As mentioned in the previous chapter, evidence base for everything before the famous Muromachi period Nagayoshi master is very limited. For example, basically all we have on the first generation of that lineage is a depiction of a tang of one of his works in the Ōseki Shō (see picture 1). The blade in question is signed “Kyōto-jūnin Sugawara Nagayoshi” (京都住人菅原長吉) and comes with the comment “dated with a day of the twelfth month of Ryakuō three (暦応, 1340).” Please note that the era is mentioned in that document with the abbreviated characters (厂广) for (暦応). As that source is heavily focusing on tang finishes, no comment on the workmanship of the blade itself.

Picture 1: Nagayoshi ancestor as shown in the Ōseki Shō

So far the supposed first generation of the Nagayoshi lineage. Next we have a work, a real work, not just a picture in an old book, which is thought to go back to the hand of the second generation. Or rather, the NBTHK says: “Compared to the common, i.e. later generation Nagayoshi works, this blade has much more refined jiba and it appears that (in terms of its overall interpretation) it corresponds to the Nagayoshi whom the meikan list around Ōei (応永, 1394-1428), although further research on this issue is necessary.” In short, the blade “feels” different than all the other Nagayoshi works and its sugata and jiba suggests Ōei, what in turn would mean second generation.

The blade in question (see picture 2) has a rather wide mihaba, a thick kasane, and a noticeable sunnobi-sugata. The kitae is a dense ko-itame that is mixed with nagare and that features fine ji-nie. The hamon is a ko-nie-laden, quite varied gunome-chō with a bright and clear nioiguchi and is mixed with chōji, ko-notare, tobiyaki, ashi, and yō. The bōshi is midare-komi with a roundish kaeri on the omote side and a somewhat pointed, later returning kaeri on the ura side. The omote shows a sankozuka-ken as relief in a katana-hi and the ura a relief of what appears to be a naginata within a katana-hi. The nakago is ubu, has a kurijiri, kiri-yasurime, two mekugi-ana, and bears a sanji-mei which is chiseled to the right of the ubu-mekugi-ana.

Picture 2: jūyō-tōken, wakizashi, mei: “Nagayoshi saku” (長吉作), nagasa 34.95 cm, sori 1.1 cm, motohaba 3.1 cm, hira-zukuri, mitsu-mune

As stated in my (preliminary) Heianjō genealogy (see previous chapter here), it appears that there was one more generation before it becomes more tangible. That is, it seems that there was a third generation who was active around Hōtoku (宝徳, 1449-1452). However, I was yet not able to find any blades that go back to the hand of this master. Now the fourth generation, who was supposedly active around Bunmei (文明, 1469-1487) is where Fujishiro jumps in. Well, he does list the Ryakuō era ancestor but then nothing in between him and the Bunmei master. He writes: “It is said that the first generation Nagayoshi was active around Eikyō (永享, 1429-1441) but as I have not seen any such old Nagayoshi work, I tend to think that the famous Nagayoshi lineage started with this (i.e. the Bunmei era) master.” So in short, he counts him as first generation and assumes that it was around his time that the Heianjō School got its momentum and rose to fame. Incidentally, the known dates from Bunmei twelve (文明, 1480) to Meiō nine (明応, 1500) are attributed to this Nagayoshi whom Fujishiro lists as first, and I as fourth generation.

Picture 3: mei: “Yoshinori no ko, Nagayoshi saku” (吉則子長吉作)

This brings us to the most famous master of the entire lineage, the fifth generation Heianjō Nagayoshi, whom Fujishiro lists as second generation. From him we know dated blades between Bunki three (文亀, 1501) and Eishō 13 (永正, 1516) and a signature that states “made by Nagayoshi, son of Yoshinori” (see picture 3) is attributed to him. So, he must have been adopted by the Bunmei-era fourth master but felt obliged at some point in time, to point out that he was the son of Yoshinori, probably emphasizing the close relationship of these two local lineages. In addition, there exists blades by the fifth generation Nagayoshi which are not signed with the Heianjō (平安城) but with the Sanjō (三条) prefix, underlining that local connection.

Before I go into detail about his life and career, I want to address his workmanship. Sources like the Nihontō Kōza keep it rather simple but I wanted to get a good grasp on his entire body of work before writing this chapter, which was one reason for why it took me so long to continue the series. That said, I have learned that this Nagayoshi was actually working in an amazing variety of styles, which I want to address in the following. So first of all, the brief entry of the Nihontō Kōza:

His tachi-sugata does not have a wide mihaba and has a deep sori, a medium thick kasane, and a high shinogi. The kitae is a dense and beautifully forged itame. The hamon feels somewhat “tight” and can be, amongst others, in midareba, notareba, and suguha, whereas the midareba interpretations are similar to the ha of Muramasa. The bōshi features a roundish kaeri in case of a suguha and is usually widely hardened in case of a midareba. Horimono can be ken, bonji, kurikara, etc., they are deeply engraved, and appear somewhat more “concise” than horimono of the Hasebe School.

Next I would like to quote Tsuneishi who goes much more into detail:

Early Nagayoshi works are very rare but it appears that the few existing pre-Eishō works have a hint wider mihaba than other Kyō-mono, a noticeable sori, and a somewhat elongated kissaki, i.e. a relatively sturdy shape and by trend of a more firm build than contemporary Sanjō Yoshinori blades. Some blades show a sugata similar to that of the Ōei-Nobukuni group and the hamon is usually gentle and features only little nie. The blades from around Eishō look like Naoe-Shizu at first glance but they feature a sakizori and are of a more gentle sugata than Naoe-Shizu works. They are hardened in gunome-midare or in a hako-midare-like ha with not so much nie whereas the midare elements are separated by long and gently undulating sections. We see a particularly large koshiba, a prominent feature which is referred to as Heianjō-koshiba (平安城腰刃) by experts (see picture 4). The midareba of later works is very similar to that of Muramasa. The bōshi is usually a widely hardened midare-komi with a pointed kaeri that runs back in a long fashion. The jihada is a ko-itame that is mixed with masame and that features ji-nie and is a little tigher than the hada of Sanjō Yoshinori blades. Horimono are very often found. We know if shin no kurikara as relief in a hitsu, of ken, bonji, etc., all of them deep and very skillfully engraved. Ken horimono are particularly long. Engravings may resemble Nobukuni horimono at first glance but are somewhat inferior in quality, and many are in fact more similar to Sue-Sōshū horimono. The majority of horimono is found on wakizashi and tantō, for example a compact but highly detailed sō no kurikara on the omote and a koshibi with soebi or gomabashi on the ura side which run as kaki-nagashi into the tang. The tangs shown in early meikan which bear date signatures from the eras Bunmei, Bunki, and Eishō tend somewhat to a tanagobara, although not as much as the tangs of Muramasa blades, with the nakago of tantō being exceptionally long. We find more tantō than katana as time progresses. These tantō are relatively wide, have a thin kasane, a hint of sakizori, and show a midareba, hako-midare, or yahazu-midare in nie-deki, and we see the same koshiba as at katana. The kitae is an itame that is mixed with some masame. There are also blades that feature a deliberately applied muneyaki which makes them look like Sue-Sōshū at first glance. Early tantõ that appear to date back to the end of the Ōei era are rather smallish like the tantō of Sõshū Hiromitsu (広光) and some rare examples show a very vivid midareba. Around Eishō and Tenbun also yari were made. The tangs tend more towards a tanagobara among later works and are then very similar to Muramasa or Sue-Sōshū tangs.

Picture 4: Heianjõ-koshiba

Now let’s take a look at some blades. The first blade I want to introduce (see picture 5) is regarded as one of the best Heianjō Nagayoshi blades out there. It is jūyō, has a relatively wide mihaba, a maru-mune, a sakizori, and a chū-kissaki. The kitae is a very dense ko-itame with ji-nie and a tendency towards shirake all over the blade. The hamon starts with kind of a 12 cm long yakidashi-style narrow ha and turns then into a hiro-suguha in ko-nie-deki with a clear and relatively tight nioiguchi that is mixed with ko-midare, ko-gunome, and ko-ashi. The bõshi is sugu with a rather pointed kaeri on the omote and an ō-maru-kaeri on the ura side, both sides with hakikake and the kaeri running back in a long fashion. On the omote side we see a very skillfully engraved sō no kurikara and on the ura gomabashi with below a rendai. The tang is ubu, has a funagata, a ha-agari kurijiri, kiri-yasurime (Satō says shallow sujikai), two mekugi-ana, and features a rather thickly chiseled goji-mei. There exist several more blades in this very style, which I would describe as classical Muromachi period Heianjō Nagayoshi style. That is, a nice katana shape with sakizori and a chū or somewhat elongated chū-kissaki, horimono at the base on both sides, a hamon in suguha-chō or with some ko-notare and/or ko-gunome, and a funagata-nakago which may tend to tanagobara. I include two more pics of blades in that style below of picture 5 (please click on the thumbnails to enlarge).

Picture 5: jūyō-tōken, katana, mei: “Heianjō Nagayoshi” (平安城長吉), nagasa 69.3 cm, sori 1.97 cm, motohaba 3.0 cm, sakihaba 2.3 cm, kissaki-nagasa 3.95 cm, shinogi-zukuri, maru-mune

 

Another style where Nagayoshi goes more towards classical Yamashiro can be seen in picture 6. It is a katana with a rather slender mihaba, a noticeable taper, a deep koshizori, and a ko-kissaki. The kitae is a fine and densely forged ko-itame with a little bit of nagare, fine ji-nie, and a shirake-utsuri. The hamon is a suguha in nioi-deki with ko-nie that is mixed with many ko-ashi and with a fushi-like ko-gunome protrusion on both sides below of the monouchi. The bōshi is sugu with a ko-maru-kaeri, there are no horimono, and the tang is ubu, has a ha-agari kurijiri, kiri-yasurime, two mekugi-ana, and bears a relatively thin and smallish rokuji-mei. So, the overall interpretation seems to aim at Rai Kunitoshi (来国俊) or Ryōkai (了戒), i.e. his local predecessors. A blade in such style can be seen at Darcy’s site here.

Picture 6: jūyō-tōken, katana, mei: “Heianjō Nagayoshi saku” (平安城長吉作), nagasa 67.4 cm, sori 2.6 cm, motohaba 2.75 cm, sakihaba 1.7 cm, kissaki-nagasa 2.7 cm, shinogi-zukuri, mitsu-mune

Let’s go over to short swords and tantō, a category where it gets really varied as indicated earlier. Now I think that the Muramasa resemblance (more on that later) is more obvious on tantō than on katana. Let me introduce such a work. Picture 7 shows a somewhat smallish tantō that has for its short nagasa a relatively wide mihaba and thus a somewhat stocky appearance. There is a hint of uchizori and the kitae is a dense ko-itame that is mixed with some nagare-masame on the omote side and that features fine ji-nie and some faint shirake. The hamon is a gentle ko-notare in nie-deki with a somewhat tight, bright, and clear nioiguchi and appears identical on both sides, a characteristic that is typical for Muramasa as most of you know. The bōshi is ko-maru with a relatively wide turnback. The omote side shows a sō no kurikara and the ura side gomabashi. The tang is ubu, tapers in tanagobara-style to a ha-agari kurijiri, and the yasurime are very slightly slanting kiri-yasurime. So what differs from Muramasa is basically the sugata, the presence of elaborate horimono, and the finer jigane.

Picture 7: jūyō-tōken, tantō, mei: “Heianjō Nagayoshi” (平安城長吉), nagasa 22.1 cm, very little uchizori, motohaba 2.2 cm, hira-zukuri, mitsu-mune

The tantō shown in picture 8 is similar, although somewhat bigger. It shows a kitae in a rather standing-out itame that features nagare towards the ha and ji-nie. The hamon is a ko-notare in ko-nie-deki with some hakoba at the base. The bōshi tends to ō-maru and shows a little bit of hakikake on the ura side. On the omote side we see gomabashi and on the ura side a naga-bonji and a rendai. Again, the hamon being identical on both sides, and this time also the rather standing-out itame, bear a resemblance to Muramasa, although with the nagare towards the ha and the deep valleys we may also see a remote resemablance to Naoe-Shizu.

Picture 8: tantō, mei: “Heianjō Nagayoshi” (平安城長吉), nagasa 26.6 cm, sori 0.3 cm, hira-zukuri, iori-mune

Next tantō style he produced aims at smallish but thick Sue-Sōshū or Sue-Bizen yoroidōshi. Picture 9 show such a tantō. It has a nagasa of just 18.9 cm, a takenoko-sori, and a thick kasane. The kitae is a dense itame with ji-nie and the hamon a ō-gunome in ko-nie-deki that is mixed with gunome and some tobiyaki. The bōshi is sugu with a roundish kaeri that runs back in a long fashion. On the omote side we see Fudō-Myōō as relief in a hitsu and on the ura side a shin no kurikara, also as relief in a hitsu. The tang is ubu, has a kurijiri, and shallow katte-sagari yasurime. I include two more pics of blades in that style below of picture 9 (please click on the thumbnails to enlarge).

Picture 9: jūyō-tōken, tantō, mei: “Sanjō Nagayoshi saku” (三条長吉作), nagasa 18.9 cm, hira-zukuri, mitsu-mune, takenoko-sori

 

And then there is the Heianjō Nagayoshi tantō style where the ha tends to hitatsura or is a full-blown hitatsura in Sōshū style, in particular in the style of the Hasebe School with yahazu and prominent muneyaki all the way down. Picture 10 shows such a work. This tantō is again relatively small, has a hint of sori, and an overall rather stocky appearance. The kitae is a fine and densely forged ko-itame with ji-nie. The hamon is a nie-laden ko-notare with a rather tight nioiguchi and some mura-nie that is mixed with angular elements, yahazu, gunome, and sunagashi and where the ji between the ha and the muneyaki is filled with tobiyaki and yubashiri, i.e. resulting in a hitatsura. The bōshi is midare-komi with a ko-maru-kaeri that connects with the muneyaki. On the omote side we see a kurikara as relief in a hitsu and on the ura side a sō no kurikara. The tang is ubu, tapers in funagata-style to a kurijiri, and features kiri-yasurime. As mentioned, this interpretation aims at Hasebe works. I include two more pics of blades in that style below of picture 10 (please click on the thumbnails to enlarge).

Picture 10: jūyō-tōken, tantō, mei: “Sanjō Nagayoshi saku” (三条長吉作), nagasa 23.8 cm, motohaba 2.4 cm, hira-zukuri, mitsu-mune

 

*

This is a relatively long chapter so I hope you made it until here as I want to conclude with some considerations on Heianjō Nagayoshi’s career and him being the master of Muramasa. First the facts: 1. From signed blades with supplements in the mei we know that Nagayoshi was temporarily also working in the provinces of Mikawa and Ise and there is the tradition that he even made it to eastern Sagami province (going there with his student Masazane (正真) with whom joint gassaku works exist). 2. Dated blades suggest that the fifth generation Heianjō Nagayoshi and the first generation Muramasa were active at pretty much the same time, suggesting that they were of the same age. Now it is not uncommon that a smith learned from a master of the same age, most common scenario of course at a later point in his career when it is about refinement of the craft, not so much about learning the craft from scratch.

Now there exists a copy of a sword document that the seventh Hon’ami main line head Kōshin (本阿弥光心, 1496-1559) presented shortly before his death to his employer, the sword loving shōgun Ashikaga Yoshiteru (足利義輝, 1536-1565). Therein we read that it was the other way round, i.e. Nagayoshi learning from Muramasa. His entry reads: “He (Nagayoshi) was originally a smith from the Kyōto Heianjō group but who moved later to Mikawa province and who became around Bunki (文亀, 1501-1504) a student of Muramasa.”

So what is true here, who was the master of whom? I can think of a scenario where both traditions could kind of work. As you all know, the Ōnin War, which took place in the Ōnin era (応仁, 1467-1469) of the same name and which ushered in the Sengoku period, destroyed much of Kyōto and many swordsmiths were forced to leave the capital as working/local clientel conditions were no longer bearable. I now think that maybe already the famous Nagayoshi’s predecessor, i.e. the fourth generation went east to continue his work in Ise, maybe even also in farther east Mikawa province. There he trained the first generation Muramasa and his son, the fifth generation Nagayoshi. Then the master died there and I think maybe master-student Muramasa supported the fifth generation Nagayoshi in continuing the forge. In other words, they found themselves in a condition of two craftsmen helping each other refining both their crafts and fulfilling orders, hence the similarity in workmanship (and as mentioned, they were probably of the same age too). So the Hon’ami Kōshin entry may mean that around Bunki, i.e. after the fourth Nagayoshi master had died, his successor studied togeher with Muramasa the craft and did not learn it from him. What also plays a role here are the then social conditions, in particular those of craftsmen. The Heianjō smiths came from an established lineage, and from the capital. That is, it is rather unlikely that one of them went down to rural Ise to start an apprenticeship with a yet unknown smith with no famous background whatsoever. In short, I follow the approach that Muramasa learned from Nagayoshi in Ise, maybe from father and son Nagayoshi IV and V who had to leave Kyōto and found shelter/work in Kuwana.