Introduction
To complement my recent book, which draws upon Jikishinkage mokuroku from 1768 and 1805, I discuss below details from a third example document dated 1800:
寛政十二庚申春 於江戸貝後 長沼庄左衛門芝生宅ニテ傳授説之置 小川彌七 寿海
Kansei 12, kōshin year [1800], spring. At Edo, after [studies at] Kaigo[?], at the residence of Naganuma Shōzaemon Shibao(?), the transmission was explained and recorded. — Ogawa Yashichi [?]kai.
The characters 貝後 could mean "after receiving the seal". Jukai 寿海 may be Ogawa's artistic name appelation.
Hōjō
In the section on Hōjō (法定) practice, we find the introduction:
法定トハ ハリノ定リタルコトヲ平生ナスユヘニ尚流ノ太刀ノ形ニハ法定トミナリ。形ハ人ニ生レテ色ニ變ルトモ汝定ニトナルヲ勤テ已カ形敗龍スルニ至リテハ其モ自由ニトリマハシナルナリ。職トシ勤苦ニハナスへシト云々。必モ人形ヲツカウヤウナル心ニテハ携行ナルヘカラス。
Hōjō means, because what we routinely practice is that which has been established with proper extension (ハリ), in this school the kata of the tachi are all called Hōjō. Although forms (kata), once born in the person, change in their outward color [i.e., expression], by training diligently in that which becomes fixed (定ニトナル) — and reaching the point where one's own form is broken and transformed (敗龍 / hairyū) — one becomes able to handle (the sword) freely. One should make it one's vocation, pursuing it with diligent toil. It is most important: one must never proceed with the mind of merely being a ningyō (人形 , "doll/puppet") [doing kenjutsu].
Ningyō kenjutsu is an established concept, relating to just going through the motions of kata. Hairyū (敗龍 , "broken dragon") is an interesting term, possibly specific to this school, meaning the dissolution of the form. It is evocative of the shu-ha-ri (守破離) process. This densho initially writes Ittō Ryōdan (一刀両段) using the kanji 段 (level or step) instead of 断 (to cut or sever).
Catalog of Development
Titled 目錄之沿覺, a preamble states:四季ハ天地ノ形ヲ表スルナリ。八相ハ八ツノ形・物ノ八分円・・・
The four seasons represent the forms of heaven and earth. The Eight Aspects (Hassō) are the eight forms / the eight-tenths of a circle [in things]...
This yatsu no susumi () doctrine will be referred back to later in the densho. Hassō Happa is the core of the curriculum, being the first kata but also the point of analysis of the final gokui (jūaku), which examines what can go wrong in a practitioner's development.
The four kata names in this densho are standard otherwise for Hōjō: 八相 (Hassō), 一刀両段 (Ittō Ryōdan), 右轉左轉 (Uten Saten), 長短一味 (Chōtan Ichimi). Three overlap with Yagyū Shinkage-ryū kata-names from the set called Sangaku-en no tachi. [cf. 1601/1707 Yagyū Kenpō Kyojō at Nara Women's University.]
Ittō Ryōdan is written in the standard fashion in the list of kata with commentary. Then we find the standard Tō-no-kata (韜之形) — interestingly, each entry is listed with the suffix tō (韜; tactic). Use of tō is significant as the introduction to the mokuroku listsw hte Seven Military Classics of China, one of which is well-known to be Rikutō (六韜; Liu Tao, the Six Secret Teachings).
Koto
The section containing a list of principles called koto (事;matters) following kata, and preceding the gokui, have some differences from the other mokuroku I have examined. Unique principles found here include:
- Uchi-ashi no koto (打足之事; striking footwor),
- Tsuki-gakure no koto (月隠之事; moon hiding [concealment]),
- Issaisho no koto (切處之事; all places [of cutting])
Others are found common across mokuroku including shikake (仕懸; launching), ichimonji (一文字; one character), tome-sandan (留三段; three step retention), ki-tō (氣當; striking with ki), tai-tō (體當; striking the body), tachi-tō (太刀當; striking the sword), and finally ginmi no koto (吟味之事 ; matter of discernment). The technical curriculum in this mokuroku is not explicitly annoted by season but isbroken into four parts: foundational methods of Hōjō, retention techniques (留), circle/connection techniques (連), and stance variations (構之變) of in, yo, and ai kamae/gamae.
Heihō Denki
Following technical content, with notes for each kata, the densho continues to provides a lineage that clearly tracks the evolution of the name of the approach, with a Kashima-centric view. It begins with Kashima Shinryū and then becomes Shinkage (神陰) to Shinkage (神影) to Shin-shinkage (真新陰) and then Shin-Jikishi (新直指) to Jikishin (直心) to Jikishin-Shōtō (直心正統) to the Jikishinkage (直心影) that continues to today:
兵法傳記 異國ニハ兵子孫子七書等ヲ兵法ト云々。日本ニハ兵法書ヨリ初テ帶ハ太平記時代ヨリ初ニヨシ。鏡ハ太平記時代ヨリ初ニヨシ。
Record of the Transmission of Heihō (Martial Strategy). In foreign lands [China], works like the Bingzi, Sunzi, and the Seven Military Classics are called heihō. In Japan, heihō writings begin [in earnest] from the era of the Taiheiki; the Kagami [chronicle tradition] likewise begins from the Taiheiki period.
This preamble distinguishes the textual tradition of Chinese strategic classics from a specifically Japanese heihō lineage rooted in the chronicle tradition. The point is to ground what follows — the kami-origin narrative — as a Japanese martial transmission, not a Chinese-derived one. It is interesting that this was necessary at that time period, which may have to do with politics of the mid Edo period — this is around the time the Kashima lineage story is added into Jikishinkage practice:
天照太神欲降天孫於豊葦原中國之時、遣經津主神。起於神代而其初、葦原中國之時遣經津主神。香取主神是也。又齊主神。天孫降臨者蓋准征伐之。健雷神是也。鹿嶋神令平。香取神是也。諸不順者矣而今以神職擬之、人職天孫降臨者蓋准征伐之。
When Amaterasu Ōmikami desired to have the Heavenly Grandson descend to the Toyo-Ashihara-no-Nakatsukuni [the Land of Abundant Reed-Plains], she dispatched Futsunushi-no-Kami — this is the Master-Kami of Katori. He is also called Saishu-no-Kami (Iwainushi). The descent of the Heavenly Grandson is the precedent for [martial] subjugation. This is Takemikazuchi-no-Kami; the Kashima Kami who pacified [the land]; this is the Kami of Katori. Many were the unsubmissive ones — and now, by the office of the kami we model upon this; the descent of the Heavenly Grandson in the human office is also a precedent for subjugation.
The text conflates several mythic strands (Futsunushi as Katori deity; Takemikazuchi as Kashima deity; both as the pacifiers commissioned by Amaterasu). The substance is the standard kami-genealogy claim of Kashima and Katori-related lineages familiar to many practitioners today:
大將軍鹿嶋香取之兩神、准尊崇之武神也。代々以武事鎮坐於常陸國鹿嶋萬萬世。副將軍八百萬神悉神威而平伏之惡神也。其先親蒙、世者皆無不宗於是神矣。況乎吾家之兵法者、其先親蒙授。是以曰鹿嶋神流。其後嗣々相承、以異記大略如左。
The Great Generals — the two kami of Kashima and Katori — are venerated as martial deities. Generation upon generation, by means of martial affairs, they have been enshrined at Kashima in Hitachi Province for myriad myriad ages. The Lieutenant-Generals: the eight million deities, all of divine majesty, are the suppressors of evil kami. Their predecessors first received [the favor of these kami]; in the world there is none who does not revere these kami. How much more so, then: as for our school's heihō, its predecessors first received its transmission [from these kami]. For this reason it is called the Kashima Shinryū (鹿嶋神流, Kashima Divine School). Thereafter, generation by generation, the succession was made, and the general outline — gathered variously from different records — is as follows.
The densho then continues to provide an entry for each teacher in the lineage it represents, begining with Matsumoto Bizen no Kami, referred to as Sugimoto:
Sugimoto
第一 鹿嶋神流之元祖、杉本備〔前/中〕守紀政元。住于常陸國日春、奉祈鹿嶋之廣前而蒙神慮、一夜夢授賜一卷之書。
First. The Originating Ancestor of the Kashima Shinryū: Sugimoto Bi[zen]-no-kami Ki-no-Masamoto. [He] resided at Hinatsu (?) in Hitachi Province, and praying before the broad shrine-precinct of Kashima, was visited by the kami's consideration: in one night's dream he was bestowed a single scroll of writing."
There is an annotation in the densho that references Minamoto Kurō Yoshitsune as a related transmission source.
This is an effort to back-date the school's lineage to the Heian era, as many koryū have done — and places some level of suspicion of the placement of Matsumoto Bizen-no-kami as the founder of the art before Kamiizumi, especially as the document ignores the Aisu Kage-ryū completely. The character after 備 is unclear in the brush; Bizen-no-kami (備前守) is the more common attribution in published Jikishinkage-ryū histories, though Bicchū-no-kami (備中守) also appears.
Note: On Locations
The place name read here as 日春 (Hinatsu/Hisharu) is uncertain — possibly 春日 reversed by the copyist.
There are several 春日 (Kasuga) places in Japan, but two are relevant here — one as the most famous national reference, and one as the locally plausible reading for the manuscript's place-name. Kasuga Taisha in Nara is the most famous. The historically and culturally dominant 春日 is in Nara Prefecture (former Yamato Province), in the eastern edge of the city of Nara. It refers to the area around Kasuga Taisha (春日大社), one of the most important shrines in Japan, founded in 768 CE by the Fujiwara clan. Kasuga Taisha enshrines Takemikazuchi (建御雷神 / 武甕槌神) — the same martial deity invoked in the Heihō Denki preamble. The 768 founding involved transferring Takemikazuchi from Kashima Shrine in Hitachi Province to Nara. The myth holds that the deity rode from Kashima to Kasuga on a white deer, which is why the deer of Nara Park are sacred to this day.
So, Kashima (Hitachi) and Kasuga (Nara) are the two ends of a single transferred deity. The Kashima Shrine is the origin point; the Kasuga Taisha is the Yamato terminus. For a school that anchors its origin in Kashima, Kasuga is the sister-shrine carrying the same Takemikazuchi-as-martial-deity tradition into the heartland of imperial-Fujiwara culture.
If the characters are reversed and should be 常陸國春日 — Hitachi Province, at Kasuga — then this would be referring to a local Kasuga place-name within Hitachi Province, almost certainly a satellite location near Kashima Shrine itself. Modern 鹿嶋市 (Kashima City) in Ibaraki Prefecture has small place-names that include 春日 references, and many shrines designated 春日神社 (Kasuga Jinja) exist throughout the old Hitachi Province as branch shrines of the Nara Kasuga Taisha — established in places associated with the Takemikazuchi cult or the Fujiwara/Nakatomi clan network that radiated from Kashima.
For Sugimoto's residence to be at a Hitachi-Kasuga location near Kashima Shrine would support the densho's narrative: it would put the school's founder living next to the shrine where his dream-transmission occurred, in a sub-locality named for the deity's Yamato-terminus partner-shrine. The two place-names — Kashima and Kasuga — would be bookending the single Takemikazuchi religious system, with Sugimoto positioned at the Hitachi-Kasuga end as a local adherent.
Kamiizumi
第二 上泉伊勢守藤原秀綱者、杉本門下之正統而兵法之達人也。以鹿流應神字、改神陰而稱之曰神陰流。
Second. Kamiizumi Ise-no-kami Fujiwara Hidetsuna — orthodox successor under Sugimoto's gate, and a master of heihō. Adapting the Kashima school's [characters], he modified the character kami/shin (神) [to express its hidden, "yin" aspect] and named [his school] Shin'in-ryū (神陰流, 'Divine-Yin/Shadow School')."
This lineage description de-emphasizes the influence of Aisu Kage-ryu, which we see continued in later narratives. The standard published form of Kamiizumi's name is Nobutsuna (信綱) in later sources, but he used Hidetsuna (秀綱) earlier in his career, and this manuscript's reading is consistent with the older usage.
Kamiizumi (上泉) is a family / village name, taken from Kamiizumi village in Kōzuke Province (上野国, modern Gunma). The Nagano clan (長野氏) were lords of Minowa Castle in Kōzuke, and the Kamiizumi served under them. Kamiizumi is so famous due to the the proliferation of schools coming from his teachings, it is not surprising there is not a great deal of marginal notes about this master swordsman, despite his importance historically to the art.
Okuyama Kyūbasai
第三 奥山孫次郎平公重、後號休賀齋。考一流之家系、其先世奥平家之末裔也。継上泉伊勢守兵法之正統、而以住于三州奥山年尚矣。以夜詣至於奥山産神之社、祈願為兵法之津梁。或夜夢於神、記改神陰號神影。爾後舞剣如影形、警策且人以震感、風如影随。
Third. Okuyama Magojirō Taira Kimishige, later named Kyūbasai. Examining the lineage of this school: his forebears were descendants of the Okudaira house. He inherited the orthodox transmission of Kamiizumi Ise-no-kami's heihō, and resided at Okuyama in Sanshū [Mikawa Province] for many years. By night he went to the shrine of Okuyama's birth-kami and prayed that heihō should become a bridge of crossing [salvation]. In a certain night's dream the kami [revealed] a record [in which] Shin'in (神陰) was changed to Shinkage (神影, with 'kage' as 'reflection/shadow'). After this, his sword-dancing was like shadow-form: his sharp warnings made people tremble, and like the wind, [his strokes] shadow-followed.
Okuyama changes the name of the tradition from 神陰 to 神影.
There is an annotation on Okuyama's family [ 奥山赤山氏奥平家末裔ノヨシ 今三州 ] describing him as being of the Akayama (赤山) clan, from the Okudaira (奥平) in Mikawa (三州).
Okudaira Nobumasa (奥平信昌, 1555–1615) was Tokugawa Ieyasu's son-in-law — Ieyasu's daughter Kamehime married Nobumasa. The Okudaira famously defended Nagashino Castle against Takeda Katsuyori in 1575, the battle that effectively established Ieyasu's military credibility. After that, the Okudaira were retained as major Tokugawa allies and granted significant fiefs (Kanō, then Utsunomiya, eventually Nakatsu). Mikawa was where the Matsudaira/Tokugawa originated. Saying "Okuyama lived at Okuyama in Sanshū for many years" — as the main text does — and adding the marginal note that he came from an Okudaira cadet line, places him squarely inside the Tokugawa home-province network from before Sekigahara.
枝其蒙台命、以奉授兵法之奧。東照神君、至秀忠公、及御連枝、共蒙台命、以奉授兵法之奥。一篇無對其又者矣。
His branch [of the school] received the imperial command (taimei) and was charged with conveying the deepest teachings of heihō. The Tōshō Divine Lord [Tokugawa Ieyasu], up to Lord Hidetada, and their related branches, were all granted this command, receiving the deepest teachings of heihō in turn. This was without parallel, none other matched it.
This is interesting in the regard that it claims Okuyama taught the first two Tokugawa shōgun: Tokugawa Ieyasu and his son Tokugawa Hidetada (徳川秀忠, 1579–1632 ) — a rather strong claim, but given the relationship of Okudaira to the Tokugawa, it becomes more plausible that Okuyama may have been a swordsmanship or strategy instructor to the Tokugawa. Whether this is factual, or an embellishment from 1800, remains unclear. Further research would require consulting the Kansei Chōshū Shokafu (寛政重修諸家譜) — the comprehensive 1799–1812 Tokugawa genealogy.
Ogasawara Genshinsai
第四 小笠原金左衛門尉源長治、後號源信齋。兵法熟練而入唐、更得妙術、還奥山一派之正統也。有故、改神影之名曰真新陰。百練精金、色轉鮮。
Fourth. Ogasawara Kinzaemon-no-jō Minamoto Nagaharu, later named Genshinsai. Having become accomplished in heihō, he crossed to China (Tō) and further obtained mystic techniques; returning, he was [confirmed as] the orthodox successor of the Okuyama lineage. For [these] reasons he changed the name from Shin'ei [神影] to Shin-Shin'in (真新陰, 'True New Yin'). Like refined gold tested a hundred times, its color turned the more brilliant.
Here, despite the context setting of purely Shintō sources, Ogasawara is mentioned as receiving subtle teachings in China. There is a marginal note that provides some detail:
小笠原ノ御同家ハ本國信州ノ小笠原ニテ、二代ヲ初テ朝鮮ニテ、其後申子マテ大唐ヘ入ル。唐人ヲ歸サスト・・・[?]・・・歸ラス。朝鮮ハ歸ノ無シ、又其長短ヲ歸ノナシ 。早キノ二國ハ此後ノ正之、小笠原・・・
The same house of Ogasawara [Genshinsai's lineage]: their home country is the Ogasawara of Shinshū [Shinano Province]. Beginning in the second generation, [he went] to Korea, and thereafter, until the shinshi/kanoe-saru year (?), entered the Great Tang [China]. The Tang [Chinese officials] would not let [him] return... [for some time] he did not return. From Korea there was no return [path] either, neither by the long or short route was there return. The two countries [Korea and China], earlier on, were thereafter [verified/orthodox], [and] Ogasawara..."
This note works to establish that Ogasawara ame from one of the most prestigious samurai houses: Ogasawara of Shinano Province (信州 / 信濃国) — based at Matsumoto Castle are the same Ogasawara who developed Ogasawara-ryū reishikei (ettiquete) that formed the basis for samurai conduct.
The note attests that Ogasawara did go to China, and there obtained e myō-jutsu (得妙術; dé miào shù, "marvelous technique" ) through some type of training. Additionally, it maintains he went to China via a route that passed through Korea and could not return to Japan for some time.
Note: On Wu Shu's Dāndāo Túshuō (1662)
Wú Shū (吳殳, 1611–1695) was a Ming–Qing transition military scholar and martial artist. His major work, 《手臂錄》(Shǒubì Lù), contains a third volume called 《單刀圖說》(Dāndāo Túshuō, "Illustrated Discussion of the Single Sabre"), with a preface dated renyin year 1662 (Kangxi 1). The opening of that preface:
唐有陌刀，戰陣稱猛，其法不傳。今倭國單刀，中華間有得其法者，而終不及倭人之精。
In the Tang [era] there was the mojidao [a Tang-period broad sabre], renowned for ferocity on the battlefield, but its methods are no longer transmitted. Today, the Wō-country (Japanese) single sabre — within China there are those who have obtained its methods, but ultimately none reach the refinement of the Wō-people.
Note the construction is 「得 + [skill/method/technique]」 — "to obtain [the methods]." Wu Shu's 得其法 ("obtained its methods") and the Jikishinkage-ryū densho's 得妙術 ("obtained the marvelous techniques") are the same Sino-Japanese idiom, applied to cross-strait martial transmission. What makes this important is the direction of the documented flow in Wu Shu's preface. Wu Shu is describing transmission from Japan to China, not China to Japan. He continues:
斫削粘桿，余本得之漁陽老人之劍術，單刀未有言者，移之為刀實自余始。安得良倭一親炙之。
Hewing, shaving, and adhering to the spear-shaft — I originally obtained these from the swordsmanship of the Old Man of Yuyang; no one had spoken of them in single-sabre [literature]; I was the first to transpose them to the sabre. If only I could meet a true Wō [Japanese] master and study under him directly.
The documented seventeenth-century reality is:
- Japanese sword arts entered Chinese discourse through the wakō coastal raids of the sixteenth century.
- Cheng Zongyou (程沖斗) wrote 《單刀法選》(Dāndāo Fǎxuǎn, 1621) explicitly crediting Japanese origins: "its techniques excelled in the wakō" (其技擅自倭奴).
- Wu Shu in 1662 built on Cheng's work and on the Yuyang Laoren swordsmanship to compose his eighteen sabre postures.
- Throughout the early Qing, 倭刀法 (Japanese sabre methods) is a recognized technical category in Chinese saber literature, with a stock vocabulary around 「得其法」 — "obtaining the methods."
The Jikishinkage-ryū densho's claim — 入唐更得妙術還 ("entering Tang [China] and further obtaining marvelous techniques, then returning") — is then doing something quite specific. It uses the same Sino-Japanese vocabulary that appears in Chinese saber literature, but inverts the direction of prestige:
- Wu Shu (1662, China): Japanese methods are superior; Chinese practitioners can only partially "obtain" them.
- Jikishinkage-ryū densho (1800, Japan): A Japanese master crosses to China and "obtains" methods from the Chinese.
The 'cribbing' hypothesis is most likely, as by 1800, Edo-period Japanese intellectuals had access to Wu Shu's writings through the imports cataloged in Tosen Mochiwatari-sho (唐船持渡書) — Chinese books arriving via Nagasaki — and the Bubishi tradition derived from Mao Yuanyi's 《武備志》 was actively circulating in martial circles.
Note: On Timelines
The timeline of the travel strongly suggests the Bunroku–Keichō Korean invasions (1592–1598) as the historical context: an Ogasawara retainer serving in Toyotomi's Korean campaigns would have had plausible (if unusual) opportunity to cross from Korea into Ming China. It is believed by some lines of Jikishinkage-ryū that Ogasawara changed sides one too many times during the late Sengoku period, and angered Tokugawa — thus waiting some time before his return. This document seems to maintain he was instead not allowed to leave China.
The nittō (入唐; travel to China to receive knowledge) description — that Genshinsai personally trained in China — is the most contested element of the Jikishinkage-ryū origin story in modern scholarship. The marginal note is interesting precisely because it tries to make the literal-journey version more plausible by supplying details (route, duration, reason for delayed return). Whether the literal journey occurred or not, the marginal note represents the school's effort to make the claim historically concrete by 1800.
Kamiya Denshinsai
第五 神谷文左衛門平直光、後號傳心齋、最英靈也。改新陰曰新直指、而竟做流稱、則[直]心也。
Fifth. Kamiya Bunzaemon Taira Naomitsu, later named Denshinsai — the most outstanding spirit. He changed Shin'in to Shin-Jikishi (新直指, 'New Direct-Pointing'), and ultimately, as the school's appellation, this became [Jiki]shin (直心, 'Direct Mind/Heart').
The text here is somewhat vague at the end of the sentence. The "Direct-Pointing" terminology is borrowed from the Zen concept jikishi-ninshin ("直指人心). The marginal note is hard to read but may be 明徳 ("bright virtue"), a foundational term from the Daxue (大学) — "The way of great learning lies in illuminating bright virtue" (大學之道，在明明德). Kamiya's renaming of the school to 直指 ("direct pointing") imports a Zen vocabulary into the lineage; a marginal note pointing toward 明徳 would be glossing this with the parallel Confucian vocabulary, although this is speculative.
Takahashi Jikishinsai
第六 高橋彈正左衛門尉源重治、後號直心齋。寛永而至元祿、誘引門人、務兵法。數流派多端而混支流、故以直心正統爲當家之流。
Sixth. Takahashi Danjō-saemon-no-jō Minamoto Shigeharu, later named Jikishinsai. From the Kan'ei [1624–45] through the Genroku [1688–1704] eras, he attracted disciples and devoted himself to heihō. Because many [rival] schools and branches had become tangled and confused as off-streams, he established Jikishin Shōtō (直心正統, 'Jikishin Orthodox') as the name of the school.
Yamada Heizaemon (Ippūsai)
第七 山田平左衛門尉藤原光德。隱遯而曰一風齋。重治于書直心正統、傳之印狀、以付屬于光徳。新傳於直心正統流無極之微意、思而顧後、以改流號曰直心影流而已。
Seventh. Yamada Heizaemon-no-jō Fujiwara Mitsutoku. In retirement [or seclusion] he called himself Ippūsai. He attended to the writings of Jikishin Shōtō [received from] Shigeharu, the transmission-seal was conferred upon Mitsutoku [himself]. Newly transmitting in the Jikishin Shōtō-ryū the subtle meaning of "no-extremes" (mukyoku), and reflecting on what would come after, he changed the school's designation, calling it Jikishinkage-ryū (直心影流) — and so it has remained.
This is the founding moment of the school under its now-current name. The manuscript marginal annotation here mentions "Takahashi's disciple [as] the deep root of Naganuma's ancestral lineage" — anchoring the Naganuma line under Ippūsai. Ippūsai trained in Edo Yagyū Shinkage-ryū and under Takahashi (Jikishinsai), returning to this practice some time after becoming injured. He later developed what has become the bogu favored in kendō practice.
A substantial small-script annotation runs alongside the seventh-generation Yamada Mitsutoku entry, partially extending toward the Naganuma entries, but it is difficult to read — it seems to establish Yamada's relationship as the teacher of the Naganuma family.
Naganuma Kunisato
第八 長沼四郎左衛門尉藤原國鄕。光德之三子也。天性敏俊、劔術弱冠悟其薀奧。術過二兄父之業、傳其秘。只以真實之業、獨能育其才矣。
Eighth. Naganuma Shirōzaemon-no-jō Fujiwara Kunisato. The third son of Mitsutoku. By nature keen and swift; in swordsmanship, in his youth (jakkan, age twenty) he awakened to its profound depths. His skill surpassed that of his two elder brothers and his father's accomplishments, and he received its secrets. Only by true and sincere practice did he uniquely nurture his talent.
Naganuma Kunisato is the author of the 1768 mokuroku I examine in my book, The Truth of the Calm Spirit.
Naganuma Tokugō
第九 長沼四郎左衛門尉藤原德郷。國郷子。能継箕裘之業、孳々不怠。年三十有六而卒。人皆悼楷。
Ninth. Naganuma Shirōzaemon-no-jō Fujiwara Tokugō. Son of Kunisato. Able to inherit the family vocation (kikyū, lit. 'winnow and fur coat' — the trade of the ancestors), diligent and never wearying. At the age of thirty-six he died. All people mourned him.
德郷 could also be read Norisato or Tokugō; the Jikishinkage-ryū Sho-Ke-Den (諸家伝) typically gives this generation as Tokushige (徳重) instead.
Note: On Emphasis
The disparity between Okuyama (substantial marginal note), Ogasawara (substantial marginal note), Kamiya (brief or barely-present annotation), and Takahashi/Yamada (no marginal notes in the lineage section) is itself of note.
The marginal annotations cluster around generations where the historiographic claims are doing heavy lifting — claims that need additional support to be credible (Okuyama's connection to Ieyasu via Okudaira; Ogasawara's family background and nittō [ visit to China ] claim). The transmission from Kamiya through Takahashi to Yamada is, by contrast, less controversial and better-attested in the early-modern record. The Naganuma copyist in 1800 didn't need to defend those generations the way he needed to defend the earlier ones.
[ This is the same pattern Karukome flagged in his 2020 monograph: the school's historiographic effort concentrates on legitimizing the Sengoku-to-early-Tokugawa portion of its lineage, where transmission is contested or undocumented, while the mid-Tokugawa portion needs no such effort. ]
Gokui
There is overlap but some significant differences between the gokui listed in this document and those of the 1768 and 1805 examples I examine in my book. Topics like Ikki-tō, Kentaiyū, Saikōsui, Furyū are common to all three documents. In this 1800 densho, shinmyōken is written as Kiri-myōken (切妙劔) instead. In the 1805 Jikishinkage-ryū mokuroku, shinmyōken is written with the first character for heart instead of spirit, so we already see some variation.
Two topics included here we do not see before are the first and last gokui. Before shinmyōken, we have Sho-hen (處變 or 處豹; "responding to change") and Kihatsu (起發; "origination/initiation").
Shohen: Responding To Change
處豹（變） 切妙釼ノ名也。不知ノ釼トハ
Sho-hen (or Sho-hyō) — another name for Kirimyōken. As for the 'sword of unknowing' (fuchi no ken).
Sho-hen is not another gokui, but another name for shinmyōken. 不知ノ釼 ("the sword of unknowing") echoes Yagyū Munenori's Heihō Kadensho discussion of fushiki (不識) — sword wielded without the discriminating mind. At this point in Jikishinkage-ryū history, Ippūsai's reorganization of the art has already occured and been solified, incorporating concepts fro the Edo line of Yagyū Shinkage-ryū and its influence from masters such as Munenori.
Kihatsu: Arising and Launching
一起發 起ク・ヘニ向ク人ノ動キモ何モ・・・[?]・・・ヨケレハ早ク及ハサル・・・
Kihatsu — arising-and-launching. Even the movement of one who arises and turns toward [you], whatever it may be… [if] you yield/avoid, you will be too late and unable to reach [the moment].
The compound 起發 is built from 起 ("to arise") + 發/発 ("to launch, to release, to issue forth"). It may refer to a gokui of the moment when action first begins from stillness. This is the same conceptual territory as sen (先) in the sen / sen-no-sen / go-no-sen triad — but specifically focused on the originating moment of action rather than its sequencing.
The phrase ヨケレバ早ク及ハサル — "if you yield/avoid, you will be too late" — is a direct warning against a reactive mode to combat.
Kihatsu is then a gokui concerning seizing the moment of arising itself, before the opponent's action has fully manifested into a form that can be responded to.
Doctrinally, this places Kihatsu close to Ikki-tō (一氣當, the "One-Ki Strike") but distinguishes it: Ikki-tō is the strike delivered with unified ki; Kihatsu is the perceptual-temporal gokui of catching the launching moment. The two are companion teachings — one concerns the origin of action, the other the delivery of action.
The apex of the Gokui is a nested triad: Shohen/Shohyō (the alternate name) with Kirimyōken (the named teaching) as informed by the Roku Kuden (六口傳; the six oral-only sub-teachings). This is a stronger and more articulated apex than what appears in other published mokuroku, and explicitly names that there are six kuden.
Jūaku
This densho also provides a list of the Jūaku ( ten faults to avoid ). Rather than listing them here [ they can be found in Saito Akinobu's work and other sources such as the book of Ishigaki ] I will provide some of the commentary the densho provides:
此十惡ハ八ツノ進ニ生レ出ヅル者ナリ。スレバ・・・此名ヨリ起ル誤、トコマデモ續ク。
These ten evils are that which is born out of the Eight Advancements (八ツノ進). [When] this occurs, [it gives rise to the named faults] — the errors that arise from these named [faults], once started, continue without end.
勝ヘハ勝シ・・・後ノ稽古ヲ待チ・・・之心モヌク後ノ稽ヲ。此句一車口ニノミ説、トコマデモ稽ク。書傳ノ事モ伝々、不傳ノ事ニハ無端一致シテ、三世前ニ抱リ絲ノ如シ。右尾後モ前モ一致シテ、口傳ノ意モ伝々寫スノ古矣。
When one prevails, one prevails [naturally] ... [but only by] awaiting the practice that comes after, drawing out also the inner-mind in that later practice. This passage is explained only orally, for it continues without limit. The matters of written transmission are passed down generation upon generation; the matters that are not transmitted [in writing] are unified seamlessly (muten itchi), [reaching back] like an unbroken thread held three generations before. Right tail and front in unity — the meaning of the oral transmission is likewise to be conveyed and inscribed as it was of old.
The yatsu no susumi (八ツノ進; "eight advancements") may refer to the core practice of Hassō (八相), which is the first kata in Hōjō. The Jūaku then would not be generic faults, but specific ways the mind can collapse its resolve during this path to swordsmanship.
The written transmission is paired with an oral counterpart held "like a thread three generations back", suggesting this section is incomplete in writing. The important explanation of how each of the ten evils maps onto each of the eight advancements is reserved for kuden, and may be lost to time.
Conclusions
There are three distinct nominal traditions layered into one curriculum: classical Chinese strategic vocabulary for the named kata, yin-yang cosmology for the stance theory, and Japanese densho convention for the principles. This lines up with the same trilingual-classical sensibility visible in the nittō / 得妙術 framing of the Ogasawara section, and the preamble mentioning Chinese military classics. The 1800 densho is doing more interpretive work in its choice of category labels than a flat list would suggest.
End Notes
- Some contemporary Katori Shintō-ryū practitioners when interviewed mention Yoshitsune as an influence through Kuramadera, so one wonders if mention of Yoshitsune in this densho is a Shintō-ryū influence on the art. Historically, Sugimoto was thought to be one of the senior students of Izasa Choisai, founder of Katori Shintō-ryū.
- Nittō (入唐) literally means "entering Tang" — the verb 入 (nyū, "to enter") plus 唐 (tō, "Tang"). In Japanese usage it's the standard idiom for traveling to China, regardless of what dynasty was actually in power at the time. The dynastic anchor is the Tang (618–907) because that was the formative period of large-scale, formalized Japanese contact with China — the kentōshi (遣唐使, "embassies to the Tang") sent between 630 and 894, which carried Buddhist monks, scholars, and officials to study at the Chinese capital and bring teachings back. The institutional memory of those embassies fossilized Tō (唐) as the generic name for China in Japanese. By Ogasawara Genshinsai's time, the actual dynasty he would have encountered was Ming (明, 1368–1644), but a Japanese narrative would still call the journey nittō. By the 1800 densho's writing, the dynasty in power was the Qing (清, 1644–1912), but the term nittō persists unchanged.
- The use of the word nittō implicitly aligns Genshinsai's journey with the kentōshi tradition of going to China to acquire foundational learning and return with it to Japan. That's a deliberate echo. The densho isn't just saying "he went to China"; it's saying "he made a nittō-style journey of acquisition" — placing his martial study in the same cultural category as Saichō, Kūkai, or Ennin returning from the Tang with Buddhist transmissions. This is part of why the nittō claim functions as a prestige assertion regardless of whether the literal journey occurred. In 1800, knowledge from China is still considered important, or at the very least, exotic.
- Whether or not Ogasawara personally crossed to China, the way the claim is articulated is recognizably part of a real seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Sino-Japanese discourse on martial transmission. the canonical text of Wu Shu's preface is most easily accessed in 《泽古斋丛抄》本《手臂錄》 (Zegu Zhai Congchao edition) or the 山西科学技术出版社 2006 reprint. The text 《手臂錄》卷三《單刀圖說·自序》 is a relevant phrase in either edition.
