Katana Sayagaki translation request

[Iain E]

Hi,

I wonder if anyone could please help me with translation of my Katana sayagaki.

 

I believe it was written by Honnami Nishu, but beyond that I have no information.

 

The sword also came with Fujishiro papers (which I’ve managed to translate some of), attributing the sword to Moriyoshi.

 

Hope the pictures are good enough & they work OK.

 

Thanks guys for what ever help you can give.

 

Iain E

[Clive Sinclaire]

CHIKUZEN KUNI KONGOBEIYO MORIYOSHI , then ? DAI TENBUN (1532-1554), I can't see the nagasa clearly but it is signed Honami Nishin. Not much help I am afraid! What does it say on the sword?

Clive

[reinhard]

CHIKUZEN KUNI KONGOBEIYO MORIYOSHI , then ? DAI TENBUN (1532-1554), I can't see the nagasa clearly but it is signed Honami Nishin.

 

That's almost it. Just a few remarks:

This school in Chikuzen province is sometimes called "Kongobei" and sometimes "Kongobyoe". The kiwame goes on with: "jidai" (era) TENBUN (sometimes named TENMON) "koro" (at that time).

Nagasa: Ni (two) shaku (two/three?) sun (I'm not sure about this one)........

 

The name of the appraiser is Hon'ami NISHU (+Kao)

 

Maybe kind Moriyama-san will fill the remaining holes.

 

reinhard

[Nobody]

I think that the Nagasa part says …

長サ貳尺貳寸分半有之 – The length is 2-shaku 2-sun and a half Bu.

[Iain E]

Hi guys,

 

Thank you very much for the replies, they are a great help & fills in some holes. It's probably quite a "regular" blade compared with most of the fantastic ones I see on the Forum, but it’s a Kanata in a good (old) polish with only a couple of kitae kizu. & I'm really quite attached to it

 

Would anyone happen to guess the age of the writing, I believe Honami Nishu died some time ago?

 

Would it be likely that papers by Fujishiro mean that it was polished by him (or I guess Honami Nishu) or is that sort of thing done separately?

 

Thanks again for all your help, I'll continue my attempts to finish off the translation of the papers & learn as much about it as possible.

 

Iain

[John A Stuart]

Yamamoto Nanojo was adopted by Honami Heijuro (Eguchi Kurajiro) and was his student. He took the name Honami Seiza and later changed his name to Ringa. He was the 16th head of the Koi Honami. He had a student named Hirai Chiba and it was his son Takeo that was adopted by Honami Ringa and changed his name to Honami Nisshu. He became the 17th head of the Koi line after Ringa. He died in 1995 and was named Ningen Kokuho in 1975. So not too long ago. John

[kusunokimasahige]

wether or not its a regular blade is not the point here, it was reviewd and attested by a Honami.

 

Thats far more important than any NBTHK paper!!

 

KM

[John A Stuart]

Of course the signature of Honami Nisshu has to be verified as well, lots of spurious gaki out there. One thing this thread brings to mind is; why do some people use the different kanji for numerals? As in this case using 貳 kanji instead of the 二 kanji for 'ni'. Is one system more formal? John

[kusunokimasahige]

I think that totally depends on the era it was in use.

 

KM

[Jacques D.]

Hi,

 

Ni 二 is a sino-Japanese character. Futa(tsu) 貳 is a pure Japanese character, maybe some "chauvinism" in its use.

 

On the other hand it seems futatsu 貳 is more used in legal document.

[Nobody]

One thing this thread brings to mind is; why do some people use the different kanji for numerals? As in this case using 貳 kanji instead of the 二 kanji for 'ni'. Is one system more formal?

The different kanji for numbers are still used in some fields with good reasons.

 

These numbers are provided in lieu of regular kanji numbers for use in contexts where accuracy and avoiding fraud are critical such as in finance and legal agreements. In handwritten documents, for example, it would be easy for a forger to add a line above or below a numeral 一 to make 二, changing, say, 一万円 (10,000 yen) to 二万円 (20,000 yen); the alternate numbers prevent such alterations.

Ref. http://www.jekai.org/entries/aa/00/no/a ... htm#Sense1

[Guido]

wether or not its a regular blade is not the point here, it was reviewd and attested by a Honami.

 

Thats far more important than any NBTHK paper!!

Quite the opposite, the Honami family is well known for f@cking up countless attributions, and issuing "favorable" papers for high ranking people throughout the Edo period and even well into the 20'th century. No papers should be viewed with more suspicion than Honami Origami.

[Guido]

FWIW, here's part of a Sayagaki on a sword I own which was done by Honami Nisshû after he became a living national treasure for comparison. His polish is much better than his caligraphy.

[kusunokimasahige]

Ah ok i see now that Nisshu is post Meiji.

 

I was talking about PRE-Meiji !!!

 

To me any "nihonto" made after the Meiji restoration is not real since they were not used by the Samurai Class which was treacherousely abolished. But thats a personal opinion and a totally different standard.... not a widely accepted one of course....

 

(just my two cents)

 

KM

[John A Stuart]

Thank you, for the numeral explanation. I see they are called 'daiji'. John

[Clive Sinclaire]

Guido / John

If the sayagaki is dated Heisei 7, isn't that one year after he died in 1995?

Clive

[Nobody]

Honami Nisshu died on July 13th in 1996 (= Heisei 8th).

Ref. http://www.tobunken.go.jp/~bijutsu/publ ... bukko.html

[John A Stuart]

I buggered up the year I guess. I had it filed as July '95. Sorry. John

[Clive Sinclaire]

And I thought 1989 was Heisei gannen making 1996 Heisei 7.

Clive

[Nobody]

And I thought 1989 was Heisei gannen making 1996 Heisei 7.

No, 1996 is equivalent to Heisei 8.

 

When you want to convert Heisei year to the last two figures of AD, always add 88. And add 25 for Showa year.

Some of us always remember these numbers.

[Brian]

1989 (8th Jan) is Heisei gannen, making 1996 Heisei 8

Bit mind boggling really I thought Guido had a .pdf chart of all the dates, or is that an upcoming article?

Nice java converter here though, but only from Meiji onwards.

 

Brian

[Guido]

I thought Guido had a .pdf chart of all the dates, or is that an upcoming article?

Yup, you got me right be the [[self-edited vulgar expression for male reproductive organs]]. I talked just today to Barry Hennick about my obvious inability to finish articles beyond the 95% stage. Anal as I am, I'm reluctant to publish until an article is 100% water-proof. And since 118% of all Germans have difficulties with percentage calculation, I'm double-screwed! :lol:

[Guido]

I was talking about PRE-Meiji !!!

Me too ...

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

I'm reluctant to publish until an article is 100% water-proof.

 

Germans and Japaneses are renowned for their precision.

That's why in WWII Italy was added to the Axis: to balance the matter.

Results proved we balanced far too much... :lol:

[reinhard]

No papers should be viewed with more suspicion than Honami Origami.

 

This statement should be taken with reserve. Early attributions made by Hon'ami masters during Momoyama and early Edo-period are of supreme quality. These attributions were usually given to blades after painstaking research and free from favouritism. Attributions given by Kotoku, Kojo or Kochu can greatly add to the value of a blade. - However, during later Edo- and early Meiji-period, Hon'ami family got into trouble and sometimes issued origami/kinpun-mei/kin-zogan mei as favours to Daimyo-families in order to make a living. These origami/kinpun-mei/kin-zogan mei are not always reliable and sometimes confusing.

Hon'ami Nishu was a post-war expert polisher of extra-class and probably more independent, than most of his predecessors during late 19th/early 20th century. His (rare) kiwame are, if genuine, probably quite trustful.

 

reinhard

[Guido]

Reinhard, you are of course right about early and late (like Nisshû) Honami papers. But only looking at the Kyôhô Meibutsuchô, you'll find quite a few attributions that are more than a little doubtful. I remember asking Mr. Tanobe about a famous blade on display in the museum, if it would get the same attribution if submitted for Shinsa nowadays; he smiled and said "maybe not."

 

Research came a long way since Edo period days, and many wrong attributions "back in the day" are perfectly honest mistakes. Some were deliberate to curry favors with high ranking people. Some were made under pressure - even in the not too distant past, one of the reasons why the current Jûyô Shinsa system was introduced.

 

What I was trying to say is that I would bet my money any time on the NBTHK, no matter what an Origami or Sayagaki says. The level of expertise there supasses anything from the past, including Kunzan and Kanzan (I've seen my share of blunders with his attributions as well). I wish I had a fraction of the knowlege of the latter two gentlemen, but that's besides the point. It would be sad if research would stand still, and fortunately it doesn't, new insights are gained frequently. Primus inter pares is without any doubt Tanzan, who for quite some time now went way above his teachers.

 

Yes, the occasional screw-ups happen there as well, but those are few and far between, and usually on a level most of us will never come near to. Complains about wrong attributions come mostly from people who simply don't like being told that their sword or fitting is not of the standard they hoped for, and the badmouthing begins - nothing is more entertaining than a little slander, and criticizing "the experts" makes one look like an "expert" in one's own right.

[reinhard]

Research came a long way since Edo period days, and many wrong attributions "back in the day" are perfectly honest mistakes. Some were deliberate to curry favors with high ranking people. Some were made under pressure

 

True, but this goes for important "customers" of NBTHK as well.

 

I would bet my money any time on the NBTHK, no matter what an Origami or Sayagaki says.

 

On NBTHK or on Tanzan?

 

The level of expertise there supasses anything from the past, including Kunzan and Kanzan

 

I don't agree. Especially when it comes to mumei blades. Early Hon'ami appraisers saw many swords in a healthier and more "honest" condition than we see them nowadays. This goes for Kanzan and Kunzan as well to some extent. It is stunning to see, how mediocre blades, improved by newer polishing techniques, recently gained Juyo papers and appear to be masterpieces, all of a sudden and spectacularly healthy, neglected and overlooked during the last 400 years before.

 

Primus inter pares is without any doubt Tanzan, who for quite some time now went way above his teachers.

 

Tanzan is widely accepted to be the best for Kanteisho NOWADAYS, even by his critics. Wether he surpassed his teacher(s) or not, I don't dare to say.

 

Yes, the occasional screw-ups happen there as well, but those are few and far between, and usually on a level most of us will never come near to.

 

I don't agree. There have been made strange attributions to Yamashiro Rai-school recently.

 

Complains about wrong attributions come mostly from people who simply don't like being told that their sword or fitting is not of the standard they hoped for

 

There are others, whose word and knowledge really counts. This is too simple an argument. - Being a member of NBTHK for some years now and usually defending them, you put me into the role of "advocatus diaboli". I don't know yet, if I like the part, but the discussion is overdue.

 

reinhard

[kusunokimasahige]

Interesting discussion indeed! Good points!

 

Personally i regard a cutting test higher than any attribution, however that is forbidden these days....

 

So ill settle for a board of scholars instead...

 

KM

[Guido]

... you put me into the role of "advocatus diaboli". I don't know yet, if I like the part ...

I always thought that's the main reason we have you on board!?

 

We obviously have different opinions (and that's what we're discussion here in lieu of cold, hard facts - one can't simply count, weight and measure knowledge [at least if not on the same or close level]), and that's all good. I also don't want to drag this discussion on forever, just two comments:

 

1) It didn't take me long to find a few examples in my Japanese auction and sales exhibition catalogs of wrong Sayagaki attributions by Kanzan: Norishige instead of Tametsugu (happens to the best of us), and Kanemitsu instead of Aoe (ouch!). And I remember having seen many more, but never a similar blunder by Tanzan.

 

2) I hear stories now for many years about the NBTHK issuing at almost every Jûyô-Shinsa papers to two certain dealers. Well, those two know their stuff inside out and then some, so big surprise they get many high level swords through Shinsa! They are obviously the envy of many other dealers, who turn their frustration of not being able to achieve the same results into accusations of bribery. And whenever I ask for examples, I'm told "they're out there" without any more details. My motto: put up or shut up!

 

The Japanese Sword Dealer's Association is basically an old wife's club, everybody above a certain level knows every deal that's going on, and when there's nothing of substance to discuss, they make up rumors. Having bought a sword from one dealer and being congratulated on the choice by another the very next day, or having a discussion with a dealer that's picked up by another the next week happened more often to me than I care to recall.

[kusunokimasahige]

So would it be a valid assumption that attributing a sword could be called a pseudo science which began in the early samurai days and has continued well into the present? or is it actually a science?

 

KM