These two tables are the documentary core of the dating argument for Kashima-shinden Jikishinkage-ryū. They show that both the Matsumoto-as-founder attribution and the Kashima-shinden divine-origin colophon are absent from the founding-era densho and first appear with the eighth head, Naganuma Kunisato (長沼四郎左衛門国 郷), in 1764.
Reproduced from the tables in Karukome Yoshitaka, Jikishinkage-ryū ni kansuru kenkyū (直心影流に関する研究), doctoral dissertation, University of Tsukuba, 2013, with the analytical commentary paraphrased rather than quoted.
Table A — founder named in each densho (Karukome tbl. 1–5)
| Line / school | Densho (伝書) | Date | Author | Founder as stated |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shin-shin’in-ryū (真心陰流) | Shin no shin’in heihō mokuroku (真之心陰兵法目録) | Kanbun 10 / 1670 | Ogasawara Genshinsai | none stated |
| Shin-shin’in-ryū | Shin no shin’in heihō menjō (真之心陰兵法免状) | Kanbun 13 / 1673 | Ogasawara Genshinsai | self (“found the art himself”; the text cites a crossing to a foreign court — 異朝渡 — i.e. the China-study motif) |
| Jikishin-ryū (直心流) | Gunpō hikiri-sho narabini nittō mokuroku (軍法非切書幷入唐目録) | Kanbun 3 / 1663 (copy 1835) | Kamiya Denshinsai Naomitsu | self (studied fifteen schools, founded Jikishin-ryū) |
| Jikishin-shōtō-ryū (直心正統流) | Jikishin-shōtō-ryū menjō (直心正統流免状) | Tenna 3 / 1683 | Takahashi Danjōzaemon Shigeharu | Kamiya Denshinsai |
| Jikishin-shōtō-ryū | Jikishin-shōtō-ryū heihō mokuroku (直心正統流兵法目録) | Enpō 7 / 1679 | Takahashi Shigeharu | Kamiya Denshinsai (colophon: 元祖神谷氏伝信) |
| Jikishin-shōtō-ryū | Heihō zakki (兵法雑記) | Jōkyō 3 / 1686 | Yamada Mitsunori | Kamiya Denshinsai (called 直心元祖 / 一流ノ祖) |
| Jikishinkage-ryū (直心影流) | Jikishinkage-ryū mokuroku kuden-sho (直心影流目録口伝書) | Hōreki 14 / 1764 | Naganuma Kunisato | Sugimoto/Matsumoto Bizen-no-kami (杉本備前守紀政之), styled 鹿島神伝元祖 — with Kamiya still listed as 元祖神谷氏伝心 |
Reading. Ogasawara and Kamiya name no predecessor (each presents himself as originator). Takahashi (sixth) and Yamada (seventh) both name Kamiya Denshinsai as the founder — “the Jikishin progenitor.” The Sengoku figure Sugimoto/Matsumoto Bizen-no-kami enters as ryūso only with Kunisato’s 1764 mokuroku kuden-sho, with “six persons omitted” (六人略) bridging Sugimoto to Kunisato. So Matsumoto-as-founder begins, on the documentary record, with the eighth head.
Table B — presence of the 奥書「鹿島神伝」 colophon (Karukome tbl. 1–6)
| Line / school | Densho | Date | Author/issuer | 鹿島神伝 colophon |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shin-shin’in-ryū | 真之心陰兵法目録 | 1670 | Ogasawara Genshinsai | — |
| Shin-shin’in-ryū | 真之心陰兵法免状 | 1673 | Ogasawara Genshinsai | — |
| Jikishin-ryū | 軍法非切書幷入唐目録 | 1663 (copy 1835) | Kamiya Denshinsai | — |
| Jikishin-ryū | Jikishin-ryū densho senshi kyojō (直心流伝書剪紙許状) | Kaei 4 / 1852 | Kusumi Junzaburō | 「鹿島神伝」 (no generation number) |
| Jikishin-shōtō-ryū | 直心正統流免状 | 1683 | Takahashi Shigeharu | — |
| Jikishin-shōtō-ryū | menjō uragaki (直心正統流免状裏書) | Bunsei 5 / 1822 | Naganuma Sukesato (亮郷) | 「鹿島神伝十代」 |
| Jikishin-shōtō-ryū | 直心正統流兵法目録 | 1679 | Takahashi Shigeharu | — |
| Jikishinkage-ryū | 兵法雑記 | 1686 | Yamada Mitsunori | — |
| Jikishinkage-ryū | 直心影流目録口伝書 | 1764 | Naganuma Kunisato | 「鹿島神伝」 (and 鹿島神伝元祖 杉本備前守紀政之) |
Reading. The “Kashima-shinden ⟨nth⟩ generation” colophon — the claim that the art descends from the Kashima deity Takemikazuchi — appears in only three documents, all from Kunisato (1764) onward: the 1764 mokuroku kuden-sho, the 1822 menjō uragaki (Naganuma Sukesato), and the 1852 senshi kyojō of the Matsuoka→Kusumi Jikishin-ryū sub-line. It is absent from every founding-era densho — Ogasawara (1670/73), Kamiya (1663), Takahashi (1679/83), Yamada (1686). Karukome notes that the 1852 senshi kyojō, though it carries 鹿島神伝, post-dates Kamiya’s 1663 densho by roughly two centuries and that its branch (which calls itself Jikishin-ryū but diverges after Kamiya: Matsuoka Inota’yū → Matsuoka Shichirōbee → Matsuoka Jirōtayū → Imahori Kichinosuke → Kusumi Junzaburō) most plausibly picked up the 鹿島神伝 label through later contact with Jikishinkage-ryū — so even the apparent exception is a late borrowing, not early evidence.
Analysis
Both load-bearing antiquity claims of the Kashima-shinden framing — the Sengoku founder Matsumoto and the divine Kashima descent — are documentary additions made by Naganuma Kunisato in the mid-eighteenth century, contemporaneous with the doctrinal cluster (相尺・留三段・切 落・吟味, and the 十之形 龍尾–曲尺) he added to the mokuroku kuden-sho and absent from Yamada’s Heihō zakki. This is the same Kunisato horizon on three independent axes — founder, colophon, doctrine — which is what makes the “flowing outward and re-sacralized” reading of the later Kashima Shin-ryū ōyō shinri defensible rather than speculative.
Kata Timeline
Examining earlier densho of the art [in terms of their kata curriculum we see that in fact early Jikishinkage-ryū had much of the broader Shinkage-ryū kata curriculum in its teaching, but these were modified and condensed over time. The true connection to Kashima is likely through the Shintō-ryū of Bokuden, as portions of its teachings (such as nanatachi, described below) were believed to encode gokui of Shintō-ryū.
A. Jū-no-kata composition (Karukome tbl. 3–1)
Despite the name “forms of ten,” the set is enumerated as 14 items (本目) under 7 named forms, which Karukome sorts into three types:
| 本目 | Form (形名) | Side |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ryūbi (龍尾) | 左 |
| 2 | Ryūbi (龍尾) | 右 |
| 3 | Omokage (面影) | 左 |
| 4 | Omokage (面影) | 右 |
| 5–8 | Teppa-shintai (鉄破進退)〔reading tentative〕 | — (all four called the same) |
| 9 | Matsukaze (松風) | 左 |
| 10 | Matsukaze (松風) | 右 |
| 11 | Hayafune (早船) | 左 |
| 12 | Hayafune (早船) | 右 |
| 13 | Kanejaku (曲尺) | — (independent) |
| 14 | Enren-tōren-tairen (圓連刀連体連)〔reading tentative〕 | — (independent) |
Three types: (1) left/right paired forms — Ryūbi, Omokage, Matsukaze, Hayafune (each a 左/右 pair); (2) a single form built from four items — Teppa-shintai (items 5–8, none distinguished by 左/右); (3) independent single forms — Kanejaku and Enren-tōren-tairen. Karukome’s close reading of the 左/右 pairs uses Yamada Jirōkichi’s Kashima-shinden Jikishinkage-ryū (1927) as the most photographically detailed source.
Note: prior research cited by Karukome holds that the Jikishin-shōtō-ryū densho already listed “Ryūbi through Kanejaku” as thirteen of the fourteen tō (韜) forms — i.e. the jū-no-kata and the tō-no-kata overlap heavily, and the “ten vs fourteen” discrepancy is itself an artifact of how paired and multi-item forms are counted.
B. The Kage-ryū stratum: empi, tengushō, nanatsu-dachi
Karukome reconstructs the Shinkage forms present from Kamiizumi’s time (after Ōmori 1991, Katō 2003, Yagyū Toshinaga 1957). The strata and their named techniques:
- Enpi (燕飛) group — 6 tachi + 2 appended (附随) tachi: Enpi (燕飛), Sarumawashi (猿廻), Yamakage (山陰), Tsukikage (月影), Uranami (浦波), Ukifune (浮舟), Shishi-funjin (獅子奮迅), Yamakasumi (山霞).
- Tengushō (天狗抄) group: Kasha (花車), Akemi (明身)〔reading uncertain〕, Zentai (善待)〔uncertain〕, Tebiki (手引), Ranken (乱剣), Nigusoku (二具足), Uchimono (打物), Futari-gakari (二人懸).
- Nanatsu-dachi (七太刀) group — current-transmission readings: Kyochi-no-Shishi (踞地獅子), Tenkan (転換 / 天関), Yōhatsu (容髪), Kote-giri (籠手截 / 小手切), Chijiku (地軸), Meigetsu-no-Kaze (明月之風), Engan (燕雁).
Attribution (Karukome, following his sources):
- Enpi and tengushō originate in Aisu’s Kage-ryū (陰流) — Kamiizumi is said to have perfected Aisu’s Sarutobi (猿飛) into Enpi, and tengushō was Aisu Ikō’s selection, secret-transmitted (秘伝) by Kamiizumi.
- Sangaku (三学 / 参学, 5 tachi), marobashi (転), nanatsu-dachi (七太刀, possibly based on Shintō-ryū), sappōken/katsujinken — devised by Kamiizumi.
- Kuka (九箇, 9 tachi) — disputed (Yagyū Toshinaga: Kamiizumi’s selection; Katō: Aisu transmission); Karukome leaves it “unknown.”
B.2 The three-source architecture, and where the nanatsu-dachi sits
Kamiizumi’s 1566 Kage-mokuroku carried four sets — enpi, nanatsu-dachi, sangaku, kuka — so the seven-sword set was foundational, not peripheral. Sorted by origin, the curriculum is a synthesis of the heihō sandai genryū plus Kamiizumi’s own work:
- Kage-ryū (陰流, Aisu) → enpi and tengushō
- Shintō-ryū (新當流, Bokuden’s Kashima line) → nanatsu-dachi (七太刀)
- Kamiizumi’s own → sangaku (参学) and marobashi (転)
- mixed / various schools → kuka (九箇)
On the Yagyū account, the source-stream sets were not kept at the front. Enpi was originally the first tachi (初太刀) in Kamiizumi’s day, but in the Yagyū house the Kage-ryū enpi and the Shintō-ryū nanatsu-dachi came to be revered as carrying gokui content and were progressively taught only after the sangaku and kuka; where the tengu material went fully secret (秘中の秘), the nanatsu-dachi tended to be absorbed or repositioned rather than catalogued. That is why it is so seldom written about. Its seven kata, in current transmission, are Kyochi-no-Shishi (踞地獅子), Tenkan (転換 / 天関), Yōhatsu (容髪), Kote-giri (籠手截 / 小手切), Chijiku (地軸), Meigetsu-no-Kaze (明月之風) and Engan (燕雁); the apparent “six against seven” in Karukome’s run-together listing was a segmentation artifact — 地軸 and 明月之風 are two kata, not one — and the set resolves cleanly to seven.
Consequence for the Kashima problem. The nanatsu-dachi is a genuine Kashima thread in the Shinkage → Jikishinkage line — Bokuden’s Shintō-ryū descending from the real Kashima/Katori complex, absorbed by Kamiizumi as documented synthesis. It is entirely distinct from the fabricated thread (the Sengoku founder Matsumoto and the 鹿島神伝 colophon) that Naganuma retrojected in 1764. The irony worth stating in TOCS is that the myth reached for a real Kashima name — Matsumoto Bizen-no-kami was Bokuden’s actual Shintō-ryū teacher — and installed him as ryūso, when the authentic Kashima inheritance was already present, unmythologized, as the Shintō-ryū seven-sword stratum inside Shinkage-ryū. So the school had a real Kashima pedigree available and chose to manufacture a different one.
C. Where empi and tengushō go in the JSKR line
Tracing the strata forward through Karukome’s form-name comparisons:
At Ogasawara’s Shin-shin’in-ryū (真新陰流, Shin no shin’in heihō mokuroku 1670):
- Enpi survives, but written Enpi/Enpi 圓飛 — Karukome reads this as an oral-transmission spelling drift on the sound “enpi” (the same drift that produces 猿飛 in a Kamiizumi-to-Hikita mokuroku). Whether 圓飛 denotes the full six-plus-two set or only the lead tachi is undetermined.
- Of the sangaku five, three survive — Ittō-ryōdan (一刀両断, written 一刀両段 in Shinkage), Uten-saten (右転左転, from 右旋左転), Chōtan-ichimi (長短一味).
- Tengushō is not found in Ogasawara’s mokuroku. What appears instead is a reorganized form “Tengu-shū” (天狗集) absorbing a kuka technique (逆風), plus a “Gorin-ran” (五輪攔) absorbing 和卜 and 八重垣. So the tengushō set is not carried as such; its material is redistributed.
- Nanatsu-dachi and marobashi (転) names are not confirmed; shinmyōken (神妙剣) is confirmed.
At Kamiya’s Jikishin-ryū (直心流): the densho form-names distill to four — Hassō (八相), Ittō (一当), Jūtan-isshin (重端一身)〔reading tentative〕, Uten-saten (右天左天) — which Karukome notes are shared with Ogasawara’s mokuroku. Neither enpi nor tengushō is among the named forms at this stage.
At Jikishin-shōtō-ryū → Jikishinkage-ryū: the core becomes Hōjō (4) / jū-no-kata / tō-no-kata / kodachi. The Hōjō names descend from the surviving stratum — Ittō-ryōdan, Uten-saten, Chōtan-ichimi from the sangaku three, plus Hassō-happa (八相発破) carrying forward Kamiya’s Hassō. Empi and tengushō, as named forms, are absent.
The resolution, and its limit. On the documentary record, the empi/tengushō stratum was the Kage-ryū inheritance carried (as 圓飛, and as redistributed tengu material) into Ogasawara’s Shin-shin’in-ryū, then dropped from the named curriculum at the Kamiya distillation, so that mainstream Jikishinkage-ryū retains only the sangaku-derived Hōjō names. The single place the enpi name resurfaces downstream is outside that mainstream — Kashima Shin-ryū’s ura-dachi tenth form, Enpi-ken (燕飛剣) — which is consistent with the broader inward-flow reading rather than with continuous JSKR transmission of the form.
The limit worth stating plainly, because it is exactly where the riddle lives: Karukome’s “absent” judgments are absences from specific extant catalogues (the 1670 and 1663 mokuroku), not proof of non-practice. Tengushō in particular was secret-transmitted (秘伝) at the Shinkage stage on Yagyū Toshinaga’s account, and a mokuroku is a catalogue that need not enumerate 秘伝 material. So “tengushō does not appear in Ogasawara’s mokuroku” is compatible with its having continued as oral/secret transmission while leaving no catalogue trace — which is the falsifiable seam to test against any Ogasawara- or Kamiya-stage document that records inner transmission rather than the licensing catalogue. As written, the premise that tengushō was practiced at the Ogasawara stage is not supported by Ogasawara’s surviving mokuroku; it is neither confirmed nor excluded.
References
