Desperately seeking Susan aka Ikkin II

I have to admit I've never really looked for him before having only ever seen works that purported to be by Ikkin I. In fact a number of my Japanese reference books don't even mention an Ikkin II. Hara doesn't mention him either. Admittedly my library is far from comprehensive so I'm hoping someone can help me fill in some blanks.

Haynes lists both generations but doesn't provide any illustrations of either mei or kao. What he does say though is that most works signed Funada Ikkin are in reality by the second generation. I find this to be puzzling given the dearth of information available on Ikkin II. Can anyone provide any evidence of why or how this can be claimed?

I can't find any reference to a mei nor kao that can definitively be said to be by the son.

Here are some of the details I've pulled together.

Funada Ikkin I; 1812 - 1863

Funada Ikkin II; 1840 - 1885

He was born in Shonai and started his training under Kumagaya Yoshiyuki of Sendai.

In 1828 he went to Edo and used the name Yoshinaga. Presumably Wada Yoshinaga.

While in Edo he apparently studied under Tanaka Kiyotoshi.

In 1834 he moved to Kyoto and studied under Goto Ichijo. Here he adopted the name Ikkin. The Ichi (one) of his mei borrowed from his teacher.

Funada Ikkin used at least 3 styles of mei and 2 different kao in his career.

The earliest seems to be Wada Yoshinaga. The kao is the more commonly seen one. The "wa" character is that meaning harmony/peace. There's an example of this one in "Tosogu no Kansho" published by the Shokukai.

The most commonly seen mei is that reading Funada Ikkin followed by the familiar kao. A couple of examples were illustrated here, in the thread that prompted by digging a bit further.

Less common, and dating apparently from the latter part of his career, is "Funada Ikkin Yoshinaga" followed by a different kao. This kao features a vertical "wiggle" at the end of the bold horizontal stroke. There's an examples of this type in the Baur collection and more helpfully there is one dated 1847 on Boris's site here. I'd suggest this example is quite an important piece of the puzzle. What it proves is that this variant on the Ikkin mei cannot be regarded as being by the son as he was only 7 years old at the time.

There's a kozuka in the Boston Museum (pg 180, Lethal Elegance) that features a dated mei that is just Ikkin and the usual kao. Date is 1856. He seems to have dated pieces only towards the end of his life. Joe Earl repeats the notion that many works signed with the Ikkin mei are thought to be by the son. He suggests the reason for this is because there are so many works in Western collections apparently by Ikkin. If we accept this as a reasonable assumption, and I'm not too sure we should without some convincing evidence, we're still faced with the problem of separating the two generating works. To simply say many are by the son without identifying which is meaningless and only serves to further cloud the issue.

I've begun to compile images and references of Ikkin work and mei in an attempt to build a more satisfactory picture of his output and to try and shed some light on this little enigma. If you've got any references. images of work or mei/kao to add I'd be really interested to see it.

Thanks in advance for any input.

Ford

Dear Ford

Kinkō Meikan lists IKKIN (First Generation) on pp.13a – 14d, and IKKIN (Second Generation) on pp.15a – 15d. It notes that the first artist used the gō of Yoshinaga, and the second those of Yoshiyasu and Yoshimori. Also that the work of the second master resembles that of the first, but that there is a ‘slight difference’ in their kao. Indeed, the kao illustrated for these two artists are quite different, and I would personally question the reliability of these attributions.

What are your feelings about this?

John L.

Hello John,

thanks for that. So we're on the right track concluding that mei including the name Yoshinaga is the first master. The dates with those mei fit his time-line.

Do you have an illustration of the kao that's supposed to have been used by Ikkin II? I'm keen to see what these differences are.

Indeed, the kao illustrated for these two artists are quite different, and I would personally question the reliability of these attributions.

Which kao/attributions are you referring to here? The reason I ask is because I think Ikkin I used at least 2 different ones. Artists did change them over the course of their careers.

I've just found essentially the same information re; their respective Go in Wakayama's "Toso Kinko Jiten". I missed that this morning No illustrations though.

thanks and regards,

fh

Dear Ford

There is an excellent article on Funada Ikkin on pp.25-29 of the English edition of the Token Bijutsu, 1991, No 48. In this it is stated that ‘the chisel cuts [of Ikkin I] are amazingly similar to his father’s, but their monograms are distinctly different ….’ These are reproduced, and show the same differences as are illustrated in Kinkō Meikan.

If these illustrated kao are indeed those of the first and second master respectively, there should be no difficulty in distinguishing between the work of these two. Although I have found no suggestion that Ikkin I changed his kao during his lifetime, I do wonder if the current literature makes the distinction between the two masters too simple to be true?

I regret that I am unable to obtain adequate scans of the poor photographic images of the mei in Kinkō Meikan.

John L.

Hi John,

I've just been trawling though my copies of the Token Bijutsu :D ...but inexplicably the issue I need is absent perhaps someone will be able to provide a scan....please.

What do you make of the fuchi on Boris' site that has an alternative kao and a date too early to be the son? Surely such an obvious mistake wouldn't have been committed on a deliberate fake.

For ease of discussion I've added an image here. I hope you don't mind, Boris.

p.s. Just realised why I couldn't find that issue...I only started subscribing from issue 53

I can scan the article for you tomorrow Ford, if nobody beats me to it....

Paul.

http://www.bonhams.com/eur/auction/19295/lot/5/

Might this be of some help ?

Regards

he he...Bob, I was keeping this one back 'til later :D I was intrigued by this mei when we first looked at it. It seems to embody a paradox.

The kao appears to be that which is generally considered to that of the first master, ie; Ikkin I yet included in the mei is the Go (art name) Yoshimori, supposedly one of the Go of the son. Looking at the workmanship of the example you link to (and which I was most desirous of ) we can easily recognise that this is not the work of an "also ran". This particular tsuba is easily the equal of any number of highly praised contemporaneous works. The sculpting of the figure's face in particular is quite exceptional.

What are we to make of this?

I look forward to reading the Token Bijutsu article sometime soon, if Paul is good enough to scan it for us. Merci Paul.

Boris’ fuchi is very interesting. The date of 1847 clearly places it in the period of Ikkin I (1812-1863) rather than in that of Ikkin II (1840-1885). While the kao differs from those normally associated with either of these masters, both the quality of the work and the mei suggest that this is probably a genuine work by Funada Ikkin I. Does this suggest that this artist may have used an alternative kao during his working life?

Please correct me if I am mistaken, but I see no paradox in the Bonham tsuba. The kao is that generally attributed to Ikkin II: an attribution supported by the use of the gō of Yoshimori.

John L.

Hi Ford,

Not sure what generation it is but in Rokusho Vol. 28 Tsuba The Japanese Sword Guards... page 15 a Funada Ikkin tsuba is discussed with detail photos. Hope you find the information helpful. Time to get to bed I need to go to work tomorrow.

Yours truly,

David Stiles

Hi David,

thanks, yes, The example in the Rokusho magazine bears the Kao of the first master.

Morning Dr John,

yes, sorry my mistake. That's obviously the nidai. I suppose what this illustrates quite nicely is that the son was certainly no slouch and I think goes some way to debunk the commonly repeated notion that most/many of the works, in Western collections, bearing the mei of Ikkin I are actually by the son. Why would he bother faking his father when clearly his own abilities were impressive and well recognised at the time? I think it's time to re-evaluate his reputation and do away with this scurrilous rumour.

I pleased you agree that Boris' fuchi appears legitimate and that we may now have identified a second Kao as used by Ikkin I. As I mentioned at the start there is a similar example in the Baur collection. I'd suggest that if we accept Boris' one as genuine, and obviously quite rare, then it's likely the Baur example is genuine also. Why fake a relatively unknown kao?

Paul very graciously emailed me a scan of the Token Bijitsu article and the differences in the 2 generations kao is quite marked. There are, once again, far more examples of the Sho-dai and here we see yet again some significant variety on essentially the same mei.

Thanks for all the very helpful and illuminating input Gents. A worthwhile little exercise methinks

regards,

Ford

Dear Ford

You may have noted that in the Token Bijutsu article it states ‘We get to see not so many of the nidai’s existing works …’. This is an obvious contradiction to the generally accepted predominance of works by the second master. One does get a distinct impression of ‘work needing to be done’ in respect of these two artists.

John L.

Dear John

Yes, I heartily agree, more work needs to be done. I reckon we've helped clarify the picture a little and added a little more in terms of what we might reasonably claim.

thanks and regards,

fh

A further tsuba by Funada Ikkin I, and sadly in need of repatination, is illustrated on pp.168-9 of Robert E. Haynes, Limited: Catalogue # 7. This bears the generally accepted kao of the first master.

There is also the possibility, of course, that the alternative kao on Boris’ fuchi is that of a third artist of this name, as posited by Haynes in his Index ..., rather than an alternative kao of the first master. Where does this leave us?

John L.

I suppose a 3rd master is possible but how probable is it I wonder? Occam's razor might be appropriate here The date on the fuchi indicates it was made while the first master was alive and the second master was only 7 years old. A third master at that date seems unlikely to me

Dragging an old thread out of the dust here. This one has some great info from a year ago, but lacks pictures.

I was wondering if anyone had some shoshin mei to contribute to the topic, or maybe someone has a scan of pp.25-29 of the English edition of the Token Bijutsu, 1991, No 48?

I am researching a new tsuba, and particularly interested in any Ikkin mei. I also think we were close to a theory on the generation I vs II issue, but feel we stopped short.

Anyone have anything to contribute in the way of info or pics?

Brian

Brian

I will email the scans to you later tonight

Thanks to Ford and Paul for the relevant article. I wonder if anyone would have a problem if I uploaded it here for future reference?

Still looking to add some mei pics to this thread.

Brian

(Sorry-just now read about this inquiery...here´s the requested info

Page 25-29 TBJ 48/1991

hope this helps?

(if larger size needed-let me know...)

Christian

(Sorry-just now read about this inquiery...here´s the requested info

Page 25-29 TBJ 48/1991

 

hope this helps?

(if larger size needed-let me know...)

 

Christian

Thank you for sharing. I am glad the pictures are still active.

There is a short passage and picture of a Tsuba by Funada Ikkin in the "Japanese Sword-Mounts in the Collection of Field Museum" by Helen Gunsaulus:http://archive.org/stream/japaneseswordmou16guns#page/n277/mode/2up (flip back one page for picture).

I have no idea if this will be of any help or not!

Hi,

Hope this may be of help.

From the 1902 copy of Hara's "Die Meister"

Page 30

Regards

David N.

Here is a tsuba I downloaded from somewhere that I only have labeled as "ikkin, funada 1800s", so I'm not sure if it is papered or even what the source was. It looks like it could be genuine... I don't know for sure, but very nice work, whatever it is...

And here is a fuchi kashira.

How interesting that Adam has posted a pair of fuchi-gashira which bears a different kao for this artist. This ‘n’ shaped kao is quite unlike those normally used both by Ikkin I and II, and bears some similarity to a recognised, alternative kao of Gotō Ichijō. There have been previous discussions on this notice board as to whether this is an alternative kao of Ikkin II, or supports a discounted theory that there may have been a third artist of this name.

John L.

Upon reviewing the literature, I find that Haynes now acknowledges the existence of a third Ikkin artist using the two Funada Ikkin kanji.

In his Index … Haynes lists two artists using these kanji, H 01864.0 and H 01865.0, both of the Funada family. Under the latter heading he states ’Some even say there was a third generation of the name Ikkin, but this has not been proved.’

In his Addendum Haynes now lists a third Ikkin artist, thus:

IKKIN Add. Also see Wakayama vol.II, pp.229-232.

H 01865.0

But he adds no further details of this artist - not even the family name. Can any kind member please supply a copy of the Wakayama entry?

With many thanks, John L.

both from old kinko meikan.

Thank you both. It is interesting that none of these references show the odd kao illustrated on Adam's fuchi-gashira. I would wonder if this were the kao of Haynes' Ikkin III if it were not for the fact that on my own tsuba, with an Ikkin mei and an 'n' shaped kao, there is a date of 1838 - before Ikkin II was born!

John L.

PS. Or have I mis-interpreted Haynes, who perhaps intended to add the Wakayama reference to his Ikkin II entry rather than to add a further Ikkin artist? It can be interpreted either way, I suppose. JL.

Here are some photos of a small tsuba with Funada Ikkin signature.

http://imageshack.us/a/img819/4554/aeg8.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img854/5877/wshz.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img844/2306/2lxw.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img34/1196/t8t0.JPG

Regards.

Bernard D