On a now in Osaka, dated the eighth month of Shōhō 2 (1645), Ōmura Kaboku cut not only his signature but a small manifesto: the construction, "true fifteen-plate kabuse", the proud disclaimer "I am no smith", and a line that the blade was forged to be heard of nine hundred years hence. The man behind that inscription was Ōmori Jibuzaemon, a physician born at Anzai on the outskirts of Sunpu in Suruga, who took up the forge as an avocation alongside his medical practice. By his own account in the Hihō, his treatise on swords, he began forging in the third month of Shōhō 1 (1644) and over the forty-one years to Jōkyō 1 (1684) made about a hundred blades. He served Matsudaira Mitsunaga, lord of Takada in Echigo, by virtue of his medicine; after that house was dispossessed he became a rōnin, went up to Edo, and entered the attendance of Tokugawa Mitsukuni of the Mito domain. His teacher is not clearly known, and his small signed corpus is prized by the published sources as much for the documentary value of its long inscriptions as for the blades themselves.
Kaboku worked in two distinct manners, and the gunome that runs through both is the thread that ties his hand together. The first is a brilliant Bizen tradition. Over an itame mixed with mokume, densely forged and carrying a standing midare-utsuri, he tempers a large chōji mixed with gunome, into which ashi and yō enter frequently; the nioi is deep and the nioiguchi clear, and the bōshi runs slightly midare-komi before turning in ko-maru. The published sources liken this work to the splendid chōji of the Ishidō current, calling it "the fine Ishidō-style chōji workmanship"3, and judge his masterpieces to lie among these Bizen-tradition pieces. His other manner is Sōshū. There the temper is a broad suguha or a notare-based large gunome-midare worked deep in nie, with thick ashi, hotsure and yubashiri, and kinsuji and sunagashi coursing freely through the edge.
The jigane shifts with the manner, and reading it is the surest way into his work. In the Bizen mode the forging is a dense itame with mokume, the grain tightly closed beneath the bright midare-utsuri that rises in the old Bizenjigane. In the Sōshū mode the sameitame stands a little more openly, here mixed with moku and flowing nagare-hada, and carries fine ji-nie together with a chikei that enters well though subdued; on the latest of the surviving blades the steel color is described as somewhat blackish, a strong, clearly textured jigane. His shapes are those of an early-Edoshintōkatana: shinogi-zukuri with iori-mune, a thick kasane and a somewhat high shinogi, the sori shallow and the chū-kissaki extended. The published sources praise the proportions of the sixty-second-session blade as "robust and stalwart"4, an ordinary width carried with abundant nikuoki.
The surviving Jūyō blades let his two registers be set against one another. The eleventh-session katana is the Bizen voice at its clearest, its large chōji and gunome over a bright utsuri judged probably his finest, the published sources calling it "likely his crowning achievement"5. The nineteenth and twenty-third pieces lean to Sōshū, the one a wide suguha with gunome and sunagashi, the other a notare-based large gunome-midare in deep nie. The sixty-second-session katana, designated in 2016 and the most fully described of the four, is the strongest statement of that manner: a broad suguha base mixed with gunome, chōji-like elements and shallow notare in a companion arrangement, kinsuji and sunagashi frequent, and the bōshi tempered so deeply that it becomes ichimai-like with tobiyaki on the reverse. The published sources read it as a work "plainly made with a keen awareness of Gō Yoshihiro"6, and note that he also left a broad suguha in the manner of Shinkai. Across his nakago he cut unusually full long inscriptions, recording the kabuse plate count on nearly every blade and styling himself at times Yasuhide, which is why his dated, self-named pieces are treated as valuable source material.
What distinguishes Kaboku is the breadth of an amateur who answered to no school line and ranged freely between Bizen and Sōshū. His Bizenchōji sets him among the Ishidō-influenced smiths of the early shintō without binding him to them, while his Sōshū work, looking past his own century to Gō, gives him an ichimai-tempered bōshi and a thick nie activity that few of his contemporaries pursued so deliberately. The published sources name Bandō Tarō Toden among his disciples, but his line did not carry far; he is remembered less as the head of a tradition than as a singular figure, a doctor of letters who forged a hundred blades and wrote a book about it, and whose surviving swords are read off their own long signatures rather than off any documented descent.
For the collector Kaboku is a rare and particular name rather than a famous one. He has no National Treasures and no Important Cultural Properties; his record runs through the Jūyō rank, with four blades on official record, all of them katana and all signed. None carries a documented daimyō provenance in the surviving papers, and current holders are largely unrecorded, the blades having passed into private hands in Shizuoka, Tottori and Osaka among others. His total output was small to begin with, about a hundred swords across a working life that was never his principal occupation, and the designated pieces are held rather than traded; a signed Ōmura Kaboku comes to the open market only seldom. A privately held example is a notable thing for a collector to encounter, valued the more for the long inscriptions in which a seventeenth-century physician set down, in his own hand and his own words, exactly how and why he made the blade.
Kantei
A physician-amateur of the early Edo period working two manners: a flamboyant Bizen choji and a nie-laden Soshu midare, the latter looking to Go Yoshihiro.
Omura Kaboku, whose given name was Omori Jibuzaemon, was a physician of Suruga birth who took up swordsmithing as an avocation while serving Matsudaira Mitsunaga of Takada in Echigo and later Tokugawa Mitsukuni of Mito. By his own account in the Token Hiho he forged about a hundred blades over the forty-one years from Shoho 1 to Jokyo 1 (1644 to 1684). He worked in two principal manners: a brilliant Bizen tradition of large choji and gunome with midare-utsuri, and a Soshu tradition of broad suguha and large midare deep in nie with kinsuji and sunagashi, sometimes set off by an ichimaiboshi.
Diagnostic discriminators
互の目gunome4
100% of his works
砂流しsunagashi3
75% of his works
広直刃hiro-suguha2
A broad suguha base, deep in nioi and worked in nie, the foundation the published sources liken to Shinkai.
一枚ichimai1
25% of his works
Observation by phase
Bizen tradition (flamboyant choji)
Over an itame mixed with mokume, densely forged with a standing midare-utsuri, he tempers a large choji mixed with gunome; ashi and yo enter frequently, the nioi is deep and the nioiguchi clear; the boshi runs slightly midare-komi and turns in ko-maru. The published sources call his Bizen-tradition pieces his finest, and reckon them close to the Ishido manner of choji.
Jigane 地鉄
板目itame3杢moku1乱れ映りmidare-utsuri1
Hamon 刃文
大丁子o-choji1互の目gunome4足ashi3葉yo2匂深nioi-fukashi4
Bōshi 帽子
乱れ込みmidare-komi1小丸ko-maru3
Soshu tradition (nie-laden midare, looking to Go)
The Soshu manner predominates among the signed works in the corpus, three of four, the late 62nd-session piece its clearest statement.
His other manner is a broad suguha or a notare-based large gunome-midare worked deep in nie. The itame stands slightly with ji-nie and chikei, the steel color darkish; thick ashi enter, with hotsure, yubashiri and frequent kinsuji and sunagashi, and the boshi is tempered deeply, becoming ichimai-like. The published sources read the 62nd-session katana as plainly made with a keen awareness of Go Yoshihiro, and note that he also left a broad suguha in the manner of Shinkai.
His own treatise Token Hiho records that he forged about a hundred blades over forty-one years; the inscription kabuse plate count and the phrase that he was not a smith recur on his works.4
The published sources read his finest Soshu work as made with a keen awareness of Go Yoshihiro, and note a broad suguha in the manner of Shinkai.1
Historical importance
Where Kaboku stands among comparable artisans: across all of nihontō, and within tradition, era, and period. The tiers (Foremost · Leading · Major · Notable) weigh official designations from the NBTHK and Japan's Agency for Cultural Affairs, together with historical honors of lasting repute such as the Sansaku and Meibutsu-chō.
随一
Foremost
屈指
Leading
有数
Major
著名
Notable
All nihontōShintōKanbun
Select a lens to see how it's measured.
Designations
Kokuhō—
Jūyō Bunkazai—
Jūyō Bijutsuhin—
Gyobutsu—
Tokubetsu Jūyō—
Jūyō Tōken5
Elite Standing
0.03 across 5 designated works
Top 25% among smiths
Blade Forms
Distribution across 5 ranked works
▸Katana
480%
▸Tachi
120%
Signatures
Signature types across 5 ranked works
▸Signed (mei)
5100%
Currently Available
Kaboku
Kaboku(加卜) was a Japanese swordsmith of the Omura Kaboku school in Hitachi province, active during the Shoho–Jokyo (1644-1684) period.