著者

綿田 稔

雑誌

美術研究 = The bijutsu kenkiu : the journal of art studies

巻号頁・発行日

no.396, pp.25-44, 2008-11-05

---

Jukô-in was built as the family temple in memory of Miyoshi Nagayoshi (1522-64, posthumous name Jukô-indono, or Lord of Jukô-in) and is one of the sub temples of Daitoku-ji in Kyoto. The main hall of Jukô-in, built in the typical architectural style of the late Muromachi period, is extant. The paintings on the walls of the hall are thought to be essentially contemporaneous with the building and they too remain in good condition. Indeed, these paintings are considered one of the benchmark works of Kano Eitoku (1543-90), a painter who defined his age. In the past there has been an ongoing debate amongst painting historians as to the date of the construction of the Jukô-in main hall, with one faction backing a date of 1566 and another 1583. However, the restoration report that set off this dating debate states that construction of the hall lasted from the end of the Eiroku period (1558-69) through the beginning of the Tenshô era (1573-1591), and thus does nothing more than indicate that the foundation date is not limited to 1566. Watanabe Yûji, the proposer of the 1583 theory, considers that there is still ample room for a reconsideration of the 1566 theory, and thus his argument is nothing more than a statement that in the extreme, 1583 could be possible. In spite of these arguments, the Jukô-in clearly existed within Daitoku-ji as an organization in 1572, as Ogawa Hiromitsu has indicated. Further, if the extant main hall dates to 1583, then it must be imagined that its state indicates that it was moved from another site or was rebuilt. However, at this point in time there has been no report of the existence of any proof or documentary support for such a state of affairs. Further, judging from the state of the inscription, 1583 might be the date in which the previous cypress-bark roof of the main hall was changed to a tile roof. Thus it is important to note that there is no evidence to confirm either hypothesis, and further, that in the Eiroku era there is no trace of the residence of either Shôrei Sôkin (1505-83), founding priest of Jukô-in, or his teacher Dairin Sôtô (1480-1568) at Jukô-in. It may be that 1566 marked the founding not of Jukôô-in, but rather that of its predecessor. Another possibility is that the founding of such a temple was conceived of in 1566 and later this date was taken as its honorary foundation date. Up until now there has been no definitive historical document directly linked to the creation of the Jukô-in main hall, and in the end, both the 1566 and the 1583 arguments remain without solid documentary evidence or circumstantial proof. At this stage, no matter what date is proposed as a production date for the Jukô-in wall panel paintings, given that there are no definitive dated inscriptions on the paintings itself, there is nothing that can extract us from a state of "nothing can be said." This author took a critical stance against the 1583 hypothesis in the exhibition review included below, and in this forum seeks a sense of direction in argument from the previously introduced information on the subject. The conclusion of this search finds that the date of 1571 can be proposed as the actual completion date of the Jukô-in main hall, based on the situation surrounding the commissioner of the Jukô-in, Miyoshi Yoshitsugu (1551-73), and the date of the portrait of Shorei Sôkin with self-colophon written in the Jukô-in main hall. It is similarly highly likely that the wall panel paintings can also be attributed to that year.

著者

綿田 稔

雑誌

美術研究 = The bijutsu kenkiu : the journal of art studies

巻号頁・発行日

no.393, pp.30-60, 2008-01-28

---

Sôtan (1420-1481) was a Daiô school Zen monk of the Rinzai sect, and he was a Kyoto-based painter during the mid Muromachi period. While it is known that his secular family name was Oguri, his birthplace and family's social standing are not known. Sôtan is known to have studied Zen under Yôsô Sôi of Daitoku-ji, and it is believed that he studied painting from the monk-painter Shûbun of Shôkoku-ji. He created a landscape painting with inscriptions by four Zen priests from the Chinese poetry salon of Reisen-in, Ken'nin-ji, in 1459. In 1462, he painted the Eight Views of the Xiao and Xiang on shôji sliding doors at Shôsen-ken, a building in the Untaku-ken of the Unchô-in subtemple of Shôkoku-ji temple. By that time Sôtan had already been highly praised for his genius at painting by Ashikaga Yoshimasa, the 8th shogun of the Muromachi shogunate. That same year (1462), Sôtan became a monk under Shunpo Sôki at Daitoku-ji and was dubbed Kan'ô Sôtan. Around the end of the same year he built a hermitage at Aneyakôji-Nishinotoin in the market district of Kyoto, and his new home was named Jiboku-an by Kikei Shinzui, a priest who lived at Inryô-ken in the Rokuon-in subtemple of Shokoku-ji. The following year Sôtan was appointed painter to the shogun, a position that, like that of Shûbun, the previous generation of official painter to the shogunal family, entailed the receipt of a monthly stipend and year-end bonus. In 1466 Sôtan participated in the trip to Arima (present-day part of Kobe city) for recuperative bathing taken by Kikei Shinzui, Taga Takatada, and other high-ranking members of the shogunate. Sôtan painted a view of the hot springs village as seen from in front of the Amida-dô Hall in the town. This is important as a record of an outdoor sketch of a specific landscape in Japan. During the Ônin Civil War, Sôtan evacuated to the Muromachi Palace, where the emperor and the shogun were temporarily both residing. There is one incident known from this time, when Sôtan had trouble with his hand and the shogun ordered the official doctors to heal him. Such incidents indicate the importance of Sôtan to the shogun. Records show that in addition to his work on the Shôsen-ken sliding door paintings, Sôtan also created sliding door paintings for the Takakura Palace (the later incarnation of the Karasuma Palace, which would eventually become the Imadegawa Palace), the Untaku-ken, the New Izumidono Building of the Muromachi Palace, the residence of Ino'o Yukitane, and Yôtoku-in subtemple of Daitoku-ji. The paintings for the New Izumidono Building of the Muromachi Palace were created on a commission from Ashikaga Yoshimasa to commemorate Retired Emperor GoHanazono's visit. Sporadic records of paintings by Sôtan remain until 1473, and it can be surmised that he also received a considerable stipend for his main work commissioned by Ashikaga Yoshimasa for the Kokawa Palace and the reconstructed Muromachi Palace. It is difficult to imagine that Sôtan would not have been active in the renovation of temple buildings at Daitoku-ji. Sôtan died in 1481 at the age of 69, just before Ashikaga Yoshimasa began work on the Higashiyama Palace. Sôtan had a son named Kei Gessen (also known as Kitabô) who was also a monk-painter. However, Sôtan's position as shogunal painter was not inherited by his son, he was succeeded by Kanô Masanobu in his role of official painter to the shogunal family. Kanô Masanobu was immediately put to work the wall paintings for the new Higashiyama Palace. In later years, what would become the Kanô school of painting hastened Japanese painting along the path to the premodern era. Sôtan was not only an intermediary between Shûbun and the Kanô school, he was also the central painter of Ashikaga Yoshimasa's reign as shogun. Regardless of whether or not original works remain by Sôtan, his importance in art history cannot be overemphasized. The study of Sôtan, not only the study of Shûbun, is essential for a detailed understanding of the culture that matured and flourished during Ashikaga Yoshimasa's shogunate. To understand that culture, one also must go beyond a consideration of the wasteful public cultural projects initiated by Yoshimasa, a political failure who turned his back on the world in his search for pleasure, to consider a culture not in tandem with the political failure and also not encompassed by a prejudiced term "Higashiyama Culture." Thus this article aims to organize available research materials and examine them in detail in order to create a basis for future study on Sôtan.

著者

染谷 香理

雑誌

美術研究 = The bijutsu kenkiu : the journal of art studies

巻号頁・発行日

no.414, pp.35-57, 2015-02-20

---

The author has assembled and analyzed a large number of technical manuals related to Japanese painting. The Enogu saishiki hitorigeiko is one such manual dating to the latter half of the Edo period, and is today in the collection of the University Library, Tokyo University of the Arts. Given the unique characteristics of this book as noted below, this article introduces the book from the author’s stance as a Nihonga painter. The Enogu saishiki hitorigeiko was written by two men, with the first half primarily written by Kansai, an Edo painter, while the notes and second half were written by Shikada Takakiyo, who is unknown except for having lived in Kyoto. The book was published in 1825 (Tenpô 5) by the Edo publisher Bunkokudô. This was a technical manual whose contents were extremely unbalanced. This imbalance can be seen in the fact that of the 23 sections of the main text, the first four sections explain the use of pigments, while the remaining 19 sections note 47 different types of materials and the amount of sizing needed for each of those types. Kanga hitorigeiko (1807) by Miyamoto Kunzan is another technical manual published around the same time that bears the term “hitorigeiko” or self-study guide in its title. Miyamoto’s book presents an exhaustive discussion of the knowledge necessary to paint pictures, namely painting theory, brush methods, picture models, painting materials, and their usage. Thus, a beginning student reading Miyamoto’s book could teach themselves, or hitorigeiko. Conversely, if students only used the Enogu saishiki hitorigeiko book, they could well be totally confused. Changing how sizing is applied depending on the materials and the thickness of paper or such is a general aspect of painting a picture, and because in most instances the differing use of amounts of nikawa (animal glue) and myôban (alum) is not as detailed as noted in this book, it is sure to invite confusion in a beginner student. In addition, because there was absolutely no inclusion in the book of the information that would be essential in a technical manual of the period -- such as the mindset needed to paint a picture, brush methods or the use of picture model books or compilations -- the careful focus on the sizing stage preparatory to painting the actual picture highlights the glaring omission of a section focusing on the details needed to paint a picture. Further, at the end of the section noting how to use pigments, the author writes “I will stop at noting that other than this method there are various means of coloring using pigments, and other secretly transmitted information is noted in detail in section two (dai ni hen).” Regardless, there seems to be no section two. We can imagine that while plans were made to write the second section, in the end it was never published. The facts related to this matter, however, remain unclear. Future research is needed to trace the reasoning behind the incomplete composition of this book and the process by which it was produced.

著者

岡塚 章子

雑誌

美術研究 = The bijutsu kenkiu : the journal of art studies

巻号頁・発行日

no.412, pp.71-82, 2014-03-25

---

On October 18, 1910, Kuroda Seiki (1866–1924) and Ogawa Kazumasa (1860–1929) were named teishitsu gigeiin, art experts in service to the Japanese imperial court.While from different fields, Western style painting and photography, a letter dated April 26, 1910 among Ogawa's letters addressed to Kuroda indicates that they were aware of each other prior to being named to their imperial household posts. The letters are about requests or thanks for gifts, and appear monthly, thus indicating that the two men were in regular contact, and this continued even after Ogawa closed his own photography studio and photoengraving company. Ogawa was six years older than Kuroda. Even though he was younger, Kuroda had spent almost a decade, from ages 18 to 27, studying in France, and taught at Tokyo Bijutsu Gakkô after his return to Japan. He was the rising star of the Western painting world in Japan, building a reputation for himself despite his youth. For Ogawa, it was an honor to become close to Kuroda, and Ogawa's respect for Kuroda can be seen in his letters. The points in common between the two men include their overseas study experience, their dauntless pursuit of new expressive methods never before seen in Japan, and their success in that endeavor. Ogawa's overseas study was not as lengthy as Kuroda's, but he set out for America in order to learn photographic techniques. After his return he used his acquired knowledge, taking photographs, and energetically developing his photographic printing and publishing work, breathing new life into the photography industry in Japan. After his return from France, Kuroda led the Japanese Western painting world into new forms of painterly expression, and thus undoubtedly felt a sense of shared closeness with Ogawa through their innovative endeavors. It is unclear when the two men met, but their critiques of photographs in the Hana-no-kage journal published by the Kakô-kai photography group started by members of the Japanese nobility provide historical materials showing their connection prior to the dates on extant letters. Their photography critiques were first published in Hana-nokage in March 1907, and thus it can be presumed that they had actually met by that time. Hana-no-kage itself was first published in 1903, and if like other photography groups of the period, the Kakô-kai held meetings, it is possible that Kuroda or Ogawa may have been invited to such meetings, and thus they may have met at an even earlier date. Ogawa Kazumasa was born in Gyoda, Musashi province (present-day Gyoda city, Saitama prefecture), and after learning the wet collodion process he left Japan for America in July 1882. In Boston he learned the collotype process and dry plate production, returning to Japan in January 1884. In 1885 he opened the Gyokujun-kan photography studio in Iida-machi 4-1, Kojimachi-ku, Tokyo. In 1888 he acted as a record photographer in the treasures survey of the Kinki region conducted by Kuki Ryûichi of the Imperial Household Agency and others, taking large numbers of photographs of ancient art works. Further utilizing the knowledge and techniques learned in America, he experimented with collotype printing, later opening the Ogawa Shashin Seihanjo (literally, Ogawa's photoengraving company) in Hiyoshi-chô, Tokyo. This led to his fullscale production of collotype printed works. This studio produced the collotype plates for the art journal Kokka, founded in October 1889. Ogawa acted as a consultant for the Bankoku-shashinkokai (international photography association) held in conjunction with the 1893 Chicago World's Fair, setting off for America once again. During this visit Ogawa learned about the halftone process, and after buying printing equipment, tools, and materials in America he returned to Japan. He began halftone-printing work in February 1894. Then during the First Sino-Japanese War (July 1894–March 1895), he produced the photographic plates for the Nisshin senso jikki (August 1894–January 1896) published by the Hakubunkan and the Tokyo Asahi Shimbun's supplement. During the Russo-Japanese War (February 1904–September 1905) he printed and published a large number of photographic albums, including the Nichirô sen'eki shashinchô (total 24 volumes, The Ordnance Survey Office, 1904–1905), Nichirô sen'eki shashinchô (Photographs by Imperial Headquarters Photographic Department, The Ordnance Survey Office, 1906), and the Nichirô sen'eki kaigun shashinchô (Ichioka Tajirô, author, 1905). In April 1905 the Great Colored Photographs Exhibition of the Russo-Japan War was held in the Number 5 building of the former exposition buildings in Ueno Park, and thus he played a major role in war journalism. For his Russo-Japanese War achievements overall, on April 1, 1906, Ogawa was awarded the Order of the Rising Sun, Gold and Silver Rays. Thanks to this recognition, he received a variety of honors, and in 1910, he was the first photographer named an art specialist in service to the imperial household. Thus Ogawa brought technologies to Japan from overseas at an early date and put them to use in the development and success of his business endeavors. In the shadows of this success however, was the support of Viscount Okabe Nagamoto (1855–1925). Viscount Okabe understood photography and himself took pictures, serving as the vice-chairman of the Nihon Shashin-kai, Japan's first such group established in 1889 with Ogawa as the organizer. In 1893 Okabe was one of the organizers of the Dai Nihon Shashin Hinpyôkai. The Hinpyôkai welcomed numerous members of the aristocracy, Tokugawa Atsuyoshi was the chairman of the group and the members of the nobility were all named honorary members. Having members of the nobility as the chairman and vice chairman probably lent authority to the group, but it was a fact that many of the nobility of the day were photographic aficionados, and that tendency can be seen amongst many of them with diplomatic or overseas study experience. They are thought to have taken photographs of scenes they witnessed while overseas and as some sort of record of their journeys, and after their return to Japan they joined photography groups that had a salon-like atmosphere and represented gatherings of intellectuals from both Japan and overseas. The Kakô-kai was the highest ranking gathering of upper class members interested in photography, and their journal, Hana-no-kage, became printed photographic compendia that allowed them to publish their photographs as they liked. Unlike ordinary photographic groups, whose membership was too large to allow compendia of works by all members, the Kakô-kai had only a small number of members, and their publications were further realized because all the members were of the same status. Not only did Kuroda Seiki provide photographic critiques for Hana-no-kage, he also acted as a judge for photographic contests held by such organizations as the Tokyo Photographic Materials Association. Kuroda, a professor at Tokyo Bijutsu Gakkô and a leading Westernstyle painter, was probably asked to be a judge in order to add tone to the contest. In the same manner, for the noble members of the Kakô-kai, having Kuroda provide photographic critiques in Hana-no-kage may have made them feel that their works would be more highly valued. This would have also been the case for photographic critiques by Ogawa, a major force in the Japanese photographic world of the day. Inviting the two men to provide critiques, and the publication itself of the Hana-no-kage, can be considered the shining moments of Japanese photography during a time when photography was still new and available to and enjoyed by only a limited number of people.

著者

綿田 稔

雑誌

美術研究 = The bijutsu kenkiu : the journal of art studies

巻号頁・発行日

no.396, pp.25-44, 2008-11-05

---

Jukô-in was built as the family temple in memory of Miyoshi Nagayoshi (1522-64, posthumous name Jukô-indono, or Lord of Jukô-in) and is one of the sub temples of Daitoku-ji in Kyoto. The main hall of Jukô-in, built in the typical architectural style of the late Muromachi period, is extant. The paintings on the walls of the hall are thought to be essentially contemporaneous with the building and they too remain in good condition. Indeed, these paintings are considered one of the benchmark works of Kano Eitoku (1543-90), a painter who defined his age. In the past there has been an ongoing debate amongst painting historians as to the date of the construction of the Jukô-in main hall, with one faction backing a date of 1566 and another 1583. However, the restoration report that set off this dating debate states that construction of the hall lasted from the end of the Eiroku period (1558-69) through the beginning of the Tenshô era (1573-1591), and thus does nothing more than indicate that the foundation date is not limited to 1566. Watanabe Yûji, the proposer of the 1583 theory, considers that there is still ample room for a reconsideration of the 1566 theory, and thus his argument is nothing more than a statement that in the extreme, 1583 could be possible. In spite of these arguments, the Jukô-in clearly existed within Daitoku-ji as an organization in 1572, as Ogawa Hiromitsu has indicated. Further, if the extant main hall dates to 1583, then it must be imagined that its state indicates that it was moved from another site or was rebuilt. However, at this point in time there has been no report of the existence of any proof or documentary support for such a state of affairs. Further, judging from the state of the inscription, 1583 might be the date in which the previous cypress-bark roof of the main hall was changed to a tile roof. Thus it is important to note that there is no evidence to confirm either hypothesis, and further, that in the Eiroku era there is no trace of the residence of either Shôrei Sôkin (1505-83), founding priest of Jukô-in, or his teacher Dairin Sôtô (1480-1568) at Jukô-in. It may be that 1566 marked the founding not of Jukôô-in, but rather that of its predecessor. Another possibility is that the founding of such a temple was conceived of in 1566 and later this date was taken as its honorary foundation date. Up until now there has been no definitive historical document directly linked to the creation of the Jukô-in main hall, and in the end, both the 1566 and the 1583 arguments remain without solid documentary evidence or circumstantial proof. At this stage, no matter what date is proposed as a production date for the Jukô-in wall panel paintings, given that there are no definitive dated inscriptions on the paintings itself, there is nothing that can extract us from a state of “nothing can be said.” This author took a critical stance against the 1583 hypothesis in the exhibition review included below, and in this forum seeks a sense of direction in argument from the previously introduced information on the subject. The conclusion of this search finds that the date of 1571 can be proposed as the actual completion date of the Jukô-in main hall, based on the situation surrounding the commissioner of the Jukô-in, Miyoshi Yoshitsugu (1551-73), and the date of the portrait of Shorei Sôkin with self-colophon written in the Jukô-in main hall. It is similarly highly likely that the wall panel paintings can also be attributed to that year.

著者

綿田 稔

雑誌

美術研究 = The bijutsu kenkiu : the journal of art studies

巻号頁・発行日

no.394, pp.1-40, 2008-03-28

---

For résumé, see Bijutsu Kenkyu No. 393

著者

岡田 健 石松 日奈子

雑誌

美術研究 = The bijutsu kenkiu : the journal of art studies

巻号頁・発行日

no.356, pp.1-23, 1993-03-29

---

From the time of their inception in Mathura and Gandhara, images of the Buddha were shown wearing the same garments as those of actual monks. These simple robes consisted of a kāṣāya (袈裟 J. kesa), a broad sewn cloth which was draped around the body and a nivāsana (涅槃僧 J. nehanzō) which was wrapped tightly around the lower torso. In some instances monks wore a second undergarment known as a saṃkakşikā (僧祇支 J. sōgishi). When Buddhist images were introduced to China, their garments continued to follow these conventions, however, distinctive Sinicized treatments appeared as well. this essay is an investigation of the treatment of the robes of Buddhist images during the period of the Northern and Southern Dynasties (4th -6th centuries), when these transformations were the most conspicuous, throught an examination of actual works. This essay explores three main points: 1) The way in which kāṣāya were depicted (on Buddhist images). 2) the treatment of the undergarments (known in Japanese as naie 内衣) and the knotted cord often shown at the base of the chest. 3) The form and treatment of draped pedestals(the cascade of folds of the kāṣāya and nivāsana on seated images known in Japanese as mokakeza 裳懸座). It is possible to isolate two characteristics in the changes of these three elements over time. The first is that the changes in the treatment of the kāsāya resulted in a treatment that reveals less ofthe underlying body. The second is that Chinese style robes were adopted for the undergarments. The essay then examines the sources and the background of these changes. The reasons for the decrease in the volume of the underlying body can most likely be attributed to the fact that there existed no taradition of the nude in the Chinese cultural sphere. The sense of form in India and the West that reveals the human body was not readily accepted in China. Rather, it can be thought that the Chinese found greater artistry in a clear delineation of the detailed folds of a garment or in a more painterly treatment of carved lines. Moreover, the Chinese style garments adopted for the undergarments and the nivāsana were similar to those worn by emperors and scholar officials. Thus, the adoption of this style of garment can be thought to have made the image of Buddha more approachable for lay believers of high status. During this period the Buddhist faith prospered under the Northern Wei, and the emperor and his subjects converted to Buddhism. In particular, the belief distinctive to the Northern Wei that the emperor was the equivalent of the Buddha can be thought to have been a major reason for the increasing similarity in the treatment of images of the Buddha and portraits of the emperor. The seated image of Buddha at the Binyangzhongdong cave at Lungmen commissioned by Emperor Xiaowen is a typical Chinese-style image that must have been carved in this context.

著者

岡田 健 石松 日奈子

雑誌

美術研究 = The bijutsu kenkiu : the journal of art studies

巻号頁・発行日

no.357, pp.1-20, 1993-07-30

---

For résumé, see No.356, the Bijutsu Kenkyū.

著者

綿田 稔

雑誌

美術研究 = The bijutsu kenkiu : the journal of art studies

巻号頁・発行日

no.408, pp.105-112, 2013-01-18

---

The single-volume printed book introduced in this article is one of the items originally collected by Tanaka Sukeichi (1911–2000, doctor and local historian of Hagi city, Yamaguchi Prefecture), and now in the collection of the Hagi Museum. It seems that the Hanzawa family, descendants of a branch of the Unkoku family of painters who were in service to the Hagi clan during the Edo Period, gave this volume to Tanaka. This is thought to be the first volume of what would have originally been a set of three volumes, and it is made up entirely of painting method explanations. Various painting manuals are known from the Edo Period including Tosa Mitsuoki’s Honchô-gahô-taizen (1690), Kanô Einô’s Honchô-gashi (1693), Hayashi Moriatsu’s Gasen (1712), Nishikawa Sukenobu’s Gahô-saishikihô (1738) and Miyamoto Kunzan’s Kanga-hitori-geiko (1807). Though, there has yet to be a compilation of all these. This lacuna is a result of the focus of modern art history studies on painting history and theory, and thus nowadays even normal painting techniques have been largely forgotten. In the modern context, Nihonga techniques were given special status and standardized as the Japanese way of painting. Painting materials also changed dramatically. Not only was an understanding of pigments lost or neglected, but also that of brushes, painting papers and silks. Conversely, conditions were ripe for improvements in research on materials and methods, thanks to the great advances made in the technical field. However, scholars across various disciplines could not agree on the norms, and thus debate on this subject could not advance to a conclusion. While the On-e-kagami painting manual, printed in an inexpensive, popular edition, does not seem to contain any secret or proprietary techniques, it does seem to record general common sense methods. Even if the tome has limits, the accumulation of information and illumination of the standard procedures of the day surely would not be without merit for future studies.

著者

坂本 満

雑誌

美術研究 = The bijutsu kenkiu : the journal of art studies

巻号頁・発行日

no.262, pp.1-16, 1969-12-25

---

In a Buddhist temple called Ryūkōin in Sano City, Tochigi, there is a woodden figure traditionally known as Kateki. It was recovered in the 1920's and was found to be a figure of Desiderius Erasmus Rotterdamus by the studies of Izuru Shimmura and Naojirō Murakami. The Ryūkōin had been the family temple of the Makino Clan, the lineage of the feudal lord of the area. And, in the voluminous book of pedigrees of various families Kansei Chōshū Shokafu, completed in 1812, it is written that Narisato Makino (died 1614), a feudal lord of the clan, brought back a figure of Kateki after joining the Bunroku War in Korea. This must correspond to the figure in the Ryūkōin. This is because no other image of Kateki is known, and also, it was not unusual for Western goods to be called Korean importations in Japan during the period in which Christianity was prohibited. On the other hand, the study of Murakami has clarified the fact that the statue was a figure of Erasmus of Rotterdam which had been originally placed at the stern of the Dutch ship De Liefde which drifted ashore on the east coast of Kyūshū on April 29, 1600. Shimmura further assumes that Narisato obtained it in his late years when he was one of the three heads of the infantry of the Shogunate stationed at Edo Castle. Kateki (Ch. Huo-ti) is a legendary innovator of ship building in China along with Kyōko (Ch. Huo-hu) and these two names are almost always referred to inseparably in Chinese dictionaries. But in Japan Kateki alone is mentioned: in several texts for nō dramas, as Shimmura has pointed out, only his name is seen, and under the influence of nō texts his name was cited in an Edo Period chantey for special occasions. Therefore, it is not strange that this figure of Erasmus, originally placed at the stern of a ship, was given the name of Kateki. De Liefde, which had formerly been called Erasmus, left Rotterdam for the Far East together with four other ships in 1598. Twenty-two months later only De Liefde reached its destination and thereby opened the commercial relationship between Holland and Japan which lasted a longtime. But only twenty-four of the crew were alive when it arrived in Japan and three of the survivors died the next day. The ship reached Japan after numerous hardships. During such difficult sailing, the crew members must have recalled the patron saint of sailors, Saint Erasmus, the same name as the figure at the stern. This saint was believed in by Italian, Spanish and Portugese sailors. The worship of the saint by sailors is not mentioned in the writings of the humanist of Rotterdam. But there is a fairly good possiblity that the habits of south European sailors had been introduced to northern countries, since Spain and Portugal monopolized long-distance navigation in the sixteenth century and it is known that in some cases south European sailors joined the crews of English or French ships. It is also said that a chapel of Saint Erasmus in Westminster Abbey was a religiously important shrine for sailors. Legenda Aurea, which contains the story of the life of Saint Erasmus in its supplement, had been severely criticised by Catholics and Protestants since the middle of the sixteenth century for its absurdity. The English navigator of De Liefde, Willian Adams (Japanese name: Anjin Miura), was a rationalist who did not believe in superstitions and miracles and in this respect he was just like Erasmus of Rotterdam and Ieyasu Tokugawa. But, generally speaking, sailors are not rationalists. The writer, in Part I of the present paper, proposes the possibility that the sailors who survived the difficult voyage with De Liefde attributed their good fortune to Saint Erasmus and so gave special meaning to the figure of Erasmus of Rottersdam at the stern. This interpretation by the sailors may have given further meaning as patron saint of sailors to the name of Kateki, in addition to his original significance as an innovator of ship building. In Part II of the paper, which will be published in No. 263 of this journal, the writer furher discusses the nature of the figure itself. After introducing portrait works of Erasmus of Rotterdam in Europe by quoting the studies by G. Marlier, E. Treu and J. Huiginga, the writer criticises the theory of E. Major and E. Treu that the figure in question was originally a statue made for welcoming the visit of Felipe II to Rotterdam and the theory of F. Kossman that the figure is its copy. E. Treu claims that the now damaged left hand of the figure of the Ryūkōin had held a quill pen, but traces in the carving show that it apparently held a thick book, a form ordinarily given to the portraits of Erasmus. From the right hand of the figure hangs a scroll but it seems to be too small to hold the written name of the ship as Treu says. Since it is strange to carry such similar things in both hands and this is not seen in painted portraits of Erasmus, the present writer presumes that the characteristics of the figure resulted from it being a direct orindirect imitation of the wooden statue that had been erected in Rotterdam in 1549 or the stone statue that had been rebuilt in 1557. The writer, at the end of the paper, introduces a rather free copy of the Ryūkōin figure of Erasmus made by a carpenter who lived near the temple, in October of 1905 and given to the temple by a believer. The figure was not then recognized as Erasmus. This copy has crystal eyes and holds a Buddhist sacred ball in its left hand. Its physical features, which include its proportions, are completely Japanese. This naive folk-art type of work has not attracted people's attention, but this is, so to speak, the only real Kateki figure now known and the figure of Erasmus who was “naturalized” in Japan.

著者

水野 裕史

雑誌

美術研究 = The bijutsu kenkiu : the journal of art studies

巻号頁・発行日

no.428, pp.1-18, 2019-09-10

---

This article considers the previously only partially deciphered biography of Sesson Shûkei (16th century) through historical materials related to two Rinzai sect Genjû school priests with whom Sesson interacted. The Rinzai sect Genjû school is theologically descended from Zhongfeng Mingben of the Chinese Linji (Rinzai) sect Yangqi (Yôgi) school. The Genjû school developed throughout the Kantô region during Japan's late medieval period and is known to have been highly influential at the time. And indeed, the development of the Genjû school was not unrelated to ink painting in the Kantô region. In particular, Barbara Ford has offered the interpretation that Sesson Shûkei modeled himself after Fukuan Sôki (1280-1358) and in effect followed in his footsteps. Evidence supporting this can be found in the Sesson works remaining at Jisôji in Aizu and Fukujûji in Miharu, both temples founded by Sôki. Sôki was born in Hitachi province, and like Sesson, came from the powerful Satake clan. Ford has indicated that Sesson's reverence for Sôki led him to Aizu. After these insightful beginnings research has not advanced on the connection between Sesson and the Genjû school. This article reexamines Sesson's interactions with the Genjû school as seen in the records of two Zen priests, Keishô Shûzui and Daichû Sôshin, both of whom were based at Hôunji (present-day Tsuchiura, Ibaraki prefecture), a temple founded by Sôki that was the base of the Genjû school. The Hôunji zakki binran (Hôunji) records compilation, bearing a colophon dated 1722 (Kyôhô 7), was assembled by Shirin Oku, the 17th abbot of Hôunji who feared the dispersal of the Hôunji documents. This compilation includes a record of Keishô Shûzui's visit to Hôunji and his recitation of poems in Hôunji's abbot's residence Eikôin. The connection between Keishô Shûzui and Sesson is known from Shûzui's 1555 (Tenbun 24) inscription on Sesson's Myna Bird and other materials, but the nature of their connection had not yet been determined. Ninsai rakusui dôjin kôgô, today in the Ishikawa Takeyoshi Memorial Library, Tokyo, is the only known collection of sayings by Keishô Shûzui. This volume records that he visited Shôjôji around the early Tenbun era. Shôjôji is the same temple that Sesson entered as a child. And while previously it had been thought that Sesson's interactions with Keishô Shûzui were in the Kamakura area from 1550 (Tenbun 19) onwards, we can now indicate that these interactions began in the early Tenbun era at Shôjôji in Hitachi province. In 1512 (Eishô 9) Daichû Sôshin, who was born in the domain of the Hitachi province Oda family, entered the Sôgetsuin (a sub-temple of Hôunji), and was named head priest of Kôtokuji in Aizu in the first month of 1567 (Eiroku 10). Daichû Sôshin's book of aphorisms, the Daichû washô goroku (Dairyûji, Chiba) states that a painter named Sôkansai (相鑑斎) visited Daichû in Aizu in the 12th month of 1567, and that this Sôkansai had also been born in Hitachi province. According to Ogawa Tomoji's research, around 1567 Sesson was going back and forth between Miharu and Aizu. From these factors we could suggest the possibility that Sesson interacted with Daichû, whose circle of connections included Sôkansai and the Genjû school lineage. Previous research on Sesson's biography had found it difficult to connect the dots of his known interactions. The records of these two Zen priests allow us to surmise Sesson's interactions with painters Baiinsai, Senka and Sôkansai and indicate that their connections were based on the Genjû school network.

著者

皿井 舞

雑誌

美術研究 = The bijutsu kenkiu : the journal of art studies

巻号頁・発行日

no.393, pp.15-29, 2008-01-28

---

This paper is the second of a three-part series that will discuss the historical and philosophical background of the creation of the Yakushi Triad in the Yakushidô Hall, KamiDaigo, Daigoji, Kyoto, created at the beginning of the 10th century during Japan's Heian period. The purpose of this article is to clarify the organizational structure of Shimo-Daigoji, which was established by the imperial court, through an analysis of historical documents in Daigoji Yôsho 『醍醐寺要書』.This analysis will contribute to an understanding of the organizational system for temples around the early Heian period. The first part of this article analyzes a document concerning the construction of temples created by imperial command, or goganji 御願寺, which is found in Shin-gishiki 『新儀式』, a book on ceremonial commands published in the middle of the 10th century. The document states that these imperial decree temples can be divided into two types, 1) temples created by emperors during their reign, and 2) jôgakuji 定額寺 temples created by retired emperors, empresses, priests and aristocrats and then donated to the imperial court. There were three types of organizational systems for imperial decree temples, 1) imperial court-established organizations which consisted of both priests and secular bureaucrats, 2) imperial court-established organizations which consisted of solely of secular bureaucrats, and 3) imperial court-created temples that the emperor decreed would be operated by the goin 後院 emperor-controlled organizations. The second part of this article analyzes the Senji 宣旨 edicts of the Emperor Daigo issued by his secretariats, also found in Shin-gishiki. The contents of these edicts and the means of their communication revealed the actual organizational system of Daigoji. As a result of this analysis, it is apparent that when the imperial court created Daigoji, they established organizations of priests and bureaucrats who were responsible for the operation of the temple, and that also technical specialists were dispatched to work in the temple as needed. This analysis also indicates that the goin emperor's personal estate also contributed to the creation of Daigoji. Goin was organized in the 9th century as the personal estates of the reigning emperor. The goin organization fell outside the bureaucracy of the Ritsuryo regime. In general, the proper route for the transmission of the emperor's decrees regarding the building of a goganji temple was through the aristocrats and bureaucrats in the Dajôkan agency. The goin, on the other hand, was an agency that could carry out imperial orders outside the framework of the Ritsuryo regime. Therefore, the participation of the goin, an agency close to the emperor's personal affairs, in the creation of Daigoji, indicates that Daigoji took on the character of a temple personally connected to the emperor Daigo. Though previous studies have largely failed to consider the importance of the goin, this article insists that goin played a crucial role in the construction of goganji temples. Actually, it can be suggested that the five-story pagoda at Daigoji is one instance of a project led by the goin. This is extremely noteworthy. This article reexamines the construction of the five-story pagoda from this new understanding of the goin's role in its process. Through a more detailed understanding of the operational structure in place during the establishment of Daigoji, this article aims to clarify the factual details regarding temple establishment procedures during the early Heian period. This article further suggests the necessity of a reconsideration of the commonly accepted beliefs regarding the history of early Heian period sculpture.

著者

宮 次男

雑誌

美術研究 = The bijutsu kenkiu : the journal of art studies

巻号頁・発行日

no.251, pp.11-26, 1968-02-27

---

This is Part I of the study of the Gosannen Kassen Emaki (Illustrated Scroll of the War, Gosannen Kassen). The Gosannen Kassen (lit. Succeeding Three Year War; 1083-87) is the war in which Minamoto no Yoshiie was involved in trouble inside the Kiyowara Clan, then a powerful clan in the district of Ōshū (present Tōhoku), and pacified the area. It is so called in contrast to the Zenkunen Kassen (lit. Preceding Nine Year War) in which Yoshiie's father, Yoriie overcame the rebellion of the Abe Clan in the district. The oldest record of the illustrated scroll retating the Gosannen Kassen is that of the four volume work which Priest Seiken had the painter Myōjitsu make by order of Ex-emperor Goshirakawa in 1171. It is referred to in Kikki, the diary of Yoshida, Tsunefusa, and Yasutomiki, the diary of Nakahara, Yasutomi. The existing example of the Gosannen Kassen Emaki, preserved in Tokyo National Museum, has a preface by Gen'e, a priest of the Enryakuji dated 1347. The preface emphasizes that the Ashikaga Shogunate family, an offspring of the Minamoto Clan, held political power due to the protection afforded it by the god of Hie Sanno Shrine which is closely related to the Enryakuji. It suggests that there was some intention of showing the superiority of the Enryakuji to the Ashikaga Shogunate in the production of this present version. When we see the pictures of this work, scenes of battles and slaughter are depicted so realistically that it may safely be said that it is an exceptional example in the field of Japanese scroll paintings. The scenes have a ghastliness which shows common features with preceding and contemporary examples of paintings of hell and paintings of “Six Domains”. Here we see the intention of emphasizing the misery of battle. The author judges that the rendering and philosophy of these battle scenes have been influenced by the pictures of hell which prevailed in the period. The time of the production of this version was the beginning of the so-called Nambokucho Period when turmoil and battles were almost continuous. This work might well be said to suggest the daily philosophy of the Buddhist clergy who lived in this unstable period, a desire for paradise and a disgust with the nasty world, in short the desire for peace and their aversion to a disorderly world. This work now consists of three volumes. But Sanetakakāki, the diary of Sanjōnishi, Sanetaka, suggests that it originally consisted of six volumes. Its context and main contents are almost the same as those of the four volume version of 1171, which are discribed in the above mentioned diaries. But there are minor differences, and the comparison of these two versions indicates that the contents of the present version is a story developed from the story of the version of 1171 to which has been added some supplementary elements. There are repetitions of the same sort of settings, which is a compositional method often seen in the illustrated scrolls of the late twelfth century. This must be the influence of the earlier version. However, on the other hand, here are some characteristics peculiar to the time of its own production. For instance, the large proportion of human figures and minute rendering of them are factors attributed to the style of the fourteenth century. Thus this work has a complex style. Though different names are written at the end of the text of each volume, the entire text of the extant work is no doubt by one hand, The official titles written with these names are those which were held by them during the period 1358-61.

著者

田村 悦子

雑誌

美術研究 = The bijutsu kenkiu : the journal of art studies

巻号頁・発行日

no.252, pp.13-31, 1968-03-25

---

The writer, devoted to the study of the so-called kohitsu-gire fragments of old manuscript copies of various classical works, has found a rare fragment of the Heiji Kassen Emaki or scroll paintings illustrative of the War of the Heiji era (1159 A.D.), world-famous because the first of the three existing scroll paintings is owned by the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Mass., U.S.A. The fragment is from the text which accompanied the scroll illustrating the battle of Rokuhara, Kyoto, of the Heiji War. This scroll in its integrity is now lost, and is known only by copies. This is the first time a fragment of the original text is introduced to the learned world, though small pieces of the paintings were found twenty years ago. The fragment, hitherto noticed by no art nor literature historians, can be seen without difficulty in the Shin Ga Jo album of kohitsu-gire fragments chromolithographically reproduced first in 1890 and then in 1939 by the Hongan Ji temple of the Hongan Ji Ha sect of the Shin-shu, known popularly as Nishi or Western Hongan Ji, Kyoto, Japan, probably from the originals in the possession of the temple. The writer, making into laborious tables her minute and exhaustive comparison of the calligraphy of the fragment and of each existing scroll of the Heiji Heiji differ in time of production with scrolls.paintings with one another, draws the conclusion that all the texts accompanying the Heiji paintings were written by one and the same hand. This conclusion, aided by the fact that some lines of the text are found on the same sheets of paper as the paintings and that the text and the painting ought to be contemporaneous with each other, is of great significance as it stands in the way of the new theory that the paintings of the Heiji differ in time of production with scrolls. Lastly, Miss Tamura collates critically the text of the Battle of Rokuhara Scroll with the standard current texts of the Heiji Monogatari (the Tale of Heiji), a literary account of the Heiji War. This scroll of the Heiji paintings has been neglected by students of Japanese literature.

著者

津田 徹英

雑誌

美術研究 = The bijutsu kenkiu : the journal of art studies

巻号頁・発行日

no.418, pp.1-37, 2016-03-18

---

The Ichiryû sôshô keizu ( 一流相承系図, Illustrated School Lineage, hereinafter referred to as the Illustrated Lineage) was solely used by the Meikô sect of the medieval period Shinran School, headquartered in Kamakura, as they expanded their activities to Kyoto and western Japan. The Illustrated Lineage was intended to provide a visual representation of the teachings of Shinran (1173-1263), founder of the Jôdo Shinshû Pure Land Buddhist School, which had been inherited by Meikô and were in turn conveyed to his followers. It presents an array of seated portraits across the horizontal handscroll format, with red lines connecting the individual figures. Thus the document clearly presents the connections within the lineage. When the Illustrated Lineage is used in a consideration of extant artworks, it is apparent that it was first used by the community at Bukkôji, developed by the Meikô sect and founded in Kyoto by Ryôgen (1285-1336). There are many instances where the Ichiryû sôshô keizu is known by the alternate name Ekeizu ( 絵系図, Portrait Lineage). However the Ekeizu title is a naming that appears in a criticism of the creation of the Illustrated Lineage by Kaku'nyo (1270-1351), the leader of the Honganji community that stood in opposition to the Bukkôji community. The section titled "Jodai" ( 序題, Preface), attached to the beginning of the Illustrated Lineage since its formation, uses the Ichiryû sôshô keizu title, and thus we should consider that the presenter and recipients of the scroll thought of it in those terms. Today there are seven extant versions of the Illustrated Lineage that were used by the Meikô sect. Four of those works have a preface brushed by Zonkaku (1290-1373). Of those four, the version handed down at Bukkôji, Kyoto (hereinafter referred to as the Bukkôji version) which has a preface dated to 1326 (Kareki 1), can be seen as best conveying the appearance of the original. However, today the Bukkôji version is made up of eight sheets of paper. From the fourth sheet onwards the scroll consists of sections pasted from two other illustrated lineage types. Originally the section from the fourth sheet onwards (hereinafter referred to as the Chôshôin version) was separated and handed down at Chôshôin, located in front of Bukkôji. A closer examination of the Bukkôji version and the Chôshôin version detached from it reveals an admixture of laymen and women among the seated images of priests and nuns, and this is the only extant version with this feature. This admixture corresponds to one of Kaku'nyo's criticisms of the Bukkôji community found his Kaijashô (Impeaching Misconception). However, it shows the original style of the Illustrated Lineage, so the Bukkôji version and its detached Chôshôin version can be seen as indicating the original appearance of the Illustrated Lineage. In the current survey of the Chôshôin version, the author made a number of discoveries not mentioned in previous surveys or studies of the work. This article clarifies the production process of the Chôshôin version based on these new discoveries. In addition, the article goes on to mention the Illustrated Lineage version preserved at Kôshôji, Hiroshima (hereinafter referred to as the Kôshôji version) that was the subject of a similar survey. Through the examination of these two versions, the author confirmed that the portraits presented in seated form in the illustrated lineages employed the visages of then contemporary priests, nuns and laypeople (figures shown without the shaved pate of priests) and can thus suggest that the Illustrated Lineage should be understood as part of the nise-e(likeness portrait) category of medieval Japanese painting. In both the Chôshôin version and the Kôshôji version of the Illustrated Lineage, the garments and composition of the figures are all drawn in the same stereotypical patterns. Thus the only individuality of the portraits can be found in the depiction of the faces. This characteristic is also seen in the retsu'ei zukan (handscrolls presenting seated portrait images of past emperors and ministers). I would like to emphasize here that it is only the faces in nise-e works that reflect the appearance of the actual subject. In fact, this feature of nise-e is not generally understood. This fact reminds us of the "Nyusai kanzatsu" (Nyusai's observation) scene in the Shinran den e (Illustrated Biography of Shinran), which was planned and accompanied by text written by the abovementioned Kaku'nyo. Only Shinran's face appears in that scene, his whole body is not depicted. This can be said to correctly convey how nise-e were produced. In addition, if we also consider that the Illustrated Lineage is presented as a handscroll of seated portraits, then that handling can clearly be linked to the lineage of the above-mentioned retsu'ei zukan scrolls of seated portraits of past emperors and ministers.

著者

齊藤 洋一

雑誌

美術研究 = The bijutsu kenkiu : the journal of art studies

巻号頁・発行日

no.411, pp.58-94, 2014-02-21

著者

戸田 禎佑

雑誌

美術研究 = The bijutsu kenkiu : the journal of art studies

巻号頁・発行日

no.245, pp.26-29, 1967-02-10

---

We introduce here a work of Lu Fu 陸復 who was active from the end of the 15th century to the beginning of the 16th century. He was a professional artist best known for his paintings of plum blossoms in ink. This particular work is preserved in Chōrakuji, situated in Gumma prefecture. Lu Fu was born in Wu-chiang 呉江, Kiang su Province, and worked in Chin-ling 金陵, where he was patronized by Hsü Pu 徐俌, the Duke of Wei-kuo 魏国公 VI (died 1517) and gained his fame among the literati class. For instance, Chao K‘uan 趙寛 (1457–1505) whose home town was the same as Lu Fu, and who attained an official position afterwards, ordered a painting from him as a present and wrote a poem in praise of it. This fact is known from Chao K‘uan's anthology. The work in question here is a small piece in which we see the artist employing forms which arose in Yüan dynasty painting. Strong brush strokes help to produce an intense feeling, which may also be noticed in the painting illustrated in fig. 1, particularly in the branches which are rendered in sharp angles. This feature is an important characteristic of this artist who worked during the middle of the Ming period. At the end of this paper the writer adds that the painting seen in fig. 1 must have directly influenced the artist associated with the Edo branch of Kano School who painted the sliding screens in the Konchiin, in Kyoto.

著者

橘川 英規

雑誌

美術研究 = The bijutsu kenkiu : the journal of art studies

巻号頁・発行日

no.415, pp.52-56, 2015-03-20

---

A mini-symposium titled “Aspects of Art Archives” was held on February 25, 2014 in the Seminar Room of the National Research Institute for Cultural Properties, Tokyo (NRICPT). In exhibitions examining post-World War II Japanese art held in Japan, there is often a display of archival materials, such as sketchbooks, letters, record photographs and video footage to assist with an understanding of the intentions of the artists in their creative process. Particularly in the case of artists and groups whose art form is performance or other actions, it would not be excessive to state that such archives are the only means by which we can verify the intentions of that expression. In recent years there has been a growing interest in postwar Japanese art in North America, and quite frequently overseas museums have begun to assemble archives of material on those artists deemed important in this period. The mini-symposium’s intention was both to look back on how Japan’s cultural properties research institutes, art museums and archival organizations handle archives of postwar Japanese art, and to also consider our desires regarding how such art archives should develop in the future. Thus the theme of this mini-symposium was set as art archives in terms of contemporary art. The first section included individual presentations by the art historian Kajiya Kenji (then Associate Professor, Hiroshima City University, now Associate Professor, Kyoto City University of Arts), the archivist Uesaki Sen (Researcher, Keio University Art Center) and librarian Kikkawa Hideki (Associate Fellow, NRICPT). In their lectures they introduced the contemporary art archives in both America and Japan as seen from their various vantage points, and also gave keynote address-type elements such as the composition and methodologies of art archives. The second section consisted of a discussion among the speakers and symposium participants, based on those lectures and considering both the current state of art archives and our hopes for them in the future. The lecture by Kajiya, an art historian specializing in American art history, was titled, “Art History in Art Archives.” Kajiya touched on the Archives of American Art at the Smithsonian Institution, the Museum Archives of MOMA, New York, and the Special Collections of the Getty Research Institute, as he considered the function of archive materials in the study of contemporary American art. In addition, he also touched on the activities of the Oral History Archives of Japanese Art for which he is the director, noting what is desirable in the art archives essential for the study of postwar Japanese art, from the dual viewpoints of archive operator and user. Uesaki’s talk was titled, “Archives and the Avant-Garde: Ephemerality of Expression and the Totality of Archive Materials,” and used the Sogetsu Art Center’s ephemera database as a model approach for avant-garde art archives. In this lecture he indicated that the archives of the group of materials known as ephemera do not contain the artworks themselves, but rather are the archives of all the miscellaneous materials closely related to the artworks. He further considered the process by which databases related to avant-garde art are planned and constructed, the meaning of organizing the different types of materials, the aims for archiving, and the philosophies inherent in archives themselves. Kikkawa’s lecture was titled, “Records and Materials in the Notes Made by the Artist Nakamura Hiroshi: Focusing on the Sightseeing Art Research Institute and the Tokyo Art Pillar Exhibition.” The lecture introduced Nakamura’s production notebooks in the NRICPT collection. In these notebooks Nakamura recorded theactivities of the Avant-Garde Art Society of the latter half of the 1960s. These notebooks include materials regarding the operations of the Avant-Garde Art Society, such as meeting minutes, submission rules for exhibitions, photographs of display scenes and other materials. Kikkawa focused on the materials related to the Sightseeing Art Research Institute and the Tokyo Art Pillar exhibition, noting the meaning of such materials as research sources. This Research Note is a summary of the individual papers from Session 1 of the symposium, as summarized by the speakers themselves. In addition, it reproduces the discussion held between the speakers and the symposium participants in Session 2 of the symposium.

著者

久野 健

雑誌

美術研究 = The bijutsu kenkiu : the journal of art studies

巻号頁・発行日

no.204, pp.11-28, 1960-01-25

---

Jōraku-ji Temple at Ashina, Zushi in Kanagawa Prefecture owns five old Buddhist statues, namely the Amida (Amitabha) Triad, Bishamon Ten (Vaisravana) and Fudō Myōō (Acala), which were registered in 1926 as Important Cultural Properties. We made researches on these statues on April 20, 1959, when we discovered, from the inside of the statue of Bishamon Ten, a tablet with inscription stating that it was carved in 1189 by Unkei and his ten assistants. The tablet, 71.5cm. in height and having a long handle in shape of a lotus stalk, has a circle and lotus petals below it drawn in black ink, with the Sanskrit monogram representing Tamon Ten inscribed within the circle. A dharani (magic formula) in Sanskrit is inscribed from its obverse surface through sides to reverse surface, and the reverse side has an inscription to the following effect : “This statue was made on March 20, 1189, at the behest of Taira-no-Yoshimori, by Unkei, the Dai Busshi (Major Sculptor) with the ecclesiastic rank of Kōtō in the Shōō-in Monastery at Kōfuku-ji, assisted by ten minor sculptors. This inscription was written by the priest Jinsai Jōkabō.” Both from the calligraphic and literary styles of the inscription, the tablet is evidently datable to somewehere around 1189. This does not necessarily mean that the tablet was prepared for the present statue. The tablets discovered from inside the statues of Bishamon Ten and Fudō Myōō in Ganjōju-in Temple in Shizuoka, with inscriptions containing the name of Unkei and dates of 1186, were approximately similar in the style of narration to that of Jōraku-ji, but at the time of their registration as National Treasures it was judged that the tablets were original but the statues were of a later period. It is hardly believable, however, that such an exceptional case, that statues are later and the tablets placed inside alone are old, should have occured two times with Unkei. Moreover, the Bishamon Ten at Jōraku-ji clearly shows the style of the Early Kamakura Period. The author believes that the tablet under discussion has always belonged to the present statue. The Amida Triad in the same temple also is inscribed on the inside with the same dharani as the one found on the tablet for the Bishamon Ten. The inscription is obviously by the same hand as the Bishamon Ten tablet. It can be asserted with considerable accuracy that the triad as well as the Fudō Myōō in Jōraku-ji were also carved by Unkei in 1189. The discovery of the tablet, thus, has added as many as five specimens to less than ten statues which have heretofore been known as genuine works of Unkei. The author furthermore suggests that the Amida, Bishamon Ten and Fudō Myōō in Ganjōju-in, from the last two of which were discovered the tablets dated 1186, can possibly be also by Unkei. He discusses also about the Eight Messengers of Fudō in the Fudō-dō Hall at Kōyasan, Wakayama, as follows. Six of the Eight Messengers are attributed in an old record to Unkei, but many scholars have been sceptial about this attribution. The author and his colleagues made X-ray examination of the statues some years ago and found that they contained discs on lotus pedestals which were similar in form to that drawn on the tablet of Bishamon Ten in Jōraku-ji. He thinks that the Eight Messengers at Kōyasan have to be re-studied. It has not been known when Unkei was conferred with the title Dai Busshi. The tablets in Jōraku-ji and Ganjōju-in prove that it was between May 3, 1186 and March 20, 1189. The Jōraku-ji tablet, especially, is an important source of information concerning the connection Unkei had with Kōfuku-ji Temple in Nara.

著者

秋山 光和

雑誌

美術研究 = The bijutsu kenkiu : the journal of art studies

巻号頁・発行日

no.187, pp.1-35, 1957-03-11

---

This scroll-painting, labelled Manuscrit Chinois 4524 in La Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris where it is preserved, was introduced for the first time in 1947, and its facsimile, with notes by Madame Nicole Vandier-Nicholas, was published near the end of 1954. Thanks to the kindness of Madame M. R. Guignard, I had an opportunity to examine it in 1951. In view of its importance in the history of Oriental painting, I wish to give here a brief report of my studies. The scroll, lacking its first and last portions, is 27cm. in width (vertical measurement) and 574 cm. in length (horizontal). It contains a story about the construction of the vihāra and garden - Jetavana dedicated to Sakyamuni : it is a portion of the story in which six “heretics” or non-Buddhists, with Raudraksa as their spokesman, try to prevent Sudatta from donating the estate for the Jetavana. In the presence of the king, they engage in a contest of magic power with Sariputra, representing the Buddha's disciples. The heretics are defeated and converted to the Buddhist faith. The story is given in various Buddhist scriptures, the later ones describing it in more intricate forms. The Hsien-yü-ching, a collection of Buddhist legends in Khotan, edited by Chinese monks in the fifth century (455), narrates the competition in a series of six bouts. Later on, after the eighth century, the story began to be told in monasteries in China to secular people in an interesting, easily understandable manner called suchiang (popular sermons) which enhanced the story with literary ornaments. The text of these su-chiang is recorded in several versions in manuscripts entitled chiang-mo pien-wên (evil-subduing story) discovered at Tun-huang. Of these the copy in the collection of Mr. Hu Shih-chih (a small portion at the beginning of which is kept by the British Museum as “Stein 5511”; see Fig. 1) is nearly perfect. The chiang-mo pien-wên is in the characteristic form of pien-wên, consisting of alternate repetitions of narration in prose and verse (in this case each line consisting of seven characters). The competition between Raudraksa and Sariputra is told in the following six scenes: (The six matches are the same as those described in the Hsien-yü-ching, but are given in a different order.) (1) Raudraksa with his magic causes a mountain to appear; Sariputra transforms himself into Vajrapani and smashes it. (2) Raudraksa turns himself into a big buffalo, but Sariputra, transforming himself into a lion, defeats it. (3) Raudraksa creates a beautiful lake; Sariputra, in the figure of a white six-tusked elephant, drinks up the entive water. (4) Raudraksa calls forth a terrific dragon; Sariputra invokes the giant bird Garuda, which pecks the dragon to death. (5) Raudraksa, assuming the form of a demon, attacks Sariputra, who summons Vaisravana to conquer him. (6) Raudraksa produces a big tree; Sariputra calls on the wind god to blow it down. Thus beaten in all matches, the heretics are converted to Buddhism. The scroll under discussion, of which the beginning and the end are now missing (Pl. V & Fig. 5) begins with the middle part of the match (1) and goes through (2) to (5) in the order as. given in the pien-wên, ending with the beginning portion of (6). It is to be noted that the text of this scroll consists only of the stanzas, each inscribed on the reverse side of the paper near the end of each scene to which it pertains (each scene being about 120 cm. long). The fact indicates that probably while the scroll was being shown to the audience to illustrate the story. The text was read from the reverse side. We have literary sources which suggest a close interrelation between the pien-wên and painting. The existence of this scroll is an actual proof attesting to such interrelation. The magic competition of Sariputra and Raudraksa is a theme used quite frequently in murals in the Tun-huang area. The cave No. 9 in the western Ch’ien--fc-tung group has an example presumed to date back to the Northern Wei or Sui Dynasty; at Ch’ien-fo--tung there are twelve, and at Wanfo-hsia in An-hsi there are three. (Of these, eight at Ch’ien-fo-tung are reproduced in Pelliot : Les Giottes de Touen-houang, and one at Wan-fo-hsia is illustrated in Stein : Serindia.) Excepting the one (Fig. 9) at the Cave No. 149 in the Pelliot system, dated about 686 and differing in composition from others, all these are datable in the second half of the ninth to the end of the tenth centuries, and are approximately similar in composition. In all probability they were painted in conformity with a certain prototype. Furthermore, examination, through Pelliot's notes, of the text (given at the end of this article), inscribed in cartouches on the painting at the Cave No. 8, reveals that it contains at least ten passages which are faithful quotations from the chiang-mo pien-wên. From these facts we are led to believe that the murals, dealing with the competition between Satiputra and Raudraksa, which were painted very frequently during the ninth to tenth centuries, were derived from the chiang-mo pien-wên, and that they began to have a prescribed form when they were enriched with additional elements in detailed parts to improve their compositions as wall-paintings. The scroll-painting brought back by Pelliot does not reveal such conventions as are noticed in the murals. Most likely the scroll was painted a little earlier, porhaps in the first half of the ninth century. Its crude but powerful manner of depiction carries the same fresh vigour as that of popular literature which the pien-wên was.