can highly recommend Carlo's article on the Origin of Nihonto, it is well researched, presents new information and confirms a lot of my own research into the cloud of mystery around early Nihonto development. Carlo touches on the subject of the Emishi/Mokusa/Kamakura connection and I have read some opinions in Japanese about it as well. I think it may be an interesting holiday discussion ( over an eggnog or two )

 

cheers,

[Adrian S]

G'day stephen,

 

Just got my Tsuguhira Oshigata, I was expecting a reprint and I seem to have an very old copy, how lucky am I! The sword on page 99 seems to be closer to the sukashi Masamune, not the Yasukuni Jinja example. I guess that makes 5 hocho style Masamunes, this one being lost, or not disclosed. I'm going to greatly enjoy researching the swords in this book!

 

cheers,

[Wah]

G'day stephen,

 

Just got my Tsuguhira Oshigata, I was expecting a reprint and I seem to have an very old copy, how lucky am I! The sword on page 99 seems to be closer to the sukashi Masamune, not the Yasukuni Jinja example. I guess that makes 5 hocho style Masamunes, this one being lost, or not disclosed. I'm going to greatly enjoy researching the swords in this book!

 

cheers,

 

Uhh Ohhh, Now the fun begins.

[Adrian S]

G'day to all,

 

Changed my mind on the Mokusa/Soshu connection thread. I think the topic needs some serious further research and a well presented article with numerous references and examples. I will get to it over the holidays and post it to the Sydney Token Kai website.

 

cheers for now,

[John A Stuart]

Could be a mine field!!! There are some controversial and new theories coming forth. Don't limit it to Soshu smiths though, that is a later peghole made for convenience. It would be a good topic though. John

[Eric H]

Adrian,

 

I appreciate your comments and ideas, but I have my own opinions...one is my faith in the judgement of undisputed authorities. One of them on the top of the sword world is Dr. Junji Honma, recognized scholar, the man who convinced General McArthur that the Japanese sword is an object of art and worth of preservation and one of the founders of the NBTHK. These facts are well known but it seems necessary to bring it again to be noticed. Why?

 

From his investigations, I repeat again, after intense studys of Masamune swords and old documents, the real existence of Masamune was proven...namely based on the unrivaled superiority in skill of his workmanship.

 

And nowadays there are obviously new supporters of Imamura Choga‘s theory. Back to 1896

 

Is there someone who tries to re-invent the wheel?

 

I have read several personal comments on the quality of Masamune swords they have seen...and again I have to repeat the judging of Dr. Honma when he says „the works of the so called „Masamune Juttetsu“ are not equal to Masamune in skill"...that says it all.

 

Briefly said in my opinion: 99.99% of us (sword enthusiasts) will never, never, never get as a high level of understanding and appreciating knowledge as Dr. Honma.

 

Is it wrong to believe in experts...real experts? No, we must because we, with few exceptions are far away from that level... our feets are too small for those shoes.

 

When Ford sends one of his fine works to Japan he wants it to be judged by qualified, real experts...with confidence.

 

To conclude, there is no tombstone of Masamune but there are his works as unimpeachable testimony.

 

Eric

[cabowen]

While I would never assume to have the experience and knowledge of the likes of Dr. Homma, we do know that the Masamune controversy has a long history. We also know that there is no such thing as the "best" sword smith. If you see enough meito in hand, you realize that saying there is a "best smith" is like saying there is a most beautiful woman in the world. At the top level, it comes down more to personal preference. It is well known that Dr. Homma was a big fan of Soshu.....

 

There is no way to prove definitely exactly which swords attributed to Masamune are in fact his own work. While there have been arguments made that he even existed, I think that argument may be even more contentious and as difficult to prove. Remember, this is something that has been controversial for a rather long time....

 

As far as there not being a tombstone, perhaps next time you are in Kamakura you can visit here:

[Eric H]

As far as there not being a tombstone, perhaps next time you are in Kamakura you can visit here:

I think this is a good advice for anyone...

 

Eric

[runagmc]

Eric, even the most elite historians can only have educated theories on some portions of history... and the earlier and less documented the history, the more difficult it is to narrow down the possible theories until something is universally excepted as fact. Much of writen history is contradictory, and other parts are not documented at all. While we should take the highly educated theories that people like Dr Honma come up with very seriously, we shouldn't automatically consider them to be the absolute unquestionable truth. Even elite historians can't always agree on things like Masamune. Nobody is above being questioned... EVER.

[Ford Hallam]

I have to agree wholeheartedly with Adam.

 

However, when we claim the right to question the opinions of previous authorities we must ask ourselves by what expertise and understanding do we pose our questions.

 

In my own field of expertise I find myself increasingly unable to engage in intelligent debate with interested parties simply because there is such a poor comprehension of the bare essentials in terms of metal craftsmanship and artistry.

 

A discussion as to the authenticity, by non-Japanese students, of various blades purported to have been made by the the most legionary and revered sword-smith (and by this I refer to the essential illiteracy of non-Japanese students with reference to primary sources) must be seen by serious scholars in Japan as being misguided to say the least.

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinions but no-one is automatically entitled to having those opinions being taken seriously.

 

Just because we don't know all the answers doesn't give speculators the right to start simply making stuff up. That way madness lies.

 

The problem with speculation, as we've seen on a number of occasions, is that in no time at all it is regurgitated as being fact. Speculation is best kept for those times when conversation is lubricated with one's narcotic of choice. Serious scholastic discussion ought to concentrate on that which can be reliably regarded as fact or verifiable.

 

I would respectfully suggest that this forum decide as a matter of policy which approach it wishes to endorse.

 

Ford