“The Sword and the Chrysanthemum” by Paul Martin Part10 : Beyond the Myth: Masamune and Muramasa
Text by Paul Martin
Paul Martin and his Kamon(Photo/Steve Morin)
Each installment of this series is available for a limited time only—don’t miss it!
(Publication period: August 14, 2026 – September 13, 2026)
There is a lot of hyperbole surrounding both of these legendary smiths. Due to this situation, in addition to their rather unclear histories, there is a lot of additional confusion about the two smiths compounded by myth and conjecture. Despite the two smiths periods of activity being separated by at least 158 years, they are somehow compared in terms of virtue. The common myth is that Muramasa swords are inherently evil, while the blades of Masamune are peaceful. This was encapsulated in the story of a sword by each maker being placed in a stream. The fish and leaves flowing down the stream were ruthlessly cut in two by the ‘evil’ Muramasa blades, while everything peacefully flowed around the Masamune blades without incident. This episode was conveniently witnessed by a Buddhist priest who happened to be passing by who recanted the tale.
Muramasa
There are many stories about the evil or, ‘cursed swords’ of Muramasa. This includes fables like Muramasa causing the owners to suffer a bloodlust, or sayings that, ‘once a Muramasa blade is drawn, it cannot be resheathed until it has drawn blood’. These legends obviously fiction. As you would expect, having handled quite a few Muramasa blades, I and any other sword specialists that I know have never sensed anything untoward in any of his works. To the contrary, his workmanship is exceptional. The quality of the steel is excellent. His artistic sense and merit are wonderful. This is the same throughout the academic sword world. There are no stories of sword enthusiasts suddenly having a bloodlust after picking up a Muramasa blade. Also, you have to ask the question, ‘Which generation of Muramasa blades are the cursed ones, and does this curse also continue on with his famous students?’ There are thought to have been three generations of Muramasa smiths active between 1501 and 1576, as well as his well-known students Masashige and Masazane. It is also difficult in some cases to distinguish the workmanship between the different generations of Muramasa.
Katana. Inscribed: Muramasa Muramasa swords are associated with a legend of a curse that haunted the Tokugawa family. During the late Edo period, they became a symbol for loyalist samurai who wanted to overthrow the shogunate. Tokyo National Museum Collection. ColBase (https://colbase.nich.go.jp)
The origins of this myth are said to go back to a document called Mikawa-Go Fudoki, a record of matters from Mikawa province. Within the text it states a prediction that three generations of the Tokugawa family were going to suffer misfortune due to Muramasa blades. Then according to later Tokugawa family histories (The Tokugawa Jikki 1849, which quotes an earlier book, The Kashiwazaki Monogatari 1787). According to the legend, it is said that Ieyasu’s grandfather, Matsudaira Kiyoyasu, was killed accidently by one of his own vassals. It is said that the blade was a Muramasa. Then Ieyasu’s father, Matsudaira Hirotada was stabbed with a Muramasa blade. Ieyasu’s son, Matsudaira Nobuyasu, was forced to commit seppuku, and the person performing the beheading (kaishaku) is said to have used a Muramasa (other versions state the tanto used for seppuku was by Muramasa). Ieyasu himself, is said to have cut his hand on a Muramasa spear.
However, there is no contemporary evidence to substantiate that any of the blades in these instances were actually made by Muramasa. The recorded histories were all written at least over 150 years after Ieyasu’s death. Even, the Mikawa-Go Fudoki is thought to be possibly be a forgery. Having said that, the samurai of Mikawa were in close proximity to the forges of Muramasa and his students. Blades by Muramasa are said to have been popular among the samurai of Mikawa, so there is a high probability that many of them may have owned Muramasa blades.
“The Revenge at Tenkachaya Gathering” and the Legend of the Cursed Sword ▲This is a famous scene from the Kabuki play “The Revenge at Tenkachaya Gathering,” a story depicting the tragedy and irony of the Hayase brothers who seek revenge for their father’s death, and their servant Motoemon, who falls into evil due to his bad drinking habits. In the center, the tragic scene is depicted in which Adachi Motoemon, who has betrayed his brother and joined the enemy, swings his sword down at his younger brother, Adachi Yasuke. After this, Genjiro, carrying the family heirloom sword Sengo Muramasa, fulfills his wish of revenge. “The Revenge at Tenkachaya Gathering” by Utagawa Toyokuni (3rd generation) (Painted by Utagawa Kunisada (1st generation), Toyokuni, Tokyo Metropolitan Central Library Collection.
The earliest extant record of a Muramasa cursed blade is in the form of a Kabuki play called, Katakiuchi Tenga Jaya Mura (敵討天下茶屋, 1781) that became very popular. One of the protagonists, Jirozaemon, is entrusted with a Muramasa blade, but the curse of Muramasa overwhelms him and causes a tragic accident. The curse of Muramasa blades was continued into other kabuki plays such as, Hachiman Matsuri Yomiya no Nigiwai (八幡祭小望月賑 1860), Konoma no Hoshi Hakone no Shikabue (木間星箱根鹿笛 1880) and Kago-tsurube Sato-no-Eizame (籠釣瓶花街酔醒1888). Just as when the story of Miyamoto Musashi was adapted into Kabuki, fact became mixed with fiction, and legends were born.
Kuwana Sosha Shrine in Mie prefecture, is unusual in that it has two parallel residing deities. As expected with temples and shrines, they are scared sites. When swords are dedicated to the deities at Kuwana Sosha, it is customary to dedicate two swords: one for each of the deities. In particular, this shrine has several swords that were dedicated to the gods of the shrines by Muramasa and his students. This shrine was also venerated by the generations of the Tokugawa family. It seems that a sacred place like a shrine would accept blood thirsty blades from a madman. Additionally, you would expect that if the curse was actually believed by the Tokugawa that they would avoid a shrine that has Muramasa blades as votive offerings. Furthermore, Ieyasu’s great generals, Honda Tadakatsu, owned the Tonbokiri, a spear made by Muramasa’s student, Masazane, and Sakai Tadatsugu owned the Inoshishi-kiri also by Masazane. Tokugawa Ieyasu himself owned a couple of Muramasa himself, one of which was passed to the Owari Tokugawa line founded by his son, Yoshinao, and is still currently in the collection Tokugawa Art Museum in Nagoya.
However, the Tokugawa did not openly dispute the legend, and even possibly used it as an excuse to attack their enemies on suspicion of subversion. Through fear of this, samurai even removed, or amended the Muramasa inscription from the tangs of their swords. Some even removed the ‘Mura’ and added ‘Mune’ below the ‘Masa’. Meanwhile, the enemies of the Tokugawa came to desire Muramasa swords as a symbol of their resentment for the shogunate. This in itself should be enough proof that the blades and the makers were not cursed. A famous example is Prince Arisugawa Taruhito who worn a Muramasa during the Boshin war. This sword is currently in the collection of the Japanese sword museum in Ryogoku.
Part of the Tokugawa Shogunate’s success of their tight control of the country for 260 years was their talent for legislation and their strategies that included the Fudai-Tozama system (the strategic placement of their allies and enemy daimyo throughout the country), the Sankin-kotai system (a rotational hostage system that created much expense), and the required permissions for repairs and fortifications of castles, etc. However, there is not one piece of legislation that exists banning samurai from owning Muramasa blades. Despite much evidence to the contrary, the legend of the cursed Muramasa blades persists to this day.
Masamune
Masamune is a man of mystery. He was named in the Kyoho Meibutsucho (commissioned by Tokugawa Yoshimune and compiled by the Hon’ami family in the Kyoho era) as one of the three greatest smiths in Japan along with Awataguchi Yoshimitsu and Go-Yoshihiro. He is also known as Goro Nyudo Masamune, and is generally accredited with being the greatest Japanese smith of all time. He is said to have perfected the Soshu style and started a nationwide influence of Soshu tradition workmanship through his ten great students (the Masamune Juttetsu). He too has been caught up in kabuki fiction, with a story of cutting off the hand of an apprentice who dared to test the temperature of the water used for quenching his blades.
Katana. Unsigned: Attributed to Masamune (Meibutsu: Kanze Masamune) Its name originates from its transmission through the Kanze family of Noh theater, where it was presented to Tokugawa Ieyasu. It was later given to Prince Arisugawa Taruhito by Tokugawa Yoshinobu during the Meiji era. Tokyo National Museum Collection. ColBase (https://colbase.nich.go.jp)
Masamune’s name is recorded in Japan’s oldest extant compendiums of swordsmiths,the (Ryuzoji Family) Mei-Zukushi (観応2年：1351) and the Kanchi’in bon Mei-Zukushi (応永30年: 1423). The latter is a thought to be a facsimile of an earlier document said to date to 1316. However, Masamune is recorded in name only as a student of Shintogo Kunimitsu. There are no extant contemporary records extolling his greatness or listing the Masamune Juttetsu. In fact, the Soshu school is a rather mysterious group. Records differ on the relationships between the members. For example, some books say that Etchu Norishige is a fellow disciple of Masamune under Shintogo Kunimitsu, while others quote him as Masamune’s student and one of the Juttetsu. Sadamune is said to be Masamune’s top student but is not included in the Juttetsu and has no extant signed blades. Go-Yoshihiro is another swordsmith who is included in the Juttetsu, but also has no extant signed blades. The existence of the Juttetsu itself is questioned by many scholars as there seems to be discrepancies in the periods of manufacture of the swordsmiths in question.
There is also an inordinate amount of unsigned works attributed to Masamune and the workmanship displays relatively different characteristics. The amount of remaining signed works by Masamune is only four tanto. The signatures among those works are not consistent, and not one is designated a National Treasure. There are nine blades without signatures attributed to Masamune that have been designated National Treasures, and the workmanship displays relatively different characteristics. The reason given that Masamune has so many unsigned works is because he was active during the Late-Kamakura early Nanbokucho period (14th C), so many of his works were shortened losing their signatures. However, this does not explain why he has so many unsigned tanto.
Masamune’s teacher, Shintogo Kunimitsu, produced lots of tanto, the vast majority of which are signed. Kunimitsu tanto tend to have a shallow kurijiri shaped end of the nakago. In other schools, such as the Bizen Osafune school, it is common for the students to follow their teacher’s work. For example, Mitsutada, Nagamitsu, and Kagemitsu all have kurijiri (chestnut shaped) ends to their nakago (tang). Of course, blades that have been shortened would may have had the nakago-jiri finished in a different way to how it was originally. However, among Masamune’s tanto, particularly the unsigned ones, some have a shallow kurijiri like Shintogo Kunimitsu, while others are finished with a kengyo nakago-jiri. For example, among the three Hocho Masamune tanto designated as National Treasures, two have kengyo, while one has kurijiri. Yet, all three are unsigned and described as ubu (original condition). The two with kengyo nakago-jiri have nie-utsuri, while the other one with kurijiri has none. It is inconsistencies like these that cast doubt on the attributions.
Types of Nakago-jiri ● Kurijiri: The end is rounded like a chestnut. The most common type. ● Ha-agari-kurijiri: The end is rounded like a chestnut. but rises on the cutting-edge side. ● Kengyo: The end is pointed symmetrically. ● Iriyamagata: The tip is pointed, but the blade side is longer and the spine side is shorter. ● Kiri: Cut off in a straight line. Rarely seen on unaltered nakago.
The rise of Masamune’s popularity appears to be spearheaded by the Tokugawa family, who also had the families of the Hon’ami and Umetada families in their employ. The Hon’ami family would appraise blades and issue origami, the Umetada family would shorten blades and add Hon’ami family testiments in the form of gold inlaid inscriptions, etc. It was also during this period that the gift giving of blades was common place, and Masamune was popular among the Shogunate. There are many Masamune recorded in the Kyoho Meibutsucho. You can also see that many of these changed hands among the daimyo. This promotion of Masamune also plays into the overall story of Masamune: good, Muramasa: evil.
This is not to question whether said swords are masterpieces or not, which they undoubtedly are. It is just a question of without any scientific or contemporary evidence whether they actually are by Masamune? From a western academic perspective, to only rely on human judgement for appraisal, with the only four signed examples being tanto, and yet nine unsigned designated National Treasures is akin to judging Davinci’s masterpieces based on four miniature paintings. However, art paintings tend to have a much more scientific hands on approach.
It may be better to regard ‘Masamune’ as an indication of quality rather than an individual maker. With the advances in AI and science, the future will hopefully reveal the true identity of many of these unsigned blades. They may well be the work of a single smith originating from the Soshu school. In an ideal world, owners of ‘Masamune’ blades should not be concerned whether the attribution of the blades change, as a masterpiece that has a top cultural designation is a masterpiece regardless of who the maker is. It is the quality of the blade that led to it to being attributed to Masamune in the first place. In this regard, from a curator’s perspective, the worth or swords of this caliber, whether monetarily or historically, should remain the same.
