Page:Brinkley - Japan - Volume 7.djvu/248



Born 1585; died 1663. His manner of using the chisel greatly resembled that of Kwōjō. One is reminded of a pine-tree and a bamboo covered with snow: they present a delightful contrast, but at heart retain the same changeless green. The fidelity and chastity of his work force them- selves into notice. During the Kwanyei era (1625-1643) his services were engaged by the feudal chief of Kaga, who gave him a pension of 150 koku of rice annually (about 1,500 yen), and he made it a custom thenceforth to live in Kaga every second year.

8. Sokujō, called also Mitsushige, was the son of Yeijō. Born 1603; died 1631. His style resembles that of Kenjō, and is characterised by directness, strength, and vigour. Connoisseurs are wont to class the works of Yūjō, Kōjō, and Kenjō as the "three chefs-d'uvre" (sansaku), but specimens by Sokujō are exchangeable with those of Kenjō. There is a notion that something of the value attaching to Sokujō's works is due to their rarity, for as he died at the early age of twenty-eight, his productions were not numerous. But that is a mistake. He was a veritable genius, and to that fact alone is due the esteem in which his carvings are held. It is believed by good judges that had he lived longer and attained the mastery of technique which many years of effort can alone give, he would even have surpassed his ancestors, and a sympathetic perception of his latent capacities has something to do with the rank accorded to him by posterity. In the same way connoisseurs often class the works of Tsūjō (eleventh representative),, and Kwōjō as the three chefs-d'uvre, declining to include the sculptures of Yūjō, whom they place in a rank by himself as a divine and matchless master. That is a point of delicacy.

9. Teijō, called also Mitsumasa, the son of Kenjō, was born in 1603, and died in 1673. He represented the family during the minority of his nephew Renjō. He was promoted to the art rank of Hokkyo. His works are at once charming, noble, and dignified. It is impossible to deny their title to be called masterpieces. Though his time was not very remote from our own era (1781), his carvings have the peculiar aspect of age presented by the work of Kwōjō and the other early masters. The chisel-marks are some-