Samurai status and sword schools

[Paz]

Hi all. 

 

This may be a complicated question, and  newbie question.  But I haven't found this topic mentioned in any of the books I read. 

 

Is there any research or work done on which sword schools provided for which samurai, and their status/ rank/ clan. ??

 

For example. 

I doubt swords by masamune or Norishige, osafune kagemitsu would have been given to some low ranked samurai. 

Doesn't this add importance to certain schools. As I don't  like to beleive some of the greatest smiths got famous over night. 

 

Is there any article or link available which mentions this subject. 

Its that I see some beutiful blades, and just marvel at who may have owend them. 

 

Thanks 

[Nihontocollector752]

This is a huge query but Masamune swords were famous/revered more so, centuries after he had already died and the same for Norishige, etc

[Rivkin]

The biggest problem with the question is that the status of schools changed exceptionally as time went on. 13th century literature considered Mogusa (Houju) as the supreme smith, by Edo period it was already a third tier attribution. 

Masamume, Go and Sadamune were virtually unknown until 1550, maybe 1540. The issue of earlier Honami writings can (and should) be addressed in my opinion.

 

Exclusive level of major Daimyo during Edo period is more or less identical to the names one sees in Tokuju publications. Today's appreciation is very much an extension of Edo's perceptions. Which in turn go back to the circle of Toyotomi Hideyoshi.

[Matsunoki]

Hi Paz

Speaking generally, in feudal Japan (which was extremely parochial) Samurai would obtain their swords from the local smiths (unless issued with armoury weapons which could come from anywhere…collected after battles etc) be they gathered around the larger castle towns or in more rural regions. So, wherever the school or smith is forging - it’s the local Samurai he is supplying.

Speaking generally, the typical samurai ashigaru was usually pretty penniless and could never have afforded the best swords whereas samurai of higher status could. The higher up the rank the greater the chance of wealth and thus the trappings that come with that wealth….finer swords, better armour, maybe a horse!! (unless of course some of the later Tokugawa regulations forbade it).

As for who owned which sword……unless documented (which is hellishly rare) it’s impossible to say. During its lifetime a 400 year old sword could have had at least 12 owners…..probably more than that in the more violent Koto periods.

Amongst the highest ranks ….Daimyo etc….there was a custom to present swords by specific makers as tributes or rewards. That proves that at that time some smiths were indeed regarded in higher esteem. However it is believed that many such blades were gimei but accepted as genuine to satisfy everyone’s honour.

….just a few musings.

Colin

[Toryu2020]

Paz - you'll find that Fukunaga Suiken writes extensively on these questions - Markus Sesko does great research in this area, I recommend joining his blog. Many many writers over the years have covered, sword makers, schools of swordmanship, famous samurai and their relationships.

 

This is an area of interest for me and what is often surprising is that while some groups, like Mito Samurai seemed to have patronized their local smith, many famous persons were seen to carry blades from all over Japan. So there seems to have been quite a currency especially in the Edo period.

 

-t

[Fuuten]

Though I don't have a set of Hawley newletters anymore -I remember a number of articles on historical records of gifts between those in power and those under set command (which works were gifted and reasoning behind which smiths and/or works were acceptable as a gifts). If you are interested I think I made an index (for the 3 volume set), I'm sure someone could look it up.

[Nihontocollector752]

People these days revert to the monetary value of these blades but we need to remember that Toyotomi used these when he was a rising star in Odas army to rally many daimyo. Bring the best swords, cut their tangs and make them a commodity. He knew what Samurai wanted, much like a good trader of stock today. You give a samurai a sword of untold legend,  make him believe and he will do anything to earn that promise. 

 

That is why the Japanese are the founders of influence on their campaign marketing. 

 

Not just swords but everything else that is culturally associated. 

 

 

[Toryu2020]

Well when you don't have rice-lands to gift as reward for service it is only natural that you create a system that values swords, armour, horses, falcons and tea ceremony goods equivalent to land and castles...

 

-t

[Paz]

Thanks all for the answers. 

 

I also think that time periods would come into play. Such as nanbokucho swords to sengoku, where its very likely the original owners lost those swords. 

[Jacques]

23 hours ago, Paz said:

Hi all. 

 

This may be a complicated question, and  newbie question.  But I haven't found this topic mentioned in any of the books I read. 

 

Is there any research or work done on which sword schools provided for which samurai, and their status/ rank/ clan. ??

 

For example. 

I doubt swords by masamune or Norishige, osafune kagemitsu would have been given to some low ranked samurai. 

Doesn't this add importance to certain schools. As I don't  like to beleive some of the greatest smiths got famous over night. 

 

Is there any article or link available which mentions this subject. 

Its that I see some beutiful blades, and just marvel at who may have owend them. 

 

Thanks 

 

It's just a matter of money. A sword made by a great smith was very expensive, only the richest could afford it.

[Rivkin]

An "average" Shogun received anywhere between 25 and 400 blades each year as gifts, depending on how many events he attended. They dispensed some proportional amount as their own gifts. Within a few generations in each family the blades "above the station" would be given out and in return the blades appropriate to their class would be received. Many blades changed hands a dozen times without being sold once. Honami appraisals were not intended to be purchase invoices but rather a note of how valuable the gift was and thus which event it was appropriate for.

Sales receipts of any "collectible" level swords are exceptionally rare. Where the act of purchase is known, its often by Honami, who then repapered (self-papered) and sold off the blade for great profit.

What one does encounter at times are pawn shop receipts for blades - there were Rai Kunitoshi's offered at "regular" Edo period's pawn shops. Near always fakes or better to say highly optimistically appraised items.

 

Then came Meiji, and then occupation authorities confiscated all Daimyo lands after WWII. Since then its basically a sale off which continues till today.

 

[Matsunoki]

1 hour ago, Rivkin said:

Honami appraisals were not intended to be purchase invoices but rather a note of how valuable the gift was and thus which event it was appropriate for.

 

1 hour ago, Rivkin said:

Where the act of purchase is known, its often by Honami, who then repapered (self-papered) and sold off the blade for great profit.

Hi Kirill

Not sure I should even ask this question……but how reliable are these appraisals in these circumstances?

I await the storm……

All the best

Colin

[Toryu2020]

Reviews of each generation help us see who were the more reliable appraisers, but every generation was subject to "political influence"...

 

-t

[Rivkin]

Surprisingly not nearly as many as in paintings world. Blades are hard to fake.

On the other hand kantei is often a self-fulfilled prophecy - in the absense of signed examples in any appreciable quantity if you paper something to X over decades, it will be accepted by many as X.

By the same token, since its relatively easy to fake Honami papers and there are many fakes (though nearly all of one person), the procedure is to look at the blade and if it seriously mismatches the attribution you state the papers are fake.

[Paz]

From what I read in one particular book. The Honami were known to " cook" up swords when it served their purpose. 

Basically this is why gimei are so common, and the subject of why mumei swords exist. 

Nakahara for example believes that some suriage were done on purpose to remove the genuine mei and then attribute the sword to a higher smith. 

 

 

[Matsunoki]

A wise old saying…..

”believe nothing your hear and half what you see”

…….a sensible approach to collecting Nihonto?

[Toryu2020]

I do not believe the Hon'Ami "cooked up" swords, certainly there were generous attributions given for generous patrons but they didn't need to fake things to make a living. If you believe everything is cooked then there is nothing to believe in, time to move on to another hobby.

 

Generally they do not put gimei on poor swords - there is most often an attempt made to match workmanship to the spurious attribution/false signature. Of course there are some really clumsy examples out there.

 

Yes there were blades probably cut down to try and get a better attribution but this is not why there are so many osuriage mumei blades. Not all merchants were criminals.

 

As stated there were annual ceremonies where swords were given as gifts, the list of appropriate makers was pre-set, the ceremony prerequisite so of course the name on the label (saya) was more important than the actual work inside. Tatemae and hone. It was an accepted reality that all participated in. They still do - if you've ever participated in a Japanese wedding and seen the number of envelopes passed around you would understand.

 

If you've lived among the Japanese you would see the sheer honesty and pure integrity of the average Japanese, living someplace uncivilized like America it is easy to think that "everyone is out to screw me", there is no place like Japan to restore one's faith in humanity...

 

-tch

[Matsunoki]

This discussion leads me to recall a daisho I was shown over 30 years ago. It was in superb koshirae…..gold lacquer saya and from memory shakudo mounts with Tokugawa mon. They were each contained in several layers of silk bags and in a custom fitted box smothered in Japanese kanji. The Katana was signed Masamune and the Wakizashi signed Yukimitsu. (The dream daisho!!). I was told they were certified by a famous Honami. The whole package looked so impressive. Even then with little knowledge something made me doubt. A few years later they cropped up in a London sale catalogued as Shinto and sold for a Shinto price.

Can anyone else remember them? 

[Toryu2020]

Annual gift-giving for the Shogun...

 

-t

[Franco]

3 hours ago, Paz said:

From what I read in one particular book. The Honami were known to " cook" up swords when it served their purpose. 

Basically this is why gimei are so common, and the subject of why mumei swords exist. 

Nakahara for example believes that some suriage were done on purpose to remove the genuine mei and then attribute the sword to a higher smith. 

 

 

Kantei is the foundation for Japanese sword appreciation.

 

"It's the sword that confirms the mei and not the other way around."

 

If the person viewing a nihonto is unable to correctly kantei (especially quality) the sword they're viewing, signed or not, attribution or not, what difference does it make if it was cooked up or not? 

 

 

 

 

[Rivkin]

There is a notion that kengyo of Masamune/Go on ubu swords is not original and well, one might say "cooked up". The exact purpose is disputed. Soshu tanto without signature might not have been born this way.

Otherwise, in shinto Nanki Shigekuni did very believable Yukimitsu and Dewa Daijo Fujiwara Kunimichi did a believable Masamune. 

They are good, quite unlike their "regular" jobs, and can be easily misjudged. Literally they are a bit too shiny for an old sword.

Cutdown satsuma blades do pass for koto even today, daito can get papers to Hasebe.

Generally there are fewer successful shoto imitations (except Shimada can pass for Nobukuni or even Hasebe), but daito Soshu can be misattributed.

[Paz]

23 minutes ago, Franco D said:

 

 

Kantei is the foundation for Japanese sword appreciation.

 

"It's the sword that confirms the mei and not the other way around."

 

If the person viewing a nihonto is unable to correctly kantei (especially quality) the sword they're viewing, signed or not, attribution or not, what difference does it make if it was cooked up or not? 

 

 

 

 

But when you have an authorative body /   a family of reputed status. Saying that sword A was done by this smith. It takes guts to disagree at that time.  And their word is taken. So of course they would have had full freedom to attribute when they saw fit to whatever smith they wanted. Even though many could disagree. 

 

 

[Matsunoki]

As soon as anything is perceived as rare, desirable, prestigious or valuable it becomes a case of “buyer beware” and it has been  thus throughout the ages for all Nations including Japan. I do agree with Thomas…based on my contacts mostly with Japanese dealers, the Japanese are shrewd but honourable…..but ultimately money talks and temptation lurks…..everywhere.

Unless I’m mistaken (again) Kantei focuses on identifying the smith with varying degrees of success awarded. How many of us can Kantei a blade with confidence? ….and ultimately it still remains a matter of opinions anyway.

Surely more important to focus on the visible quality and use that to “appreciate” the sword. Average smiths made the odd masterpiece and wonderful smiths got it wrong sometimes. Understand what a well forged and hardened blade looks like, be able to spot flaws and polishing “issues” etc etc and be able to make your own mind up…..is it wonderful, good, ok or not so good. ……oh, and then by the way the way who might have made it…..anyone around I can ask🙂🙂
……just a few musings.

[Rivkin]

Don't think that political influence is even within the top three issues.

The biggest problem experienced today is that Japanese institutions are multi-generational.

You have post-war generation where even if you had some family based "street cred" you had to constantly prove yourself. I've never seen Dr. Honma's judgment obliterated, there could be misreadings on which genealogy one uses, but its basically always solid. If you want to know what he meant, you just read his books. His understanding was actually "unconventional" at the time, he challenged a lot of old concepts, and must have been challenged himself many times over.

 

Today a lot of experts are the third generation. Their parents were successful as polishers-merchants-members of nihonto hierarchy. Themselves they never had to prove anything, some just served coffee and mopped the floors waiting until Ueno-san transfers into another world and there is an open spot to fill. 

By the same token there were Honami who saw a lot of swords and did work hard, and there were many who were next to useless. The good thing is that useless were also typically lazy, so they did not do too much in the confusion department.

[Alex A]

On 10/11/2022 at 10:31 PM, Paz said:

Hi all. 

 

 

 

Is there any research or work done on which sword schools provided for which samurai, and their status/ rank/ clan. ??

 

 

 

You guys might find this interesting, if not already read it.

 

https://markussesko.com/page/17/