#takayama chasen | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

chanoyu-to-wa · 2 years

Text

Nampō Roku, Book 7 (10): the Biographies of Nambō Sōkei's Contemporaries (4): Seta no Kamon [瀬田ノ掃部].

10) Seta no kamon¹ is a very eccentric person² who is, nevertheless, extraordinarily skillful in [the exercise of his] harataki³. Time and again, his doings surprise the eyes of the people⁴.

His creativity, nevertheless, tends toward [what some consider] excesses; but there is never anything that could be described as brooding or melancholic about [all that he does]⁵.

_________________________

¹Seta no kamon [勢田ノ掃部].

Seta no kamon [勢田ノ掃部]: this is a curious and, frankly, inexplicable mistake -- since the man’s family name was Seta [瀬田]. While it is possible that Nambō Sōkei had been misinformed, or made a clerical mistake, it is easier to believe that the Edo period impostor who inserted this entry into Book Seven of the Nampō Roku simply did not know the details of the person to whom this passage was referring* (Seta kamon died, in ignominy, in 1595†).

The man known (especially in the context of chanoyu scholarship) as Seta kamon [瀬田掃部] was actually named Seta Masatada [瀬田正忠; 1548? ~ 1595].

Seta Masatada was an official in the kamon-ryō [掃部寮], which was the department charged with the upkeep and repair of the Imperial Palace (he was appointed to this position by Hideyoshi, after the latter was elevated to kampaku [關白], the chief adviser to the Emperor who also functioned as his premier and regent -- under whose purview came all of the various ministries and bureaux). He was interested in chanoyu, studied (at least for a time) with Rikyū‡, and seems to have been introduced to Hideyoshi by the daimyō Takayama Shigetomo [高山重友; 1552 ~ 1615] (better known, in the context of chanoyu scholarship, as Takayama ukon [高山右近], ukon referring to his having been the commander of the right branch of the imperial guards, the ukonoefu [右近衛府]**). Masatada is often included in the list of Rikyū's seven disciples (Rikyū shichi tetsu [利休七哲]) as Seta kamon.

On account of his service in the kamon-ryō, Masatada had access to the various apartments within the palace, and became friendly with certain of their inmates. It was through this connection that he was able to assemble a collection of antique tea utensils that had formerly been used on the numerous o-chanoyu-dana [御茶湯棚] that were attached to the various reception and sitting rooms within the palace††. As these utensils were generally of large size, his chashaku, hishaku, and chasen were equally large‡‡.

Because of his close connection with Toyotomi Hidetsugu [豊臣秀次; 1568 ~ 1595], the adopted son of Hideyoshi, he was ordered to commit seppuku along with Hidetsugu’s other associates (in 1595).

Nevertheless, it is not entirely clear why his was included in this small collection of biographies. In fact, aside from his use of the large utensils from the o-chanoyu-dana, and the modifications to the basic temae that things of that sort would require, nothing else that has come down to us about Seta Masatada suggests that he was anywhere near as eccentric as this entry implies (elsewhere in the Nampō Roku, it is Sumiyoshi-ya Sōmu who was singled out as being the radical iconoclast of his time, which also contradicts the way he is characterized in his biography). It is, therefore, at least possible that this (and the other biographies) is simply an Edo period work of fiction, created to fulfill some specific purpose (even though the author’s purpose has not yet been made clear to us***). ___________ *There was a historical person known as Seta kamon-no-suke [勢田掃部助; dates and other personal information, including his actual name, are unknown] (of which Seta kamon [勢田掃部] would have been an acceptable abbreviation). He, however, was active during the early thirteenth century, and was what we would call a hydraulic engineer. (He is remembered in history because he was successfully charged with developing a plan to control the flooding of the Kamo river -- which, up to that time, frequently overflowed, with fatal consequences to the population living downstream.)

The confusion in names might suggest the hand of a government bureaucrat in the preparation of this entry (since part of their job was to become acquainted with the associated historical precedents).

†This was because of his close connection with Toyotomi Hidetsugu, Hideyoshi’s adopted son (who was eliminated, along with all of his family, and his adherents and colleagues, once the birth of a natural son made him superfluous -- other reasons being simply pretexts, intended to save Hideyoshi face).

‡Though when this connection between Rikyū and Masatada began, and to what extent it, is not clear from the surviving historical records.

Seta Masatada was a follower of Nobunaga, and possibly became interested in chanoyu from that time -- though the large-sized utensils with which his name is usually associated could not have entered his collection before his appointment to the kamon-ryō (circa 1585).

**The men on this list were those who were permitted (by Hideyoshi) to learn the gokushin-temae. On account of the feeling of power that this temae engenders in the host (when all of the utensils are of the proper size and arranged just right), only those vassals whom Hideyoshi trusted absolutely were given permission to study this temae from Rikyū (beginning in 1586).

For this reason, the Rikyū shichi tetsu are also known as the Rikyū daisu shichi-nin-shū [利休臺子七人衆]. There are different versions of this list.

According to one such, the seven names are Gamo Ujisato [蒲生氏郷; 1556 ~ 1595], Takayama ukon Shigetomo [高山右近重友; 1552 ~ 1615], Hosokawa Tadaoki [細川忠興; 1563 ~ 1646], Shibayama kemmotsu Munetsuna [芝山監物監物; dates unknown], Seta kamon Masatada [瀬田掃部正忠; 1548 ~ 1595], Makimura heibu Toshisada [牧村兵部利貞; 1545 ~ 1593], Furuta oribe Shigenari [古田織部重然; 1544 ~ 1615]. Other versions include Hideyoshi's adopted son Toyotomi Hidetsugu [豊臣秀次; 1568 ~ 1595], and his deputy Kimura Hitachi-no-suke Shigekore [木村常陸介重茲; ? ~ 1595], while eliminating two of the others.

Nevertheless, in Shigekore’s case at least, Rikyū appears to have refused to give him instruction in this most secret temae (according to a statement to that effect that forms part of the densho that Rikyū addressed to the vice-governor of Hitachi -- though the fact that the document, which linguistically dates from the middle of the 1580s, does not contain the year allows for the possibility that Rikyū may have changed his mind, if permission had eventually been received from Hideyoshi).

††With the increasing popularity of chanoyu, with the tea prepared at a daisu in the guests’ presence, the use of the o-chanoyu-dana fell out of use, with its utensils (primarily the furo, kama, mizusashi, and very large taikai-chaire) left to decay in storage (because most of these things were considered much too large to be used in any other setting, according to the preferences of the day, Seta Masatada was able to get his hands on them without difficulty).

The reason why his hishaku and chashaku were as large as they are was so that they would be in proportion to the other utensils with which they were used. Masatada’s hishaku survives today as the ordinary ro-yō hishaku [爐用柄杓] -- though Seta kamon naturally used it all year round (as was the custom), regardless of whether he was serving tea with the ro, or with the furo.

‡‡Seta Masatada owned a very large chawan, known (in the Nampō Roku) as the sui-kai chawan [水海茶碗]. It was unusually shallow (more like a Western “pasta dish” than what we would consider a bowl); and was 15-me [目] (about 7-sun 5-bu, or 22.7 cm) in diameter.

This bowl was mentioned in Book Five, Part 13, in the post entitled Nampō Roku, Book 5 (13.1): the Arrangement [of the Daisu] During the Shoza when [Receiving a] Respected Guest, Part 1. The URL for which is: https://chanoyu-to-wa.tumblr.com/post/620572177833623553/namp%C5%8D-roku-book-5-131-the-arrangement-of

This chawan, and its use, will also be discussed a little later in Book Seven (in entries 15, 16, and 17).

***Shibayama Fugen, in his very brief notes on this biography, lays out the hypothesis that the first four chajin were included in this list because each of them epitomizes one of the virtues (that the author of the essays deemed to be) necessary for the consummate master. About this he writes, “art takes on different forms, depending on each person's disposition and personality. All of these men were masters of their time, each with his own unique strengths and weaknesses. We can look at [them] in this way:

◦ [Tennōji-ya] Sōkyū’s [hataraki] is far-reaching and perspicacious;

◦ [Sumiyoshi-ya] Sōmu’s [hataraki] is moderate and modest;

◦ [Naya] Sōkyū’s [hataraki] is founded on an outstanding technique; and,

◦ [Seta no] kamon’s [hataraki] is unconventional, and supremely brilliant.”

His argument, then, seems to be that, whereas each of these masters embodies one aspect of mastery, only in Rikyū (who will be the subject of the next and final biography) are all four of these attributes gathered together in one individual.

²Hanahada ki-i no hito ni te [甚奇異ノ人ニテ].

Hanahada [甚だ] means very much, greatly, exceedingly -- and (perhaps) to excess.

Ki-i no hito [奇異の人] means an eccentric (or even bizarre) person.

The language in this entire entry is often improbably exaggerated, marking it as a product of the Edo period. Many expressions are so uncommon that their exact meaning can only be guessed at.

³Tobi-kittaru hataraki domo [トビ切タルハタラキドモ].

Shibayama Fugen and Tanaka Senshō both have this and the next phrases punctuated differently. For this sentence, they have tobi-kittaru hataraki domo tabi-tabi ari [トビ切タルハタラキドモタビ〰アリ].

Tobi-kittaru hataraki [飛び切たる働き] means that Masatada’s hataraki is finished, complete, fully realized.

Tabi-tabi ari [度々あり] means often exists.

In other words, Seta kamon frequently demonstrates a truly remarkable, masterful hataraki -- his hataraki leaves nothing to be desired.

⁴Tabi-tabi hito-bito mo me wo odorokasu to iedomo [タビ〰人〻モ目ヲ驚カストイヘドモ].

Again, both Shibayama and Tanaka distribute the words into phrases slightly differently from what is seen in the Enkaku-ji manuscript*: hito-bito mo me wo odorokasu to iedomo [人〻モ目ヲ驚カストイヘドモ].

Hito-bito [人々] means people, the interested public, people in general.

Me wo odorokasu [目を驚かす] means (their) eyes are surprised -- that is, the people are surprised (by what Seta kamon does). ___________ *At least as the text is given in the Sadō Ko-ten Zen-shū [茶道古典全集] edition of the Nampo Roku.

⁵Amari tobi-sugite shushō ni shimeyaka-naru-koto nashi [アマリ飛過テ殊勝ニシメヤカナルコトナシ].

Amari [余り] means really -- though it also includes the nuance of going to excess, doing something to a fault, doing too much.

Tobi-sugite [飛び過ぎて] means to fly beyond, to exceed, to surpass.

Shushō ni [殊勝に] means commendability, worthy of being praised.

Shimeyaka-naru-koto nashi [沈寂なること無し]: the case (koto [こと]) of being or becoming (naru [なる]) gloomy* (shimeyaka [蕭條]); (this situation) does not exist (nashi [無し]).

In other words, Seta Masatada’s hataraki goes beyond mere complements, since it is always positive.

However, according to Tanaka Senshō, the original version† of this final sentence was tobi-sugite kuwashiku omoiiri-taru-koto sukunashi [飛過テ委ク思入タルコト少ナシ]. This means, “if [one] soars too high, it seems as if [one] has not thought about [things] in minute detail.” __________ *This is “quiet” in the negative sense of there being no traces of human presence, hence the setting or situation has fallen into a lonely and depressed state, overshadowed with a feeling of desolation; the word also includes the nuance of foreboding, of impending doom.

When used of a person, it indicates someone with a mournful or melancholic personality. Here (due to the final nashi [無し]), it means that Seta kamon is never gloomy or melancholic.

Historically, the word has also been written with the kanji combinations “蕭索,” “蕭然,” and “沈寂” -- though none of them (including the one given above in the body of this footnote) is actually pronounced shimeyaka (so some prefer to render it exclusively with kana, as しめやか).

†In a document that he rather vaguely refers to as the genpon [原本] (“original book”) -- which, presumably, was “lost” when the Japanese Imperial Army burned down the Shū-un-an early in the last century (while at least part of Nambō Sōkei’s hoard of papers is hidden away in a certain school’s secret archives -- based on what I saw with my own eyes -- it is not clear how Tanaka would have known about the contents of this material, which was still a jumbled stack of random papers in the late 70s, or how he may have gained access to it).

Or perhaps he means Tachibana Jitsuzan’s original notes (which were later edited into the Nampō Roku for presentation to the Enkaku-ji)?

1 note · View note