EDITORIAL: Ever since Larry Bickford's article in Andon 22 came out, I have been waiting for reactions. Most of us wouldn't welcome a theory which, if proved to be correct, would mean that the authorship of a substantial group of prints should be revised. In this issue, Ellis Tinios ventures some mostly methodological comments and, in turn, Bickford has his reply in this same issue. From their contributions it will be obvious that various problems remain unsolved. Who is going to provide us with more evidence from prints or with a faithful report on the backside of the memorial stone of 1828? Yet, with two more reactions promised for our pages -which never came -I cannot believe this to be a sound indication of our concern for both Toyoshige and Kunisada. Another source, so far not involved into the discussion, are the illustrated novels of the period. At least these should give us a sound basis for dating and a good insight into the regular connection which must have existed between artists/illustrators and writers at certain periods.
I sincerely do hope that the Toyokuni I, II, III problems may be the subject of discussion again, at some later time.