Chikuzen Samonji (筑前左文字)


Very few masters were called “great” and only one of them received an official nickname “Great Sa” (大左).

In the entire history of Japanese smithing, very few masters were called “great” and only one of them received an official nickname “Great Sa” (大左), which in itself is an indication of his position and significance in the development of smithing in Japan. When speaking of his skill level, many believe that he surpassed even his teacher, who, according to numerous sources, was Masamune. Fujishiro Yoshio judged the smithing skills of Samonji (左文字) at the highest level and assigned him a saijō-saku rating (最上作, the highest skill level).

Samonji had many nicknames, titles, and variations of names, which were used by various authors to describe his works. His real name is believed to have been Minamoto Saemon Saburō (源左衛門三郎), or abbreviated just as Saemon. The Kokon Meizukushi Taizen (Volume 4, page 12/2) contains information about the Buddhist name of Sa: Genkei (源慶). The author emphasizes that this was a secret name of the master. In the Kokon Kaji Bikō (Volume 4, page 16/1), there is a slightly different version of the master’s Buddhist name: Keigen (慶源). It is easy to see that both versions of the master’s Buddhist name were written with the same two kanji but in reverse order. Most likely, in one of these books, the order of the written kanji in the name was simply confused. At the present time, it is difficult to say which particular book has the name incorrectly written and which one is correct.

When signing his works, Samonji often used only the first kanji of his name—“Sa” (左). Later, it became his nickname and replaced his first name as a succinct smith’s name that was known to everyone who studied Japanese sword history even a little. 

According to the Kotō Meizukushi Taizen (Volume 2, page 12/2, and Volume 3, page 26/2), during the Kenmu era (建武, 1334–1336) Samonji was in his 58th year. He was born in the 3rd year of the Kenji era (建治, 1277) and died in his 80th year in the 5th year of the Bunna era (文和, 1356). According to this source, the official title of the master was Saemon (no) Jō (左衛門尉).

Based on information presented in the Kokon Kaji Bikō (Volume 4, page 16/1), Samonji was born in the settlement of Hakata Okihama (博多隠岐浜) in Chikuzen Province (筑前), also referred to as Chikushū (筑州), and he worked there during the early stage of his smithing career. This book also mentions a theory that “Sa” is an abridged form of the full name of the master, which was, according to this source, “Saemon (no) Jō Minamoto Yasuyoshi” (左衛門尉源安吉).

Samonji comes from the dynasty of smiths whose ancestor is supposed to be Ryōsai (良西). This dynasty did not include outstanding masters, but they were very good. However, we must admit that they sometimes produced works far above an average skill level. Samonji’s complete genealogical line, compiled on the basis of old sources, looks like this:

We can see that all of the smiths in this line (except for Takatsuna) are represented under their Buddhist names. They spent part of their lives and smith careers as monks. This can be illustrated by Sairen, who is known to have joined the Jōdoshū Chinzei Ha monastery at a fairly young age, and he continued to forge swords as a Buddhist monk.

Most sources unanimously agree that Samonji was a son and a disciple of Jitsu’a. Regarding this, for example, the Honchō Kaji Kō (Volume “Tiger,” p. 6/1) refers to an outdated version of the written name Jitsu’a—實阿. However, such a competent author as Fujishiro Yoshio refers to Nyūsai as Samonji’s father. Nyūsai (入西), born around 1250), according to extant records, was either the son or the younger brother of Ryōsai. Yet this opinion is most likely to be erroneous. Based on the dating of extant works of these masters, there is a time gap of about 40 years between them. One well-known work by Nyūsai is dated on the 3rd day of the 10th month of 1297 (Jūyō Bunkazai with a 71.5-cm nagasa), and Samonji’s earliest works are dated 1339 (Jūyō No. 12 and Jūyō No. 36). Consequently, given the data provided by most other sources, this theory about Nyūsai being Samonji’s father seems somewhat implausible. 

Figure 1. Chikuzen province genealogy; Kotō Meizukushi Taizen, Volume 3, p. 26/2.

In addition, one should pay attention to the close connection between Samonji School and Kongōbyōe School. A vivid illustration could be found in Kongōbyōe article.

<....> As time went on, Samonji changed his forging style and technique quite dramatically and drastically. This occurred after he left his native province and moved to the central regions of the country, with the obvious goal of improving his proficiency by learning revolutionary contemporary smithing technologies. Some old books say that during his travels, Samonji passed from the southernmost tip of Kyūshū through the provinces of Bitchū, Bizen, Yamashiro, and Yamato and then to the central regions of the country. At the end of this journey, he settled in Sagami for a long time. Obviously, the authors of the chronicles, describing this particular path of the master, aimed not just to designate the itinerary he followed to get to Sagami but to show that in each province, for some time he studied special techniques used by local smiths. Unfortunately, there is no more detailed information about how long Sa spent searching and traveling. Old sources did not retain any information about how many teachers he had during this time and which masters taught him. Yet one thing is clear: it is obvious that when Samonji came to Kamakura, he was already a sufficiently trained and skilled master who was familiar with secret forging techniques from different schools.

In Sagami Province, Masamune became his teacher. The first mention of Sa as one of Masamune’s best disciples appears in the Noami-Hon Mei-Zukushi (能阿弥本名尽). Nevertheless, some modern books are questioning whether Masamune actually taught Sa. Yet there are very weighty arguments asserting that Samonji was Masamune’s last disciple. Focusing on Sa’s works in the Sōshū-Den style, we note the master’s unusually high standards of forging, beginning in his very first stage of working with metal. The result is steel with unusually high purity, manifested in a slightly bluish color, clarity, and depth. In addition, it appears as if the steel is “wet.” Also, Samonji’s works demonstrate that he fully understood and knew the entire range of the Sagami School’s techniques. This clearly indicates that knowledge was transferred directly from teacher to disciple without intermediaries. Only in this way would it have been possible to avoid losing certain important elements and nuances, which the disciple would later have to restore through a trial-and-error method. 

<.....> The most recent of Sa’s well-known dated works is a tantō dated the 12th month of 1347, the oshigata of which can be seen in the Hon’ami Kōshin Oshigata (本阿弥光心押形), a collection gathered together by Hon’ami Kōshin (the 7th generation, 1496–1559). At present, only the oshigata of this sword has been preserved. Thus, if we take into account the extant oshigata, Samonji’s period of creativity is confirmed to be at least from 1335 to 1347. This period appears rather short, considering those of other smiths of that time. Of course, his practice was assumed to have started a little earlier and finished a little later than this range of dates, but most likely, both periods were not very long. Sometimes Samonji’s early period of creativity is specified as the Kareki era (嘉暦, 1326–1329). The core assumption of this point of view is that swords by Jitsu’a dated during the Kareki period could in fact have been made by Samonji. Yet this does not take into account the fact that based on their style, they might belong to Sairen in the late period of his creativity. Thus, some of Samonji’s creative works might actually have been produced by a group of smiths who directly followed Sadamune. With regard to Sa personally, we can also add that he worked at the same time as Gō Yoshihiro. Moreover, they probably had direct interaction with one another, because some of their works show strong mutual influences. 

We do not know for certain how long Samonji stayed in Kamakura and which great masters of the Sagami School he closely interacted with. Judging by his works, they were the founders of the traditions of the school and the grand masters. Most likely, he left Kamakura and returned to his native Chikuzen Province before the method of working with metal in the style of hitatsura began to develop at the beginning of the Nanbokuchō period. All of Samonji’s works are made in the conventional Sōshū-Den style and are not influenced at all by the trend of using hitatsura elements, which are even present in Sadamune’s works. Possibly, either Sa did not have very close contact with such masters as Hiromitsu, Akihiro, and Hasebe Kunishige, or his personal preferences remained in the field of conventional technology, and he was not influenced by this new emerging “fashion” of the time. 

Samonji, most likely, was in Kamakura for several years, and it seems that he worked there for a long, rather than a short, time. This is evidenced by one of the legends preserved about him and described by Markus Sesko (Legends and Stories around the Japanese Swords, 2011). According to the legend, Samonji’s skills in Kamakura reached great heights. His swords became so sharp and strong that his teacher, Masamune, who by that time held a high official post in bakufu (“administration”), began to consider Samonji a rival and ordered his expulsion from Kamakura. We must admit that if this really happened, it had to have been a heavy blow for Samonji. The fact is that for any smith with Kamakura honbamono (本場物) status, it meant that his swords had to be manufactured not only in the style of Sōshū-Den, but also in Kamakura (honba) Province. Swords produced in any other province would be considered “only” swords of Sōshū-Den. We can draw an analogy with French producers of cognac. This name can be used only for the product manufactured in the vicinity of the city of Cognac in the department of Charente. A product manufactured in any other province, even by a master from the city of Cognac, must be called “brandy” and has no right to be called “cognac.” That is why, the legend tells us, Samonji quietly returned to the outskirts of Kamakura to forge swords in a secret workshop and continued to work there for some time incognito. It was perilous for him, but apparently working in Kamakura was so important for Sa that he disregarded this risk so that his works could be considered true creations of the Sagami School.

<.....> There is another very beautiful legend about the origin of Samonji’s manner of signing his works with one only kanji—that of “Sa” (左). This legend tells us that during his training with Masamune, Samonji proved to be a very talented and skilled student. This helped him earn special respect from the teacher, who, during this time, even became attached to him. After graduation, Samonji decided to return to his native province. On his way home, Masamune accompanied him for some time, following unnoticed behind him in the distance. Unexpectedly, yielding to an inner impulse, Masamune quickly caught up with his disciple. He sharply tore the left sleeve of his kimono and handed it to Samonji—thus, the disciple would remember the years he spent in workshops of the Sagami School. Samonji was very impressed with this act and, after that, left only one kanji, “Sa,” in his signature, which meant “left,” as a memory of this emotional act by his teacher. (You will note that this legend, in which teacher and disciple were close until the end, slightly contradicts the previous one, in which Masamune expels Samonji from Kamakura.) 

Figure 2. Examples of Samonji’s signature. Kotō Meizukushi Taizen, Volume 9, p. 30/1 and 30/2; Honchō Kaji Kō, 1795, Volume “Dog”, p. 3/1 (“Chikushū-jū Minamoto Sa” signature).

In any case, it is quite clear that this nickname—Sa—under which he became widely known in the Japanese smithing world, was given to Samonji because of his peculiar manner of signing his works. In most cases, he signed them simply with one kanji— 左—which he put on the sashi-omote side (tantō). The master engraved the signature in a very unusual, artistic manner. In addition, the way he indicated the province name—Chikushū, which he wrote as Chikushū-jū (筑州住) on the sashi-ura (tantō) side—was also unusual. Moreover, there are extant tantō signed simply “Sa,” without indicating the province, as well as others signed with the province indicated. We also notice one more feature: if Samonji signed and simultaneously dated his works, he did it in a manner that was close to the standards of Kamakura. That is, the master put his signature (Sa) on the omote side of the tantō and the date on the ura side, in nen or nen-gappi style. If he put the province name on the ura side, the sword was not dated. These characteristics can be attributed not only to his tantō, but also to his long swords. The only extant signed daitō by Samonji is the “Kōsetsu Samonji” tachi (紅雪左文字, Kokuhō, 78.1 cm nagasa). On the haki-omote side of this sword, there is the signature “Chikushū-jū Sa” (筑州住左), below which, immediately after the “Sa” kanji, the tang was cut off. We should note that one more long sword (tachi) has been preserved whose creator was Samonji (Jūyō No. 50, 75.8 cm nagasa), but it was shortened immediately after two “Chiku Shū” kanji (筑州). Because of this, it is now impossible to say exactly how the sword was originally signed.

With regard to Samonji’s signature on long swords, according to the old oshigata, it can be determined that he most often duplicated his manner of signing tantō. The only exceptions are the extant “Kōsetsu Samonji” and a sword whose oshigata was preserved in Ōseki Shō on page 79. This oshigata of the long sword (ubu-nakago), signed as “Chikushū-jū Sa” (筑州住左) and dated the 12th month of the 3rd year of Kōei (1344), is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 3. Nakago oshigata for Samonji’s daitō. Ōseki Shō (reprint, 1978), p. 79.

Samonji’s works exhibit the following characteristic features:

Sugata: The tachi have a characteristic look for that time, with a broad mihaba and a slightly elongated kissaki. Most tantō are short, with a very slight curve. The most common type is mitsu-mune, although we can find iori-mune and maru-mune. The shinogi is wide.

Jitetsu: The general characteristic is the use of a very dense ko-itame hada, but in some cases, it is possible to notice the presence of hadatachi (肌立ち), supplemented by nagare-hada (流れ肌). All the works have chikei; the ji-nie is usually extensive. The color of the steel is either a little bluish or slightly goes into the black spectrum. In all works, the jitetsu features purity and clarity (saeru—冴える); some works have yubashiri and muneyaki. Works that were not made in the Sōshū-Den style are marked by the lack of saeru and the dark color of the jitetsu.

Hamon: The most common is gunome and midare with notare elements. Sometimes there are nioiguchi with ashi and ko-nie, occasionally based on nie; there are sunagashi and hakikake. The hamon of every work is emphatically bright, and there are especially beautiful works with hoso-suguba. The works produced before the Sōshū-Den period are made in the hoso-suguba style, but in this case, their nioiguchi copies Jitsu’a’s style, and the hamon line is not as bright. The steel color in the ha area is bluish.

Bōshi: Mainly, midare-komi, with a pronounced kaeri.

Horimono: On tachi, sometimes there are bō-hi or futasuji-hi; for tantō, horimono is atypical; gomobashi and koshi-bi can rarely be seen.

Nakago: Mainly, a small sori; in the case of tantō, sometimes one can see mu-sori. The nakago mune is the maru-mune type. The most common is kurijiri, with ō-sujikai yasurime.

Mei: There are variants of the signature with the “Sa” kanji alone or a combination of the “Sa” kanji on the omote side and “Chikushū-jū” on the ura side—or “Chikushū-jū Sa” on one side. The “Sa” kanji is made in the calligraphic style, which is similar to the artistic style of Awataguchi Yoshimitsu. According to the Kokon Meizukushi Taizen, Awataguchi Yoshimitsu first developed the calligraphic signature style.

Figure 4. Samonji's elements of activity layout. Kokon Meizukushi Taizen, vol. 5, p. 23/1.


(excerpt from Chapter 12, pp. 296-309, of the Japanese Swords: Sōshū-den Masterpieces )

Original content Copyright © 2019 Dmitry Pechalov