KOYAMA
MUNETSUGU
(notes
on a talk given to the Society by Clive Sinclaire, Tuesday, 7th March 2000)
It used to be said by a
number of the older generation of “romantic”
collectors of Japanese swords, that in some mysterious and cosmic way, swords
would come together or seek each other out! Whilst, as far as I am aware, there
are no FBI “X Files” to support this contention, in the last four months or
so, I have needed to draw no less than three oshigata of blades by Hizen
Tadakuni and three more by Koyama Munestugu. In the latter case, it is indeed
strange as I have never really studied the work of this man in any detail and
had but a passing acquaintance with him. I now greatly appreciate his
workmanship. The following are the three blades that I drew and the notes that I
made to accompany them. I hope that these blades brought together tonight, all
rather different in many ways, illustrate the broad talent of Munetsugu over
quite an extended period of time and provide an interesting vehicle for studying
the man.
Koyama Munestugu may be
considered to be the best shinshinto swordsmith working in Bizen-den. Born in
1802 or 1803 in Oshu Shirakawa his personal name was Koyama Sobei and he was
also variously known as Issensei or Seiryosai. He learned sword making in the
Kato Tsunahide school, but appears to have been more influenced by Tsunahide’s
younger brother, Chounsai Tsunatoshi, judging from his Bizen style workmanship.
Munetsugu was employed by Lord Matsudaira of the Kuwana Han of Ise province and
received the title of Bizen (no) Suke in Koka 2nd year (1843). It has been
suggested that this particular title was granted because of his expertise in the
Bizen style of swordmaking. True to the Bizen tradition, most of his work
displays a choji-gunome midare hamon in nioi, although there are also a few
swords by Munetsugu that are quenched in suguha and they are said to emulate
Ko-Aoe workmanship.
When signing his name to
a blade, Munetsugu sometimes introduced his personal name, e.g. signing Koyama
Sobei Munetsugu Saku Kore or, as in the sword 3) below, Koyama Munestugu Saku
Kore. After receiving his title, this was included as, Koyama Bizen (no) Suke
Munetsugu (as in the naginata below). Unusually in shinshinto signatures, the
simple 2 character signature, Munetsugu is occasionally seen, although this
tends to be confined to around the 10th year of Tenpo period.
Having worked in both
Owari province and Kuwana and frequently travelled back and forth from Edo,
Munestugu first went to Azabu Nagasaka and eventually settled down in the
Yotsuya Samon-cho area of Edo. Fujishiro relates an interesting story of
Munetsugu when he resided in this district. At the same time, close by in
Yotsuya Iga-cho, Kiyomaro started in his own sword business but failed to
acknowledge Munetsugu’s existence. This greatly angered Munestugu who sent a
letter to Kiyomaro issuing some kind of challenge. Fujishiro comments that
“this interesting affair reminds us of the disposition of swordsmiths”.
It appears that
Munetsugu collaborated with the Yamada family of professional sword testers,
especially Yamada Yoshitoshi and the head of the family, Yamada Asauemon
Yoshimasa, in the study of cutting efficiency as numerous of his works are
engraved with the results of these tests. Many of these tests seem to have taken
place at Senju where there was a famous execution ground or Denma-cho Prison.
Mostly these tests seem to have been performed in the Tenpo period (1830-44)
when Munetsugu would have been in his thirties and full of energy and vigour.
Details of many of these tests are inscribed on his swords in long and
complicated inscriptions. Nagayama sensei also states that he made sword for a
number of personalities of the time including Lord Furukawa, a popular wrestler
named Inazuma Raigoro, master metal worker Goto Ichijo as well as the
aforementioned tester Yamada. This shows that, as with Kiyomaro at the same
time, Munetsugu’s talent and reputation were well respected and understood
even whilst he was alive. Indeed, swords signed by the well-known faker Kajihei
include Koyama Munetsugu counterfeits, making fakes whilst the artist is still
alive must be one of the sincerest forms of flattery!
In 1860, Munetsugu
changed his yasuri from the sujikai shown in the naginata and katana discussed
below, to kiri. It was thought that this might indicate the work of the second
generation, but the existence of a blade showing this feature together with an
inscription stating Munetsugu’s age as being 66, seems conclusive proof that
this was done in Munetsugu’s later years. He seems to be rated at least as
highly as the other shinshinto “big names” such as Masahide, Naotane, Unju
Korekazu and Chounsai Tsunatoshi, especially when considering those who worked
in Bizen-den. Koyama Munetsugu died in 1872 at the age of 70. The swords that
I have
been able to study first hand have all combined great artistic presentation
with, as far as I can tell, highly efficient and practical cutting ability.
It seems that a number
of swordsmiths who produced work in Bizen-den, even gendai smiths, have made a
reproduction of the famous Kokuho sword by Kagemitsu known as “Koryu”. This
Kamakura period sword, currently in the Tokyo National Museum collection, is an
unquestioned masterpiece. It’s name translated as “Rising Dragon” comes
from the horimono of a dragon with a su-ken that, because the machi has been
moved, now starts under the habaki area of the sword and appears to rise out of
the habaki. On the reverse side, similarly placed is a deeply carved characters
for Fudo. When reproducing this sword, subsequent swordsmiths have also engraved
the original Kagemitsu mei (Bizen Osafune Kagemitsu) and date on the nakago and
made the nakago in the suriage style with 3 mekugi-ana of the original. The
reproduction of this sword made by Koyama Munetsugu, in accordance with the
apparent prevailing tradition when copying the Kagemitsu, bears his signature
and date on the mune or back edge of the nakago!
It is thought that the horimono, however, was carved by Munehiro (or
Sokan) one of Munetsugu’s students who was especially talented at carving
horimono..
Fujishiro rates
Munetsugu as Jo Jo Saku.
His students and
associates included his brothers Munehiro and Munetoshi as well as his son
Kenryusai Munetsugu. Also included are Kubota Muneaki and Seishosai Muneari both
of who seem also to have been interested in the practical aspects of the
Japanese sword in the same manner as Munetsugu.
I am hopeful that the
following three blades will help give something of an insight into Munetsugu’s
workmanship and demonstrate the wide range of his talent
1) Type: Shinshinto
Naginata
Nagasa:59.9cm
Saki –haba: 4.1 cm
Moto-haba: 3.0 cm
Sugata: Naginata-zukuri, saki-zori, mitsu-mune, naginata-hi.
Jihada: Ko-mokume hada with Ji-nie, some chikei.
Hamon: Nioi-deki with some nie, choji-gunome midare, kinsuji in the midare-komi boshi with kaeri, many ashi, some yo.
Nakago: Ubu with
one mekugi-ana, sujikai yasuri with kesho finish, the lower part sensui. Signed
on the omote KOYAMA BIZEN (no) SUKE FUJIWARA MUNETSUGU and dated on the ura,
ANSEI GONEN HACHI GATSU NICHI (1858). The nakago is 56.0 cm in length.
This magnificent
naginata immediately gives the impression of great strength and power, whilst
the long fukura (the cutting edge at the kissaki) looks extremely sharp. Its
magnificent and robust sugata could only have been made by a master craftsman,
as indeed it was. A close inspection of the jihada reveals a beautiful and
homogenous ko-mokume, which is liberally covered with ji-nie. This reminds one
of a very calm pond that is suddenly sprinkled with a fine but sharp summer
shower of rain; it is a far cry from the normal muji-hada of many shinshinto
blades. The hamon, which is mainly made up of nioi, has some nie especially in
the tani or valleys of the choji-gunome midare where many short ashi appear. The
hamon resembles early Bizen-ichimonji work and is very active but neither too
flamboyant nor overstated and perfectly in proportion to the rest of the blade.
Made when the smith was 54 or 55 years old it is obvious that considering the
difficult shape to this blade, that although the smith may have matured in
years, he was still at the peak of his skill. The top class of polish that it
enjoys also splendidly enhances the blade and allows full appreciation.
Made only a few years
after Perry’s landing in Edo bay, the powerful sugata clearly demonstrates the
confidence of Munetsugu, that his blades would be able to expel the barbarians!
(This naginata was exhibited in London at To-ken Taikai ’99 in November 1999. It is one of only two naginata by Koyama Munetsugu to be awarded Juyo To-ken status by the Nihon Bijutsu To- en Hozon Kyokai.
2) Type: Shinshinto
katana
Nagasa: 70 .6 cm
Moto-haba: 3.1 cm
Saki-haba: 2.3 cm
Sugata: Wide mihaba, strong koshi-zori, low iori-mune, o-kissaki
Horimono: Omote: the lower half with the characters HACHIMAN DAIBOSATSU and lotus, centred on the shinogi, with futatsu-hi ending in maru-dome in the top half of the blade. Ura: Futatsu-hi also ending in maru-dome and vraja in the habaki moto.
Jihada: Tight ko-mokume hada appearing as Muji-hada overall.
Hamon: Nioi-deki choji-gunome midare, the choji tending to be juka-choji, many ashi. The nioi-guchi is narrow and bright. The pattern continued into the pointed midare komi boshi with kaeri.
Nakago: Ubu-nakago,
mekugi-ana slightly distorted possibly meaning one has been made on top of
another. O-sujikai yasurime ending in kesho. Signed on the omote KOYAMA
MUNESTSUGU KORE (o) SAKU and additionally SOERU YAMADA ASAUEMON YOSHIMASA SHI
KORE KINOMI. The ura is dated TENPO (HACHI) HINOTE TORI DOSHI NIGATSU JITSU
(1837, the year of the cockerel). – there is a small amount of corrosion
around the mekugi-ana on the ura somewhat obscuring the second character of
Tempo and Hachi entirely.
The “Hachiman Dai
Bosatsu” (Hachiman Great Buddha) horimono is skilfully depicted and dominates
the lower half of the omote side of the blade, whilst the futatsu-hi
(double-grooves) on both sides contribute to the lighter and well-balanced feel
of the sword.
The strong shape and
large proportions (good length, heavy feel, wide mihaba and long kissaki etc.)
as well as the muji-hada, do nothing to hide the fact that this sword was made
in the shinshinto period, but it does lack the clumsy and unbalanced feel of the
less skilfully made pieces of the period. Koyama Munetsugu’s skill in the
Bizen tradition is fully demonstrated by the nioi based hamon and the strong
koshi-zori. The variations in the hamon which show choji and gunome combined are
natural and relaxed in appearance, although several similar “pairs” may be
seen throughout the length of the sword. Characteristically, the nioi-guchi is
narrow and bright.
The inscriptions on the nakago provide interesting areas for speculation, particularly on the omote side of the sword. Here the conventional signature of the swordsmith is found on the lower left-hand side of the nakago whilst the name of Yamada Asauemon Yoshimasa occupies the right-hand side. These are the characters which read “Soeru Yamada Asauemon Yoshimasa Shi Kore Kinomi” and which may be translated as “this inscription is added at the request of Yamada Asauemon Yoshimasa”. This seems rather a strange thing to inscribe in this manner, what can the significance possibly be and why should Yamada Asauemon Yoshimasa request such an unnecessary inscription to be made? Possibly, the clue is to be found in other blades made by Munetsugu around this time.
Display
at the Sword Museum, December 2004
A good number of
Munetsugu’s blades do have the results of cutting tests inscribed on the ura
of the nakago. They are carried out by various people but probably under the
supervision of Yamada Asauemon Yoshimasa or Yoshitoshi, testers to the
Shogunate. Indeed some swords seem to have been tested more than once and it may
be that Munetsugu even conducted tests personally. It is certainly known that
Yamada and Munetsugu had a close relationship and together studied matters
concerning the sharpness of swords. It
was during the Tempo period that this collaboration seems to have mostly taken
place. I think, therefore, that it is quite likely that it was planned that,
after manufacture was completed, this sword was to go for testing under Yamada
Asauemon Yoshimasa’s supervision. In anticipation of this, Munetsugu engraved
the line in question, leaving plenty of room on the ura for the results of the
test to be inscribed at a later date. As evidence for this, there is at least
one other sword which carries the inscription “inscribed at the request of
Yamada Asauemon Yoshimasa” on the omote side of the nakago and which also
carries a detailed cutting test result on the ura. On this sword, dated one year
earlier than the one under discussion, apart from the lack of test details, the
other “geography” and placement of the inscription is exactly the same.
It would seem possible
if not probable, therefore, that for some reason, although fully anticipating
that the sword would be submitted to a cutting test and that the results would
be inscribed accordingly, the test was either not carried out or the results
were not recorded on the nakago. I believe that the latter is inconceivable and
the former a distinct possibility. This poses the inevitable question of why did
the sword remain untested? Possibly the answer lies in the horimono that appears
on the blade.
Very few blades seem to bear both horimono and cutting test results. This is not altogether surprising as any horimono will weaken a blade to some degree and in these circumstances, the stresses and strains caused by violent cutting might have serious detrimental effects on the sword, possibly to the extent of even breaking it. Also, I suppose, a cutting test might at least cause damage to a delicately cut horimono.
On this sword, yet
another reason might be the subject matter of the horimono. Although it
proclaims that Hachiman (the war deity) is a great Buddha, it remains a
religious proclamation. It may be that the customer, who bought the sword and
commissioned the horimono, was a devout Buddhist who respected the Buddhist
principle of the sanctity of life and felt uncomfortable with the barbaric
practice of tameshigiri. I doubt we will ever know for sure if these theories
are anything other than speculation on my part, but I would be interested should
anyone else have any thoughts on the subject.
Finally, this sword is
dated using the zodiacal cycle in combination with the year period of Tenpo.
There is some slight corrosion on the nakago, obscuring the second character of
“Tenpo” as well I think, as the character “Hachi” for eight. This seems
a common way for Munetsugu to date his work at this time.
3) Type: Copy of
sue-Bizen katana
Nagasa: 68.8 cm
Moto-haba: 2.9 cm
Saki-haba: 1.9 cm
Sugata: Shinogi-zukuri, chu-kissaki, koshi-zori, shallow iori-mune
Horimono: A regular plus a narrow koshi-hi on both sides of the blade end in maru-dome in the habaki-moto. Bonji above the hori on both sides of the blade.
Jihada: Muji-hada
Hamon: Gunome-notare-midare, in nioi-deki having choji inclusions mostly around the centre of the blade, yo and tobiyaki together with many deep ashi.
Nakago: 4 mekugi
ana (2 overlapping) with ha-agari kuri-jiri, sujikai yasurime, machi okuri about
I½ inches. Inscribed on the omote: BIZEN OSAFUNE HIKOBEINOJO SUKESADA SAKU and
on the ura: MEIO SANNEN HACHI
GATSU NICHI (1494)
This sword is of a good
length and the tapering towards the kissaki gives it a graceful shape, whilst
the relatively shallow koshi-zori imparts a strength to the overall presentation
of the blade. The koshi-zori together with the nioi predominant construction of
the hamon, indicates Bizen as the tradition in which the sword was made. There
is a distinct blue tinge to the jigane. The nakago is well signed with the
zokumei (personal name) of arguably the best of the numerous smiths named
Sukesada in the late koto (sue-koto) period and the date is consistent with this
swordsmiths activity. The signature has been inscribed in 2 columns on the
omote, which is characteristic of one of Hikobeinojo’s style of mei.
As most will be well
aware, during the Muromachi period, many blades were of low quality and
virtually mass-produced to meet the great demand for swords at this time. Such
blades are known as Kazu-uichimono and many have the name Sukesada on them. Few
swords of note were made at this time and those that have zokumei are invariably
of far better quality than the average, often being special orders for high
ranking or wealthy patrons. Of the numerous Sukesada smiths recorded, none had
the reputation of Hikobeinojo for both quality and practical cutting ability.
Fujishiro, who also states that even some his works without zokumei are
excellent, rates him as Saijo Saku (top quality) as well as Owazamono (very
sharp).
Calligraphy of the inscription seems to be too fresh to be over 500 old. Finally, those mekugi-ana also do not ring true. On the ura, each of the holes has a raised tegane-makura (raise metal pillow), indicating that the holes have been made from the omote through to the ura. For all 3 / 4 to have this similar feature, would seem to indicate that they might have all been made at the same time (these makura or “pillows” appear as a white shadow at the edge of the mekugi-ana on the oshigata). Lastly, there is the machi-okuri and its relationship with the horimono. It is obvious by the position in which the hi end in the habaki-moto, that they were cut after the machi was “moved”, as otherwise it would have ended in the upper part of the nakago! Another feature of this sword is the blue colour of the jigane, which would be unexpected in sue-Bizen blades.
Amazingly this sword, in
spite of its undeniably quality and superficial age, is actually the work done
in the shinshinto period by Koyama Munestugu, as appraised by Mr Iida and Mr
Tokuno at the To-ken Society’s London shinsa in 1989. Certainly the hamon
resembles his work, but the nioi-deki hamon together with the blue colour of the
jigane, is considered to be a definitive kantei point and Munetsugu is known to
have made copies of old Sukesada blades in this manner.Consider the implications
of this. The sword has obscures one of the kanji, a fair representation of
Hikobeinojo’s signature has been inscribed and the machi moved to make the
entire nakago look far older than it is. Even the bonji horimono have something
of a polished-out appearance adding to the impression of age, whilst the hi now
seem to be ato-bori (carved later). Apparently, Hikobeinojo Sukesada’s fine
reputation for both quality and cutting ability, was well
appreciated in the shinshinto period and a Sukesada with a zokumei was
considered a fine gift between those of rank. However, the demand for such
blades far outstripped the limited supply of genuine blades available. This had
never been an impediment in Japanese history before and so copies were skilfully
manufactured and distributed. Such a dubious practise, whilst today would
probably be considered to be of doubtful ethics at best and downright dishonest
at worst, seems to have not been a problem for the more flexible morals of a
different culture at a different time in history. Indeed, as Munetsugu was
employed by the Matsudaira daimyo, he undoubtedly was required to produce
whatever his lord required, regardless of his personal feelings in the matter.
As I had recently spent considerable time in close study of the above Koyama Munetsugu naginata, it puzzled me why, the distinct blue colour of jigane in the “Sukesada-Munetsugu” was not apparent in the naginata. I enquired in Japan why this was so and the reply was most interesting. Apparently, with a new polish, the uchigamori and jizuya stones may hide the colour of the jigane and that it is only after years of uchiko application that it again becomes apparent. This can be quite a problem with many collectors in Japan although it is not so with a sashikomi polish. The “Sukesada-Munetsugu” had an old polish, probably its original Edo period polish, and the colour of the jigane was therefore still visible, whilst the polish of the naginata was recent and one was unable to see this colour.
Another interesting
difference between these two blades was the jihada itself. On the naginata a
beautiful ko-mokume with ji-nie was clearly visible, whilst that of the
“Sukesada-Munestugu” appeared as muji-hada. Here the benefit of a modern
polish on the naginata is easily demonstrated by revealing the hidden pattern,
whilst the fashion of the day and the style of the Edo period polish on the
“Sukesada”, dictated the less revealing and less interesting, muji-hada.
Post note: Actually this sword was subsequently attributed to Koyama Munetoshi at NBTHK shinsa.
The
above is a picture of Goto Ichijo wearing his tanto by Munestsugu, together with
an oshigata.
Further examples of
Munetsugu’s Mei inscriptions
Ura:
Tenpo 7 Hinoe Saru Doshi, Oite Ro-Yashiki
Dotan Barai Goto Gosaburo Toshishige (Kao)
11 Gatsu 18 Nichi Futobuto Ryo-Guruma
(Goto Gosaburo cut
the thickest part of the breast (or breast of 2 bodies) put on the mound in the
prison on 18th November, 1836, the year of the monkey)
Omote:
Soeru Yamada Asauemon Yoshimasa Shi Kore Konomi
Koyama Sobei Munetsugu Tsukuru Kore
(This inscription is
added at the request of Yamada Asaemon Yoshimasa Koyama Sobei Munetsugu made
this)
Shinshinto Taikan
Ura:
DanBarai Do 8 Nen 4 Gatsu 26 Nichi, Futatabi Oite Denmacho Yashiki Mata Makoto Dai Dai Ryoguruma
(This sword cut the
breast again of the body put on the mound, on 26th April 1837)
Saidan Kore Nido Tomo Kirite Yamada Gosaburo
(Cutting
test done by Yamada Gosabro twice)
Omote:
Tenpo 7 Nen 2 Gatsu Hi Tame Furukawa Han Suzuki Shigeaki Shi Oite Toto
(This sword was made
for Mr Suzuki Shigeaki of the Furukawa clan and made in Edo in February 1836)
Koyama Munetsugu Saku Kore Do Nen 3 Gatsu 26 Nichi Oite Senju Makoto ? Dai ??? Ryoguruma Tsuchi
(Koyama Munetsugu
made this sword and cut Ryoguruma in Senju on 26th March)
Shinshinto Taikan
Ura:
Tenpo Roku Hitsuji Hachigatsu
(Year of the goat –
August 1835)
Oite Senju Futatsudo Saidan Iga Norishige
(cut through 2 bodies
at Senju, tester Iga Norishige)
Omote:
Oite Toto Kondo Kageyasu Yotte Ko
(made in the eastern
capital for Kondo Kageyasu)
Nihon-to Kosa
Ura:
U no Toki Tenpo Hachinen Hachigatsu Donen Jugatsu Nijushishi Nichi Senju Ni Oite
Yamada Gosaburo Ryosha Saidan
(Ryosha cutting test
done by Yamada Gosaburo on 27th day of 10th month of this same year – 1837)
Omote:
Miyake Shigetaka Okyu Koyama Munetsugu Tsukuru Kore
(Koyama Munetsugu
made this at the request of Miyake Shigetaka)
Nihon-to Kosa
Ura:
Koka Sannen Hachigatsu Hi
(3rd year of Koka,
8th month – 1846)
Omote:
Koyama Bizen (no) Suke Munetsugu
Nihon-to Kosa
Ura:
Donen Shigatsu Nijuroku Nichi Oite Ryoaho Yamada Yoshitoshi Tameshi Kore Taitai Dotan Harau
(tested on 26th day
of 4th month of the same year by jailer Yamada Yoshitoshi, at the execution
place with a taitai cut)
Omote:
Oite Tokyo Tame Furukawa Han Takami Tadatsugu Koyama Munestugu Tsukuru Kore
(made in Tokyo by
Koyama Munetsugu for Takami
Tadatsugu of the Furukawa clan)
Tenpo Hachinen Hinoto Tori Nigatsu Kissho Hi
(8th year of Tenpo,
the year of the cock, 2nd month, a lucky day)
Nihon-to Kosa
Modified from the previous article on these blades.
Clive Sinclaire
Bexley, Kent, UK
May 2008