As we know from his account of the Court Journey from Nagasaki to Edo, Philipp Franz von Siebold 1796-1866, had a meeting with Takano Chōei 高野長英 1804-1850, at Shimonoseki. Chōei was a Rangaku scholar who had come to Nagasaki in X/1824 to study with Siebold. This meeting took place on February 26, 1826. On that occasion, Siebold is pleased to find that he completed his thesis on whales, and the next day, they even meet with the whaler from Hirado ‘to whom the aforementioned doctor Takano Chōei was largely obliged for his thesis on whales, and whom he brought along so that he could supply us with some more information from his wealth of experience’ (/…/ dem der obenerwähnte Arzt Takano Tsjōje die Abhandlung von den Walfischen gröfstenteils verdankt und den er in der Absicht mitgebracht hatte, um uns aus dem Schatze seiner Erfahrungen einige nähere Mitteilungen darüber zu machen [p. 123 in the 1897 edition of Nippon]). Most likely, Chōei met with this whaler when he was spending time at Hirado where he studied the Western books in the collection of Matsura Seizan 松浦青山 1760-1841.

In a manuscript listing of the various theses that his students and friends supplied him with, titled Literarische Beiträge meiner Japanischen Freunde (Burg Brandenstein Archive Ve93), Siebold records two theses on whales. One is the ‘Treatise on the Whales Caught in the Sea of Kishū Province (紀州 or Kii no kuni 紀伊國). Translated from the Japanese by O. Kenkai (Oka Kenkai 岡研介 1799-1839)’ (Verhandeling over de Walvisschen in de Zee van het Landschap Kisju gevangen. Uit het Japansch door O. Kenkai vertaald), listed as number 8. Then there is ‘The Description of the Whale. Translated by Zooken (Ishii Sōken 石井宗謙 1796-1861) from Japanese into Dutch, 1827’ (De beschryving van de Warvisch. Door Zooken uit het jappansche met het hollandsche vertaalt, 1827), number 24. Coincidentally, this thesis in the Dutch translation, is now preserved in the Brandenstein family archives – where it landed some years ago via the Netherlands and the United States, probably having been stolen from the Japaninstitut at Berlin (No. 350 in their library catalogue) by some American soldier at the end of World War II. There is also a photographic copy in Tōyō Bunko 東洋文庫, as they photographed all the Siebold material that was on loan for an exhibition in Japan. Here, however, I am much indebted to Wilhelm Graf Adelmann of the Burg Brandenstein Archives who kindly supplied me with a scan of the manuscript.

When I recently spent some time more systematically studying the Siebold Collection at Leiden University Library, I found a manuscript titled Kaishu 『海鰌』(Ser 1015) that appears to be the Japanese original that Sōken translated. This is a quite surprising title for a treatise on whales, as Kaishu would translate as something like ‘Small Fish in the Seas.’ Would this then be the thesis that Takano Chōei handed to Siebold at Shimonoseki? As for its contents, both the Kaishu and De beschryving van de Warvisch have notes on thirteen kinds of whales, ranking these as good (上品), less (中品), or even undesirable (下品) for their bad taste, indeed the sort of information one might typically expect from a whaler at Hirado. Chōei’s informant proudly states on page two of the Kaishu in an introduction that is omitted by Sōken, ‘/…/ the provinces where they are most abundant are from Ise to Kii, but what the Gotō Islands in Hizen yield is the best /…/’ (此邦多有之有所在勢州及肥之五島取之以五島産爲最上), yes, these are the fishing grounds closest to Hirado. It is then interesting to note that Takano Chōei made use of such a reliable direct informant, whereas it would also have been quite logical to consult the Geishi 『鯨志』by Kajitoriya Jiemon 梶取屋次右衛門 of 1760, reprinted in 1794, in fact the only Japanese literary source mentioned in the introduction, and also represented in the Siebold Collection (Ser 1017). All the other literary sources cited for their mentioning ‘whales,’ kujira 鯨 or ch’ing in Chinese are quite ancient Chinese works, ranging from the third century Funan ibutsushi 『扶南異物志』to the Wakan sansai zue 『和漢三才図会』that was issued in a Japanese edition as recently as in 1715.

In addition to the thirteen species of whales, the manuscript also provides us with a list of all the parts of the body that can be eaten. Anyway, to be sure, the Sebikujira 脊美鯨 (written as世比古矢剌 in Geishi) is best (上品), and more delicious than other whales (de smaak is zeer aangenaamer dan andere walvischen). Then comes the Kokujira 兒鯨 (Geishi 狐古矢剌), also the best (上品), tastes as the Sebikujira (ook beste soort /…/ de smaak is hetzelfde als die der zebikoedira); the Zatōkujira (Geishi 座頭鯨), also known as Biwakujira 琵琶鯨 as it resembles the biwa fruit, i.e. the humpback whale, literally ‘the blind man-whale,’ tastes less nice (中品) than the Sebikujira (de smaak is slechts dan zebikoedira); the Gotō kujira 伍□鯨 (Geishi 狐度宇鯨) also rates second of the second rank (中之中品), its taste is less nice than that of the Zatōkujira (ook tweede soort /…/ de smaak is slechter dan die van zatookoedira).

Now the real bad ones: Makkokujira 埋紫歌鰌魚 (Geishi 末子狐古矢剌), its meat is not good (下品), their piss is called anpera and is praised by the Dutch (het vlees is niet goed, hun pis wordt anpera genoemd en geprezen van hollander [actually: 其屎名阿年邉羅蠻人以貴重之世, their excrements are known as ‘anpera’ and considered precious by the Barbarians – most likely referring to ambergris (as Arlette Kouwenhoven pointed out to me)]); the Nakasukujira 奈華思鯨 (Geishi 那加思古矢剌), its meat doesn’t taste well (下品) and very little oil, thus a bad species (de smaak des vlees is niet goed en zeer weinig olie, daarom is slechts soort); the Notakujira □鎖鯨鯨 (not in Geishi), doesn’t taste well (下品), one can only get the oil; also a bad species (de smaak is niet goed /…/ men kan alleen van dit de olie krijgen; hij is ook slechts soort); the Sakamatakujira 素華埋佗 (Geishi 沙加末打鯨), its meat doesn’t taste well (下品) and a bad species (de smaak des vlees is niet goed, en slechts soort); the Tsuchikujira 土鯨 (not in Geishi), a bad type (下之下品); its meat is blueish and dark, the taste watery or slimy and like earth, that is why it is called tsuchikujira, or earth-whale (hij is slechts soort; zijn vlees is blaauw en donkere kleuren, de smaak waterachtig en slijmachtig, en naar de smaak des aard gelijk, dus dit walvisch noemt men tstikoedira); the Katsuokujira 鰹鯨 (Geishi 加子倭古矢剌), also a bad species (下品) and doesn’t taste well (hij is ook slechts soort /…/ de smaak is niet goed); the Akaharakujira 朱坊鯨 (not in Geishi), its meat cannot be eaten (下品) (die vlees kan men niet eeten).

This is the end of the whales, then comes the Iruka 海豚 or dolphin, which tastes salty and smells, but not poisonous, like the meat of the (?) nerve [can be used as medicine for various problems] and as the intestines can be eaten, these are well-praised, heart, liver, milt, stomach, bowels, blather (de smaak is zoutachtig en stinkende, niet vergift, als het vlees der siguuzenuw /…/ daar dit ingewanden eetbaar zijn, zo worden zij aangepreezen, hart, lever, milt, maag, darmen, pisblaas, die alles zijn zeer smaaklijker dan deze vlees); and then the Nami no uo 波魚 (?), one only gets the oil (krijgt men de olie).

Now let us skip the extensive list of parts of whales that can be eaten and move on to some other works on whales, as Siebold was apparently quite well-interested in these animals. In addition to the already mentioned Geishi, there is an album of paintings titled ‘Pictures of Long Whales Painted after Nature,’ Shashin nagakujira no zu 『写真長鯨図』, comprised of seven anonymous and pretty amateurish plates of which only the Sebikujira, the Zatōkujira and the Iruka are identified (Leiden University Library Ser 1016). The plate of the first was most likely directly copied after the illustration in Geishi, and this may also well be true for some others. More interesting is an album of four plates, each with six depictions of whales, plus a painting of whaling (National Museum of Ethnology, now Wereldmuseum Leiden, RV-1-4497b). The latter plate is obviously by an amateur, the others are anonymous, but undoubtedly not by Kawahara Keiga as the museum believes. Was Siebold’s interest in whales inspired by the centuries old Dutch tradition of whaling? Anyway, he later obviously used quite a bit of the information that he could find in Takano Chōei’s thesis in his Nippon, at least in the 1897 edition of the Court Journey, still under the date of 27 February.

Now we move on to something totally different, the ‘Fossilized Nails of Tengu,’ another manuscript in the Siebold Collection preserved in the Leiden University Library (Ser 1032), titled ‘Tengu – Miscellaneous Thoughts on their Fossilized Nails,’ Tengu – Tsumeishi zakkō 『天狗爪石雑考』. This is again a treatise in Japanese that had been made available to Siebold in a Dutch translation by Kō Ryōsai 高良齋 1799-1846, one of Siebold’s most trusted pupils, titled Kort schets over een versteende Tand –- was in the Japaninstitut Berlin, present whereabouts unknown. But what is a ‘tengu’? Will. H. Edmunds calls Tengu ‘Heavenly Dogs’ in his Pointers and Clues to the Subjects of Chinese and Japanese Art, London 1934, specifies two kinds, the so-called ‘Konoha Tengu wich has a human face and form, but winged and with a very long nose; and the more bird-like Karasu Tengu or Crow Tengu, with a bird’s head and strong curved beak.’ For proof of their existence, we just have to believe the tradition that Sōjōbō 僧正坊, the King of the Tengu, decided to let his folk teach the art of fencing to the young Minamoto no Yoshitsune 源義経 1159-1189. And then there are also their fossilized nails, discussed in this manuscript that was given to Siebold by Kurimoto Zuiken 栗本瑞見 1756-1834, a doctor at the Tokugawa court, notably from his own library.

This is a text by Kiuchi Jūgyō 木内重暁著, better known as Kiuchi Sekitei 木内石亭 1725-1808, proof-corrected by Hozumi Tamotsu 穂積保校. Kiuchi had been interested in curious and rare stones from the age of eleven and Siebold, who owned a copy of his Unkonshi 『雲根志』, 3 vols. 1773, 1779 and 1801, cites from his work in Nippon, especially from his discussion of magatama 曲玉. Moreover, this is an almost comprehensive work on all kinds of stones, even including a note on the ‘fossilized Tengu nails,’ tengu no tsumeishi in part 3 of the second part (後編巻の三). In the manuscript on fossilized tengu nails, Kiuchi discusses quite a few findings of such nails in various provinces, such as at Kanazawa in Kaga Province (加賀州金沢) in XII/1787, or again in IX/1776, in the village of Sasakura in Neigōri in Etchū Province (越中州婦負郡笹倉村) in XI/1793, and so on. He often even gives the names of the finder and the measurements of the nails.

From the various illustrations of these finds one really gets some idea of what these tengu nails might be, at least a specialist will, I guess – my initial suspicion, though I am an amateur, that they most look like shark teeth, was confirmed at the site of the Kiseki Museum of World Stones 奇石博物館. There they are identified as Carcharodon megalodon, the teeth of a shark measuring some twenty meters, living some 7.000.000 years ago. And I can only add that, anyway all the finding sites indicated by Sekitei are on the coast. Moreover, these illustrations really make the manuscript quite special since at least two of three known similar manuscripts have hardly any. One is the ‘Strange Tales of Fossilized Tengu Nails,’ Tengu no tsumeishi kidan 『天狗爪石奇談』, equally by Kiuchi Sekitei and again with a preface dated I/1796. It comes from the Shibayō 芝陽文庫 and Shirai Libraries 白井氏蔵書 and is now housed at the National Diet Library, Tokyo (国立国会図書館 [特 1-2043]). The nine sheets manuscript has the same introductory text and the account of all findings as the Siebold copy, but ends where this has the illustrations. The other is ‘My Humble Considerations on Fossilized Tengu Nails,’  Tengu no tsumeishi sekkō 『天狗爪石拙攷』by Kurimoto Zuiken, with a date of VIII/1818. This 60 sheets manuscript covers quite a range of different subjects and has, in spite of its title, only six pages of text that correspond with the addenda in the Siebold copy. In addition, it features one illustration of a jaw with seven teeth. It comes from the Aoki 青木印 and Fujin Collections 不忍文庫 and is presently preserved in the National Diet Library, Tokyo (ち 43-7). Alas, I did not (yet) get to see a third copy/version of this manuscript, the ‘Miscellaneous Thoughts on Fossilized Tengu Nails,’ Tengu no tsumeishi zakkō 『天狗爪石雑考』by Ōtsuki Bansui 大槻磐水, better known as Gentaku 玄沢 1757-1827, of which Keiō University in Tokyo would have a copy.