Before Hizen Tadayoshi.

Introduction
Those of you who have had the dubious pleasure of hearing or reading my ramblings at
meetings or in the newsletter will know that I have become an obsessive Hizen
enthusiast. This addiction has been fuelled over recent years by occasional very pleasant
(though doubtless damaging to my liver) evenings in discussion the Roger Robertshaw in
Hong Kong. I owe Roger a great debt, his enthusiasm was sufficiently contagious to take
me from I have something which I like and think is Hizen to I regard Hizen swords to
be amongst the finest Shinto blades ever produced
For those who are interested in Hizen swords, and the mainline Tadayoshi school in
particular I thoroughly recommend Rogers book, which I believe is still available on CD.
I have now been studying Hizen swords for a number of years I have had the good
fortune to look at a lot of very fine Hizen blades and many others which at first glance
appeared to be but were not.
Continued research in any field always generates more questions than answers and
because of this I wanted to look at some different aspects of the Hizen School. The
characteristics and techniques of the school have been well documented, the background
to the development of the school less so. The early years of Tadayoshi are still the cause
of much study, controversy and debate within Japan.
In an attempt to better understand how the school of Hizen Tadayoshi reached such a
pinnacle in Shinto sword production I started to look at pre-Tadayoshi sword making in
Hizen and the political environment which existed before and during the growth of the
school.
The object of the following is to challenge some of the more populist statements about
the development of the Hizen Tadayoshi School and suggest some alternative theories.
Reaching a point whereby one can advance even the most speculative theory can only be
achieved by the study of existing reference works. In my own case I have relied heavily
on Eguchi Shosins definitive work Hizento Handbook which has been superbly
translated by Dr. Gordon Robson, Robetshaws Hizen Tadayoshi, the Nihonto Koza and
references in Art and the sword. I am also grateful to Mr. Cary Condell for his advice
and input.
Although using these reference works, ultimately in any such article the conclusions are
the authors opinion, and as such can be accepted or disregarded as the reader feels
inclined. Likewise Errors, of which I am sure there are many, are all my own work.
Hopefully however it may give some cause to re-look at their favourite school or smith
and try to re-evaluate the accepted intelligence.

The Populist history.

The following is a brief summary of the most widely described development and history
of the Tadayoshi School.
Hashishimoto Shinsaemonjo was born in 1572. His Father and Grandfather served the
ruling Hizen family led by Ryuzoji Takanobu. Tadayoshis grandfather died at the battle
of Shimabara in 1584 (not to be confused with the Shimabara revolt of 1637) both his
parents died later the same year.
At the age of 13 and an orphan he was taken in by a relative who was a sword smith
manufacturing mass produced blades for the Nabashima clan. In 1596 Nabeshima
Naoshige was establishing an industrial empire in Hizen and recognising the talent of the
young Tadayoshi sent him to study under the renowned father of Shinto Umetada
Myoju where he refined his skill in producing Yamashiro style swords. After three years
he returned home was given a stipend and established the Hizen Tadayoshi School in the
service of Naoshige. The fame of the school grew rapidly (partly as a result of the
entrepreneurial skills of Naoshige) and Tadayoshi blades much sort after. The Tadayoshi
reputation was further enhanced following a second (or according to some texts third)
visit to Kyoto and Umetada Myoju in 1624. At this time he was granted the title Musashi
Daijo and the clan name Fujiwara by the Imperial court. He changed his name from
Tadayoshi to Tadahiro and returned to Hizen.
By this time the Hizen style was well established and the school, together with the branch
line schools prospered for a further 8 generations up to the Meiji sword ban.
Superficially this looks reasonably logical and neat and an acceptable prcis of the
sequence of events. However there are some anomalies and contradictions which warrant
further consideration. A number of o texts offer alternative views as to the early working
life of Tadayoshi which could also explain his meteoric rise to fame. To understand these
we need to examine the following:
1. Early Sword making in Hizen and the surrounding provinces
2. The prevalent political situation during the formative years of the Hizen School
3. Having obtained title and fame why did Tadayoshi change his name.
4. Who was Tosa no Kami Tadayoshi?
5. How much technical influence did Umetada Myoju have on Tadayoshi?

Early Smiths working in Hizen province

Fig 1 Western Provinces.

Fig 2: Hizen

The general texts suggest that there was not a great deal of sword making going on in
Hizen in during the Koto period and consequently few high quality sword-smiths.
However looking at a slightly larger area within Kyushu this was not strictly true. In
neighbouring Chikuzen province the Chikuzen School founded by Ryosai was active
producing blades in the Yamato tradition. Sa, one of Masamunes jitetsu founded the
Chikuzen Sa School in the early Nambokucho and produced blades strongly influenced
by the Soshu School. Also active from the early 14th.century the Kongobyoe School was
founded by Moritaka in the mountain area surrounding Saga. This school continued
producing powerful, conservative blades heavily influenced by the Yamato School, until
the end of the Koto period. Although the majority of later works were tanto there are a
number of illustrated works (100 masterpieces from the Compton collection no.32 is an
example) which show Tachi with a powerful sugata, combined with a reserved, almost
understated Suguha hamon and clear Itame hada. Both Chikuzen Sa and Kongobyoe
smiths were known to have visited and worked in Hizen
In addition to these neighbouring Schools Eguchi states that Smiths from Enju (Suefusa
and Norisue) Bungo (Ieshige) and the Munesaka group all travelled and worked within
Hizen at various times in the Koto period. There was, therefore, a considerable amount of
movement within Kyushu in the Koto period, with master smiths exchanging ideas and
interacting on a fairly high level.

Munetsugu
At the very end of the Koto period and at the beginning of the Shinto period a sword
smith named Munetsugu was a retainer of the ruling family the Ryuzoji. The Munetsugu
family were priests responsible for the Ryuzoji temple in Nagase. Munetsugu (also
known as Masatsugu in some texts) succeeded to the head of the family in 1584.
As with many sword smiths of this period it appears that Munetsugu carried out a lot of
experimentation, producing blades in Bizen, Soshu and Yamashiro styles. He was a very
accomplished swords-smith His work was ranked as Jo Saku (good) and a number of his
Bizen and Soshu style blades are extant. Eguchi believes that the lack of Yamashiro
copies by Munetsugu is due in part to Sword dealers of the time shortening his
Yamashiro style blades and selling them as Koto Rai and Enju work to the ultraconservative Kyoto nobility. If this is the case then Munetsugus work must have been of
a very high standard indeed.
Munetsugu was the relative that the young Tadayoshi stayed with from the time he was
orphaned until he went to Kyoto in 1596.
There is an immediate contradiction here with the original theory. Contrary to that view
Tadayoshi did not spend his formative years in a workshop making kazu-uchimono (mass
produced blades). He was, in fact working with a highly skilled group of smiths the
leader of which had considerable talent and was producing Koto copies of Yamashiro,
Bizen and Soshu workmanship. This is further borne out by examining the early work of
Tadayoshi pre Kiecho 10 (1605) which show little influence of Umetada Myoju. They
exhibit traits of Yamato and Soshu (shizu style) with a relatively coarse hada and hotsure
and kuighigaiba appearing in the hamon. It is only after Keicho 10 that he seems to
concentrate on the Yamashiro, Rai utsushi style of Umetada Myoju incorporating komokume (konuka) hada and Suguha hamon.

In support of the mass production theory it is highly possible that the Nagase temple
workshop was producing bundle swords around this time. Hideyoshis Korean campaigns
put a great demand on the Hizen swordsmiths to arm the troops being despatched by
Naoshige. However this was by no means their total output.
It is interesting to note that Munetsugu received the title Iyo no Jo in Keicho 11 (1606)
and was declared Tsukasa no Kashira (Head of all Hizen Smiths) in Keicho 13 (1608).
This was some 9 years after Tadayoshi returned from his first trip to Kyoto. At about the
same time Tadayoshi moved from Nagase to Saga as the Nabeshima wanted direct Fief
control over the smithies. Tadayoshi was declared overall head of the Hashimoto smiths.
Is it possible that having separated from Munetsugu and the school in Nagase, and in an
attempt to differentiate his work from his former masters, Tadayoshi became much more
focussed on emulating the Koto Rai and Enju blades of Yamashiro which ultimately led
to the development of the style of sword now universally described as Hizen.
None the less Eguchi concludes, with justification, that at this time Munetsugu was
regarded as being of a higher rank than Tadayoshi.
So during the early days of the Tokugawa shogunate there are two established Hizen
Smithies, the original at Nagase under the Priest sword-smith Munetsugu who was a
retainer of the Ryuzoji family. And his former best pupil and rising star Tadayoshi whose
career has come under the control of the Nabeshima family.
At this point it is worth examining the political background of the lords of Hizen and how
that may have affected the fortunes of the various smiths working in Hizen at the time.

Ryuzoji and Nabeshima.

Ryuzoji Takanobu (1530-1585) was a powerful warlord who controlled the plains area
around Saga. With the support of his foremost retainer Nabeshima Naoshige (1537-1619)
Takanobu defeated an invading army from Bungo under Otomo Sorin (1530-1587) and
was subsequently able to build his power base over time until he became established as
Governor General in Hizen, Bungo, Higo, Chikuzen, Iki and Tsushima.
Ryuzoji Takanobu was killed at the battle of Shimabara (the same battle in which
Tadayoshis Grandfather died) and control of Ryuzoji affairs passed into the hands of his
capable retainer Nabeshima Naoshige. The transfer of power was finalised in 1592.
However there was a written agreement between the Nabeshima and Ryuzoji that power
would revert to Ryuzoji Takafusa when he reached the age of 15.
Nabeshima Naoshige appears to have been a strong supporter of Hideyoshi. He worked
hard to establish a strong economic base in Hizen creating a Ceramics industry and
developing sword smithing. He also sent troops on Hideyoshis Korean expeditions. It was
perhaps in a further attempt to gain favour that Naoshige despatched Munetsugus most
able pupil, Tadayoshi, to Kyoto to study under Umetada Myoju who was highly regarded
by Hideyoshi.
Between 1592 and 1600 Naoshige established a strong power base around Saga. After the
death of Hideyoshi, Naoshige found himself on the wrong side in the ensuing power
struggle. The defeat of the Western Army under the Toyotomi by Tokugawa Ieyasu left
Naoshige vulnerable and in real danger of losing his Fief. He sent his second son

Tadashige as a hostage to Edo and as a result came under the protection of the Tokugawa
and was confirmed in his Fiefdom.
However there still existed the agreement between the Nabeshima and the Ryuzoji that
power would revert to Takafusa on his 15th. Birthday. This did not happen and Takafusa
committed seppuku in 1607. The resultant bad feeling between the leading families of the
Ryuzoji and Nabeshima led to confrontation which in turn resulted in the best lands
passing from retainers of the Ryuzoji to the Nabeshima.
It is only possible to speculate what effect this may have had on Munetsugu. He was after
all a long established retainer of the Ryuzoji. Although receiving the title of Head of
Hizen swordsmiths a year after the death of Takafusa, the fact that Nabeshima Naoshige
relocated his top pupil to Saga suggests that he was trying to establish sword manufacture
under his own control away from the historical association with the Ryuzoji. It is also
tempting to believe this had some influence on Tadayoshis focus on The Umetada
Myoju style of forging some 8 or 9 years after his return from Kyoto. Whatever the
reality, there appears to have been a distancing in the relationship between Naoshige and
the Nagase swordsmiths. As a result much of Naoshiges efforts in marketing Hizen
workmanship centred on the Saga Forge and Tadayoshi.
The following years between 1615 and 1624 were difficult for both Smithies.
Munetsugus star was fading within Hizen. Tadayoshi had marital problems which
weighed heavily on him and resulted in differences in his work. However these
difficulties are considered to have been character building for Tadayoshi. It is also
interesting to note that there appears to have been a strong and ongoing positive
relationship between Nagase and Saga. There is strong evidence that Munetsugus son
Muneyasu worked with Tadayoshi, producing daimei Tadahiro works. Both smithies
were lively and producing good work.
Eguchi concludes that it was not so much that Munetsugu fell out of favour it was more
that Tadayoshi received special treatment.

Musashi Daijo Tadahiro and Tosa no Kami Tadayoshi.

It is well documented that Tadayoshi made a second trip to Kyoto to spend time with
Umetada Myoju and to seek his support in gaining an honorary title. His petition to the
Imperial court was successful and in 1624 he was awarded the title of Musashi Daijo and
granted the right to use the Fujiwara clan name. At the same time he took what at first
sight seems the unusual step of changing his art name to Tadahiro.
There has been some considerable debate and speculation as to why he would do this. For
many years scholars argued that Tadayoshi and Tadahiro were two different people.
However the current view is that they were one in the same person. It is difficult to
understand why someone who was becoming recognised and highly regarded should
change their name when they are granted a title rather than just adding it to and
enhancing the existing one.
It is known from contemporary documentation that the Nabeshima were delighted with
the award of the title. But it also seems that the Tadayoshi signature was associated with
later sword production as there were few if any famous Smiths called Tadayoshi from the
Koto period. Therefore the conclusion was that in 1624 the Tadayoshi name was not seen

as particularly valuable and He believed that changing to Tadahiro in combination with

his newly gained title and clan name would be of greater benefit. So in 1624 Shodai
Tadayoshi became Musashi Daijo Fujiwara Tadahiro.
It is recorded that for a short period Tadayoshis pupil Masanaga inherited the Tadayoshi
name. However within a year following the Daimyos instruction he changed his name to
Masahiro (later to become Kawachi Daijo Masahiro, shodai of the Masahiro branch
Hizen School). So once again the Tadayoshi name became available and at this point
Tosa no Kami Tadayoshi appears.
Examining the work of Tosa no Kami it has little in common with Tadayoshis School in
Saga. Generally his work is in Soshu den. The Habuchi is covered in Nie and contains
Kinsuji, yo and Sunagashi. This work style points towards Munetsugu rather than
Tadayoshi. Likewise some of the characters in his signature are more closely aligned to
Munetsugu than Tadayoshi. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that Tosa no Kami
Tadayoshi was Munetsugus pupil. Equally it seems logical that as the Tadayoshi name
was relinquished by Munetsugus best student, it should be taken up by his second student
and the Tosa no Kami title passed on at the same time.
Over the following years the standing of Tadayoshi within Hizen fell from ranking
second amongst Shodai Tadhiros pupils in 1627 to fourth in 1629. This may be due in
part to the number of talented smiths now employed in Saga within the Tadayoshi
School. It may also be indicative of the further decline of the Ryuzoji supporters within
Hizen.
Eguchi notes that the fortunes of Munetsugu declined further in the following years and
his school moved to Isahaya which was still governed by the Ryuzoji.
An interesting point is that by the time the third generation smith of the mainline
Tadayoshi School had reached maturity he opted to take the Tadayoshi name rather than
Tadahiro. This is believed to be because by this time the Tadayoshi name had become
more famous with the famous Gojimei Tadayoshi swords being highly prized and sought
after. In comparison the large number of student made blades carrying the Tadahiro
named had to some extent devalued it. So in a reversal of the Shodais original thinking
the Sandai felt Tadayoshi to be the more valuable name.

The Influence of Umetada Myoju.

As mentioned above it was well known that Umetada Myoju was well regarded and
working for the Toyotomi family. It is not unreasonable to assume that part of Naoshiges
reasoning in sending Tadayoshi to Kyoto was to demonstrate to Hideyoshi his
commitment to his Lords values. Umetada Myoju was developing and enhancing forging
technology based on the principals of Koto Yamashiro work. It is therefore also
reasonable to assume that Tadayoshis specialisation in producing Yamashiro style blades
is a result of the time spent in Kyoto. However it is recorded that Munetsugu was
amongst other styles also producing Rai and Enju school copies before Tadayoshi went to
Kyoto. It is therefore likely that in the twelve years Tadayoshi spent with Munetsugu
prior to his first Kyoto trip he had already received a good grounding in Yamashiro
forging techniques. Eguchi also points out that for some 9 years after his return from
Kyoto his work showed very little influence of Umetada Myoju. He continued to produce

Yamato and Soshu style swords. It was not until Tadayoshi left Munetsugu and set up a
forge in Saga that he began to focus on the Yamashiro Rai utsushi.
Perhaps on his return from Kyoto Tadayoshi felt constrained to continue to work in the
style of his original master, using what he had learned to enhance the quality of the
schools output. Perhaps the value of his trip to Kyoto was more political and in marketing
than technology. His association with Myoju enhanced his reputation and made it easier
for the Nabeshima to promote his work at a very senior level.
When he did start focussing on the subtle, unassuming style which ultimately epitomised
the Hizen School was it because the market he was trying to serve was the nobility that
his master wanted to impress? The restrained style combined with elegant sugata of
Yamashiro blades was greatly admired by in the ultra conservative hierarchy of the time.
Alternatively, perhaps his focus on a less flamboyant style was influenced by the effect of
his marital difficulties on his overall mood. In dealing with these difficulties he was able
to refine his technique to an unsurpassed level. Or maybe as with everyone elses life it
was a combination of all these factors that enabled Tadayoshi to grow in ability to
become one of the five leading exponents of Shinto sword making, and the Father of one
of the most successful schools in sword making history.

Conclusion.
When I began looking in to the background of the development of the Tadayoshi School
I thought I had a clear understanding of its history. I learned very quickly that I had made
the basic error of viewing a sequence of events in isolation, failing to take account on
what else was happening at the time and what effect that might have on the main theme.
Once I started looking beyond the Sword-Smith and school many new factors came in to
play. As I said at the beginning in any work of this nature what the reader is ultimately
left with is the authors opinion. In this case mine formed out of studying and trying to
interpret works by much more learned people than me, who have spent a lifetime
researching the subject. With regard to firm conclusions I believe I have established the
following to my own satisfaction at least:
1. There was an established sword making tradition within Hizen and its surrounding
provinces during the Koto period.
2. Following the loss of his parents Tadayoshi spent 12 years learning sword making
under a highly skilled sword-smith Munetsugu.
3. Although Tadayoshi did gain technically from his time in Kyoto with Umetada Myoju
the initial advantage was marketing/commercial/political.
4. The special treatment afforded to Tadayoshi was due in part to his prestigious talent
but also from a desire of the Nabeshima to develop a recognised Sword production centre
using retainers loyal to them rather than their predecessors.
5. The style of sword which is now universally recognised as Hizen was developed out of
the smith attempting to address the requirements of his Masters targeted clients. It was

also possibly influenced by the effect of his difficult domestic situation at a formative
stage of his schools development.
Finally I believe that whatever the circumstances which led to the formation of the Hizen
Tadayoshi School, it is undeniable that the shodai established a supremely successful
enterprise that remained at the pinnacle of the swordsmiths art throughout the Shinto and
Shin-Shinto period. Although influenced in degree by some of the points described above
this success was only possible because of the extraordinary talent of the Shodai
Tadayoshi and the determination of his followers to maintain a very high standard of
excellence. To quote from Ginsato Kataoka Random Thoughts on Hizen Swords (Art
and the Sword vol. 4) Every generation as a matter of course, and even including the
collateral families, was strongly influenced by the techniques of the first generation
Tadayoshi to which they devoted their every effort.
Shodai Tadayoshi fully deserves his reputation as one of the top five swordsmiths of the
Shinto Period. His legacy resides in the not only his but the work of subsequent
generations of the Hizen Tadayoshi school.