Kitō-ryū (起倒流) was taught at the Kōbusho (講武所) by Motoyama Shōō (本山正翁) and Iikubo Tsunetoshi (飯久保恒年) — the latter was later best known as Kanō Jigorō’s (嘉納治五郎) teacher.
Motoyama Shōō was a Kōbusho Kitō-ryū jūjutsu kyōju-kata (教授方; instructor) at the bakumatsu and the father of Kanō Jigorō’s Tokyo University classmate Motoyama Masahisa (本山正久〔reading tentative〕); it was Motoyama who introduced Kanō to Iikubo.
Iikubo Tsunetoshi (common name Kuwakichi, 鍬吉) was Edo-born, learned Kitō-ryū from youth under Takenaka Tetsunosuke (竹中鉄之助) as his senior disciple, opened a dōjō at Azabu Higakubo (麻布日ヶ窪) and likewise served as a Kōbusho kyōju-kata; after the Restoration he followed the Tokugawa to Shizuoka, then returned to a post in Tokyo. He received his license in 1856 and was Kanō’s last jūjutsu teacher. Iikubo also regularly cross-matched with Totsuka-ha Yōshin-ryū (戸塚派楊心流).
Chén Yuánbīn
Chén Yuánbīn (陳元贇; Chin Genpin) was a late-Ming literatus who came to Japan and lodged at the Kokushō-ji (国昌寺) in Azabu (麻布) around 1625–27, where the temple record says he conveyed something of Chinese grappling to three rōnin (浪人):
- Fukuno Shichirōemon Masakatsu (福野七郎右衛門正勝)
- Isogai Jirōzaemon (磯貝次郎左衛門)
- Miura Yojiemon (三浦与次右衛門)
That thread of instruction then runs into Ryōi Shintō-ryū (良移心当流) and Kitō-ryū (起倒流), commemorated on the 1779 Kitō-ryū kenpō stele at Atago Jinja (愛宕神社).
The researcher Takahashi Masaru (高橋賢) argues Chén’s martial transmission is a later fiction, claiming that Fukuno’s Ryōi Shintō-ryū densho are identical in content both before and after his supposed encounter with Chén. At both points the school is yoroi-kumiuchi (鎧組討; armored grappling), which is assumed to have little technical overlap with Chinese kenpō (拳法; boxing). Older records describe Chén talking about Chinese seizing-techniques, not necessarily teaching them directly.
Kitō-ryū is the school behind jūdō’s Koshiki-no-kata (古式の形; “ancient forms”), and the contrast between throw-centric Kitō-ryū and the atemi-and-grappling of Tenjin Shin’yō-ryū (天神真楊流) is what pushed Kanō toward his synthesis. Kanō Jigorō rejected the Chinese-origin thesis of older Japanese yawara (柔). This is in keeping with the sentiment of his era. He believed the Takenouchi-ryū (竹内流), not Chén Yuánbīn, was the likely origin of Japanese formalized grappling.
References
primary
Kitō-ryū (commemorative inscription). 1779. Kitō-ryū kenpō-hi (起倒流拳法碑; Kitō-ryū boxing stele). Atago Jinja (愛宕神社), Minato-ku, Tōkyō. 〔n/a — epigraphic〕 · Public (shrine grounds). Stele erected Anei 8 (1779), 2nd month, at Atago Jinja, opening "kenpō was transmitted beginning from the naturalized Ming man Chén Yuánbīn"; inscription composed by Hirasawa Kyokuzan with calligraphy by Sawada Tōkō, dated ~150 years after the events, and the tradition itself records that Fukuno only observed (did not receive) Chén's kenpō.
Kanō Jigorō. 1888. 〔1888 writing on the origin of jūjutsu — exact title/venue to confirm〕. Kanō's 1888 text (cited as [嘉納 1888] in Adachi 2020) denying a Chinese origin and centering Takenouchi-ryū; the precise publication and any "national disgrace"-type wording need verification before quotation.
Kokushō-ji (temple tradition). 〔c. 1625–1627〕. “〔Fukuno–Chén Yuánbīn encounter at Kokushō-ji — as recorded in Kitō-ryū / Ryōi Shintō-ryū lineage texts〕.” 〔c. 1625–1627〕. 〔Kokushō-ji (国昌寺), Azabu — document identity unverified〕. 〔unverified〕 · 〔unverified〕. The Azabu Kokushō-ji (国昌寺) episode in which the rōnin Fukuno, Isogai and Miura encountered Chén; survives through Kitō-ryū lineage tradition rather than a single identified document, and the records note Fukuno observed rather than was taught — provenance to be pinned to a specific text.
secondary
Lindsay, Thomas, and Jigorō Kanō. 1889. “Jiujutsu: The Old Samurai Art of Fighting without Weapons.” Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan 16: 192–205〔page range to confirm〕. The English-language statement of Kanō's Japanese-origin thesis, denying Chin Genpin as originator on the ground that comparable arts predate him; near-contemporary and authored in part by Kanō, so a primary witness to his position rather than a neutral history.
Oimatsu Shin’ichi. 1963. “Kitō-ryū jūjutsu ni tsuite (起倒流柔術について).” Juntendō Daigaku Taiikugakubu kiyō (順天堂大学体育学部紀要), no. 6. Academic study of Kitō-ryū jūjutsu by the Juntendō University judo historian Oimatsu Shin'ichi; the disinterested scholarly anchor for the school's history and lineage, companion to his studies of Yōshin-ryū / Shin-no-Shintō-ryū / Tenjin Shin'yō-ryū.
Kanō Yukimitsu (supervising ed.). 1999. Jūdō daijiten (柔道大事典). Atene Shobō (アテネ書房)〔publisher/year to confirm〕. Reference compiled under Kōdōkan supervision; the standard source for the Kōbusho-era transmission (Motoyama Shōō, Iikubo Tsunetoshi, the Takenaka-ha line) and for Kanō's jūjutsu training and the derivation of the Koshiki-no-kata from Kitō-ryū.
Adachi Kenji. 2020. “Takenouchi-ryū ni okeru ‘saiko no jūjutsu’ ‘jūjutsu no genryū’ gensetsu no seisei to zenkeika (竹内流における「最古の柔術」「柔術の源流」言説の生成と前景化).” Supōtsu jinruigaku kenkyū (スポーツ人類学研究), no. 22. Peer-reviewed analysis (J-Stage) documenting how Kanō, from 1888 onward, denied Chin Genpin's legacy and placed Takenouchi-ryū at the origin of jūjutsu; the firmest scholarly anchor for the disavowal and a check on the two unverified premises Kanō adopted.
Takahashi Masaru. 〔serialized c. six years; ran into the 2000s, unfinished〕. “Maboroshi no Nihon jūjutsu (幻の日本柔術).” Gekkan Karatedō (月刊空手道), 〔serialized c. six years; ran into the 2000s, unfinished〕. Serialized revisionist budō history (incomplete) by Takahashi Masaru (高橋賢, b. 1947; 賢 also readable "Ken"); argues both that the orthodox founder Akiyama Shirōbei is a fictional figure embellished by the actual second-generation founder Ōe, and — parallel to that thesis — that Chen’s martial transmission is a later fiction (the Ryōi Shintō-ryū densho being unchanged across the supposed encounter). Cite by installment, and confirm the specific issue carrying the relevant argument (the Akiyama claim, or the Chen/Fukuno densho-comparison). 