59
is hard to place munch reliance on these legends. With regard to latter times, the “Reference as to New Swords” says, “The good makers of olden days were Kamigé, Shinsoku, and Amaza,—and of the middle ages, Munéchika, Yasutsuma, Sanémori, Yukihira, and Yoshimitsu, with Kuniyoshi of Awataguchi (in Kiôto). There were many Bizen men of old,—in the period Shôkin (1217–1220 A.D.) there were numerous artizans,—and subsequently came Masamuné and Yoshihiro, who were universally renowed.” Of the above names, Yoshimitsu is placed by the author of the work as first in point of merit.
It appears rather strange that in this list there should not be found the name of Muramasa, who is certainly one of the most widely known smiths of Japan; it is most probable that his name was omitted by some oversight, as he is mentioned elsewhere in the book. The four makers of swords who seem to be best known in Japan are Munéchika, Masamuné, Yoshimitsu, and Muramasa. Of these Munéchika is by far the oldest; he was born in 938 A.D. and his swords were famous from 987 A.D. downwards. Masamune and Yoshimitsu acquired their renown towards the end of the 13th century, while Muramasa did not appear till nearly a century after them. These makers, as indeed all smiths of any note, had their own marks which they engraved on the hilt of the sword, most frequently accompanied by a date, but as, of late years, the practice of counterfeiting the marks of well known makers has been largely indulged in, these are not always to he depended upon. Muramasa was succeeded by his son and his grandson, who both bore the same name, and the latter of whom flourished in the early part of the 15th century. The blades turned out by this family acquired the unenviable reputation of being unlucky and of frequently bringing their owners into trouble. Mr. Mitford, in his “Tales of Old Japan,” narrates the legend as to the reason why the Yoshimitsu blades were deemed of good omen in the Tokugawa family, while those of Muramasa were thought unlucky.
