NOBUIYE
A look at who says what about this elusive character soon
reveals that no-one, at any time or of any nationality, seems to agree upon any
of the facts that we would consider relevant or usable in a search for
examples. Starting at the European beginning with the commentary of Henri Joly - and recognising that in
his time he was, like all the late 19th century Collectors and Students, at the
tender mercies of those who advised and helped him arrive at his judgements.
Joly says in 1912.....
He was the same man as the Miochin Nobuiye, 1496-1564, whom we know as the Armourer.
That he did make tsuba, but not why,
and that the story of his having received the character Nobu
from Takeda Shingen (also known as Nobuharu) is doubtful.
He goes on to say that tsubako
of this name worked in various locations at different times in places such as Koshu, Geishu, Kyoto, Akasaka, Kaga and Echizen. Some of these locations actually do fit in
quite well with the accepted story of Nobuiye’s
progress through life. Koshu is
The next book is the Nihon
To Koza circa 1935, recently translated by Harry
Watson in the USA, who begin by saying that the Tsubako
Nobuiye was the 17th generation of the Masuda Miochin working in the last part of the Muromachi
period. The story of his call-up to serve Shingen
in Kai Province (Koshu) is repeated as fact and there
is a decent critique of the various signatures that can be encountered,
including a version that is described as being’ thin and tall’ and neatly
composed with a thin tagane– this is considered to be
the signature of the Shodai. Secondly there is a
‘thick’ version of the name, inscribed with a broad tagane,
that is a bit scrunched up and done in a compressed form and is seemingly
regarded by them as the signature of the Nidai.
There is also a very scratchy and weedy form of the signature that is present
on a variety of tsuba described as ‘beautiful’, but
they do not say how or why. This last group is regarded by the Koza Team as having been the most desirable variety in the
past (presumably because the tsuba demonstrated good
quality, rather than because the mei
demonstrated indisputable veracity) and because of this they spawned a lot of
spurious fakes.
It then (from the 1935 viewpoint) appears that the ‘thick’ mei versions became more desirable
due to their being very ‘masculine’ in style – and also because of the number
of fakes of the ‘thin mei’ version undermining
confidence in the buying public. Geishu Ju Nobuiye (or Geishu Ju Fujiwara Nobuiye) is admitted to be probably a pupil of a later
time, as is the most enigmatic of all the Nobuiye
signatures; Mitsu Nobuiye.
Sticking to the subject of mei, they
go on to say a most surprising thing; that these major, and several other
minor, variations in mei point to there having been a
‘Collective’ or perhaps even a Workshop of Tsubako
ALL signing Nobuiye!! Even more surprising
there seems to be no resentment of this possibility, only a placid acceptance
of a situation whereby several skilled craftsmen working closely and
cooperatively could actually maintain a high standard which finds approval in
the eyes of the many Sensei who have judged their works ever since. At
this point their comments return to a sterner and more rigid critique of the
styles which I will mention at the conclusion of this article.
Lastly, in referring to our past Masters, it is impossible to
ignore the opinion of Masayuki Sasano.
I have always found that in reading Sasano
he appears insightful and incisive in his
stated opinions. However after closer scrutiny you begin
to see that his opinions are actually very laid-back indeed. Someone once asked
a small child what his Grandfather had that no one else had, the child replied;
Time.
Perhaps Sasano is the Grandfather of
us all, buy his book on Sukashi Tsuba
and see for yourself if you connect with him as I have always found it very
easy to do.
.Sasano says that he has experienced
seven different mei without
saying what they are (I suppose he wants to make us go hunt them down for
ourselves and benefit by the effort!). Armour
enthusiasts won’t like this at all but he goes on to say, in a very gentle
fashion, that the two men, Armourer and Tsubako, are not the same person because the works of the Armourer Nobuiye are simply not
up to the quality of the Tsubako Nobuiye.
Obviously the differences in the simple
intention of forging a typically thick Tsuba
of Nobuiye at around 3-4 mm and a plate for, say, a Shikoro, are going to be vast but he seems to make no
allowance for this
I think he just believed instinctively (from the evidence of the
Tsuba before him) that a Katchushi
of this time could never have made the switch to Tsubako,
or perhaps he could just not admit that possibility because to do so would be
stepping beyond the bounds of convention.
Another interesting comment is that he places the Tsuba maker one generation later than the Armour maker on the basis that the typical tsuba of Nobuiye are so thick
that they would not suit the fashion for one handed Uchi
Gatana in the later part of the Muromachi
period, but would have suited
the two handed Katana of the Momoyama much better
I have noticed something that is never mentioned in catalogues,
books or articles that include Nobuiye and it may be
something or nothing but it nags me, so here it is.
Look at the pictures of Nobuiye Tsuba in the Naunton Catalogue.
Then go to Sasano’s own work on Sukashi. Then go and find anyone else’s publication
that you feel is beyond reproach and see if I am right in thinking it strange
that every (claimed) Shodai signature is almost
always partly cut away to allow entrance for the last blade it was mounted
on. Does this indicate to you, as it does to me, that the blade for which
the tsuba was originally made was of rather slender
form, without the niku or indeed the kasane of the last blade to find a home there?
If not and I am wrong then why cut away part of the seppa
dai, and part of the mei,
to accommodate that last blade?
It seems like heresy to attempt to question the opinions of our
predecessors but, whereas he brought a lifetime of learning to bear upon the
subject, I bring only my ignorance and a certain naïve
objectivity. Sometimes the simple question bears fruit that a more intense
examination does not reveal. I think it entirely possible that these very fine
pieces that bear the name of Nobuiye partly cut away
are actually as old as Sasano would not, or could
not, admit. I would go further and state that I do not think it at all
outrageous that a one handed Uchi Gatana
of the Muromachi period should have a heavy tsuba. Choosing such a tsuba
would place all the balance of the sword far back in the hand, making it more
controllable in the cut (one handed and
on horseback, don’t forget). The last thing I would want in those circumstances
would be a sword that, once begun on a cut, could not be stopped or turned
because of the sheer impetus of the weight being ‘all up front’. Feel
free to argue the point.
Sasano’s final point in judging a potential Nobuiye tsuba is this; if it is a
work of originality and nobility, with a ‘feeling’ of masterpiece that every Shodai of any school always displays, then it probably is a
Nobuiye. If it looks like a fake, then it probably
is. Now I don’t know how much help that was to you so I would advise you
to read that bit again, just so that it sinks in.
Unfortunately he has presumed at least an equal exposure to such
works as he has had himself and that just has not been the case for the
majority of us.
Now for styles. The Shodai
Nobuiye is credited with a particularly apt form of Mokkogata which everyone agrees is a shape that sits just
perfectly with the sword and, in fact, does not really work well in the eye until it is fitted to a sword. I cannot
believe that he stuck rigidly to this shape alone and actually there are a
couple of Nadegaku (rounded square shapes)
illustrated in the Koza which seem to me to sit very
well indeed for the time of the Shodai and the style
attributed to him. (see pages31-33 in the Kodogu part 1 volume.) He demonstrates his skill as a
Smith in the way he forges his thick plates (Tsuchime
finished and about 4mm in thickness) and very subtly turns up the rims, (Uchikaeshi Kaku Mimi). Also the
sheer strength and quality of his iron appears to universally impress, and the
way he handles it to reveal its structure in such features as the rim, the Ji etc. If you look carefully at a few examples you begin
to realise that this was a craftsman who knew when to
stop hitting the thing with a hammer.
That is a very valid point. You have to know when to not
get in the way of the natural attributes of the iron if you are not to go too
far and mess it up.
Decoration seems to be quite limited with Kebori
engraving often done to about the same depth as the Mei,
and a very restrained amount of Ko-Sukashi piercing.
At this point I don’t know quite how to put it but, returning to
the Koza, I see that under Work Styles they disavow
their previous certainty and state categorically that, because of the great
thickness of the tsuba in question, they cannot admit
that the Tsubako Nobuiye
can possibly be the same man as the Katchushi Nobuiye. The stated reason for this is that Katchushi tsuba are almost always
very thin (about half the thickness of a Nobuiye) and
so he obviously did not come from an armourer’s
tradition of forging.
Far from giving up here, we should actively argue a point that
they have already made; that the works of Nobuiye
stand out as being totally unlike the other, more standard, Katchushi works of the time. This is what seems
to have made them admirable and desirable in the eyes of the Samurai of that
period, and they bought them because of it. Is it therefore unreasonable to
dismiss the possibility that he could be the same man on that basis? perhaps,
but I think that single reason a bit thin and would have liked to hear
something else in support of the contention.
The Kebori engraving is not just the
rather quiet type of Karakusa vines we often see, it
is also in vivid Tortoiseshell patterns like Kikko,
floor tiles, Peonies, Clouds and Dragons, Ho-O birds. Another specialty is to
use Sosho inscriptions such as the Namu Myoho renge
Kyo Sutra, or the more common Hachiman
Daibosatsu invocation. The sukashi
designs, though usually small, are also vibrant in their choice and their
placement. (See the one on page 32 of the Koza with
an Ono – axe- for a lesson in how to place a sukashi
design in just the right place on a plate). You can find Gunpai, Water Wheels, Mitsu-Tomoe,
and the enigmatic Matsukawabishi Mon used in the
‘less is more’ sense of a Master Sukashi
worker. The only large scale Sukashi
piece I know of is the famous Kamo Shrine tsuba in Sasano’s book where the
Torii and its surrounding bushes are given a flourish that only someone very
confident of his skill can accomplish. Using themes such as these I
find it very understandable that the Samurai of the late Muromachi
could take these to their hearts with enthusiasm. Up to that time tsuba for the average Samurai would have had to be sober to
the point where – according to my reputation - only I could find something in
them to like. Nobuiye gave his patrons strength,
style and feelings with his bold offerings and they liked them to the point
that, Sasano says, in 1800 a Nobuiye
tsuba changed hands for the equivalent of 100 pounds
sterling in the 1960’s.
Think about that. Is that the echo of a Legend that has
got out of control or is it a genuine appreciation of something that, although
remembered imperfectly, struck a true chord in the souls of tsuba
collectors even then?
The one point of agreement of all of these much respected Sensei
is this; That Nobuiye tsuba,
when genuine Shodai pieces, have a strength, a
nobility, an assuredness about them that permits no doubt to exist in the mind
of the viewer that he is seeing a masterpiece.
Although it is no help to you at all, this is something that I
agree with wholeheartedly. We all have bought with our hearts rather than our
heads and as I get older I believe that is no bad thing. These are precisely
the motivations of the first man to buy a tsuba that
was different enough to attract his attention, and just because the records on who made what are just opinions does not mean that we
should be cautious to the point of paranoia.
Return using back-arrow or TSUBA