Sur les mumei [1] et l'expertise
Version originale anglaise
[1] Mumei 無銘 se traduit par "sans signature"; Des sabres non signés
Extrait fourni par Paul Martin, reproduit ici avec permission--
*Translator’s
note: In the previous section Nakahara sensei stated that he does not
acknowledge mumei blades. To clarify his reasoning, he was saying that
signatures are removed from blades in order to increase their potential
worth. However, he later noted that there are occasions when he would
even recommend mumei blades. The thrust of his opinion is directed at
mumei blades that are attributed to famous smiths. Although this may
initially seem like an extreme opinion, it does deserve some further
consideration. The reasoning is solid: take a blade by a lesser-known
smith that resembles the workmanship of a famous smith, remove the
signature and the chances of it being considered the work of the
well-known smith increase. I am sure that this practice has probably
taken place more often than we would like to think.
However,
there are many other plausible reasons given for the occurrence of
mumei blades. One that is frequently stated concerns the majority of
long blades from the Nanbokucho period that have had osuriage performed
on them. This was apparently done in order to make them more easily
wieldable in later more tumultuous periods. However, this kind of
practice does beg the question, particularly when applied to the works
of well-known masters of the craft: Why wasn’t the signature preserved
using one of the known techniques of orikaeshi-mei or gaku-mei?
However, also to be taken into account is that during the extended
periods of civil warfare in Japan, sword appreciation was not
paramount. Swords of those periods were primarily weapons and were not
in art polish; they were utilitarian objects and the craftsmen given
the job to shorten the blade may have done just that without regard to
preserving the mei. I personally feel that high-level suriage
craftsmanship like that of the Umetada school (under the patronage of
the Hon’ami school) did not appear until the Early Edo period when the
function of swords had changed somewhat. At that time of prevailing
peace, the use of swords declined and they became a status symbol of
the samurai; thus fine gold, kinpun and shumei attributions (along with
decorative fittings) gained in popularity. In addition, the rising
merchant classes could also afford such luxuries and in many cases were
able to commission more extravagant work than their samurai
contemporaries.
There
are various opinions as to why swordsmiths would at times not sign
swords. One commonly known reason is that when swords were made as
offerings to shrines, swordsmiths would not sign the work out of
respect to the gods. This also applied to swords being presented to
one’s social superior. A sword would be presented to a daimyo unsigned,
then he would request that the smith sign it. Many Yamato den works are
unsigned—possibly because the smiths were in the employ of the shrines.
In addition to this many shrines possessed large amounts of swords
which would be loaned out during times of conflict. Many would not be
returned or were lost or broken in battle, or another sword would be
returned in its place. As one would expect, daimyo would also have
their own armories filled with swords for such occasions. It has also
been expressed that these amassed, stored swords made by the retained
swordsmiths would also include either unsigned examples made as a
matter of course, or left unsigned because of their lower quality
(kazu-uchi mono). However, in keeping with Nakahara sensei’s theory
there are many extant kazu-uchi mono that are signed. In the late Edo
period, a substantial number of blades were made to accommodate the
tourist boom. As the workmanship was typically poor, there are
consequently many unsigned (or gimei) examples.
|
