Notes

1 Introduction: Quest for Esotericism

1. The postmodern challenge to the notion of autonomous trutf h caused dissonancemost visibly in the natural sciences as epitomized in the Science Wars in the late1990s, a phenomenal event that happened at the border between the academiccommunities of natural sciences and what might be called the cultural “sciences.”

2. Komiya Toyotaka, Bashô Zeami Hiden Kanô [Bashô, Zeami, hiden, and intuition](Tokyo: Hakujitsu Shoin, 1947), passim.

3. Hayaa ashiya Tatsusaburô, Chûsei Geinôshi no Kenkyûk [A stuA dy oy f tf he entertainmenthistory in the medievaly period] (Tokykk o: Iwanami Shoten, 1960), passim. See alsoNishiyama Matsunosuke, Iemoto no Kenkyûk [A studydd of y iemoto y, the stem-familyhead] (Tokykk o: Yoshikawa Kôbunkan, 1982), vol. 1 of Nishiyi ama MatsunosukeChosakushû [The collected works of Nishiyii ama Matsunosuke, hereafter abbreviatedNMCMM ], passim.

4. Iemoto literally means “ty he origin or head (moto)” of “tf he stem-famiff ly household(ie).” It refers to a person, or a ff famiff ly, whww o organizes a quasi-famiff ly institution forffa specific activity, sucff h as dancing and the tea ceremony. Some iemotot managed tofully sy ystematize their organizations, which Nishiyama Matsunosuke calls theiemoto system. In the iemoto system, an iemoto yassumes the ultimate authorityttwitww hin the institution, including the exclusive right to commodify teacff hings.Nishiyama Matsunosuke, Iemotosei no Tenkai [The development of tf he iemotottsystem] (Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kôbunkan, 1982), vol. 2 of NMC, passim.CC

5. Ibid., passim.6. Kumakura Isao, “Hiden no Shisô” [Thought of hiden], in Geinô to Chinkonô

[Entertainment and requiescat], ed. Moriya Takeshi (Tokyo: Shunjn ûsha, 1988),vol. 7 of Taikei Bukkyôk to Nihonô jn ijj n [Survey of Buf ddhism and the Japanese], 263,266, 267.

7. Cf. Susan Blakeley Klein, fAllege ories ofo Desire: Esoteric Literarf yr Commentaries oy foMedieval Japa an (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002).

8. See Klein, Allege ories ofo Desirf err , passim; Karl F. Fridayaa with Seki Humitake,y sLege acgg ieseeofo the Sword: The Kashima-Shinrf yr û and Samurai Martial Culture (Honolulu:University of Hawai’i Press, 1997), 155–160.

9. Matsunaga Yûkei, MikkyMM ô: Indo kara Nihon eno Denshô [Esoteric Buddhism:Traditions from India to Japan] (Tokyo: Chûôkôronsha, 1989), 26–27TT .

10. Kenneth K. S. Ch’en, Buddhism in ChCC ina: A Historical Survel ye (Princeton:Princeton Universitytt Press, 1964y ), 334–336. See also Matsunaga Yûkei, Mikkyô,158–184.

11. Accounts vary in terms of tf he line of succession, incf luding the number of disciples.See, e.g., Katsumata Shunkyô, “Rekishi Katei to Kongôkai” [The historical processand kongn ôkai], in MikkMM yk ô no Rekishi [History of esoteric Buddhism], ed. Miy yasakaYûshô, Umehara Takeshi, and Kanaoka Shûyû (Tokyo: Shunjn ûsha, 1977), vol. 2

Notes142

of KôKK za Mikkyôk [Lectures on esoteric Buddhism], 106–112. See also MatsunagaYûYY kei, Mikkyôk , 54–65, 227–238.

12. KôKK bô Daishi KûKK kai, Goshôrai Mi okurokuMM [The list of imf ported items bestowedupon entreaty], in KôKK bô Daishi Chosaku Zenshô û [The complete works of KôKK bôDaishi, hereafter abbreviated KDCKK ZCC ], ed. Katsumata Shunkyô, vol. 2 (Tokyo:ZSankibôbusshorin, 1970), 1–32.

13. Dengyô Daishi Saichô, Dengyn ô Daishi Shôsoku (Shô) [The selected correspon-dence of Dengyô Daishi], in Saichô Kô ûKK kai Shû [The collected works of Saichô

fand Kûkai], ed. Watanabe Shôkô (Tokyo: Chikuma Shobô, 1969), vol. 1 ofNihon no Shisô [Japanese thought], 63–64, 70–86, 88–89.

14. See, e.g., Matsunaga Yûkei, MikkMM yk ô, 254–255.15. Ueyama Shunpei, Kûkai [Kûkai] (Tokyo: Asahi Shinbunsha, 1992), 249–252.16. KôKK bô Daishi KûKK kai, Henjôjj Hakki Seireishô û (a.k.a. HenjHH ôjj Hokki Shô ôryôshû)

[Collection of the universally shininy g spirit of Kûkai], in KDCZCC , ed. KatsumataZZShunkyô , vol. 3 (Tokyo: Sankibôbusshorin, 1973), 438.

17. Ibid., 430–438. Incidentally, because Chô is a shortened name, some consideyy rthe addressee to be Enchô, one of the disciples of Saichô. This hypothesis derivesfrom the “arrogant and mean” tone of Kûkai’s letter. Modern scholarship ascer-tains, however, that this letter addresses Saichô. See Ueyama, KûkaiKK , 246–247;Katsumata Shunkykk ô, Kôbô Daishi no Shisô to sono Genryr û [The thought of KôbôDaishi and its origins] (Tokykk o: Sankibôbusshorin, 1981), 12–13. See also KôbôDaishi Kûkai, Henjn ô Hakki Seireishûjj (a.k.a. Henjn ô Hokki Shôrjj yr ôshû) [Collectionof the universally shininy g spirit of KûKK kai], in Sangn ô Shîki Seireishû f[Indications of

fthe goals of tf he three teachings; Collection of tf he universally shining spirit ofKûKK kai], ed. Watanabe Shôkô and Miyasaka YûYY shô (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten,1965), vol. 71 of Nihon Koten Bungaku Taikei [Collection of Japanese cf lassicalliterature], 443.

18. See the annotation on Kûkai, HenjHH ôjj Hakki Seireishô û, in KDCKK ZCC , 439. See alsoZZKûkai, Henjôn Hakki Seireishô û, in SanSS gôn Shô îki Seireishû y, 450. Ganjn iang is a legendarymaster swordsmith in the Chinese classics, however. See Morohashi Tetsuji, DaiKanwa Jiten [Comprehensive Chinese–Japanese Dictionary], vol. 4 (Tokykk o:Taishûkan Shoten, 1957), 484.

19. Matsunaga Yûkei, MikkMM yôk , 254.20. G. Cameron Hurst III, Armed Martial Arts ofo Jaf pa an: Swordsmanshipi andp

Archeryr (New Haven: Yale Universitytt Press, 1998y ), 71–72, 177–196. The detailsof his concept of “f professionaff lization” are discussed in chapter 2 in this book.

21. Curiously, one can find a similar phenomenon in Zen Buddhism. Kuroda Ryôstates that kôan ftopics are “retailed” piece by piece, reminding Zen trainees of

ythe existence of “unknown secret teachings” (“Zen no Shinrigaku” [Psychologyggof Zenf ], in Zen no GaiyZZ ô [Outline of Zen], ed. Inoue Tetsujirô, Ui Hakuju, andSuzuki Daisetsu [Tokykk o: Shun’yôdô Shoten, 1937], vol. 1 of Zen no KZZ ôKK za[Lectures on Zen], 87).

22. Hurst, Armed Martiad l Arts of Japal n, 64, 71. The Edo period refers to tff he periodwhen the Tokugawa shogunate was located in the city of Edo, the site of present-dayaa Toky ykk o.

23. Nakamura Yasuo, “Commentary,” in yy Hachijôjj Kadenshoô f[Eight-volume book ok ftransmission of teachings on the Flower], in Kodai Chûsei GeiKK ji utsuronjj y[Theoryon artistry from the ancient to medieval y periods], ed. Hayaa ashiya Tatsusaburô(Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1973), vol. 23 of Nihon Shisôss Taikeô i [Collected Jad pa anesethought, hereafter abbreviated NSTNN ], 798. For an evaluation of the historicalT

143Notes

importance of Hachijôi Kadenshoô , see Eric C. Rath, “Legends, Secrets, andAutAA horitytt : Hachijôi Kadenshoô and Early Moy dern Noh,” Monumenta NiMM ppi onica54.2 (1999): 169–194.

24. Miwa Masatane, Kagaku Hiden no Kenkyû [A stuA dy odd f hiden of poetry stuf dies](Tokyo: Kazama Shobô, 1994), 3–5, 11–15, 33–45.

25. Ibid., passim. See also, e.g., Nishiyama, Iemoto no Kenkyû; Iemotosei no Tenkai,passim.

26. Janet Ikeda Yuba, “Triumphant Survivor on Japan’s Cultural Battlefield of theSixteenth Century. Hosokawa Yûsai 1534–1610: Warrior, Nijô Poet and Guardianof the Kokin Denjn ujj ,” diss., Princeton University, 1993.

27. Rath, “Legends,” 169–194; “Actors of Influence: Discourse and InstitutionalGrowth in the History of Noh Theater,” diss., University of Michigan, 1998.

28. KlKK ein, Allegories of Desire, 2. AnotAA her fieff ld related to poetry is calligraphy. Forexample, see Gary DeCoker and Alex Kerr, y “Yakaku Teikinshô: Secret Teachingsof the Sesonjn i School of Calligraphy,” Monumenta NiMM ppi onica 49.3 (1994):315–329.

29. Friday with Seki, Legacies of thtt e Swordrr . See also Karl F. Friday, “Kabala in Motion:Kata & Pattern Practice in the Traditional Bugei,” sJournal oJJ fo Asian Martial Artff stt4.4 (1995): 26–39; quote from 27.

30. Kumakura, “Hiden no Shisô,” 291–296. Not a psychologist himself, Kumakurabases his theory on Kawai Hay yaa ao.

31. Nishiyama, Iemotosei no Tenkai, 261.32. See, e.g., Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki, “Zen: A ReA ply to Hu Sy hih,” PhilosoPP po hyh Easty

and Wesd t 3.1 (1953): 25–46.33. Sakai Naoki, “Joron: Nashonaritîtt to Bo/koku/go no Seiji” [Introduction:

Nationality and the politics of motf her/nation’s/tongue], in Nashonaritîtt noîDatsukôchiku [Deconstruction of nationalitytt ], ed. Sakai Naoki, Brett de Bary,yyand Iyotani Toshio (Tokyo: Kashiwa Shobô, 1996), 20.

w34. LaFleur states: “one difference between [Konparu Zenchiku] and his father–in–lawaa[Zeami] was that, whww ereas the older man succeeded in walking the fine ff linebetween the cryptic and the intelligible, the younger one mayaa have sliy pped overthe edge, falling into the excessively esoteric” y (rev. of Six Circles, One Dewdropo :The Religi io–Aesthetic World ofo Komf pm aru Zenchiku, by Arthur H. Thornhill IIIy ,Harvard Journal ofo Asiatic Studief see 56.2 [1996]: 529).

35. See Hayaa ashiya Tatsusaburô, Nihon Engn eki no Kankyk ô [Environment of Japanesetheater] (KyKK oto: Ôyashima Shuppan, 1947), 55–56. See also Komiyii a, Bashp ZeamiZZHiden Kan, passim; Kumakura, “Hiden no Shisô,” 293.

36. Zeami Motokiyo, Fûshikaden [Transmission of teachings on style and the Flower],in ZeamiZZ Zi enchikuZZ [Zeami and Zenchiku, hereafter abbreviated ZZ], ed. OmoteZAkira and Katô Shûichi (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1974), vol. 24 of NSTNN , 61.TT

37. Katô Shûichi, “Zeami no Senjutsu matawa Nôgakuron” [Zeami’s strategy or thenoh theory], in ZZ, 523.ZZ

38. Kumakura, “Hiden no Shisô,” 262–263.39. Kokin denjun , literally “transmitted instruction on kokin,” consists of the exegeses

of Kokin Wakashû, the tenth-century waka anthology. It is usuallyy y said that TôyTsuneyori, a fifteenth-century poet, brought kokin denjujj to perfection,ff but secretteachings that constitute kokin denjun descended approximately from the twelfty hcentury.yy Kokin denjujj is said to have been transmitted from Tô Tsuneyori(ca. 1401–1484/1494?), an ex-warrior and poet in the mid–Muromachi era, to Sôgi(1421–1502). (The tradition of kokin denju is connected with numerous schools,

Notes144

feach of which has different sets of poets.) Incidentally, another examyy ple offf“ridiculous” secret transmission is called hako denjn ujj (“box transmission”), whww ichrefers to tff he transmission of af particular box, i.e., the container of af putative eso-teric teaching. It is the box and not the teaching inside (i.e., the contents) that isregarded as important in the tradition of hako denju. See Kumakura, “Hiden noShisô,” 293; Miwa, Kagaku Hiden no Kenkyû, passim.

40. Motoori Norinaga, Ashiwakeobune [Small boat shoving through the reed],in Motoori Norinaga a Zenshgg û [The complete works of Motoori Norinagaf ],ed. Ôkubo Tadashi, vol. 2 (Tokykk o: Chikuma Shobô, 1968), 75.

41. Zeami, Fûshikaden, 61–62.42. Roland Barthes, “The Death of the Author,” in Image Music Text, trans. Stephentt

Heath (New York: Hill and Wang, 1977), 142–148. See also Judith Butler,“Imitation and Gender Insubordination,” in Inside/Out: Lesbian Theories, GayaTheories, ed. Diana Fuss (New York: Routledge, 1991), 22.ss

43. For the concept of the performative, see J. L. Austin, How to Do Thingn s withggWordsdd (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962), passim.

44. For a couple of examples of postmodern extremes and reactions to them, see Jean-François Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: A Repe ort on Knowledged f, trans. GeoffffBennington and Brian Massumi (Minneapolis: Universitytt oy f Minnesota Pressf ,1984), passim; Seyla Benhabib, “Epistemologies of Postmodernism: A Rejoinderto Jean-François Lyotard,” in Feminism/m Postmodernis// m, ed. Linda J. Nicholson(New York: Routledge, 1990), 107–130.

45. For an example of the dynamic utilization of Althusser’s interpellation andAustin’s AA performative, see Juff dith Butler, Excitable SpS eech: A Politics ofo thf ePerformatitt ve (New York: Routledge, 1997), passim.

46. Louis Althusser, “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses,” inAA Lenin andPhilosophy and Other Essays w, trans. Ben Brewster (New York: Monthly ReviewssPress, 1971), 170–186.

2 Operation of Esotericism

1. To be exact, heihô (a.k.a. hyôhô) literally means not only swordsmanship but alsomilitary science; both are not mutually exclusive. The introduction of HeihôHHKadenshoKK reads as if the two are actually identical. See Yay gyû Munenori, HeihôKadenshoKK [Family transmission book on swordsmanshiy p], ed. Watanabe Ichirô,in Kinsei Geidôron [Theory on the Way of arts in tf he premodern period],ed. Nishiyama Matsunosuke, Watanabe Ichirô, and Gunji Masakatsu (Tokyo:Iwanami Shoten, 1972), vol. 61 of NihonNN Shisô Tô aikeiTT [Collected Japanesethought, hereafter abbreviated NSTNN ], 307–309. Comparatively, however, it focusesTmore on the individual employment of swords than on military science. Thiy schapter will use the NST version. For English translations of tf his text, seeYaYY gyû Munenori, The Book of Family Traditions on the Art of WarTT , in MiyamotoMusashi, The Book of Five Rings, trans. Thomas Cleary (Boston: Shambhala,ss1993), 63–111; Yagyû Munenori, Heihô Kaden Sho: Family-Transmitted Book oHH nSwordsmanshipi , in Yagyû Munenori, The STT word and the Mind, trans. Hiroaki Sato(Woodstock: Overlook Press, 1986k ), 20–109.

2. Yagyû Munenori, Heihô Kadensho, 306, 342–343. Kamiizumi Hidetsuna is alsoknown as Nobutsuna.

3. Watanabe Ichirô, “Heihô Densho Keisei ni tsuite no Ichi-Shiron” [A workingythesis on the formation of transmission books on swordsmanship and military

science], in Kinsei Geidôron, 673.

145Notes

4. Nishiyama Matsunosuke, Iemoto no Kenkyûk [A stuA dy oy f iemoto y, the stem-famiff lyyyhead] (Tokykk o: Yoshikawa Kôbunkan, 1982), vol. 1 of Nishss iyi ama MatsunosukeChosakushû [The collected works of Nishiyama Matsunosuke], 15–16.

5. Nishiyama Matsunosuke, “Kinsei Geidô Shisô no Tokushitsu to sono Tenkai”[The characteristics of premodern thought of the Way of arts and its develop-ment], in Kinsei Geidôron, 585–586.

6. It is noteworthy that y gei also includes such a literary techniy que as poetry comy po-sition, whww ich amounts to one of tf he longest traditions of gei. For gei, see alsoYuasaYY Yasuo,YY Shintairon: TôTT yô ôteki Shinshinron to Gendai [Theory on the bodydd :An Eastern mind–body theory and the present] (Tokyo: KAA ôKK dansha, 1990),124–139.

7. See Nishiyama, Iemoto no Kenkyûk , passim.8. Cf. Daisetz Teitaro Suzuff ki, “Zen: A RepA ly to Hu Shih,” PhPP ilosophy East anh d Wesd t

3.1 (1953): 26.9. G. Cameron Hurst III, Armed Martial Arts ofo Jaf pa an: Swordsmanshipi anp d

Archeryr (New Haven: Yale Universitytt Press, 1998y ), 54.10. Miyamoto Musashi, Gorin no ShSS o [Book of five rings], ed. Watanabe Ichirô, in

KinseiKK Geidôron, 392.11. Hurst, Armed Martiad l Arts ol fo Jaf pa an, 71–72, 177–196. This phenomenon was

fnot unique to martial activities. As Hurst states, “specialists in a wide varietytt oy fcultural forms, most commonly known asy geidô (Noh, flower arranging, and soforth)” professionalized their skills at one time or another (212).

12. Heihô Kadensho, dated 1632, might appear too early toy be analyzed in thecontext of prof fessionaff lization. I hold, however, that this text at least anticipatesthis phenomenon. The Yagyû family was, after all, one of the earliest ie tthatachieved professionaff lization as such.

13. Hurst, Armed Martial Arts of Japan, 53–81.y14. For this reason, warriors prior to this change were expected to exercise as manyyy

military skills as possible, ranging from archery to horsemanship, to spear, andto swordsmanship. It was only ay fter tff he transformation tff hat maestros became“specialized” in one and only one skilly .

15. Watanabe, “Heihô Densho Keisei,” 673. See also Thomas Cleary, “Introduction,yy ”in Miyamoto Musashi, The Book of Five Rings, xiii.ss

16. Miyamoto, Gorin no Sho, 360, 362, 365, 374, 378, 385, 392–393.17. Watanabe, “Heihô Densho Keisei,” 673. See also Hiroaki Sato, “Introduction,”

in Yagyû Munenori, The Swordrr and d td htt e Mind t, 16–18. Watanabe also points outtthat many members of the Yagyû family show an attachment to Zen thinking(“Introduction,” in Yagyû Munenori, Heihô KadenshoHH , 301).

18. Yagyû Munenori, HeihôHH Kô adenshoKK , 322, 323, 333. Munenori mentions Takuan ashis “teacher of tf he Law (nori no shiss )” (323).

19. Miyamoto, Gorin no ShSS o, 356. Musashi here uses the character ri that means“advantage.” I suspect that he might have meant another ri, logic.

20. For Munenori’s erudite background, see Watanabe, “Heihô Densho Keisei,”654–660, 663–667.

21. In this regard, it is extremely informative that Nishiy yama, de facto the mostauthoritative scholar of iemoto to date, was initially a Zen trainee before com-ymencing his research on iemotott . His vast studydd oy f iemotott , although inclusive anddetailed, seems to remain within the confines off f tf he esotericist insider paradigm.(For the esotericist insider paradigm, see chapter 1.) Given his Zen discipline,this might have been a “natural” consequence, because he originally started hisystudydd with a viewy pw oint that was similar to the insider’s. I hold, however, that

Notes146

Nishiyii ama’s study, ayy long with the established scd holarship as a whww ole, is not insiders’conceptualization. As I stated before, it is an uff ltimate paradox for anff y insiy der toexamine the Truth available to him or her. Furthermore, I regard Nishiyama’sfrequent appff lication of nihonjin-ron (the theory of Japanesenessf ) as a vital signthat denies the “insiderness” of his study. See Nishiyama, Iemoto no Kenkyû, 1–2;“Kinsei Geidô Shisô,” 585–586, 592–597.

22. Watanabe, “Heihô Densho Keisei,” 655, 659. For Heihô Kô adenshoKK ’s explanationof swordsmanship on the analogy of the noh theater, see Yagyû Munenori, HeihôKadenshss o, 305, 315, 316, 333, 335.

23. Omote Akira, “Zeami to Zenchiku no Densho” [Transmission books by Zeamiand Zenchiku], in Zeami ZencZZ hiku [Zeami and Zenchiku, hereafter abbreviatedZZ], ed. Omote Akira and Katô Shûichi (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1974), vol. 24Zof NST, 549, 553. This does not indicate that the owners of handwritten copiesTTcompletely monoy polized the esoteric teachings. Historically, there has beenyy

fleakage from time to time. The implication of such leakage concerns the logic ofesotericism and is discussed in chapter 4.

24. For example, Heihô Kadensho shows Fûshikaden’s understanding of mi no ategai,i.e., posture. It also uses the concept of taiyi û (substance and functions), a notionZeami applies to noh artistry in another treatise of his:y Shikadô [The path to theFlower] (1420). See Yagyû Munenori, Heihô Kô adenshoKK , 329, 337. For Zeami’sformulation on taiyi û, see Zeami Motokiyo, ShikadSS ô [The path to the Flower], inZZ, 117–118.ZZ

25. Especially, “Sui no Maki” [The volume of water] and “Ka no Maki” [The volumyy eof fireff ], the second and third volumes of Gorin no Sho—in which Musashi writesooabout the system of his swordsmanship and its application to actual combat—arefuff ll of practicaf l, concrete, and detailed explanations. See Miyamoto, Gorin no ShSS o,365–375, 376–386.

26. One of the few primary sources on Musashi’s life is the introduction of Gorinno Sho itself. See Watanabe, “Heihô Densho Keisei,” 668. See also Cleary,“Introduction,” xvi.

27. Relatively few martial arts schools fully y develoy ped the iemotott system that retainedthe ultimate authoritytt within they iemotot . This differentiated martial arts fromother kinds of artistry. It was thus veryy y imy portant that the Yagyû family was ony eof the rare exceptions that fully develoy ped the iemoto system. See Hurst, ArmedMartial Arts ofo Jaff pa an, 177–178. See also G. Cameron Hurst III, “RyRR uha in theMartial and Other Japanese Arts,” Journal oJJ fo Asian Martial Artf stt 4.4 (1995):12–15. See also Nishiyama Matsunosuke, “Kinsei no Yûgeiron” [Theory on geientertainment in the premodern period], in Kinsei Geidôron, 618. See alsoP. G. O’Neill, “Organization and Authority in the Traditional Arts,” ModernMMAsian Studies 18.4 (1984): 631–645. See also Karl F. Friday with Seki Humitake,Legacies of the Sword: The Kashima-Shinryû and Samurai Martial Cultureû(Honolulu: Universitytt of Hawai’i Press, 1997y ), 12–57.

28. Watanabe, “Heihô Densho Keisei,” 655–663.29. Ogawa Kyôichi, Edo Bakuhan Daimym ôke Jiten [Dictionary of the shogunate and

daimyo in the Edo era], vol. 2 (Tokykk o: Hara Shobô, 1992), 568–570.30. Yagyû Munenori, HeihôHH Kô adenshoKK , 309.31. For each sôden, see Nishiyama, Iemoto no Kenkyûk , 43–45, 45, 45–46, 46–48,

48–50, 50–52, respectively.32. Yagyû Munenori, Heihô Kadenshoô , 303, 313, 317, 318, 325, 326 (kuden); 324,

325, 332, 341 (hiden); 311–312 (shinpiss ); 325 (sôden); 337 (hijijj ); 327 (himitsu);327 (ichi daijii ).

147Notes

33. Ibid., 309, 328 (hisuru); 305, 311–312 (hyôh ri); 327, 332 (kakushi kotoba);303–305 (tachiai).

34. Ibid., 303, 304, 314, 318 (TypTT e 1); 317 (TypTT e 2); 305 (TypTT e 3); 325, 333(Type 4).

35. Ibid., 303. For this and the following seven excerpts, emphasis is added foresoteric terminology, and silence is classifieff d into the four categories I proposeff d.Incidentally, “the riyy ght” in this context simply means “the aforementioned.” It iy sdue to the writing system and has no other implication, such as “correctness.”

36. Ibid., 304.37. Ibid., 305.38. Ibid., 314.39. Ibid., 317.40. Ibid., 318.41. Ibid., 325.42. Ibid., 333.

f43. This issue is related, albeit slightly and indirectly y, to the yy problematic polaritytt oy f“theory and a praxis” and “speech and an act.” Cf. Judith Butler, ExcitableSpeech: A Politics of the PerformativeA (New York: Routledge, 1997), passim.

44. Yuasa, Shintairon, 101 (emphasis in original).45. Ibid., 124–125.46. Thomas P. Kasulis, “Editor’s Introduction,” in Yuasa Yasuo, The Bodyd : Toward an

Eastern Mind–Bodyd Theory yr , ed. Thomas P. Kasulis, trans. Nagatomo Shigenoriand Thomas P. Kasulis (New York: State Universitytt oy f New Yorf k Press, 1987k ), 6(emphasis in original).

47. Yagyû Munenori, Heihô Kadenshô o, 321.48. Ibid., 310–311.49. Interestingly,yy psychoanalysis discovers the other side of the coin: the formidable

difficulty of what seems to be immediate. Language is for psychoanalysis to revealthe shortcut that results in the illusionary reality ytt of immediacy y. In contrastyy ,repeated physical training is for cuff ltivation to create, strengthen, and thusshorten the very shortcut as much as one y possibly cany .

50. Nishida Kitarô, Zen no Kenkyk û [An inquiry into they good] (Tokykk o: IwanamiShoten, 1950), 87.

51. Sissela Bok, Secrets: On the Ethics ofo Concealment and Revelatiof n (New York:VintaVV ge Books, 1989), passim, especially 36–37.y

52. Yagyû Munenori, HeihôHH Kô adenshoKK , 325. Incidentally, this section is entitleyy d“Suigetsu” [The water and the moon].

53. Ibid., 317.54. Ibid., 313, 315. In this regard, it is extremely intriguing that almost every item

belongs to the exposé type in ShinkagerySS û Heihû ô Mokuroku no Kotô ot f[Table offcontents of tf he Shinkage school swordsmanship], a detailed pictorial treatise of

the Shinkage school swordsmanship technique, presumably given to KonparuUjikatsu in 1601 by Yagyû Muneyoshi, the father of Munenori. It contains 25kinds of swordsmanship, and language and pictures exhaustively expound eachtechnique. Similarly, the term yy kuden concludes each item. (The language part wasadded in 1707 by Matsudaira Nobusada.y ) See Yagyû Muneyoshi and MatsudairaNobusada, Shinkaga eryûr Heihû ô Mokuroku no Kotoô [Table of contents of theShinkage school swordsmanship], ed. Watanabe Ichirô, in KinseiKK Geidôron,345–354. For philological information on this text, see Watanabe Ichirô,“Introduction,” in Yagyû Muneyoshi and Matsudaira Nobusada, ShinkagerySS ûHeihô Mokuroku no Kotott , 345. See also Watanabe, “Heihô Densho Keisei,” 655.

Notes148

55. In terms of its esoteric operation, therefore, Yagyû Muneyoshi and MatsudairaNobusada’s ShinkaSS ga eryûr Heihû ô Mokuroku no Kotô ott is less effectiveff , or refineff d,since it lacks the “camouflage” effect tff hat HeihôHH Kô adenshoKK possesses. Here,I would like to emphasize that we should not confuse esoteric sopff histication withthe technical or theoretical sophistication of swordsmanship. It is simply that the“camouflage” effect is an exempff lary manifestation off f esoteric institution, anf dHeihôHH Kô adenshoKK equipped with this is more refined in terms of esotericism than isShinkageryû Heihû ô Mokuroku no Kotoô , which is devoid of it. Incidentally,yyMusashi’s Gorin no ShSS o also shows a similar combination of detailed explanationand esoteric terminology. In the latter’s case, I consider it a “symptom” thatemerges against Musashi’s “will,” since Musashi himself claims anti-esotericism.Miyamoto, Gorin no Sho, 360, 362, 365, 374, 378, 385, 392, 393.

56. Yagyû Munenori, Heihô Kadenshoô , 313–315, 317, 326 (eye focus); 317 (swordrevolution); 317 (sustained attention); 317, 325 (spacing).

57. Ibid., 313.58. Ibid., 317.59. Ibid., 317.60. Other examples can be found in sections where the text explains eye functions

and a method of observing opponents, in both of which the text uses code words.Ibid., 324, 328.

61. Ibid., 322.62. Ibid., 325–326.63. Ibid., 324–325.64. Ibid., 325.65. Ibid., 317.66. Ibid., 332.67. Ibid., 325.68. Ibid., 317.69. Ibid., 329.

y70. Ibid., 311–312. Zeami’s explanation of tf his issue is lucid: “For example, in militaryrsciences, there are cases in which unexpected tactics of an excellent commanderrr

conquer a formidable enemy. Is it not that, as far as the defeated is concerned, heyywas beaten only because the loy gic (kotowari) of noveltytt deceived him? This is thy elogic of victory in various ty yptt es of Wayaa andy gei” (Zeami Motokiyo, Fûshikaden[Transmission of teachings on stytt le and the Flower], inyy ZZ, 61–62).ZZ

71. Watanabe, “Introduction,” in Yagyû Munenori, yy Heihô Kô adenshoKK , 301. Incidentally,yy“Katsuninken” includes “Mutô no Maki” [No blade], which is sometimestreated as an independent volume (e.g., Thomas Cleary’s translation: fThTT e Book ok foFamilyll Traditions on the Art oy fo Waf r, in Miyamoto Musashi, The Book ofo Fivf eRings, 101–108). Most, including ss HeihHH ô Kadenshoô itself, treat it as an incff lusionof “Katsuninken.” See Yagyû Munenori, Heihô Kadenshô o, 342. In parenthesis,the title of the first volume, “Shinrikykk ô” [The shoe offering bridge], is based onan episode in a Chinese classic.

72. In this regard, it is extremely telling that Thomas Cleary omits “Shinrikyô” fromhis translation. He apparently does not y give any reason for the deletiony .However, taking into consideration that he also removes the conclusion locatedat the final part of “Katsuninken,” Cleary’s omission seems to suggest, albeitunwittingly, his yy preference for content. For the conclusion, which serves as the

ycolophon in a sense, deals with the overview of the teachings and not necessarilywith the teachinww gs per se, as does “Shinrikyôkk ” to some extent. Conversely,

149Notes

Hiroaki Sato’s translation of “Shinrikykk ô” incorpr orates Shinkaga ergg yûr Heihû ô Mokurokô uno Koto. In other words, Sato fleshes out the skeleton volume with a detailedinstruction monograph, and as a result, Sato’s version of “Shinrikyôkk ” is useful forthose whww o practice swordsmanship. In terms of a stuf dy odd f esotericism, f however,

ySato’s enrichment is virtually equal to Cleary’s omission. Their methodologyggis different, but they both show “intolerance” of insubstantial secret teachingsby deleting them altogether (Cleary) or by may king them substantial (Sato).Cf. Cleary, “Introduction,” xiii–xix. Cf. Yagyû Munenori, Heihô Kaden Sho:Familyll -Transmitted Book on Swordsmanshipi , 23. I already mentioned the modernscholarship’s preference ff for content in tff he previous section; the esotericists’seemingly otherwise preference caff lls for ff furtff her analysis.

73. Yagyû Munenori, HeihôHH Kô adenshoKK , 309.74. Ibid., 305.75. Ibid., 342.76. Hurst, Armed Martial Arts of Japan, 71–72, 177–196, 212.77. Yagyû Munenori, Heihô Kadenshô o, 341. Incidentally, heihô here might well

indicate military science in general.78. For instance, Kumakura states: “I cannot spare [the space] to mention the

Japanese faith in ancestor worship and the [Japanese] concept that one wishes thepermanence of ie. However, it is probably that such [esoteric Buddhist] rituals ay skanjôn (ordination) and injn injj (a.k.a. inshin: certification of esoteric transmission)were highly rey garded as a means of avoiding foreign cultures’ clash with theseindigenously Jay panese cultures [i.e., the above-mentioned ancestor worship andthe concept of ie permanence] and of rationaf lizing bloodline succession”(Kumakura Isao, “Hiden no Shisô” [Thought of hiden], in Geinô to Chinkon[Entertainment and requiescat], ed. Moriya Takeshi [Tokyo: Shunjûn sha, 1988],vol. 7 of Taikei Bukkyk ô to Nihonjn injj [Survey of Buf ddhism and the Japanese], 268).

79. Kathleen S. Uno, “Women and Changes in the Household Division of Labor,” inRecreating Japanese Women, 1600–1945, ed. Gail Lee Bernstein (Berkeley:University of California Press, 1991), 23. See also Minamoto Ryôen, TokugawaShisô Shôshi [Concise history of Tokugawa thought] (Tokyo: Chûôkôronsha,1973), 98–100. Conversely, Seki Hirono suspects that the very paradox—an ie“corporation”—is responsible for tff he popularity of bloodline metaphors (Yabanto shss iteno Ie ShSS akai [The ie societytt as the savay ge] [Tokykk o: Ochanomizu Shobô,1987], 53–56).

80. Ogawa, Edo Bakuhan Daimym ôke Jiten, 569. Here, I would like to add two issues.First, the Buddhist term kechimym aku is not necessarily tantamount to ketsumym aku

win the strict sense. The former is a metaphor to indicate the Buddhist Lawaasuccession from mentors to disciples and is not limited to bloodline succession.Second, modern scholarship’s strong attention to bloodline succession mightecho the following observation that Ôzasa Yoshio makes in kabuki theater. Thekabuki ycircles are known as hereditary-succession oriented, as symbolized bythe custom of succeeding to ancestors’ stage names. Payaa inyy g attention to the factthat there used to be far more adopted sons who succeeded to maja or kabukihouseholds in the past (up to the early twentieth century), Ôzasa suggests thatthe kabuki societytt has now become ancestry orientey d, that is, by blood, muchmore than used to be (Nihon Gendai Engekishi: Meiji Taishô henô f[History oy fJapanese contemporary theater: The Meiji i and Taishô eras] [Tokyo: Hakusuisha,1985], 335–340). For adopted kabuki maja or actors active in the late Edo era, seeIhara Toshirô, Meiji i Enjj gn ekishi [History of Meiji i theater] (Tokyo: Waseda

Notes150

Daigaku Shuppanbu, 1933; rpt., Tokykk o: Kuresu Shuppan, 1996), 10, 27, 91,156, 161, 351, 365, 556, 570, 580, 594, 618, 741, 788, 821.

81. Hachijôi Kadenshô o incorporates among other treatises Fûshikaden’s three chaptersfout of seven f (Chapters 1, 2, and 3). The specific circumstances off f tf he fiff ltering of

these into Hachijôjj Kadenshô o are uncertain, but Nakamura Yasuo infers that itsauthor/s collected various treatises that had been available to them. The com-parison of Fûshikaden and HachiHH ji ô Kadenshojj yimplies that the latter contains manyinconsistencies indicating that it is the product of mechanical, repeated, and inac-curate copying. In other words, uncontrolled dispersion caused by leakage canvitiate a piece of writing, esoteric or otherwise. In addition, Nakamura considersthe time when Hachiji ô Kadenshjj o was completed to be “the latter half of theTenshô era [1573–1592].” Nakamura Yasuo, “Commentary,” in HachiHH ji ô Kadenshjj o[Eight-volume book ok f transmission of f teacf hings on the Flower], in KodaiChûsei Geijutsuron [Theory on artistry y from the ancient to medievaly periods],ed. Hayashiya Tatsusaburô (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1973), vol. 23 of NST,TT798–799. Cf. Nakamura Itaru, “Hachiji ôbon ‘Kadensho’ no Kenkyû Sono 1:Muromachi Makki Shodensho tono Kankei ni tsuite” [A Study of HachijôbonKadenshoKK ], Tokyk ô Gakugu ei Daigi aku Kigg yôi 2.24 (1973): 221–240 [the translatedtitle is given in the journal]. See also Eric C. Rath, “Legends, Secrets, andAuthoritytt : Hachiji ô Kadenshojj and Early Modern Noh,”y Monumenta NiMM ppi onica54.2 (1999): 169–194.

82. For these various kinds of “upgrade” effects, see J. Thomas Rimer, “TheBackground of Zeami’s Treatises,” in Zeami Motof kiyo, On the Art ofo the NôfDrama: ThTT e Maja or Treatises ojj fo Zeamf i, trans. J. Thomas Rimer and YamazakiMasakazu (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), xx. See also Nishiyama,Iemoto no Kenkyû y, 3–4. See also Kuroda Ryô, “Zen no Shinrigaku” [Psychologyggof Zen], in Zen no Gaiyô [Outline of Zen], ed. Inoue Tetsuju irô, Ui Hakuju u, andSuzuki Daisetsu (Tokyo: Shun’yôdô Shoten, 1937), vol. 1 of Zen no KZZ ôKK za[Lectures on Zen], 87.

83. Zeami shows elusiveness as to this issue of secrecf y. His notion oyy f secrecf y couy ld beregarded either as a “pure” and ultimate realization of secrecy or, alternatively y, ayy sa “deviant” one that swerves from principles of esotericism. Zeami states: “Evenif you won’t reveal a secret, [that would not be enough]. What you should con-ceal from other people’s knowledge is the very fact that y you know a secret likethis” (FûshikadenFF y, 62). This is the “purest” secrecy, but it denies anyy y possibilityttof cf harismatic reputation.

84. Yagyû Munenori, Heihô Kadensho, 311.85. Ibid., 311–312.86. Ibid., 325–326.87. Ibid., 337–340.88. Heihô Kadenshoô hides nothing as to this matter: “There are manynn ty hings in

swordsmanship that suit the Buddhist Law and correspond with Zen” (340).Incidentally, it even ll discloses some secret teachings of Zen Buf ddhism (ibid., 340).

89. “Episteme” is the concept to explain how human perception is governed by agrid of knowledge fields. According to Michel Foucault, plural typtt es of epistemeare mutually exclusive by y definition, so that a society ytt at any y given moment residesin a single episteme ( sThe Order oTT fo Thinf gn s: An Archaeologg gyo oy fo the Human Sciencef see[New York: Vintage Books, 1994], passim). A concept I would like to formulate

where as an “epistemological web” functions similarlyll : It also attempts to expx lain how

151Notes

perception is conditioned by paradigms (in tht is case, esoteric practices). Unlike“episteme,” however, an “epistemological web” would not deal with a meta-paradigm of perception for a communitff ytt (i.e., that of esoteric f practitioners),much less society as a whww ole. Rather, it tries to visualize one component of tf heinvisible logic effective to those who practice hiden y, a preliminary attempt of myenterprise to explore underlying esotericism.

90. Yagyû Munenori, HeihôHH Kô adenshoKK , 326.91. Ibid., 309.92. Matsunaga Yûkei, Mikkyk ô: Indo kara Nihon eno Denshô [Esoteric Buddhism:

Traditions from India to Japan] (Tokyo: Chûôkôronsha, 1989), 27.93. Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki, Studies in the La©kâvatâra Sûtra (Boulder: Prajñâ

Press, 1981), 109.94. Yagyû Munenori, HeihôHH Kô adenshoKK , 310, 325.95. Ibid., 310. Needless to sayaa , byy y this, Munenori does not indicate all the Confuciay n

scholars.96. Ibid., 326, 333.97. Ibid., 319, 322. The text reads: “[As to how to] get rid of illness [of adherence],

there are shojûjj and gojûjj w[Prescription differs accorff dingly]” (319); “[As to howto] ‘possess the inattentive mind’ [. . .] there are shojss ûjj and gojûjj [Training differsaccordingly]” (322).

98. Ruth Fuller Sasaki, “The History of the Koan in Rinzaiy (Lin-chi) Zen,” inMiura Isshû and Ruth Fuller Sasaki, The Zen Koan: Its Historyr and Use inyRinzai Zi enZZ (San Diego: Harcourt Brace and Company, 1965yy ), 3–5.

99. Akizuki RyôRR min, Zen BukkZZ yk ô towa Nanika [WhWW at is Zen Buddhism?] (KyKK oto:Hôzôkan, 1990), 68.

y100. Fukushima Keidô, lecture, the Center for East Asian Studies and the Universityyyttof Penn Museum of f tf he University of Pennsyf lyy vania, Pll hiladelphia, March 1, 1996.

101. Akizuki, Zen Bukkyk ô towa Nanika, 119–172.102. Miura Isshû, “Koan Study in Rinzai Zen,” trans. Ruth Fuller Sasaki, in Miura

Isshû and Ruth Fuller Sasaki, The Zen Koan: Its History and Use in Rinzai Zend ,37–72. The six terms introduced mean as foff llows: (1) the attainment of insigf htinto one’s own nature, (2) Dharmakâya, (3) the interlocking of differentiation,(4) the investigation of words, (5) the difficulty of passing through, and (6) theFive Ranks.

103. Kuroda, “Zen no Shinrigaku,” 87.104. Akizuki, Zen BukkZZ yk ô towa Nanika, 67.105. Komiya Toyotaka states that Zeami and Matsuo Bashô (1644–1694), a poet,

created secret transmissions for the sake of efficient education: since they aretaught nothing complicated or that is beyond their current ability, trainees canlearn it step by stey p (Komiya Toyotaka, Bashô Zô eamiZZ Hi idenHH Kn anKK [Bashô, Zeami,hiden, and intuition] [Tokyo: Hakujitsu Shoin, 1947], 225).

106. Yagyû Munenori, Heihô Kadensho, 309–310.107. Incidentally, I translateyy shuss ju ijj n here as a master, because Heihô Kadensho

frequently uses this term vis-à-viy s meshitsukau mono, i.e., “whom you take intoyour service” (i.e., servants). Cf. ibid., 311, 326, 339. I realize that there is aslight possibilitytt ty hat shss uju ijj n here implies a host, for, at tff his particular place,Munenori does not mention the servant as the master’s constitutive other.Therefore, the putative counterpart of shss ujin might be, technically, either a seryy -vant or a guest.

Notes152

3 Transmission, the Creationof Knowledge

1. “The enunciated” is that whw ich is produced, whw ereas “enunciation” refers to aff nact by which one produces the enunciated. “The subject of the enunciated” is,thus, the subject inside a product such as a text. “The subject of enunciation,” infturn, is the one who does the act of production. These are concepts of greatmoment for postmoff dern knowlww edge, since they are related to the concept of tf heLacanian split subject: I who does and I who observes. These concepts are alsoimportant for tff he esotericist logic, especially for esoteric transmission. However,ffthe “split” of two types of subjects cannot be applied to esotericism in the directsense. How esotericism deals with this issue is discussed in this chapter.

2. Those “instructors” whww o bestow secret teachings upon school founff ders could behistorical figures,ff legendary sages, or supernatural figures sucff h as goblins, deities,and the like. Nishiyama Matsunosuke, Iemoto no Kenkyû [A study of iemotott , thestem-family head] (Tokyo: Yoshikawa KôKK bunkan, 1982), vol. 1 of Nishss iyi amaMatsunosukeMM Chosakushû [The collected works of Nishiyama Matsunosuke, here-after abbreviated NMNN CMM ], 34–38.

3. Yagyû Munenori, HeihôHH Kô adenshoKK [Family transmission book on swordsmanship],ed. Watanabe Ichirô, in Kinsei GeidôronKK [Theory on the Way of arts in thepremodern period], ed. Nishiyama Matsunosuke, Watanabe Ichirô, and GunjinMasakatsu (Tokyo: Iwanami Skk hoten, 1972), vol. 61 of Nihon Shisôss Taikeiô [CollectedJapa anese thought, hereafter abbreviated NSTNN ], 306, 342–343.T

4. Zeami Motokiyo, FûshikadenFF [Transmission of teacf hings on styltt e and the Flower],in ZeamiZZ Zi enchikuZZ [Zeami and Zenchiku, hereafter aff bbreviated ZZ], ed. OmoteZAkira and Katô Shûichi (Tokykk o: Iwanami Shoten, 1974), vol. 24 of NSTNN , 14, 37, 46.TT

5. A similar situation can be found in the Zen tradition. See William R. LaFleur,Buddhism: A Cultural Persl pss ective (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1988), 43–44.

6. Michel Foucault, ThTT e Ordrr er ofo Tf hTT ingn s: An Arcgg haeologyo oy fo tf htt e Human Sciencesee w(NewYork: Vintage Books, 1994), 39.

7. One may well recall the elusive nature of citationality that results in unlimitedversions. See Judith Butler, Excitable SpS eech: A Politics ofo tf htt e Perfr ormativff e(New York: Routledge, 1997), passim.

8. I imagine, however, that the prevalence of dictation monographs would not befunderstood effectively if analy yses of dictation literature left esotericism out offf

consideration. For the regime of esotericism was so f dominant that it regulated notonly those whw o consciously practiced an esoteric act but also those whw o did not doso in the direct sense. For instance, Hayaa ashiya Tatsusaburô states: “The esotericnature is a characteristic of medieval thought in the realm of arts” (“Kodai Chûseino Geiji utsu Shisô” [Artistry thought in the ancient and medieval periods], inKodai Chûsei Geiji utsurojj n [Theory on artistry y from the ancient to medieval y peri-ods], ed. Hayashiya Tatsusaburô [Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1973], vol. 23 of NST,TTT741). See also Moriya Takeshi, “Commentary,” inyy ZenZZ pn ô Zôtan (a.k.a. Zenpn ôZôZZ dan), in Kodai Chûsei Geiji utsuronjj , 794. MyMM concerns y lie on the other side of tf hecoin. That is, my entery prise (i.e., an analysis of esotericism) would also suffer losseshad I been remiss in taking into account the popularitytt of dictations.y

9. Zeami Motokiyo, Zeshi RokuZZ ju û Ijj gII o Sarugu aku Dangg gin [A talk on sarugu akugg ynoh bythe honorable Zeami, who is over sixty], in ZZ, 259–314. I follow the conventionZZthat regards Zeami as the author of this text.

153Notes

10. Konparu Zenpô, Zenpôn Zô ôZZ tan (a.k.a. Zenpôn Zô ôZZ dan) [A talk by Zeny pô],ed. Kitagawa Tadahiko et al., in Kodai ChKK ûsei Geiji utsuronjj , 479–510. Forphilological information on tff his text, see Moriya, “Commentary,” 794–797yy .

11. Nanbô-roku [Nanbô memorandum], ed. Nishiyama Matsunosuke, in KinseiGeidôron, 9–175. The accounts of the authorship of this text are far morecomplicated. It is considered highly unlikely that a monk called Nanbô Sôkeiproduced the text soon after the demise of Sen-no Rikykk û in 1591, which the textclaims. The “original” text by the monk has not been located, and the only extant

rtexts are the copies Tachibana Jitsuzan (1655–1708), a warrior, and his brotherwrote down when Jitsuzan “discovered” the text by Sôkei. Scholars hold that

yJitsuzan did not merely “copy” whatever he obtained but edited it considerablyand, in effect, “created” the text as we know it. See, e.g., NishiyamaMatsunosuke, Geidô to Dentô ôtt [The Way of arts anf d traditions] (Tokyo: Yoskk hikawaKôbunkan, 1984), vol. 6 of NMCMM , 180–195. See also Nishiyama Matsunosuke,CC“Introduction,” in NanbôNN -roku, in KinseiKK Geidôron, 9.

12. Kuroda RyRR ô, Kan no Kenkyk û [A studydd of intuition] y (Tokykk o: Kôdansha, 1980),153. Incidentally, the remark Kuroda seems to have made in passing, “menialentertainers aside” (ikkai no kawaramono wa izashirazu), deserves our attention.MyMM point here lies not necessarilyll in whether or not we can effectively yll posit thederogatory boundary y between “menial entertainers” and “y great actors,” an impor-

ttant yet somehow unproductive cul-de-sac. Rather, it was quite possible thatso-called menial entertainers needed “great books” much more than “great actors”did. Those whww ose activities were socially rey garded as d humble might have been inneed od f articuf lated td hought, so that they could compensated for “contemptiff bility.”Interestingly enougll h, esoteric authorship functions quite niceff ly ll for tff his purpose.Zeami, whww om we now consider a great artist, is referreff d to as td he one engaged ind“an activitytt of bey ggars” in Gogumaiki, the diary of his contemy porary aristocrat,ySanjô Kintada (1324–1383). See Hayashiya Tatsusaburô, ChCC ûsei Geinûû ôshi noôôKenkyûk [A studydd of the entertainment history y in the medievaly period] (Tokykk o:Iwanami Shoten, 1960), 491–492. See also Kitagawa Tadahiko, Zeami [Zeami](Tokykk o: Chûôkôronsha, 1972), 31. J. Thomas Rimer states: “Perhapa s Zeami’searly training in poetry through his contacts with [Niji ô] Yoshimoto and [Ashikaga]Yoshimitsu helped suggest to him the idea of composing such [esoteric] docu-ments, and indeed the very existence of such treatises would doubtless hely p to dig-nifyff a y profession [i.e., the noh theater] that had heretofore seemed of little socialaccount” (“The Background of Zeami’s Treatises,” in Zeami Motokiyii o, On theArt ofo the Nô Drama: The Maf ja or Treatises ojj fo Zeamf i, trans. J. Thomas Rimer andYamazaki Masakazu [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984], xx). Zeami waspatronized by Yoshimitsu (1358–1408), the third shogun of the Muromachishogunate, and by Yoshimoto (1320–1388), a leading rengrr agg poet and renowned dcultural intellectual whww o had formerff ly been a high court officerff .

13. Kumakura Isao, “Hiden no Shisô” [Thought of hiden], in Geinô to Chinkon[Entertainment and requiescat], ed. Moriya Takeshi (Tokyo: Shunjûsha, 1988),vol. 7 of Taikei BukkTT yk ô to Nihonjn ijj n [Survey of Buddhism and the Japanese], 286.

14. See Catherine Belsey, “Constructing the subject: deconstructing the text,” inFeminist Criticism and Social Changn e: Sex, Class and Race in Literature andCulture, ed. Judith Newton and Deborah Rosenfelt (New York: Methuen, 1985),passim, especiallyll 51–53. Belsey particularlyll payaa s attention to classic realist fictionand drama, and categorically distiny guishes them from poetry.

Notes154

15. Nishiyama, Iemoto no Kenkyûk , 34.16. Yoshida Tôgo, who first introduced Zeami’s theoretical writings to modern

scholarship in 1909, is said to have judged Chapter 4 of FûshikadenFF to be coun-terfeit. See Nisff hio Minoru, “Commentary,” in NôNN gakuronshô û [Collection of nof hartistry theories], in KaronshKK û Nû ôNN gakuronshô û [Collection of poetry theories;Collection of nof h artistry theories], ed. Hisamatsu Sen’ichi and Nishio Minoru(Tokykk o: Iwanami Shoten, 1961), vol. 65 of Nihon Koten BunNN gn aku Taikeigg[Collection of Japanese classical literature, hereafter abbreviated NKBT], 317. InT

ythe said chapter, Zeami expounds on how Emperor Shihuang of tf he Qin dynastdd yttwas reincarnated as Hata-no Kawakatsu, an ancient courtier and the allegedforerunner of noh practitioners. See Zeami, Fûshikaden, 38–41.

17. Yagyû Munenori, Heihô Kadensho, 307, 324 (Laozi); 309, 310–311 (Daxue);312, 319, 338, 340–341 (Zen phrases); 340 (Manura); 321–322 (LaymanPang); 322–323 (Zhongfeng); 341 (Longjgg i); 319, 323, 334, 341 (Takuan); 342(Muneyoshi).

18. Ibid., 305, 306, 307, 312, 313, 315, 316, 319, 320, 321, 322, 324, 325, 328,329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 335, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341.

19. Ibid., 320–321. See also Yagyû Munenori, Heihô Kaden Sho: FamilHH yll -TransmittedBook on Swordsmanshipi , in Yagyû Munenori, The Sword and the Mind, trans.Hiroaki Sato (Woodstock: Overlook Press, 1986), 74.

20. Yagyû Munenori, Heihô Kadensho, 325, 341–342. See also Yagyû Munenori,Heihô Kaden Sho: Familyll -Transmitted Book on Swordsmanshipi , 83, 107.

21. Yagyû Munenori, Heihô Kadensho, 324, 307. Cf. Yagyû Munenori, Heihô KadeHH nShSS o: Family-Transmitted Bood k on Swork drr smansdd hss ipi , 83.

22. Zeami is said to have produced the first treatises on noff h artistry in the elaborateesoteric format. See aff lso Rath’s analysis of how Zeami utilized secret writings(Eric Clemence Rath, “Actors of Influence: Discourse and Institutional Growthin the History of Noh Theater,” diss., University of Michigan, 1998, 88–123).FûshikadenFF t, the first treatise he wrote from 1400 to 1418, is regarded as the mosttcomprehensive text including most of tf he elements developed more fuff lly in ty heother texts he wrote later. See Omote Akira, “Zeami to Zenchiku no Densho”[Transmission books by Zeami and Zenchiku], iny ZZ, 552; Rimer, “TheZZBackground of Zeami’s Treatises,” xxi. In terms of esotericism, one mayaa wely lnotice uncanny similarities betweeny HeihôHH Kô adenshoKK and Fûshikaden. This is nosurprise because the noh theater, another obviously physical activitytt , in Zeami’yy stime amounted to a social instrument similar to swordsmanship in Munenori’s

ftime, i.e., a means of social maneuvers. Interestingly enough, Zeami himselfoften compares the noh theater with military science. He considers a noh actortantamount to a warrior, since an actor must defeat his rival, i.e., opponent, atshôbu or tachiai, both of wf hww ich mean a match. See, e.g., Zeami, Fûshikaden,30–32, 61–64.

23. Zeami, FûshikadenFF , 14. As for the text for my analy ysis, I use Fûshikaden includedin NST. When necessary, the following versions are consulted: (1) TT FûFF shikaden,ed. Nishio Minoru, in Karonshû Nôgô akuronshgg û, 341–398, hereafter abbreviatedas the NKBT version; (2) FûshikadenFF , ed. Omote Akira, in Rengn aronshûggNôgô akuronshû Haironshûgg [Collection of renrr gan poetry theories; Collection of nohyartistry theories; Collection oy f haikai poetry theories], ed. Ijichi Tetsuo, OmoteAkira, and Kuriyama Riichi (Tokykk o: Shôgakukan, 1973), vol. 51 of NihonNN Kn otenKKBungaku Zenshû [Collection of Japanese classical literature, hereafter abbreviatedNKBZ], 213–297, hereafter abbreviated as the Z NKBZ version; (3) Teachings on

155Notes

Stytt le and the Flower (FûFF shikaden), trans. J. Thomas Rimer and YamazakiMasakazu, in On the Art ofo the Nf ôNN Drama: The Maô ja or Treatises ojj fo Zeamif ,i 3–63,hereafter aff bbreviated as the Rimer and Yamazaki translation. Unless otherwisenoted, consider it the NSTNN version.

24. Zeami, FûFF shikaden, 37.25. Ibid., 46. Notice that Zeami uses a Buddhist term, jiriki, own power. Zeami was

a Buddhist of the Jishû sect. See Toida Michizô, KanKK ’ami’ to Zo eamiZZ [Kan’ami andZeami] (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1994), 151; Hayashiya, ChCC ûsei Geinôshi noKenkyû, 491–493. Incidentally, it is noteworthy that Zeami here states that thisis not a personal issue. In this paradigm, what is important for one’s ie, such asgei, does not belong to the private sphere.

f26. Toida Michizô demonstrates one of the extreme cases. He cites the colophon ofFûFF shikaden’ Chapter 5 (introduced in the main text) and states: “This [remark]can probably be taken literally y. [. . .] yy [FûFF shikaden] can be read as Kan’ami’snotions” (KanKK ’ami’ to Zo eamiZZ , 47–48). In his book, Toida discusses FûshikadenFF inthe chapter entitled “Kan’ami Kiyotsugu” (ibid., 93–141). The maja ority takes a

fmore moderate stance, however, regarding the text as mainly a manifestation ofZeami’s philosophy. See, e.yy g., Narukawa Takeo, Zeami Hana no TetsuZZ gu akgg u[Zeami, philosophy of the Flower]y (Tokykk o: Tamagawa Daigaku Shuppanbu,1980), 31–32. See also Kitagawa, ZeamiZZ , 35. In conclusion, Omote Akira sum-marizes our knowledge to consider Fûshikaden to be Zeami’s work: “[Severalpassages by Zeami himself] emy phasize that Fûshikaden is based on the teachingsof [Kan’ami]. In addition, one can recognize certain differences ff betweenFûFF shikaden and his later works. For these reasons, there is an opinion to regardFûFF shikaden as Kan’ami’s work. However, it was customary for a successor off f tf heWay to respect predecessors. Even though FûFF shikaden relies on Kan’ami, it is

thardly possible that the text was not Zeami’s work, because in Zeami’s words itwas produced approximately two decades after the demise of Kan’ami. The dif-ffferences between FûshikadenFF and the later works should be understood as thechange and development of Zeami’s views”f (“Zeami to Zenchiku no Densho,”551–552). Interestingly, either wayy yaa , it could be reyy garded as the proof of filialpietytt . If it is Zeami’s work, Zeami is dutiful because he attributes yy hisii work to hisfather; if it is partially Kan’ami’s work, Zeami is alsoy pious because he accom-plishes his father’s work. As for Zeami’s remarks on this issue to which the schol-ars payaa attention, see the excery pr ts in the main text. See also Zeami’s Kakyôk[A mirror of tf he Flower], the colophon of wf hww ich dated 1424 reads: “Fûshikaden[. . .] is the secret teachings presenting this Way [noh artistry] as the Flower. Init, I recorded my late father’s arts that I had learned” (Kakyk ô, in ZZ, 109).ZZ

27. The said statement can be found at the end of Chapter 5. The date of authorshipis attributed as follows: Chapters 1, 2, and 3 in 1400; Chapter 5 in 1402; Chapter 7was initially written at some y point around 1408 and was revised in 1418. As foff rChapters 4 and 6, the date of authorship is uncertain; it is attributed to somepoint between 1400 and 1418. See Kitagawa, Zeami, 126–127.

28. Zeami, Fûshikaden, 17. The quotation is from the section called “Twenty-four ortwentytt -five” of Chapter 1 entitled “The Practice Based on Age.”

29. See Kitagawa, ZeamiZZ , 3. See also Ueki Yukinobu, “Sarugaku-nô no Keisei” [Thefoff rmation of saruss gu akgg u noh], in NôNN [Noh], ed. Geinôshi Kenkykk ûkai [Performingarts history study ydd group] (Tokykk o: Heibonsha, 1970), vol. 3 of NihonNN no Ko otenKKGeinô [Japanese classical performing arts], 29. See also Nose Asaja i, NôgakuGenryû Kû ôKK [A studydd of the oriy gins of noh] (Tokykk o: Iwanami Shoten, 1938), 700.

Notes156

30. Zeami, Fûshikaden, 37; Zeshi RokuZZ ju û Ijj gII o Sarugu aku Dangg gin , 260, 310. Omotestates that the voiced consonant was used for Hata in tff he medieval period (see hisannotation on FûshikadenFF , the NKBZ version, 255).

31. Zeami, FûFF shikaden, 38–41.32. See the annotations on Zeami, FûFF shikaden, 37; the NKBZ version, 252; the

NKBT version, 368.33. Kitagawa, ZeamiZZ , 25, 33.34. Zeami recounts how the present generation—Zeami’s contemporaries—of tf he

Konparu famiff ly is related to Ujiyasu. Afterwarff d, he states: “a devil’s mask createk dby Prince Shôtoku, a portrait of the god of Kasuga Shrine, and the Buddha’sbone have been inherited within this ie [the Konparus]” (FûshikadenFF , 40).

35. Ibid., 14, 38–41 (origins); 19, 37, 42, 43, 45, 46, 59 (Kan’ami); 42, 43(contemporaries).

36. Ibid., 64.37. Ibid., 64. See also FûshikadenFF , the NKNN BKK ZBB version, 296; the NKNN BTKK version, 397;

the Rimer and Yamazaki translation, 62. Zeami’s familiaritytt with Buddhismyhas been frequently pointed out. See, e.g., Ishiguro Kichiji irô, Chûsei Geidôronno Shisô: K: enkôKK Zô eamiZZ Shinkei [Thought of the Wayaa of arts in the medievay lperiod: Kenkô, Zeami, and Shinkei] (Tokykk o: Kokusho Kankôkai, 1993),159–230.

38. See, e.g., Kôsai Tsutomu, Zeshi Sankyk û [A comparative studydd of the honor-yable Zeami] (Tokykk o: Wan’ya Shoten, 1979), 196–197. See also Ishiguro,Chûsei Geidôron no Shisô, 173–174. For shunin aigyôi in the text, see Zeami,FûFF shikaden, 45.

39. Zeami states: “[This gei of nof h] is the Flower that is transmitted from minff d tomind. I thus entitle this FûFF shikaden” (FûFF shikaden, 42). The wording “from minff dto mind,” kokoro yori kokoro ni, is clearly related to the Zen y phrase (ishin denshin).The latter represents an ideal situation of knowledge transmission. For otherZen-related examples in FûshikadenFF , see 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 26, 31, 32, 33,34, 36, 37, 43, 49, 50, 54, 57, 64.

40. Ibid., 14.41. Zeami, Fûshikaden, the NKBZ version, 215–216.42. Zeami, Fûshikaden, 36 (Fujiwara-no Kiyosuke); 36 (Ono-no Komachi); 37

(Huineng).43. Ibid., 14.44. Ibid., 28.45. Ibid., 28.46. Ibid., 61.47. Ibid., 64–65. Other examples with possible indications of hearsay can be found in

the following pages: 21, 23, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 52, 57, 59, 63.48. See the annotations and translations in Zeami, Fûshikaden, 14, 15, 28, 61, 432,

438, 440 (the NSNN T version); 342, 343, 358, 398 (the NKBKK T version); 4, 19, 59,63 (the Rimer and Yamazaki translation); 216, 230, 238, 291, 297 (the NKBZversion). See also Shinkei, Sasamege otott [Private talks], ed. Ijichi Tetsuo, inRengn aronshû Nôgg gô akuronshû Haironshûgg , 147.

EXAXX MPLEAA 1NSTNN : “Kan’ami’s precept consists of four prohibitions: the three prohibitionsTT

here and another clause ‘the raising of bush warblers [for singing contestsff ,i.e., a certain gambling]’ ” (14–15).

157Notes

NKNN BKK T: “TT Sarugu agg ku Dangin treats the precept [of an ancient manf ] as [Kan’ami]Kiyotsugu’s precept, adding [a clause] ‘the raising of bush warblers’ ”(342–343).

Rimer and Yamazaki: “—Sensual pleasures, gambling, heavy drinking representthe Three Prohibitions. Such was the precept of my late father. /—Rehearse with the greatest effort;ff do not be overbearing with others”(4: the main text).

NKBZBB : “ZZ Sarugaku Dangi reads ‘licentiousness, gambling, heavy drinking, andthe raising of bush warblers are [the prohibitions] set by [Kan’amiy ]Kiyotsugu.’ The three-prohibition precept here is a slightly edited versionof Kan’ami Kif yii otsugu’s precept” (216).

“This tonaritt [at the end of the second sentence] is to confirm andconclude [the sentence]. It is not hearsay” (216).

EXAMPLE 2NSTNN : “[TTTT Mata iMM waku] is usually usell d wd hww en one juxtaposes two types of argument.f

[In this case, mata iwaku is placed] at the beginning of the secondargument. However, Zeami frequently uses this phrase when switching his

fargument. Moreover, this wording can often be found at the beginning ofwhat seems to be additional explanations. [. . .] This phrase can be foundin [Fûshikaden, 1400–1418] and Kakyk ô [completed in 1424], but not inlater texts. This seems related to the fact tff hat only these two texts werewritten over a ww long period of time”f (432).

NKBT: “[It means that] there is also something I need to say” (358).TTRimer and Yamazaki: “AnotAA her point” (19: the main text).NKNN BKK ZBB : “ZZ Mata iwaku is Zeami’s idiomatic phrase” (230).

“It can be assumed that this part is an additional explanation byZeami himself” (238).

EXAXX MPLEAA 3NST: “[It means that] there is a teaching to be kept in secrecy as follows” (28).TT

“Higi i ni iwaku is a form [Zeami uses] when he starts explainingesoteric theories. This iwaku seems congenial to iwaku of “Ôgi ni iwaku”and of “Kaden dairoku kashu ni iwaku” [the titles of Chapters 5 and 6].AlthouAA gh summaries [of respective teachings] are situated right after thephrase, one should regard the entire argument that ensues as the contentsof the secret teachings in question. It would be unreasonable to limit thecitation as if it were a Confucian text” (438).

NKNN BKK T: “Presumably, it means that it is a secret teaching. There is anotherTTopinion to regard it as a title of a certain esoteric text” (358).

Rimer and Yamazaki: “According to a secret teaching” (19: the main text).NKNN BKK ZBB y: “A customary phrase to explain a teaching that should be secretlyZZ

transmitted” (238).

EXAXX MPLAA E 4NST: “This does not necessarily indicate hearsay but gives the sentences aT:T tone

(goki((( ) that ‘this is that which is that’ (to iu koto ga soregg da)” (61).Rimer and Yamazaki: “It is said that ‘when there are secrets, the Flower exists;

but without secrets, the Flower does not exist” (59: the main text).NKBZBB : “ZZ Tonari is a tone (goki(( ) that ‘this is that which is that’ (to iu t koto gagg

soreda). It should not be citation or hearsay” (291).

Notes158

EXAMPLE 5NSTNN : “This is a quotation followed by the phrase, TT toieri (so it is said), so there

probably exists a source. Ty he source in question, however, is unknown.Shinkei also quotes the same sentences in Part 2 of Sasamegotott whww ere helists phrases like proverbs. It is unknown whether [Zeami and Shinkei]quoted it from tff he same source or Shinkei quoted it fromff FûshikadeFF n t. Itis unlikely that Shinkei had a direct connection with Zeami, but Shinkei’y smentor, Shôtetsu [1381–1459], was an acquaintance of KonparuZenchiku whww o owned a copy of FûFF shikaden, Chapter 7. Shinkei alsomentions Zenchiku in HitoriHH gi oto [Soliloquy: a renrr gn agg poetry treatise in1468]” (440).

NKNN BKK T: “Exactly the same sentences appear in Shinkei’sTT:TT SasameSS ge otogg ” (398).Rimer and Yamazaki: “The exact source of tf he quotation is unknown. Similar

ideas are expressed in the SasamegotoSS (Whisperings) of the priest and rengapoet Shinkei (1319–1406). Zeami, with his interest in rengn agg ypoetry, mayaawell have known the work [sic]” (63).

NKNN BKK ZBB : “Probably, this phrase was treated as an aphorism at that time. Shinkei’sZZZZSasamege oto also includes this phrase; it is possible that Shinkei heard thewords of Zeami”f (297).

Incidentally, the annotation onyy Sasamegoto reads: “This phrase also appears inthe colophon of FûshikadenFF , Chapter 7. It is probably a folk proverb (rigen t) atthat time” (147).

49. Zeami, Fûshikaden, 33.50. Ibid., 36 (Fujiwara-no Kiyosuke and Ono-no Komachi); 37 (Huineng); 64 (the

Vimalakîrti-nirdesa sutra).´51. Ibid., 432. See also Zeami, Fûshikaden, the NKBZ version, 230.52. Zeami, FûFF shikaden, 23, 28, 34, 36, 43, 59; Ongyn oku Kuden (Ongyn oku

Kowadashss i Kuden) [Oral transmission of musical (and vocal) production], in ZZ,ZZ74; Kakyô, 84, 87, 87; Shikadô [The path to the Flower], in ZZ, 115;ZZ FushizukeShSS idai [The application of melody], in ZZ, 152;ZZ Shûgyoku Tokkû a [Finding gemsand gaining the Flower], in ZZ, 186, 186, 187, 190;ZZ Goongyoku JôJJ jô ôjj [Mattersconcerning the five modes of musical expression], in ZZ, 204. I consultedZZNakamura Itaru, Zeami Densho YôgYY o Sakuin [An inAA dex of worf ds in Zeami’s trans-mission books] (Tokykk o: Kasama Shoin, 1985), 330–331.

53. Zeami, Fûshikaden, 36 (Ono-no Komachi’s poem); Ongyn oku Kuden,74 (Shijing,ggone of the Chinese classics); Kakyô, 87 (musical treatises: Kyôkunshô yin 1233 byKoma-no Chikazane [1177–1242] and RyR ûmeishô in 1133 by Ôga Motomasa[1079–1138]); Shikadô, 115 (Mencius); ShûSS gyû oku Tokka, 186, 186, 190 (Zenliterature).

54. See the annotations on Zeami, ShikadSS ô, 115; Shûgyoku TokkSS a, 186, 474–476.55. Zeami, Fûshikaden, 61.56. See the annotations on Zeami, FûFF shikaden, 45, 57; the NKBZ version, 286; the

NKBT version, 376. Incidentally, tyy he term koshss itsu appears in Zeami, Fûshikaden,45, 46, 52, 57, 58, 59; Kashu-no-uchi Nukigaki (NôNN ni Johakyô û no Kotoû )[Excerpts from the Flower learning: Noh’s three segments of introduction,breaking, and rapid], in ZZ, 70;ZZ Kakyk ô, 92, 103; Shikadô, 114; Fûgyû okushû A[Acollection concerning musical performance], in ZZ, 156, 157;ZZ Shudôsho [Learningthe Way], in ZZ, 237, 238;ZZ ShSS ûgyoku Tokkaû , 194; Kyakuraika f[The Flower ofreturning], in ZZ, 248;ZZ Zeshi RokuZZ ju û Ijj gII o Sarugu aku Dangg gin , 294.

57. Zeami, Fûshikaden, 46.

159Notes

58. Ibid., 14.59. Ibid., 30.60. Ibid., 44. For katagi, see Zeami, FûFF shikaden, 26, 34, 43, 44, 57, 58; Ongyoku

Kuden, 75; Kakyô, 96, 104; YûYY gaku Shudû ô Fô ûFF ken [Accounts of artistic joy anf dlearning the Way], in ZZ, 163, 164;ZZ ShSS ûgyoku Tokkaû , 194, 195; Goongyoku JôJJ jô ôjj ,199, 202, 203.

61. Zeami Motokiyo, Sandô [The three ways], in ZZ, 134.ZZ62. Butler, Excitable SpS eech, passim; “Imitation and Gender Insubordination,” in

Inside/Out: Lesbian Theories, Gay Theories, ed. Diana Fuss (New York: Routledge,ss1991), 22. See also Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversionof Identitytt (New York: Routledge, 1990), 31. See also Roland Barthes, “TheDeath of the Author,” in Image Music Text, trans. Stephen Heath (New York:ttHill and Wang, 1977), 142–148.

63. Nijô Yoshimoto, Hekirenshô [Arbitrary rengan poetry exegesis], ed. Ijichi Tetsuo,in Rengaronshû Nû ôNN gakuronshô û Haironshû û, 20. Zeami is said to have owedhis articulation of noh artistry theory to cultural intellectuals, such as Yoshimoto.See Rimer, “The Background of Zeami’s Treatises,” xx. Zeami also suggeststhat noh practitioners learn poetry composition for tff he sake of tf heir artof noh. See, e.g., Zeami, Fûshikaden, 14, 30; Rikugiu [Six principles], in ZZ,ZZ179–182.

64. See the annotation on Zeami, FûshikadenFF , 17. For kôan in the text, see Zeami,Fûshikaden, 17, 22, 23, 24, 26, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 49, 54, 57, 64; ShudôshoSS , 240.

65. See, e.g., Zeami, FûshikadenFF , 65; Kakyk ô, 109; Shûgyû oku Tokka, 196; Rikugiu , 182.66. Zeami, Shûgyoku Tokkaû , 196.67. Zeami, Kakyô, 109.68. Zeami, Zeshi Rokujûjj Igo Sarugaku Dangiû , 308. Cf. Zeamiff , Fûshikaden, 14.69. Yagyû Munenori, Heihô Kadenshoô , 306, 342–343.70. Ibid., 342. See also ibid., 308, 311, 338, 339.71. See the annotation on ibid., 343.72. Yagyû Munenori, Heihô Kaden Sho: Familyll -Transmitted Book t, 109. We recall thatt

another English translation available, namely that by Thomas Cleary, does notcontain this part. Yagyû Munenori, fThe Book ofo Familf yll Traditions on the Art oy fffoWaWW r, in Miyamoto Musashi, The Book of Five Rings y, trans. Thomas Clearyss(Boston: Shambhala, 1993).

73. Motoori Norinaga, Ashss iwakeobune [Small boat shoving through the reed],in Motoori Norinaga a Zenshgg û [The complete works of Motoori Norinaga],ed. Ôkubo Tadashi, vol. 2 (Tokykk o: Chikuma Shobô, 1968), 74–75.

74. See, e.g., Nishiyama, Iemoto no KenkII yûk , passim; Kuroda, Kan no Kenkyk û, passim;Komiya Toyotaka, Bashô Zô eamiZZ Hi idenHH Kn anKK [Bashô, Zeami, hiden, and intuition](Tokyo: Hakuju itsu Shoin, 1947), passim; Kumakura, “Hiden no Shisô,” passim.

75. Yagyû Munenori, Heihô Kadenshoô , 305.76. Zeami, Fûshikaden, 27.77. Since it is a reverse Orientalist statement, the last sentence in the main text has its

Orientalist “twin”: “For those who buyuu the Jay paneseness theory but do noy tdefine tff hemselves as insiders accordingly,yy ishss in denshss in yseems to be a geneticallyrelated vice for all ‘the Japanese’ whoever they are.” The two statements ary esimply the two sides of the same coin, shariny g the same paradigm. ForOrientalism, see Edward W. Said, Orientalism (New York: Vintage Books, 1979),passim. For reverse Orientalism, see Ueno Chizuko, “Orientarizumu to Jendâ”[Orientalism and gender], in Bosei Fashizumu: Haha naru Shizen no YûYY waku

Notes160

[Fascism of motherhood: the seduction of nature as mother], ed. Kanô Mikiyo(Tokykk o: Gakuyôuu Shobô, 1995), 108–131.

78. KiKK tagawa, ZeamiZZ , 175; Rimer, “The Background of Zeami’s Treatises,” xix; Nose,NôNN gaku Genryô û Kû ôKK , 732. See also Susan Matisoff, “Images off f Exif le and Pid lgrimage:Zeami’s Kintôtt shoôô ,” Monumenta NMM iNN pponi ica 34.4 (1979): 449–465, and her“Kintôsho: Zeami’s Song of Exif le,” Monumenta NiNN pponi ica 32.4 (1977): 441–458.Cf. Zeami, FûshikadenFF , 65; Kintôsho [Book of the golden island], in ZZ, 249–257.ZZ

79. Yagyû Munenori, Heihô Kadensho, 312; Zeami, FûshikadenFF , 64.80. Yagyû Munenori, Heihô Kadenshô o, 309.81. Zeami, Fûshikaden, 64–65. See also ibid., 37, 46.82. Seki Hirono, YaYY ban to shss iteno Ie ShSS akai [The ie society as the savage] (Tokyo:

Ochanomizu Shobô, 1987), 53–56.83. We cannot but recall the famous tff hesis by Maruyama Masao: Japanese society had

long been, until 1945, based on a system that a being (dearukoto y) automaticallyand completely defined a doing (surukoto y) (159). My statement apparentlyconflicts with this thesis, although one ought to be aware that the regime of cul-tivation cannot be generalized as a society. One possibility is that, in the paradigmof cultivation, a doing is not legitimized until it enters into the realm of being,i.e., the realm of quasi-immediacy. Furthermore, it is noteworthyy y that Maruy yuu amaregards one’s likeness (rashisa) as linked with a being (dearu) (172). Maruyuu amaMasao, “ ‘Dearu’ Koto to ‘Suru’ Koto” [“A being” and “a doing”], in Nihon noShisô [Japanese thought] (Tokykk o: Iwanami Shoten, 1961), 153–180. For theconcept of likeness (rashisass ), cf. Jenniff fer Roff bertson, “The Shingaku Woman:Straight from tff he Heart,” in Recreatingn Jag pa anese Women, 1600–1945, ed. GailLee Bernstein (Berkeley: University of Caf lifornia Press, 1991ff ), 88–107.

84. To be precise, the “natural” femininity tff hat “natural” women had was consideredvicious, hence the necessitvv ytt of cultivation to attain virtuous femininity ytt . Makyy iMorinaga, “The Gender of Onnagata as the Imitating Imitated: Its Historicity,Performativitytt , and Involvement in the Circulation of Femininityy ytt ,”yy posititt ons: eastasia cultures critique 10.2 (2002): 245–284.

85. William R. LaFleur, The Karma ofo Words: Buddhism and the Literarf yr Arts iy nMedieval Japa an y(Berkeley: Universitytt of California Press, 1983y ), passim, especiallyll26–59, 116–132.

86. Zeami, FûshikadenFF , 49, 51, 54.87. Kumakura, “Hiden no Shisô,” 267.88. Hayaa ashiya Tatsusaburô, Nihon Engn eki no Kankyôk [Environment of Japanese

theater] (Kyoto: Ôyashima Shuppan, 1947), 54–57. See also Hayashiya, “KodaiChûsei no Geijutsu Shisô,” 741.

89. Komiya, Bashô Zô eamiZZ Hi idenHH Kn anKK , 111. See also ibid., 225–226. Koma-noChikazane (1177–1242) and Toyohara-no Muneaki (1450–1524) wrote musicaltreatitt ses, Kyôkunshô (1233) and Taigenshô (1511–1512), respectivelyll . Incidentallyy y,llZeami’s Kakyk ô cites KyKK ôkunshô in the form of TypTT e 2 (87).

90. The years from 1400 to 1418, wff hww en his first treatise,ff Fûshikaden, was written,marked the turn of his career: from tff he fortunate to tff he unfortunate. See Omote,ff“Zeami to Zenchiku no Densho,” 552. See also Kitagawa, Zeami, 41–42, 47–48,167–168.

91. Zeami, KyKK akuraika, 246, 248 [emphasis mine]. Zeami wrote this text in 1433,one year after he lost his elder son and heir Motomasa. His second son,Motoyoshi, had alreadydd renounced noh and become a Buddhist y priest in 1430. Inaddition, it was right before Zeami was exiff led in 1434. See Kitagawa,d Zeami, 163.

161Notes

92. Zeami, Fûshikaden, 37, 42, 46, 62, 64, 65.93. Hayashiya, “Kodai Chûsei no Geiji utsu Shisô,” 741.94. Matsunaga Teitoku, TaionkiTT [Owing a debt of gratitude documentary],

ed. Odaka Toshio, in Taionki Oritakushiba no Ki RantTT ôt Kotohajimeô [Owing adebt of gratitude documentary; Burning firewood record; Origins of Dutchstudies], ed. Odaka Toshio and Matsumura Akira (Tokyo: Iwanami Skk hoten,1964), vol. 95 of NKNN BKK T, 64.TT

95. Nakajima Zuiryû, Teitoku Eitaiki [Eternal record of Teitof ku], in KandaToyoho, Haisho Keifu Itsuwashû [Collection of books, genealogy, and anec-dotes of haikai poetry] (Tokyo: Shunjûsha, 1930), vol. 32 of FukFF yk ûban HaishoTaikei [Collection of haikai poetry books, the popular edition], 166.

96. Komiya, Bashô Zô eamiZZ Hi idenHH Kn anKK , 215.97. Zeami, Fûshikaden, 62.98. Ibid., 27, 28, 44, 45, 46, 53, 54. For Zeami’s attention to audiences, see also

ibid., 18, 19, 31, 33, 43, 60, 61. Cf. Kitagawa, Zeami, 48.99. Zeami, FûshikadenFF , 45 (people’s love); 30–32, 61–64 (contests); 18, 19, 43, 46

(reputation).100. A ritual service and entertainment are the two maja or aspects of the theater in

general. Although it is hardly possible to erase either of tf hese, KitagawaTadahiko states that Kan’ami made a shift from religious to entertaining noh(14). Kan’ami performed Okina in a 1374 production in front of shogunYoshimitsu, by far the most y powerful personage whom one could dream of ashis patron. Okina (the half-ff divine old man) is a ritual playaa any d had been per-formeff d by the eldest actor of a troupe, anf d not the finest one or a troupeff leader.Kan’ami, the troupe leader, performeff d it against this convention, presumably tocapture the shogun as a patron, whww ich he managed to do. Kitagawa considersthis event epoch-making, because it signifies the noh theater’s transformationfrom ritual to entertainment. As for the ritual aspect of the noh theater beyondthis time period, see Rath, “Actors of Influence,” 27–65.

101. Nakamura Yasuo, “Commentary,” inyy Hachijôi Kadenshoô [Eight-volumebook of transmission of teachings on the Flower], in Kodai Chûsei Geiji utsuronjj ,798.

102. Kitagawa, ZeamiZZ , 31; Hayaa ashiya, Chûsei Geinôshi no Kenkyûk , 491–492.103. Zeami, Fûshikaden, 54.104. Ibid., 28, 29, 30, 45, 46, 47–54, 61.105. G. Cameron Hurst III, Armed Martial Arts ofo Jaf pa an: Swordsmanshipi anp d

Archeryr (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), 177–178.106. Ibid., 182.107. Nishiyama Matsunosuke, “Kinsei no Yûgeiron” [Theory on gegg i entertainment in

the premodern period], in Kinsei Geidôron, 617–618; Iemoto no Kenkyû, passim.108. Nishiyama, Iemoto no Kenkyû, 24.109. See, e.g., Zeami, Zeshi RokuZZ ju û Ijj gII o Sarugu aku Dangg gin , 310.

4 Secrecy,y Concealing the Revealing

1. Ihara Toshirô, NiNN hon Engekishss i [History of Japanese tf heater] (Tokyo: Wasekk daDaigaku Shuppanbu, 1904; rpt., Tokyo: Kuresu Shuppan, 1996), 677.

2. Imao Tetsuya, “ ‘Onnagata Hiden’ to Kikunojô no Ishiki” [“The secrettransmissions of anf onnagata” and Kikunojô’s consciousness], Engekigaku 1(March 1959): 52–57. Cf. Kinjinsai Shin’ô, Kokon Yakushss a Rongn o Sakigi agg ke

Notes162

[The great and first actors’ analects through all ages], ed. Gunjn i Masakatsu, inKinseiKK Geidôron [Theory on the Way yaa of arts in they premodern period], ed.Nishiyama Matsunosuke, Watanabe Ichirô, and Gunjn i Masakatsu (Tokyo:Iwanami Shoten, 1972), vol. 61 of Nihon Shisô Taikeô i [Collected Japanesethought, hereafter abbreviated NST], 482–483. As for an analysis of this text, seeTMaki Morinaga, “The Gender of Onnagatatt as the Imitating Imitated: ItsHistoricitytt , Performativityy ytt , and Involvement in the Circulation of Femininityy ytt ,yy ”positions: east asia cultures critique 10.2 (2002): passim.

3. Katô Shûichi, “Zeami no Senjutsu matawa Nôgakuron” [Zeami’s strategy or thenoh theory], in Zeami Zenchiku [Zeami and Zenchiku, hereafter abbreviatedZZ], ed. Omote Akira and Katô Shûichi (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1974), vol. 24Zof NST, 518.T,T,T

4. Summarized from Nisff hiyama’s definition off f iemotott and that of gei. SeeNishiyama Matsunosuke, Iemoto no Kenkyû [A studydd oy f iemoto y, the stem-familyhead] (Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kôbunkan, 1982), vol. 1 of Nishiyi ama MatsunosukeChosakushû [The collected works of Nishiyama Matsunosuke] 15–16; “Kinsei

fGeidô Shisô no Tokushitsu to sono Tenkai” [The characteristics ofpremodern thought of the Wayaa of arts and its develoy pment], in Kinsei Geidôron,585–586.

5. See, e.g., Yagyû Munenori, Heihô Kô adenshoKK [Family transmission book oy nswordsmanship], ed. Watanabe Ichirô, in Kinsei GeidôroKK n, 309, 327. ZeamiMotokiyo, FûshikadenFF [Transmission of teachings on stytt le and the Flower], iyy nZZ, 26, 31, 33, 36, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 55, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64; ZZZ KakKK yk ô A[Amirror of tf he Flower], in ZZ, 98, 106, 108;ZZ Shikadô [The path to the Flower], inZZ, 118;ZZZ Sandô [The three ways], in ZZ, 134, 139, 141; ZZ YûYY gaku Shudû ô Fô ûFF ken[Accounts of artistic joy anf d learning the Way], in ZZ, 163; ZZ ShSS ûgyoku Tokkaû[Finding gems and gaining the Flower], in ZZ, 191; ZZ Shudôsho [Learning theWay], in ZZ, 236, 239;ZZ Ongyoku Kuden (Ongyoku Kowadashss i Kuden) [Oraltransmission of musical (and vocal) production], in ZZ, 77.ZZ

6. Zeami, FûFF shikaden, 62–64.7. Arai Eizô, “Sho” no Hiden: Jubokudô no Koten o Yomu [Hiden of “calligraphy”:

A reading of the classics of the Wayaa of calliy graphy] (Tokykk o: Heibonsha, 1994),63, 66, 121.

8. Michel Foucault, sThe Order oTT fo Thinf gn s: An Archaeologg gyo oy fo the Human Sciencef see(New York: Vintage Books, 1994), xv–xx.

9. Yagyû Munenori, HeihôHH Kô adenshoKK , 304.10. Zeami, Fûshikaden, 27.11. Ibid., 20.12. Chan/Zen Buddhism, the school named after dhyh âna (meditation), is referred to

as Chan in China, and Zen in Japan as well as in the West. Therefore, it iscustomary to call it simy ply Zen. I follow this convention when I discuss the Zenytradition in general; whww en the distinction between Chan and Zen calls for ff partic-ular attention, however, I use the two appellations accordingly. Inyy general, mod-ern scholarship recognizes the continuitytt between Chan and Zen, althouy gh itdoes not consider them identical. See Furuta Shôkin, “Nihon Zenshû-shi:Rinzai-shû” [History of Jay panese Zen: The Rinzai school], in Zen no Rekishi:ZZNihon [History of Zen: Japan], ed. Nishitani Keiji i (Tokyo: Chikuma Shobô,1967), vol. 4 of KôKK za Zen [Lectures on Zen], 5. While admitting the continuity,yyhowever, Bernard Faure pays much attention to differences (ChCC an Insighi ts and

163Notes

Oversighi ts: An EpE istemologo ical Critil que ofo tf htt e ChCC an Tradition [Princeton:Princeton Universitytt Press, 1993y ], 3–4).

13. Yagyû Munenori, Heihô Kô adenshoKK , 308, 312, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 330,338, 339, 340, 341, 342; Zeami, Fûshikaden, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 26, 31, 32,33, 34, 36, 37, 42, 43, 49, 50, 54, 57, 64.

14. As for tff he “origins” of tf his feature, see Kennetff h K. S. Ch’en, Buddhism in ChCC ina:A Historical Surveye (Princeton: Princeton Universitytt Press, 1964y ), 12, 14, 15.See also ArtAA hur F. Wright, Buddhism in ChCC inese Historyr (Stanforff d: Stanforff dUniversity Press, 1959), 78.

15. William R. LaFleur, Buddhism: A Cultural Persl ps ective (Englewood Cliffs:Prentice-Hall, 1988), 43. See also ibid., 25, 41–42, 44.

16. Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki, “Zen: A Reply to Hu Shih,” Philosopo hyh East and Wesy t 3.1(1953): 26.

17. Ruth Fuller Sasaki, “The History of the Koan in Rinzaiy (Lin-chi) Zen,” in MiuraIsshû and Ruth Fuller Sasaki, The Zen Koan: Its Historyr and Use in Rinzai Zey n (SanDiego: Harcourt Brace and Companynn , 1965yy ), 14. See also LaFleur, Buddhism, 44.

18. For example, see Zeami Motokiyo, Zeshi Rokujû Igo Sarugaku DangiZZ [A talk onsarugaku noh by the honorable Zeami, who is over sixty ytt ], in ZZ, 310; NijôZZYoshimoto, HekirenshôHH [ArAA bitrary renrr gan poetry exegesis], ed. Ijichi Tetsuo, inRengn aronshû Nôgg gô akuronshû Haironshûgg [Collection of rengan poetry theoriesy ;Collection of noh artistry theories; Collection oy f haikai poetry theories],yed. Ijichi Tetsuo, Omote Akira, and Kuriyama Riichi (Tokyo: Shôgakukan,1973), vol. 51 of Nihon Koten Bungn aku Zenshgg û [Collection of Jaf panese classicalliterature, hereafter aff bbreviated NKBZ], 60; Shinkei,Z Sasamege otott [Private talks],ed. Ijichi Tetsuo, in Rengaronshû Nû ôNN gakuronshô û Haironshû û, 160.

19. Linji Yixuan, The Recordrr ed Sayings of Cd hCC ’an Master Lin-chi Hui-chao of ChCC enPrefecture: Complied by His Humble Heir Hui-jan of San-sheng [sic], trans. RuthFuller Sasaki (Kyoto: Institute for Zen Studies, 1975), 21 of the translation part.This monograph contains the original and the translation by Sasaki andy paginatesthem separately.

20. In the context of martial arts in the Edo era, Hurst provides counterevidence of Zenhaving influenced all the martial artsg practitioners (G. Cameron Hurst III, ArmedMartial Arts ofo Jaff pa an: Swordsmanshipi and Archerp yr y[New Haven: Yale UniversityyyttPress, 1998], 74, 127, 192–193, 198–199, 226). Nina Cornynn etz summarizes the

fphenomenon as follows: “Most frequentlyll , the modern, retrosyy pective unification offfa so-called Jad pa anese classical aesthtt etics [. . .] is linked tod Zen Buddhism” (“GazingDisinterestedly: Politicized Poetics in Double Suicill de,” fdiffi erences: A Journaff l ol foFeminist Culturall l Stul dies 12.3 [2001]: 123 [emphasis in original]). As for how “themodern, retrospective unification” was made possible, see Robert H. Sharf, “WhoseZen? Zen Nationalism Revisited,” in Rude Awakenings: Zen, thtt e Kyoto School, & tll htt eQuestion of Nationalismll , ed. James W. Heisig ang d Jod hn C. Maraldo (Honolulu:Universitytt of Hawai’i Press, 1994y ), 40–51.

21. Zeami, Fûshikaden, 17, 22, 23, 24, 26, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 49, 54, 57, 64;Shudôsho, 240. Yagyû Munenori, Heihô Kadensho, 308, 319, 322, 338, 339, 340,341, 342.

22. Sasaki, “The History oy f tf he Koan in Rinzai (Lin-Chi) Zen,” 10.23. Ibid., 28.24. Akizuki RyRR ômin, Zen Bukkyô towa Nanikô a [WhWW at is Zen Buddhism?] (KyKK oto:

Hôzôkan, 1990), 119–172.

Notes164

25. For the definition of a “double bind,” see Gregory Bateson,y fStepe s to an Ecologyo oy fffoMind: Collected Essad ya s in Antyy htt ropo ologyo , Psyy yss chiatryr , Evoyy lution, and Ed pE istemologyo(San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1972yy ), 206–212.

26. Sasaki, “The History of the Koan in Rinzai (Lin-chi) Zen,” 15.27. Ibid., 22.28. Imai Masaharu, personal interview (Q and A after lecture), March 5, 1996.29. Furuta, “Nihon Zenshû-shi: Rinzai-shû,” 72–88. See also Daisetz T. Suzuki, ZenZZ

and Japanese Cud lturerr (New York: Pantheon Books, 1959), 21–37. Cf. Hurst,Armed Martiad l Arts of Japal n, 74, 127, 192–193, 198–199, 226.

30. Linji, ThTT e Recordrr ed Sad ya ingn s ogg fo Cf hCC ’an Master Lin-chi Hui-chao ofo Cf hCC en Prefe ecturff err ,37 (trans.).

31. Sasaki, “The History of the Koan in Rinzai (Lin-chi) Zen,” 22.32. AnAA drew Benjamin, fTranslss ation anll d td htt e Nature of PhPP ilosophy: A New Th hTT eory ofo

Wordsdd (London: Routledge, 1989), 1–4.33. This is a repeated theme of Zen literature. See, e.g., Linjn i, sThe Recorded Saya ingsn

ofo Ch’an Master Lin-chi Hui-chao of fo Chen Pref fe ectureff , 1–2 (trans.).34. This is an example of how the act of translation can visualize issues that are

usually naturalized and invisible within the confines of a siny gle episteme. Inchapter 5, we see another example of this, by analy yzing how Osanai Kaoru, oneof the founders of modern Japanese theater, dealt with translation.

35. Sasaki, “The History of the Koan in Rinzaiy (Lin-Chi) Zen,” 28.36. Linji, The Recorded Saya ingn s ogg fo Ch’an Master Lin-chi Hui-chao of fo Chen Pref fe ecturff err ,

11–18 (original); 21–32 (trans.).37. Henry Clarke Warren, Buddhism in Translss ationsll (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass

Publishers, 1986), 129–133. See also ibid., 153–155.38. See, e.g., Linji, ThTT e Recordrr ed Sayings of Cd hCC ’an Master Lin-chi Hui-chao of ChCC en

Prefecturerr , 46–47 (trans.). A monk asks about the purpose of the Patriarch (i.e.,Bodhidharma) coming from the West. To it, Linji replies that he just happensto be washing his feet. In the paradigm of Zen, Linjn i’s response implies thatthe Patriarch has just arrived. See Linji Yixuan, Rinzairoku [The recordedsayings of Linji], ed. and trans. Iriya Yoshitaka (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1989),168–169.

39. The text used for this statistic is the original part of Linji, fThe Recorded Saya ingn s ogg fffoCh’an Master Lin-chi Hui-chao ofo Chen Pref fe ectureff . Each number represents theoccurrence of the two kinds of actions: shouting and hitting. See ibid., 1–3,13–15, 22–35 (original).

40. Ibid., 1 (trans.). See also ibid., 3, 4 (trans.).41. Ibid., 1 (trans.).42. Ibid., 41 (trans.).43. Ibid., 47 (trans.).44. Hu Shih, “Development of Zen Buf ddhism in China,” The ChCC inese Social anl d

Political Science Review 15.4 (1932): 488.45. Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki, Studies in thtt e La©kâvatâtt ra Sûtra (Boulder: Prajñâ Press,

1981), 109.46. Linjn i, ThTT e Recordrr ed Sad ya ingn s ogg fo Cf hCC ’an Master Lin-chi Hui-chao ofo Cf hCC en Prefe ectureff ,

37 (trans.).47. Suzuki, Studies in the Le a©kâvatâra Sûtra, 107.48. Yagyû Munenori, HeihôHH Kô adenshoKK , 304.49. Zeami, FûshikadenFF , 27.

165Notes

50. Yagyû Munenori, HeihôHH Kô adenshoKK , 303.51. Ibid., 318.52. Zeami, FûshikadenFF , 61.53. See the annotations on ibid., 61; Zeami Motokiyo, FûFF shikadenû , ed. Nishio

Minoru, in Karonshû Nû ôNN gakuronshô û f[Collection of poetry theories; Collection ofnoh artistry theories], ed. Hisamatsu Sen’ichi and Nishio Minoru (Tokyo:kkIwanami Shoten, 1961), vol. 65 of Nihon Koten Bungn aku Taikegg i f[Collection ofJapanese classical literature, hereafter aff bbreviated NKBT], theT NKBT version, 393;Teachings on Style and the Flower (FûFF shikaden)ûû , trans. J. Thomas Rimer andYamazaki Masakazu, in On the Art ofo the Nô Drama: The Maf ja or Treatises ojj fo Zeamif ,

ytrans. J. Thomas Rimer and Yamazaki Masakazu (Princeton: Princeton UniversityttPress, 1984), 59; Fûshikaden, ed. Omote Akira, in Rengn aronshû Nôgg gô akuronshgg ûHaironshû, the NKBZ version, 291. For the date of autf horship, see KitagawaTadahiko, Zeami [Zeami] (Tokykk o: Chûôkôronsha, 1972), 126. Kashu (a.k.a.KashûKK ) was later incorporated into another treatise, Kakyk ô t(1424). For the extantportion of KashuKK , see Zeami Motokiyii o, Kashu-no-uchi NukiKK gii aki (Nô ni Johakgg yk û noKoto)o [Excerpts from the Flower learning: Noh’s three segments of introduction,breaking, and rapa id], in ZZ, 67–71.Z,Z

54. Yagyû Munenori, HeihôHH Kô adenshoKK , 304.55. Zeami, FûshikadenFF , 27.56. Keith Green and Jill LeBihan, Critical Theoryr and Practice: A Coursebooy k

(London: Routledge, 1996), 69.57. Yamada Mumon, “Enô” [Huineng], in Zen no Rekishi: Chûgû oku [History oy f Zen:f

China], ed. Nishitani Keiji (Tokyo: Chikuma Shobô, 1967), vol. 3 of Kôza Zen,145–156.

58. Ch’en, Buddhism in ChCC ina, 353–356.59. Suzuki, Studies in the Le a©kâvatâtt ra Sûtra, 60–62.60. Zeami, FûFF shikaden, 37.61. Suzuki, Studies in the Le a©kâvatâtt ra Sûtra, 61. See also ibid., 54–56.62. Yagyû Munenori, HeihHH ô Kadenshoô , 314.63. Zeami, Fûshikaden, 35.64. Yagyû Munenori, Heihô KadenshoHH , 311.65. Zeami, Fûshikaden, 34. For other examples of kataga i, see Zeami, Fûshikaden, 26,

43, 44, 57, 58; Ongyn oku Kuden, 75; KakyKK ô, 96, 104; YûYY gaku Shudû ô Fô ûFF ken, 163,164; Shûgyû oku Tokka, 194, 195; Goongyn oku Jôjôô [Matters concerning the fivemodes of musical expression], in ZZ, 199, 202, 203.Z,Z

66. For this concept, see also Yagyû Munenori, Heihô Kô adenshoKK , 308, 311, 338,339, 342.

67. Fujiwara-no Teika, MaiMM gi etsushô [Monthly exey gesis], ed. Hisamatsu Sen’ichi, inKaronshû Nôgô akuronshgg û, 131, 137–138. Incidentally, it is noteworthyy y that Teikayalso emphasizes that he heard the teachings from his father, Fuju iwara-no Shunzei(1114–1204).

68. Yagyû Munenori, HeihHH ô Kadenshô o, 320–321.69. Yuasa Yasuo, Shintairon: Tôyôteki Shinshinron to GendaiSS [Theory on they

body: An Eastern mind–body theory and the present] (Tokyo: KôKK dansha,1990), 101.

70. Arai,AA “ShSS o” no Hiden, 65–116.71. Ibid., 111–116.72. Zeami, Fûshikaden, 14, 30; Kakyô, 98.

Notes166

73. Zeami, FûshikadenFF , 49. Zeami considers that writing noh texts is an importantcomponent of tf he noh theater, the knowlww edge of wf hww ich deserves to be treated assecret transmissions. Chapter 6 of FûshikadenFF , whww ich includes the quotation, isabout how to write noh plays (47–54). Incidentally, notice that, in the passagecited, Zeami uses an honorific, tamatt u: “Please bear in mind that [. . .].”

74. Ibid., 57.75. Ibid., 49, 51, 57. For this theme regarding the relationship between melodies and

words, see also his Fushss izuke ShSS idai [The application of melody], in ZZ, 145–154.ZZ76. Zeami, FûFF shikaden, 35.77. Ibid., 34. Komakanaru in Zeami terminology indicates not only “detailed” but

also “concrete.” See the annotations on ibid., 34; the NKBTKK version, 365; theRimer and Yamazaki translation, 27; the NKNN BZKK version, 248.

78. Yagyû Munenori, Heihô Kadenshô o, 320.79. Ibid., 325.80. Kumakura Isao, “Hiden no Shisô” [Thought of hiden], in Geinô to Chinkon

[Entertainment and requiescat], ed. Moriya Takeshi (Tokyo: Shunjn ûsha, 1988),vol. 7 of Taikei Bukkyô to Nihonjin [Survey of Buddhism and the Japanese], 276,280; Hayaa ashiya Tatsusaburô, Nihon Engn eki no Kankyôk [Environment of Japanesetheater] (KyKK oto: Ôyashima Shuppan, 1947), 56, 58; Komiya Toyotaka, BashôZeamiZZ Hi idenHH Kn anKK [Bashô, Zeami, hiden, and intuition] (Tokyo: Hakuju itsuShoin, 1947), 225.

81. See, e.g., Katô, “Zeami no Senjutsu matawa Nôgakuron,” 518.82. Omote Akira, “Zeami to Zenchiku no Densho” [Transmission books by Zeamy i

and Zenchiku], in ZZ, 549, 553.ZZ83. Zeami, Shudôsho, 240. For the details of tf he succession of eacf h treatise, see

Omote, “Zeami to Zenchiku no Densho,” 551–571.84. Nakamura Yasuo, “Commentary,” inyy HachijHH ôjj Kadenshô o k[Eight-volume book

of transmission of teachings on the Flower], ed. Nakamura Yasuo, in KoKK daiChûsei Geiji utsuronjj [Theory on artistry y from the ancient to medievaly periods],

fed. Hayaa ashiya Tatsusaburô (Tokykk o: Iwanami Shoten, 1973), vol. 23 ofNST, 798.T,T

85. Ibid., 798. See also Eric C. Rath, “Legends, Secrets, and Authoritytt : HachiHH ji ôjjKadensho and Earlyll Modern Noh,” y Monumenta NiMM ppi onica 54.2 (1999): 169–194.

86. Hachiji ô Kadenshjj o, ed. Nakamura Yasuo, in Kodai Chûsei Geiji utsurojj n, 511–665.FûshikadenFF is incorporated into HachiHH ji ô Kadenshojj as follows.

FûshikadenFF ’s Introd. → Vol. 8 oVV f HachiHH ji ô KadenshojjCh. 1 → VoVV l. 8Ch. 2 → Vol. VV 6Ch. 3 → Vol. VV 6Chs. 4–7 N/A (no relation)N/A Vols. 1–5, & 7 (no relation)

The detailed comparison of FûFF shikaden and Hachijôjj Kadenshoô is as follows.

FûFF shikaden’s Introd. & Ch. 1 → Vol. 8 (the first ff half ) of Hachijôjj Kadenshô oCh. 2 (introd.) → Vol. 6 (introd.)Ch. 2 (women; the old; lunatics;the dead; gods; demons; theChinese; conclusion) → Vol. 6 (the first third)

Ch. 2 (no mask; priests) N/A (not incorporated)Ch. 3 (Questions 1–6) → Vol. 6 (the second third)

167Notes

Ch. 3 (Question 7) → yVoVV l. 6 (the second third: Brieflyincorporated)

Ch. 3 (Questions 8–9; PS) N/A (not incorporated)87. Nakamura Yasuo, “Commentary,” 799.88. Ibid., 799.89. Zeami, FûshikadenFF , 17. Hachijô KadenshoHH , 654. For similar examples, see

Hachijô Kadensho, 611, 614, 615, 616, 617, 653, 654.90. Nakamura Yasuo, “Commentary,” 800.91. Yagyû Munenori, HeihôHH Kô adenshoKK , 307, 309, 310, 311, 312, 319, 321, 322,

323, 324, 334, 338, 340, 341, 342.92. Zeami, FûshikadenFF , 14, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 26, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 42,

43, 45, 49, 50, 54, 57, 64.93. Yagyû Munenori, HeihôHH Kô adenshoKK , 340.94. Zeami, Kakyk ô, 87.95. Watanabe Ichirô, “Heihô Densho Keisei ni tsuite no Ichi-Shiron” [A working

ythesis on the formation of transmission books on swordsmanship and militaryscience], in Kinsei Geidôron, 655, 659.

96. Curiously enouy gh, Okamura Keishin states that Kûkai’s Sangn ô Shîki[Indications of tf he goals of tf he three teachings: 797] is “abnormal (ijôi )” in the

tcontext of esoteric Buddhism, because the text describes esoteric Buddhistcultivation, revealing its methodology and y purposes (“Mikkykk ô Shugyô no Hôhôto Shisô: Sono Kitei ni Arumono” [Methodology and thought of esotericBuddhist cultivation: That whww ich underlies the founff dation], in MiMM tsugiu toiShugyôu [Esoteric ritual and cultivation], ed. Yuasa Yasuo [Tokyo: Shunjûsha,1989], vol. 3 of Taikei Bukkyô to Nihonjinô , 93).

97. Zeami, Fûshikaden, 61.98. Ibid., 62.99. Kumakura, “Hiden no Shisô,” 260.

100. Komiya, Bashô Zeami Hiden Kanô , 131.101. Kumakura, “Hiden no Shisô,” 262.102. Zeami, Fûshikaden, 61–62.103. Yagyû Munenori, Heihô Kadensho, 327.104. Ibid., 337.105. Zeami, FûshikadenFF , 24.106. Ibid., 24.107. Zeami, Fûshikaden, 64–65; KyaKK kuraika [The Flower of returningf ], in ZZ,ZZZ

246, 248.108. Nakajima Zuiryû, Teitoku Eitaiki [Eternal record of Teitof ku], in Kanda

Toyoho, Haisho Keifu Itsuwashû [Collection of books, genealogy, and anec-dotes of haikai poetry] (Tokyo: Shunjûsha, 1930), vol. 32 of FukyFF ûban HaishoTaikeiTT [Collection of haikai poetry books, the y popular edition], 166.

109. Hachiji ô Kadenshojj , passim.110. Miyamoto Musashi, Gorin no Sho [Book of five rings], ed. Watanabe Ichirô, in

Kinsei Geidôron, 392. Curiously enouy gh, Musashi also declares: “Now produc-ing this book, I will not borrow any ancient word from Buddhism oy rConfucianism. I will not use any old thiny gs from military science” y (356).

111. Ibid., 360, 362, 365, 374, 378, 385.112. Motoori Norinaga, Naobi no Mitama [The honorable spirit of the two deities,

Ônaobi and Kan’naobi], in Motoori Norinaga Zenshû f[The complete works ofMotoori Norinaga, hereafter abbreviated MNMM ZNN ], ed. Ôkubo Tadashi, vol. 14Z

Notes168

(Tokykk o: Chikuma Shobô, 1972), 129–130. A similar statement also appears inhis KôKK godaô n [Post-lecture talks], in MNMM ZNN , vol. 14, 178–179. Norinaga is said toZZhave written Naobi no Mo itamaMM (1771) initially as an ay ppendix of his Kojo ijj kiden[Commentary on KojiKK ki], one of his major works in whww ich he was engaged froff m1763 or 1764 to 1798. KôKK godaô n is the transcript of his lectures during ca.1769–1771. It is noteworthy thh hat Naobi no Mitama reads that esoteric practicesare watakushi-g- oto, personal matters (129). In contrast, we recall, Zeami empha-sizes that the esoteric teachings in Fûshikaden are not a personal issue (46).

113. Jôfuku Isamu, Motoori NorinagMM agg [Motoori Norinaga] (Tokyo: Yoskk hikawaKôKK bunkan, 1980), 61–62.

114. Motoori Norinaga, Ashss iwakeobune [Small boat shoving through the reed], inMNZNN , vol. 2 (Tokyo: Chikuma Shobô, 1968), 14–15, 73–77.ZZ

115. Ibid., 73.116. Ibid., 74.117. Ibid., 74.118. Ibid., 15.

5 Esotericism and Modernity

1. Nishiyama Matsunosuke, IemotoseiII no To enkaiTT [The development of the iemotosystem] (Tokykk o: Yoshikawa Kôbunkan, 1982), vol. 2 of NishiNN yi ama MatsunosukeChosakushû [The collected works of Nishiyama Matsunosuke, hereafter abbrevi-ated NMC], 259. Gendai no Iemotot is included in Iemotosei no TenII kai f, vol. 2 ofNMCMM , in its entirety (257–463). I use the C,CC NMNN CMM version.

2. Ibid., 295–299, 301–304.3. Ibid., 259.4. Ibid., 260–261.5. Ibid., 261.6. Unfortunately, the maja or part of Nishiyama’s vast writings, including Gendai no

IemotoII , is not available in English yet, with the exception of an anthology trans-lated by Gerald Groemer: Nishiyama Matsunosuke, Edo Culture: Dailyll Liy fi e anff dDiversions in Urban Japa an, 1600–1868, trans. and ed. Gerald Groemer(Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1997).

7. Ôzasa Yoshio, Nihon Gendai Engekishi: Meiji Taishô henô [History of Japanesecontemporary theater: The Meiji and Taishô eras] (Tokyo: Hakusuisha, 1985),passim; Nihon Gendai Engekishi: Taishô Shô ôwa-Shoki hen [History of Japanesecontemporary theater: The Taishô and early Shôwa eras] (Tokyo: Hakusuisha,1986), passim. Sugai Yukio, “Commentarkk y,” inyy Osanai Kaoru EnOO gn ekiron Zenshgg û[The complete writings on theatrical theory oy f Osanai Kaoru, f hereafter aff bbrevi-ated OKEZEE ], ed. Sugai Yukio, vol. 1 (Tokyo: Miraisha, 1964), 482–511;Z“Commentary,” inyy OKEOO ZEE , vol. 3 (Tokyo: Miraisha, 1965), 337–372;ZZ“Commentary,” in OKEZEE , vol. 5 (Tokyo: Miraisha, 1968), 239–266. See alsoZZSugai Yukio, “Kindaigeki no Seiritsu to sono Juyuu ô no Tayaa ôsei” [The formationof modern theater and the varietytt of its accey ptance], in KinKK dai no Engeki I[Theater in modern times, I], ed. Suwa Haruo and Sugai Yukio (Tokykk o:Benseisha, 1997), vol. 5 of Kôza Nihon no Engeki [Lectures on Japanesetheater], 8–34; “Jiyû Gekiji ô Ronsô” [The Free Theater debates], in Kindai noEngn eki gg I, 67–79; “Tsukiji Shôgekijô Ronsô” [The Tsukiji Little TheaterIIdebates], in Kindai no Engn egg ki IIII [Theater in modern times, II], ed. Suwa Haruoand Sugai Yukiokk (Tokyo: Benseisha, 1996), vol. 6 of Kôza Nihon no Engn ekgg i,

169Notes

8–21. Brian Powell, “Japan’s First Modern Theater: The Tsukiji i Shôgekiji ô and ItsCompanynn , 192yy 4–26,” Monumenta Nippi onica 30.1 (1975): 69–85. This articleincludes an English translation of Osanai’s essay, “Tsukiji i Shôgekijôi wa Nani noTameni Sonzai Suruka” [For whww at purposes does the Tsukiji Littkk le Theater exist?],which was initially published in 1924. See also Gioia Ottaviani, “ ‘Difference’ anww d‘Reflexivity’: Osanai Kaoru and the Shingeki Movement,” Asian Theatre JournalA11.2 (Fall 1994): 213–230. To be exact, Sugai Yukiokk freff quently mentiony sOsanai’s notions, and Gioia Ottaviani calls Osanai a “playwright, director, critic,and theorist” (213). Comparatively speaking, however, Osanai’s thought is lessdiscussed than his institutional achievements.

8. Osanai Kaoru, “Jiyû Gekijô no Keikaku” [Plan of the Free Theater], in OKEZ,ZZvol. 1, 103; “Engeki no Jissaika to shite” [In my capacity as a theater practi-tioner], in OKEOO ZEE , vol. 2 (Tokyo: Miraisha, 1965), 111. Originally, “Jiyû GekijôZZno Keikaku,” consisting of four parts dated 1908 and 1909, was published in1909; “Engeki no Jissaika to shite” was published in 1928.

9. Ôzasa, Nihon Gendai Engekishi: Meiji Taishô henô , 63. See also Kubo Sakae,Osanai Kaoru [Osanai Kaoru], in Kubo Sakae Zenshû f[The complete works ofKubo Sakae], vol. 7 (Tokykk o: San’ichi Shobô, 1962), 38–39.

10. Osanai, “Jiyû Gekijô no Keikaku,” 101.11. For instance, as Sugai Yukio points out, Osanai’s Gikyk oku Sahô [Playaa makiny g]

(1916–1918) is mainlyll a translation oy f Playa -Makingn : A Manual ogg fo Craf fa tsmanshiff pi(ca. 1912) by William Archer y (1856–1924). Likewise, On the Art ofo thefTheatreTT (1911) by Ey dwardd d Gord don Craig (1872–1966) repeatedly ay ppa ears inOsanai’s theatrical essays: “Engeki Bijutsu Mondô” [Dialogue on the art of thetheater: 1907], “Gôzun Kurêgu no Daini Taiwa” [The second dialogue of GordonCraig: 1910], “Butai Kantoku no Nin’mu to Ken’i” [The dutytt and authority ytt of y astage director: 1922], and “Bungad ku to Engekk ki no Sesskk hokuten” kk [The point whww ere

yliterature and theater encounter each other: 1926]. Incidentally, Craig had alreadyyyddpublished eacd h chapter of tf he monograph as articles in the journal ThTT e Maskss , sothat Osanai could transd late some as early as 1907. See Osanai Kaoru, “Engell kiBijutsu Mondô,” in OKEOO ZEE , vol. 1, 183–190; “Gôzun Kurêgu no Daini Taiwa,” inZZOKEZEE , vol. 1, 327–346; “Butai Kantoku no Nin’mu to Ken’i,” in ZZ OKEZEE , vol. 2,ZZ13–18; “Bungaku to Engekk ki no Sesskk hokuten,” inkk OKEZEE , vol. 2, 53–62; ZZ Gikyok kuSahô, in OKEOO ZEE , vol. 5, 9–92. See also Sugai Yukio, “Bibliographical Introduction,”ZZin OKEOO ZEE , vol. 1, 476–477, 480; “Bibliographical Introduction,” inZ,Z OKEOO ZEE , vol. 2,ZZ303; “Bibliographical Introduction,” in OKEOO ZEE , vol. 5, 231–232.ZZ

12. Roland Barthes, “The Death of the Author,” in Image Music Text, trans. StephenttHeath (New York: Hill and Wang, 1977), 142–148. See also Judith Butler,“Imitation and Gender Insubordination,” in Inside/Out: Lesbian Theories, GayaTheories, ed. Diana Fuss (New York: Routledge, 1991), 22.ss

13. Mark Rose,k Authtt ors and Owners: Td hTT e Invention of Copyrightgg (Cambridge:Harvard Universitytt Press, 1993y ), 142.

f14. Osanai Kaoru, “Shingeki Fukkô no Tameni” [In the interest of the renaissance ofthe New Theater], in OKEOO ZEE , vol. 1, 35–65. This article was originally publishedZZin 1917–1918.

15. Ibid., 58. See also Kubo, OsanaOO i Kaori u, 93, 172–174. See also Hiji ikata Umeko,Hijikata Umeko Jiden [AutoAA biography of Hijif kata Umeko] (Tokyo: Hayakk kawaShobô, 1976), 134. See also Ôzasa, Nihon Gendai Engekishi: Meiji Taishô henô ,126, 153; Nihon Gendai Engn ekishi: Taishô Shôwa-Shoki hen, 563–584.

16. See, e.g., Osanai, “Shingeki Fukkô no Tameni,” 49.

Notes170

17. See Osanai Nadeshiko, trans. Romeo endo JuriettoJJ [Romeo and Juliet],KabukiKK y55 supplement (November 1904): 1–46. The following prefatorynote can be founff d in the journal’s table of contents: “f A pA lay by Shakespeare,the November production of tf he Masago-za theater, five acts in totaff l.” Addedto that is Nadeshiko’s disclaimer that he himself does not regard this translation

yas satisfactory but publishes the piece on demand. See also a defensive essayaahe wrote under the name of “tf he translator of tf he playaa , yy Romeo (“Romeo” gekino tekiyakusha)”: “Gekihyôka Shosensei ni Môshiage Sôrô” [Allow me toexpress my opinion to the theater critics] (Kabuki 56 [December 1904]:62–68).

18. The examples include, but are not limited to, the foff llowing. Walter Benjamin,“The Task of the Translator: An Introduction to the Translation of Baudelaire’sTableaux Parisiens,” in ss Illuminations: Essays and Reflections, ed. and with anssintroduction by Hannah Arendt, trans. Harry y Zohn y (New York: SchockenBooks, 1969), 69–82. Naoki Sakai, Translation and Subjectivity: On “Japan”and Cud ltural National lism (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997);“The Problem of Translation,” in Voices of the Past: The Status of Language inVVEighgg teenthtt -Century Japanese Discourse (Ithaca: Cornell Universitytt Press, 1991y ),211–239.

19. AyAA ako Kano, Actingn Like a Woman in Modern Jag pa an: Theater, Gender, andNationalismNN (New York: Palgrave, 2001).

f20. Judith Butler argues to the contrary: “Whereas some critics mistake the critique of-sovereigntytt for tff he demolition of af gency, I yy propose that agency begins whww ere

sovereigntytt wanes”y (Excitable Sll pS eech: A Politics ofo tf htt e Perfr ormativff e [New York:Routledge, 1997], 16). Cf. Seyff lyy a Benhabib, “Epistemologies of Postmof dernism:A Rejoinder to Jean-François Lyotard,” in Feminism/m Postmodernism// , ed. Linda J.Nicholson (New York: Routledge, 1990), 107–130.

21. Butler, Excitable SpS eech, 15.22. Michel Foucault, ThTT e Ordrr er of ThTT ings: An Archaeology of tll htt e Human Sciences w(New

York: Vintage Books, 1994), passim. There remains, though, room for argumenff tover whww ether plural types of episteme reaf lly cannot coexist unll der any circum-stances. For instance, utilizing the Foucauldian concept of episteme, Tf homasLaqueur at one point states: “Here I differ ff from Foucauff lt, whww o would see ond eepie stemii e decisively, once anll d for aff ll, replacing another” (MaMM kingn Sex: Bog dyand Gender from tff htt e Greeks to Freud [Cambridge: Harvard Universitd ytt Pressy ,1990], 21).

23. Karatani Kôjin, Nihon Kindai BunNN gn aku no Kigg gi en [Origins of modern Japaneseliterature] (Tokyo: Kôdansha, 1988), passim. As for Karatani’s tacit reliance onthe Foucauldian concept of episteme in this text, Brett de Bary states: “It isimpossible not to see resemblances between this concept [that Karatani proposesin the said text] and that of tf he Foucauldian epistemii e, although Karatani rigor-ously (and, for reasons that in themselves deserve analysis, quite sensibly) avoidswholesale ‘application’ of this term within his argument” (“Introduction,” inKaratani Kôjin, Origi ins ofo Modern Jaf pa anese Literaturerr , ed. Brett de Bary, trans.yyBrett de Bary et al. [Durham: Duke University Press, 1993], 7). Nina Cornyetzuses the phrase, “epistemic constellation,” for tff his notion (“GazingDisinterestedly: Politicized Poetics in fDouble Suicide,” differences: A Journal ol foFeminist Cultural Stul diesee 12.3 [2001]: 110, 125).

24. Benito Ortolani, The Japa anese ThTT eatre: From ShSS amanistic Ritual tolContempm oraryr Pluralismy , rev. ed. (Princeton: Princeton Universitytt Press, 1995y ),233–235.

171Notes

25. Ôzasa, Nihon Gendai Engn ekishi: Meiji i Taishjj ô henô , 48, 68–69.26. Ibid., 23, 68–69, 479–480. Cf. Ortoff lani, The Japa anese ThTT eatrerr , 238–240.27. Ôzasa, Nihon Gendai Engn ekishi: Meiji i Taishjj ô henô , 23 [emphasis in original].28. Ibid., 53. For instance, Hyôryû Kidan Seiyû ô Kabukô i [Western drama of strangf e

drifting tale] in 1879 by Kawatake Mokuami and Kairiku Renshô Asahi nô oMihatatt [The Rising-Sun flag’s consecutive victories on the seas and land] in1894 by Fukuchi Ôchi were badly y receivedy (ibid., 31–32, 53). Especially, thyy efaiff lure of Kairiku Renshô Asahi no Mihatatt , a war drama based on the coeval Sino-Japanese War, was decisive. See Kawatake Shigetoshi, Nihon Engeki Zenshiss[Complete history of Japanese theater] (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1959),855–857. The failure directly resulted from the fact that the kabuki ydramaturgyggcould not express modern wars but implicitly indicated a far more radical issue.That is to say, kabuki theater did not after aff ll generate shss in-engeki required by thenew nation. This phenomenon requires a comprehensive analysis, taking genderinto consideration. See Ayako Kano, “Japanese Theater and Imperialism:Romance and Resistance,” U.S.–JaUU pa an Women’s Journal English Supplement 12(1996): 28–32.

29. Maruyuu ama Masao, “ ‘Dearu’ Koto to ‘Suru’ Koto” [“A being” and “a doing”],in NihonNN no Shisô [Japanese thought] (Tokykk o: Iwanami Shoten, 1961), 153–180.

30. Ihara Toshirô, MeiMM ji i Enjj gn ekishi [History of Meiji i theater] (Tokyo: WasedaDaigaku Shuppanbu, 1933; rpr t., Tokykk o: Kuresu Shuppan, 1996), 10, 27, 91,156, 161, 351, 365, 556, 570, 580, 594, 618, 741, 788, 821. See also Ôzasa,Nihon Gendai Engn ekishi: Meiji i Taishô hejj n, 15–28.

31. Ortolani, ThTT e Japa anese ThTT eatre, 233.32. As for a compreff hensive analysis of tf he formation off f shingekiss , see KanoKK , Actitt ngn

Like a Woman in Modern Japan, 151–182.y33. “Borukuman geki ni taisuru shoka no iken” [Critics’ opinions about the playaa

Borkman], Kabuki 114 (January 1910): 47, 50, 53.34. Osanai, “Jiyû Gekiji ô no Keikaku,” 103.35. Examples include Ôgai and Shôyô. David G. Goodman considers that Osanai,

prior to his engagement in shingn eki, belonged to this partytt (“Introduction,” inJapa anese Drama and Culture in the 1960s: The Return ofo the Godf sdd [New York:M. E. Sharpe, 1988], 5).

36. See, e.g., Osanai, “Jiyû Gekiji ô no Keikaku,” 102.37. Ozaki Hirotsugu, Shimamura HôSS gô etsu: Nihon Kindaigi eki no Sôshishatachi 1

[Shimamura Hôgetsu: The founders of modern Japanese theater, Part 1] (Tokykk o:Miraisha, 1965), 6.

38. Ôzasa, Nihon Gendai Engn ekishi: Meiji i Taishô henjj , 102.39. Osanai Kaoru, “Tsukiji i Shôgekiji ô wa Nani no Tameni Sonzai Suruka” [For what

purposes does the Tsukikk ji i Littltt e Theater exist?], in OKEOO ZEE , vol. 2, 48–49. See alsoZZOsanai Kaoru, “Kokugeki no Shôrai” [The future of the national theater], inOKEOO ZEE , vol. 2, 68. The former article was published in 1924 and the latter in 1926.Z,ZZ

40. Ôzasa, Nihon Gendai Engekishi: Meiji Taishô heô n, passim, especially, 104, 111,113, 114. Sugai, “Commentary,” in OKEOO ZEE , vol. 1, 482–511; “Commentary,” inZZOKEZEE , vol. 3, 337–372; “Commentary,” in ZZZ OKEZEE , vol. 5, 239–266. See alsoZZSugai, “Kindaigeki no Seiritsu to sono Juyô no Tayôsei,” 8–34; “Jiyû GekijôiRonsô,” 67–79. Curiously, Osanai oyy penly admits these, but seems not to finy dthem problematic. See Osanai, “Shingeki Fukkô no Tameni,” 35–65.

41. Osanai, “Jiyû Gekiji ô no Keikaku,” 102; “Engeki no Jissaika to shite,” 112. Seealso Matsumoto Shinko, Meiji EngeMM kironshss i [History of Meiji i theatrical theory](Tokykk o: Engeki Shuppansha, 1980), 981–989. Cf. Natsume Sôseki, “Shirôto to

Notes172

Kurôto” [Amateurs and professionals], in Sôseki Zi enshûZZ f[The complete works ofSôseki], vol. 11 (Tokykk o: Iwanami Shoten, 1966), 421–430.

42. Ôzasa, Nihon Gendai Engn ekishi: Taishô Shô ôwa-Shoki hen, 410.43. Ôzasa, Nihon Gendai Engekishi: Meiji Taishô heô n, 63, 126, 153. In addition,

kaccording to Kubo Sakae, Osanai allegedly had an agreement that he would workfor Shôchiku upon the administrative failure of Tsukiji Shôgekijô (Osanai Kaori u,173). In this regard, the chronological interpretation that Goodman proposesrequires carefuff l treatment: “Osanai had tried for years to reff formff kabuki, but hedespaired of ever succeef ding and, in 1924, founff ded [. . .] (Tsukiji shTT ôgekijô ôjj )to give Japan its first truly modern theatre, free from kabuki’s influence”(“Introduction,” 5). One must keep in mind that Osanai did not go through a lin-eal sequence: “First, the devotion to kabuki, then the disappointment at kabuki,and finaff lly a new theatrical challenge.” Rather, his attachment to translation liter-ature and to the West had existed from the very bey ginning of his career; likewise,his involvement in the kabuki world lasted until his last days, as introduced ear-lier. For another example, in 1927, his youngest son, then nine years old, becamea disciple of the kabuki actor Nakamura Kichiemon I (1886–1954). This hasbeen regarded as representing Osanai’s intention to become more familiar withthe kabuki circles. Ôzasa, Nihon Gendai Engn ekishi: Taishô Shôwa-Shoki hen, 554.See also Kubo, Osanai Ki aoruKK , 158–159.

44. Kubo, Osanai Kaoru, 173–174. See also Ôzasa, Nihon Gendai Engn ekishi: TaishôShôwa-Shoki hen, 376.

45. Osanai, “Shingeki Fukkô no Tameni,” 35–65. See also Osanai Kaoru, “Geijutsuka Goraku ka” [Is it art or, alternatively, entertainment?], in OKEOO ZEE , vol. 1,ZZ281–286; “Futatabi ‘Geijutsu ka Goraku ka’ ” [“Is it art or, alternatively,entertainment?” Part 2], in OKEOO ZEE , vol. 1, 286–289. Both articles were publishedZZin 1908.

46. Shikitei Sanba, Kakusha Hyôbanki [Audience review], ed. Kumakura Isao, inKabukiKK [KabukiKK ], ed. Gondô Yoshikazu, Munemasa Isoo, and Moriya Takeshi(Tokykk o: San’ichi Shobô, 1973), vol. 6 of Nihon Shomin Bunka Shiryôr Shô ûsei[Collected historical documents of Japanese popular culture], ed. GeinôshiKenkykk ûkai [Performing arts history study ydd group], passim. See also Anne Walthall,“Peripheries: Rural Culture in Tokugawa Japan,” Monumenta Nippi onica 39.4(1984): 371–392.

47. Sôshi shibai changed in qualitytt once it became financially y successful. See Ôzasay ,Nihon Gendai Engn ekishi: Meiji i Taishô hejj n, 51.

48. Roughly speaking, “representation” is a form of expression that effaces its medi-ated nature: what looks immediate and thus realistic. In turn, “presentation” is aform of expression that openly recognizes its mediated nature. For those con-cepts in the context of Japanese f literature, see Edwardd d Fowlww er, fThTT e Rhetoric ofoConfession: Shishôsetsu in Early Twentieth-Century Japanese Fiction (Berkeley:Universitytt of California Press, 1988y ), 28–42.

49. Ôzasa, Nihon Gendai Engekishi: Meiji TaishNN ô heô n, 134.50. I limit this statement to the present, since the definition of an amateur is contingent.

An illustrative example lies in the Olympic Games.51. This is one of the pet phrases of Osanai. See, e.g., Osanai, “Shingeki Fukkô no

Tameni,” passim.52. Ôzasa, Nihon Gendai Engekishi: Meiji Taishô hen, 103.53. In 1914, Geiji utsu-za staged an adaptation of Resurrection v(1899) by Ley v

fNikolaevich Tolstoi (1828–1910). This production was successful in terms of

173Notes

popularitytt , and its title sonyy g, “Katúsha’s Song” became the vogue. Ôzasa alsorecognizes the artistic success of Geif ji utsu-za’s Resurrection (NihonNN GendaiEngn ekishi: Meiji i Taishjj ô heô n, 146–149). Cf. Ortoff lani, The Japa anese ThTT eatre,247–248. For Osanai’s criticism of “Katúsf ha’s Song,” see Osanai, “ShingekiFukkô no Tameni,” 37, 56. See also Osanai Kaoru, “ ‘Ikeru Shikabane’ ni tsuiteno Rongi” [A discussion on The Living Corpse], in OKEOO ZEE , vol. 1, 79–80. “ ‘IkeruZZShikabane’ ni tsuite no Rongi” was published in 1919. As for the usage of thegender-specific term, actress, in this context, see Kano, Acting Like a Woman inModern Japan, 231.

54. Osanai, “Shingeki Fukkô no Tameni,” 39.55. Osanai, “Jiyû Gekijô no Keikaku,” 105; Osanai Kaoru, “Nihon Shôrai no Geki”

[Theater of Japan in the future], in OKEOO ZEE , vol. 1, 256–257. (“Nihon Shôrai noZZGeki,” also known as “Shôrai no Geki,” was published in December 1906.) In1924, Osanai also stated: “Our audiences must be students” (“Tsukiji i Shôgekijôito Watakushi” [The Tsukiji i Little Theater and I], in OKEOO ZEE , vol. 2, 43). To beZZexact, his view of a general audience lacks consistency. On the one hand, hyy eclearly expresses his contempt for the “stupid” masses and the mass audi-ences. (“Shingeki Fukkô no Tameni,” 38–39, 42–43, 56, 62; “Nihon Shôrai noGeki,” 256.) On the other hand, he declared in 1924 that Tsukiji i Shôgekiji ôexisted for the sake of the masses. (“Tsukiji i Shôgekiji ô wa Nani no TameniSonzai Suruka,” 48–49.) Ôzasa analyzes this difference in the historical contextthat Osanai changed his initial opinion about the “stupid” masses accordingto the democratic trend at that time. The transformation seems incomff plete,however. Ôzasa, Nihon Gendai EnNN gn ekishi: Taishô Shô ôwa-Shoki hen, 377–378,406–410.

56. Osanai states: “Theater will need patrons in the future as it did in the past. In thefuture, it will be the dutytt of ay patron to support poor actors’ [. . .] living and letthem play in artistry. To date, patrons have been useless. They do nothing butdonate stage curtains (which in fact advertise themselves!), invite favorite actorsto a partytt (which in h fact maff kes thtt e actors entertain), tip actors 5 or 10 yen (whichis easy money y that does not benefit the actorsy ), or give them haori coats withtheir own creststt . In the future, patrons should leave actors to their artistic trainingn .No need for curtains, parties, nor nominal tips. Patrons must provide actors withmeaningful protection. Support actors’ living and leave them to arts. Or, fromtime to time, let actors produce playa s oyy fo their choicf e f, ideal playaa s ‘independent oftheir employers’ ” (“Nihon Shôrai no Geki,” 256 [emphasis in original]). He alsostates: “The rich in Japan are the most stupid people among the wealthy people

yall over the world. Of course, they have extra money. They have money that theyfhave no idea how to use. Besides, they do not use it for good causes. It is out offf

the question that they waste their money in the pleasure quarters or enjoy tigeryhunting in Manchuria. They estay blish chemistry researcy h institutions. They

found new seminars in universities. They make a donation to the army y and ley tthem create aircraft. ff All these things are good, but these things do not result froff man internal desire. They are just ostentatious. They just want to become famousand get a medal. [. . .]

Here we have ‘theater.’ Japanese history has lony g despised it. Even todayaa itydoes. ‘Theater’ is that which unites all the arts. All over the world, rulers, states,or cities patronize ‘theater.’ In this country, however, theater is held in contemyy pt.There are wealthy people or aristocrats who love individual actors. But there arenone who are willing to support ‘theater’ in toto. [. . .]

Notes174

If they really y know the nature of ‘theater,’ once they y know it, they y would noy tmind spending the money of 30,000 or y 50,000 for us. Unfortunately, we haven’yy tseen such a decent rich person so far” (“Shingeki Fukkô no Tameni,” 63–64).

57. Ibid., 56.58. Ôzasa, Nihon Gendai Engekishi: Meiji Taishô henô , 147–148, 153; Nihon Gendai

Engekishi: Taishô Shôwa-Shoki hen, 376, 563–584. Kubo, Osanai Kaorui ,172–174. Sugai, “Commentary,” inyy OKEOO ZEE , vol. 3, 360–361.ZZ

59. Osanai, “Engeki no Jissaika to shite,” 112–113.60. Osanai, “Shingeki Fukkô no Tameni,” 38.61. Osanai, “Jiyû Gekijô no Keikaku,” 101.62. Osanai, “Shingeki Fukkô no Tameni,” 38.63. Another example is his “ ‘Ikeru Shikabane’ ni tsuite no Rongi” (1919). This

four-part essay is mainff ly a vitriolic criticism of a tf heatrical production of TheTTLiving Corpse (1900, Tolstoy) that Hôgetsu’s Geiji utsu-za staged in October and

fNovember 1917 for a week. Osanai asserts that Geiji utsu-za destroyed the art ofthis drama. His words are relentless at best, ending with the following “plea” toHôgetsu: “If you cannot accept [what I have been writing], please do not touchWestern masterWW pieces any more. There are tons of scriy pts, both in the West andin Japan, that have no problem even if tf hey are cy hanged, and that help you makemoney. Please use those”yy (“ ‘Ikeru Shikabane’ ni tsuite no Rongi,” 83).Interestingly, “Katúsha’s Sonyy g” of Resurrection in 1914 must have been unfor-givable for him; in this essayaa Osanai ay gain attacks the popular song (ibid., 79–80).

64. See, e.g., Ôzasa, Nihon Gendai Engn ekishi: Meiji i Taishô henjj , 148.65. Ibid., 83–91. Ôzasa here states that the salary payment made professional the

15 alumni who entered the school affiliated to Bungei Kyôkai in the first year(1909). Among tAA hem, Matsui Sumako was exceptionally successfuff l. InSeptember 1911, Bungei KyôKK kai held the first performance by which Matsui woy npopularity. Her Nora Helmer of A DoA ll’s House (1879, Ibsen) was so acclaimedthat Bungei KyKK ôkai had to change their subsequent program in November 1911fromff Othtt ello to A Doll’s House t. Ôzasa states that Matsui’s success was a greatsurprise even to Shôyô himself, because he could not anticipate that “a complete‘amateur’ [like Matsui] came to entail such an astonishing ‘commoditytt value’yonly with two-y year training” (ibid., 87).

66. In 1927, Osanai finally found himself in a similar situation when Hiji ikata Yoshi,the wealthy cofounder of Tsukiji i Shôgekiji ô, became incapable of financing thetroupe any longer. The troupe had entirely depended on Hiji ikata’s property;when it was exhausted, Tsukiji Shôgekijô was immediately confronted with a difw -ffficulty. For the first time in his theatrical career, Osanai faced what Hôgetsu hadto deal with for a long time: the financial responsibility for a troupe. Ironically,yy

yOsanai died in 1928, and it is uncertain whww ether he could remain “artisticallypure” had he lived a little longer.

67. Shôchô was so popular that there was an idiom for beautiful women: “a womanlike Shôchô (Shôchô no yô ôna onna).” Kagayama Naozô, Shin-kabuki no Sujimichi[The trace of shin-kabuki] (Tokyo: Mokuju isha, 1967), 40. This idiom demandsour attention in terms of the construction of femininitytt by y onnaga atagg yin the earlytwentieth century.yy

f68. As we have seen, both Munenori and Zeami associate faith with the blessing ofesoteric teachings. Munenori states: “[t]here exists benefit when believed”(Yagyû Munenori,yy HeihôHH Kô adenshoKK [Familyll transmission book on swordsmanshiy p],ed. Watanabe Ichirô, in Kinsei Geidôron [Theory on the Way yaa of arts in they

175Notes

premodern period], ed. Nishiyama Matsunosuke, Watanabe Ichirô, and GunjinMasakatsu [Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1972], vol. 61 of Nihon Shisô Tô aikeiTT[Collected Japanese thought, hereafter aff bbreviated NSTNN ], 312). Similarly, ZeamiTstates: “[t]here must accrue virtue to those whww o believe” (Zeami Motokiyo,Fûshikaden [Transmission of teachings on style and the Flower], in ZeamiZenchiku [Zeami and Zenchiku], ed. Omote Akira and Katô Shûichi [Tokyo:Iwanami Shoten, 1974], vol. 24 of NSTNN , 64).TT

69. Ôzasa, Nihon Gendai Engekishi: Meiji Taishô hen, 63; Kubo, Osanai Kaoru, 38–39.Incidentally, Mill ki kk himself perf formeff d an important rod le in thtt eatrical history.yyPreviously, kabuki reviews had focused not on a play itself, but on actors and theirperformance. For the sake of analysis, one may practically equate the formerwith meaning and the latter with materiality. Miki was one of the earliest pioww -neer critics whww o shifteff d td htt eir focus ff from materiaff lity (actors) to meaning (plays). SeeMatsumoto, Meiji Engekironshi, 516–603. It is in this context that one can situateOsanai as a theater critic who pays “remarkable” attention to the meaning of plays,even when the playaa in y question is kabuki. See, e.g., Osanai Kaoru, “KyKK ûyy gekikkShinpyô” [New critique of the old theater], in OKEOO ZEE , vol. 4 (Tokyo: Miraisha,ZZ1966), 50–66.

70. Figuratively, yy Ôzasa summarizes this issue as follows: Kawai Takeo (1877–1942),a prominent shss inpan actor and the son of a kabuki factor, was “a direct offspring ofkabuki in terms of his performing stytt le. In this reyy gard, he was a professional”(Nihon Gendai Engn ekishi: Meiji i Taishô henjj , 59).

71. Osanai, “Jiyû Gekijô no Keikaku,” 103.72. Osanai, “Nihon Shôrai no Geki,” 255 [emphasis in original].73. Osanai, “Engeki no Jissaika to shite,” 112–113. Interestingly, though, Osanai

excludes Sadanji from tff hose he praises as docile “amateurs.”74. Osanai, “Jiyû Gekijôi no Keikaku,” 104–105.75. Figuratively, Osanai juxtaposes actors and audiences. Osanai, “Tsukiji Shôgekijô

to Watakushi,” 43.76. Osanai, “Tsukiji Shôgekijô wa Nani no Tameni Sonzai Suruka,” 48. See also

Sugai, “Commentary,” inyy OKEZEE , vol. 3, 340–344.ZZ77. Zeami, FûshikadenFF , 49. Incidentally, this notionyy (that a chant text and dance

movements should be one) has proven itself to be still valid todayaa . Hanayy yaa agiIsaburoh, a kabuki dancer, stated that a text and movements were one unitytt foy rodori. Hanayaa agi Isaburoh, lecture and demonstration of odori movements, theCenter for East ff Asian Studies of tf he Universitytt oy f Pennsf ylvania in collaborationwith the University of the Arts, Philadelphia, Marchww 5, 2001.

78. Yagyû Munenori, Heihô Kadensho, 311.79. Morita Sôhei, “Haiyû Muyô-ron” [On actors as deadwood], in JiJJ yi û Gekiji ôjj [The

Free Theater], ed Osanai Kaoru and Ichikawa Sadanji (Tokyo: Ikubundô, 1912)[emphasis in original], 158–159.

80. Osanai, “Shingeki Fukkô no Tameni,” 55.81. Osanai, “Nihon Shôrai no Geki,” 255.82. In other words, while considering kabuki actors unintelligent, Osanai regards this

feature not as something that they should overcome, but as one of their defininy gcharacteristics. He states: “It is troublesome [. . .] [that] kabuki actors thesedayaa s are too smart” (“Kokugeki no Shôrai,” 67). No matter how negatively,this view unwittingly endorses the concey pt of “knowledge” in the esotericistparadigm.

83. Hiji ikata, Hijikata Umeko Jiden, 66–67.

Notes176

84. Yuasa Yasuo, Shintairon: TôSS yô ôteki Shinshinron to Gendai [Theory on ty he body: AnEastern mind–bodydd theory y and they present] (Tokykk o: KôKK dansha, 1990), 153[emphasis in original].

85. Ôzasa, Nihon Gendai Engekishi: Meiji Taishô henô , 104; Nihon Gendai Engekishss i:Taishô Shô ôwa-Shoki hen, 391.

86. Ortolani, ThTT e Japanese ThTT eatre, 235.87. Kawatake, Nihon Engn eki Zenshi, 856. See also Ôzasa, Nihon Gendai EnNN gn ekishi:

Meiji Taishô henô , 23–24; Ortolani, The Japanese ThTT eatrerr , 235–238. However,Danjûro’s rage at Otojirô’s production at the Kabuki-za theater cannot bereduced to financial issues alone. As Ôzasa proposes, we should take into accountthe pride of professional actors. In addition, one ought to consider the sacrednessof the site of theater.

88. See, e.g., Kubo, Osanai Kaori u, 172–174. Ôzasa, NiNN hon Gendai Engekishss i: MeijijjTaishô heô n, 147–148; Nihon Gendai Engekishi: Taishô Shô ôwa-Shoki hen, 563–584.Sugai, “Commentary,” in OKEOO ZEE , vol. 3, 360–361.ZZ

89. For that matter, Jiyû Gekiji ô itself benefited from the Shôchiku company. Osanai,“Shingeki Fukkô no Tameni,” 57–58. See also Kubo, Osanai KaorOO u, 173; Ôzasa,Nihon Gendai Engn ekishi: Meiji i Taishô hejj n, 63, 126, 153.

90. Osanai, “Jiyû Gekiji ô no Keikaku,” 103; “Engeki no Jissaika to shite,” 111.91. Ueno Chizuko calls “confrontation between theory and y praxis” a clichéd false

problem (“ ‘Watashi’ no Meta-Shakaigaku” [Meta sociology of “I”], in Inouy eShun, Ueno Chizuko, Ôsawa Masachi, Mita Munesuke, and Yoshimi Shun’ya,Gendai Shakai no Shakaigi akgg u [Sociology oy f contemf porary society y]tt [Tokyo:Iwanami Shoten, 1997], vol. 1 of Iwanami KII ôKK za Gendai Shakaigi akugg [Iwanamilectures on contemporary sociology], 79–80).

92. Osanai, “Shingeki Fukkô no Tameni,” 53.93. Ibid., 37. To be precise, the subject of hongoku is atarashii shibai t, new theater. It

is safe to assume from the context that atarashss ii shss ibai and shss ingeki are inter-changeable here.

94. Osanai, “Jiyû Gekijô no Keikaku,” 101.95. Osanai, “Tsukiji Shôgekijô to Watakushi,” 44. This was a newspaper article

published on Mayaa 30, 1924, based on Osanai’s sy peech on Mayaa 20, 1924. Noy tsurprisingly, this syy peech, especially thisy particular passage, stirred many Jay panesewriters’ hostilitw ytt to Osanai. See Suy gai, “Bibliographical Introduction,” in OKEZ,ZZvol. 2, 295–302. See also Ôzasa, Nihon Gendai EnNN gn ekishi: Taishô Shôwa-Shokihen, 393–410.

96. An illustrative example is an onnaga agg ta ftreatise, “Ayamegusa” [The words ofAyame] of Yoshizawa Ayame I (1673–1729). For an analysis of this treatise, seeMaki Morinaga, “The Gender of Onnaga atgg att as the Imitating Imitated: ItsHistoricity, Performativity, anff d Involvement in the Circulation of Femininity,f ”positions: east asia cultures critique 10.2 (2002): passim.

97. In 1928, Osanai stated: “From now on, let us reject what we should reject, andlet us adopt whww at we should adopt. From the West, China, no matter whw ere itcomes from, we should adopt all the good things in terms of thought (shisô), orin terms of technique (gikô(( ). Based on that, we will gain Japanese blood, andproduce something. That must be the true Japanese theater” (“Nihon Engeki noShôrai” [The future of the Japanese theater], in OKEOO ZEE y, vol. 5, 122). This essayZZwas published in 1932. Interestinglyll , thouyy gh, in another essayaa published in1915, he “praises” China as a better “student” of the West and thus regardsChinese theater as a “handydd ” model for the depraved shss ingeki. (It is his long-lasting

177Notes

theme that shingn egg ki fis now corrupt and is in need of imf provement by ty he likes ofhimself.ff ) In this sense, his “compliment” to Javanese masque, Beiji ing opera, andKorean dance drama is unmistakably based on the arrogant, Euro-centric mind-set of datsua nyûô, “escaping fromff Asia and entering into Europe.” See OsanaiKaoru, “Mokei Butai no Maede” [Being in front of a stage model], in OKEZ,Z,Zvol. 1, 29. For datsua nyûô, see Fukuzawa Yukickk hi, “Datsua-ron” [Theory on theescape from Asia], in FukuzaFF wa Yukichi Zenshû f[The complete works ofFukuzawa Yukichi], ed. Keiôgijuku (Koizumi Shinzô, Tomita Masafumi, andTsuchihashi Shun’ichi), vol. 10 (Tokyo: Iwanami Skk hoten, 1960), 238–240.

98. Sakai Naoki, “Joron: Nashonaritîtt to Bo/koku/go no Seiji” [Introduction:Nationality and the politics of mother/nation’s/tongue], in Nashonaritî noNNDatsukôchiku [Deconstruction of nationality], ed. Sakai Naoki, Brett de Bary,yyand Iyotani Toshio (Tokyo: Kashiwa Shobô, 1996), 22–23.

99. As I stated in chapter 4, I find an intriguingly similar irony y of translation boty hin this phenomenon and in the Zen Buddhist wordphobia.

100. Noguchi Takehiko, Sanninshô no Ho akkenHH Mn adeMM [Until the discovery of the thirdyperson] (Tokyo: Chikuma Shobô, 1994), 150–152.

101. Karatani, Nihon Kindai Bungn aku no Kigg gi en, passim. Fuju ikawa Yoshiyuki statesthat such translations as ran-y- aku (rough translation) and gôketsu-y- aku (larger-than-life translation) had been popular until then (“Hon’yaku Bungakuno Tenbô” [A perspective of translation literature], in Henkakuki no Bungn aku IIgg III

f[Literature in a changing time, 3], [Tokykk o: Iwanami Shoten, 1996], vol. 11 ofIwanami Kôza Nihon Bungn akushgg i [Iwanami lectures on the history oy f Jaf paneseliterature], ed. Kubota Jun et al., 318).

102. Mori Arinori, “Han Hon’yaAA ku Skk hugi no Ronri” [The logic of anti-transf lationism],in Hon’yaku no Shisô [The translation thought], ed. Katô Shûichi andMaruyuu ama Masao, (Tokykk o: Iwanami Shoten, 1991), vol. 15 of NihonNN Kn indaiKKShisô Taikeô i [An outline of modern Japanese thought], 315–327.

103. Katô Shûichi, “Meiji i Shoki no Hon’yaku: Naze, Nani o, Ikani Yakushitaka”[The translation in early Meiji: WhWW y, whww at, and how they translated], inHon’y’ aku no Shisô, 358–359. Incidentally, Katô states that he incoryy porated theopinion of the other editor, Maruyuu ama Masao, into endnotes of this article (378).

104. Kawamori Yoshizô, “Hon’yaku-ron” [Theory on translation], iny Hon’y’ akuBungn akugg [Translation literature], ed. Kawamori Yoshizô, (Tokykk o: KadokawaShoten, 1961), vol. 21 of Kindai BunKK gn aku Kanshô Kôzagg [Lectures on theappreciation of mof dern literature], 17–22.

105. Ôzasa, Nihon Gendai EnNN gn ekishi: Meiji i Taishô hejj n, 76–78.106. Tsubouchi Shôyô, Shîzaru Kidan: JiSS yi û no Tachi Naga ori no Kireajia [Strange Tale

of Caesar: Blade of freedom, wistful sharpness], in ShôSS yô ô Senshû [Selected worksof Shôyô], supplement 2 (Tokyo: Shun’yôdô, 1927), 293–439.

107. Tsubouchi Shôyô, “Saôgeki no Hon’yaku ni taisuru Watakushi no Taido noHensen” [The transition of my attitude toward the translation of Shakesy peareanplays], in ShSS ôyô ô Senshô û, vol. 5 (Tokyo: Shun’yôdô, 1927), 585–586.

108. Natsume Sôseki, “Tsubouchi Hakase to Hamuretto” [Dr. Tsubouchi andHamlet], in Sôseki Zenshû, vol. 11, 287–288.

109. Osanai, “Shingeki Fukkô no Tameni,” 55.110. Ibid., 55.

y111. Illustratively, Sôseki was not an active translator. He does not ayy ppear in manychronological tables of translation literature. See, e.g., Nakano Hiroyuki and

fTakase Akiko, eds., “Hon’yaku Bungaku Nenpyô” [The chronological table of

Notes178

translation literature], in Hon’HH y’ aku Bungn agg ku, 321–337. See also YanagidaIzumi, Meiji ShSS oki no Hon’yaku Bungaku [Translation literature of earf ly Meiji i],(Tokykk o: Shôhakukan Shoten, 1935), vol. 1 of MeiMM ji i Bunjj gn aku Sgg ôkan [Collectedworks of Meijif literature], 1–41. Cf. Yosff hitake Yoshinori, Meiji Taishô nô oHon’yakushiss [The history of translation in the Meiji and Taishô eras] (Tokyo:Kenkyûsha Shuppan, 1959), 190–193. In it, Yoshitake states that Sôseki was animportant “translator” in a broader sense who introduced the Western culture

yto Japan. His “cultural translation,” however, mainly took tk he form off f literarycriticism and introduction of Western writers, anf d not that of “transf lation” in

ythe strict sense. Interestingly, Sôseki did produce some translations, but theywere mainly done before his study in Britain. See the chronological table inKumasaka Atsuko, Natsume Sôseki no Kenkyûk [A study of Natsume Sôseki](Tokyo: Ôfûsha, 1973), 587–605, especially, 591, 592, 593, 596, 597.

112. Osanai Kaoru, “Gôzun Kurêgu no Tegami” [A letter of Gordon Craig], inOKEOO ZEE , vol. 3, 139–144.ZZ

113. This was because Japan just decided in 1894 to join the Paris Convention for theyProtection of Industrial Property of 1883 and thereby share the internationallyll

acceptable standards of intellectual propertytt as defined by y the convention. Jay panjoined the Paris Convention in 1899.

114. Natsume, “Tsubouchi Hakase to Hamuretto,” 288. This review was publishedon June 5–6, 1911 in Tokykk o Asahi Shinbun.

115. Ibid., 287–288.116. Sakai, Voices of the Past, 217–222.tt117. Tsubouchi Shôyô, “ ‘Makubesu Hyôshaku’ no Shogen” [Some words on the

“Commentary on Macbeth”], in Shôyô ô Senshô û, supplement 3 (Tokyo:kkShun’yôdô, 1927), 161–162.

118. Cf. Andrew Benjn amin, Translation and the Nature of PhilosophTT yh , 1: “For Derridatranslation is itself inscribed within a double bind. A text is at the same timeboth translatable and untranslatable.”

119. Osanai, “Jiyû Gekijô no Keikaku,” 101.120. See, e.g., Osanai, “Shingeki Fukkô no Tameni,” passim.121. Sakai, Voices of the Past, 211–239.tt122. Catherine Belsey, “Constructing the subject: deconstructing the text,” in

Feminist Criticism and Social Changn e: Sex, Class and Race in Literature andCulture, ed. Judith Newton and Deborah Rosenfelt (New York: Methuen,1985), passim.

123. Sakai, Voices of the Past, 218.tt124. Osanai, “Shingeki Fukkô no Tameni,” 55.125. Ibid., 55.126. Osanai, “Jiyû Gekijô no Keikaku,” 109.127. Ibid., 106.128. Ibid., 101.129. Osanai, “Shingeki Fukkô no Tameni,” 53–54.130. Interestingly, Osanai and Shôyô seem to share a similar opinion as to the con-

cept of kokugu eki, and here we can recognize the residue of pragmatic translation.Shôyô wished to create kokugu eki by combininy g “the blood and flesh of kabukiand the bones of Shakespeare.” See Ôzasa, Nihon Gendai Engn ekishss i: MeijiiTaishôTT hen, 38–39. Similarly, Osanai, esyy pecially in his later y years, consideredWestern theater to be useful material from whichWW kokugeki could be made. In1926, he stated: “In the future, kokugeki wof Japan should be born as a new

179Notes

species completely different ff from tff hese [traditional] things. That will not be akabuki, nor a shinpan , but something based on theatrical traditions of the world.AnAA d at the same time, this will be something based on modernized Japanesetraditions” (“Kokugeki no Shôrai,” 68). Likewise, he states: “From now on, letus reject what we should reject, and let us adopt what we should adopt. Fromthe West, China, no matter where it comes from, we should adopt all the goodthings in terms of tf hought (shisô), or in terms of tecf hnique (gikô(( ). Based on that,we will gain Japanese blood, and produce something. That must be the trueJapanese theater” (“Nihon Engeki no Shôrai,” 122).

131. Osanai, “Jiyû Gekijô no Keikaku,” 101. See also ibid., 109. “Red hair (akagegg )”serves here as the index of a Caucasian, anf d in modern Japanese theater, it has

fbecome the metonynn m of the Western stytt le theater, as eyy pitomized in the name ofa genre (i.e., akaga e-monogg , “red-hair things”). This indicates that “red hair” inthis paradigm amounts to meaning and not materialitytt . In this context, it is delibyy -eratelyll overlooked that red hair cannot necessarily yll rey present all the Caucasians,let alone Western people in general. Osanai’s renunciation of a red-hair wig isimportant not because he considers it dubious, but because he usurps the mean-ing of akage, confines reff d hair to materialitytt , anyy d thereby ney gates its importance.

132. Osanai Kaoru, “Maniawase: Sadanji no Tameno Joyû Yôsei ni tsuite”[Makeshift: On actress training for Sadanji], in OKEOO ZEE , vol. 2, 12. This wasZZinitially published in December 1921.

133. Ottaviani writes: “Osanai states that he considers the training of the conscious-ness and authenticitytt oy f tf he ‘individual’ actor to be more important than actingtechnique. [. . .] This meant abandoning certain superficiaff l attitudes that werewiww despread at the time, such as, for instance, giving too mucff h importance toexternal elements, concentrating only on y physical appearance, and neglectingthe character’s identity and his relationship with the other characters and the

yenvironment in which he moves [. . .]. In other words, this meant rejecting easyjustifications anff d outdated solutions, excluding novelty as the justification ff foff reverything, and abandoning recourse to the most obvious Western and Japaneseschemes” (“ ‘Difference’ anff d ‘Reflexivity’,” 221–222).

r134. Many thanks to my students at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, f foff rhaving brought up this possibility in my seminar.

6 Epilogue: Esotericism for Us

1. Roland Barthes, “Animate/Inanimate,” in Empire of Signs, trans. RichardssHoward (New York: Hill and Wang, 1982), 58–60.

2. Ibid., 59.3. Henry Clarke Warren,y Buddhism in Tn ranslationsTT (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass

Publishers, 1986), 131–133.4. While beyond the scope of this project, how and whererr Barthes draws back from

the Buddhist dialectic deserve analysis.5. Zeami Motokiyo, Fûshikaden [Transmission of teachings on stytt le and theyy

Flower], in Zeami Zenchiku [Zeami and Zenchiku], ed. Omote Akira and KatôShûichi (Tokykk o: Iwanami Shoten, 1974), vol. 24 of NihonNN Shisô Tô aikeiTT[Collected Japanese thought], 49.

6. William R. LaFleur, Buddhism: A Cultural Persps ective (Englewood Cliffs:Prentice-Hall, 1988), 45–46.

Notes180

7. Roland Barthes, “The Death of tf he AutAA hor,” in Image Music Text, trans. StephenttHeath (New York: Hill and Wang, 1977), 142–148. See also Mark Rose,k sAuthorsand Owners: Td hTT e Invention ofo Cof pyo righi t (Cambridge: Harvard Universitytt Press,y1993), 142. See also Judith Butler, ExcitaEE ble Speech: A Politics of thtt e Performative(New York: Routledge, 1997), passim; “Imitation and Gender Insubordination,”in Inside/Out: Lesbian Theories, Gay Theories, ed. Diana Fuss (New York:ssRoutledge, 1991), 22; Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion ofo Identitf ytt(New York: Routledge, 1990), 31.

8. Barthes, “The Death of tf he AutAA hor,” 146.

B ibliography

AAkizuki RAA yRR ômin. Zen Bukkyk ô towa Nanika [What is Zen Buddhism?]. KyKK oto:Hôzôkan, 1990.

AAlthusser, Louis. “IdeoloAA gy and Ideoloy gical State AppAA aratuses.” In Lenin andPhPP ilosophyo any d Otd htt er Essaya syy w. Trans. Ben Brewster. New York: Monthly ReviewPress, 1971. 127–186.

AArai Eizô. “Kokin DenAA jn u no Saikentô” [Reexamination of kokin denjn ujj ]. Bungn akugg(September 1977): 1044–1054.

———. “Sho” no Hiden: Jubokudô no Koten o YomJJ u [HidenHH of “calligraphy”: A readingof the classics of the Wayaa of calliy graphy]. Tokykk o: Heibonsha, 1994.

AAustinAA , J. L. How to Do Things with Wordsdd . Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962.Barthes, Roland. “Animate/Inanimate.” In Empire of Signsi . Trans. Richard Howard.

New York: Hill and Wang, 1982. 58–61.———. “The Death of tf he Author.” In ImaII ga e Music Text. Trans. Stephen Heath.

New York: Hill and Wang, 1977. 142–148.———. “Inside/Outside.” In—— Empm ire ofo Sif gi ns. 61–62.————. “Introduction to the Structural Analysis of Narratives.” In—— Imaga e Music Text.

79–124.————. “The Three Writings.” In—— Empim re ofo Sf igns. 48–55.Bateson, Gregory. Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology,

Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemod logy. San Francisco: Chandler PublishingCompany, 1972.

Belsey, Catherine. “Constructing the subject: deconstructing the text.” In FeministiiCriticism and Sociad l Cl hCC angn e: Sex, ClCC ass anll d Race in Literature and d Cud lturerr .Ed. Judith Newton and Deborah Rosenfelt. New York: Methuen, 1985. 45–64.

Benhabib, Seyla. “Epistemologies of Postmodernism: A Rejoinder to Jean-FrançoisLyotard.” In FeminismFF /m Postmodernism// . Ed. Linda J. Nicholson. New York:Routledge, 1990. 107–130RR .

Benjamin, Andrew. Translation and the Nature ofo Philosof po hyh : A New Theoryr oy fo Wordf sdd .London: Routledge, 1989.

fBenjamin, Walter. “The Task ok f tf he Translator: An IntroAA duction to the Translation ofBaudelaire’s Tableaux Parisiens.” In IllII uminations: Essaya s anyy d Red fle ections. Ed. andwith an introduction by Hannah ArenAA dt. Trans. Harry Zohn. New York: SchockenBooks, 1969. 69–82.

Bodiford, William M. “Dharma Transmission in Sôtô Zen: Manzan Dôhaku’s ReformMovement.” Monumenta NMM ippNN onica 46.4 (1991): 423–451.

Bok, Sissela. Secrets: On the Ethics ofo Concealment and Revelatiof n. New York: VintageBooks, 1989.

y“Borukuman geki ni taisuru shoka no iken” [Critics’ opinions about the playaaBorkman]. Kabuki 114 (January 1910): 45–57.

Butler, Judith. Excitable SpS eech: A Politics ofo the Perf fr ormativff e. New York: Routledge,1997.

B ibliography182

Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and td htt e Subversion ofo If dII entitytt . New York:RoutRR ledge, 1990.

———. “Imitation and Gender Insubordination.” In Inside/e Out: Les// bian ThTT eories,Gay TGG hTT eoriesee . Ed. Diana Fuss. New York: Routledge, 1991. 13–31.

Ch’en, Kenneth K. S. Buddhism in ChCC ina: A Historical Survel ye . Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press, 1964.

Cleary, Thomas. “Introduction.” In Miyy yamoto Musashi. The Book ofo Five Rinf gsn .Trans. Thomas Cleary. Boston: Shambhala, 1993. xiii–xix.

Cornyetz, Nina. “Gazing Disinterestedly: Politicized Poetics in Double Suicide.”diffi erences: A Journaff l ol fo Feminist Cuf ltural Stul diesee 12.3 (2001): 101–127.

de Bary, Brett. “Introduction.” In Karatani Kôjin. Origi ins ofo Mof dern Japa aneseLiterature y. Ed. Brett de Bary. Trans. Brett de Bary et al. Durham: Duke UniversityttPress, 1993. 1–10.

DeCoker, Gary, and Alex Kerr.yy “Yakaku TeikinshYY ô: Secret Teachings of the Sesonjn iSchool of Calligraphy.” Monumenta NiMM ppi onica 49.3 (1994): 315–329.

Faure, Bernard. Chan Insigi hts and Oversigg gi hts: An Egg pE istemologo ical Critique ofo the Chaf nTradition. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993.

Foucault, Michel. The Order ofo Thinf gn s: An Archaeologg gyo oy fo the Human Sciencef see w. NewYork: Vintage Books, 1994.

Fowler, Edward. The Rhetoric oTT fo Conf fn ession: Shishôsetsu in Earlff yll Twentieth-Century yrJaJJ pa anese Fiction. Berkeley: Universitytt of California Press, 1988y .

Fridayaa , Karl F. “Kabala in Motion: Kata & Pattern Practice in the Traditional Buyy gei.”Journal oJJ fo Asian Martial Artf stt 4.4 (1995): 26–39.

Friday, Karl F., with Seki Humitake. Lege acies ogg fo the Sword: The Kashima-Shinrf yûr andûSamurai Martial Cul lture. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1997f .

Fujikawa Yoshiyuki. “Hon’yaku Bungaku no Tenbô” [A perspective of translationliterature]. In Henkakuki no Bungaku III [Literature in a changing time, 3].Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1996. Vol. 11 of Iwanami KôKK za Nihon Bungakushi[Iwanami lectures on the history of Jay panese literature]. Ed. Kubota Jun et al.313–334.

Fujiwara-no Teika. MaiMM gi etsushô [Monthly exey gesis]. Ed. Hisamatsu Sen’ichi. InKaronshû Nôgô akuronshgg û y[Collection of poetry theories; Collection of noh artistry ytheories]. Ed. Hisamatsu Sen’ichi and Nishio Minoru. Tokykk o: Iwanami Shoten,1961. Vol. 65 of Nihon Koten Bungn aku Taikegg i [Collection of Japanese classicalliterature, hereafter abbreviated NKNN BKK T]. 125–139.T

fFukushima Keidô. Lecture. The Center for East Asian Studies and the Universitytt oy fPenn Museum of the University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia. March 1, 1996.

Fukuzawa Yukichi. “Datsua-ron” [Theory on the escape from Asia]. In FuFF kuzawaYukichiYY Zi enshûZZ [The complete works of Fukuzawa Yukichi]. Ed. Keiôgiji uku(Koizumi Shinzô, Tomita Masafumi, and Tsuchihashi Shun’ichi). Vol. 10. Tokyo:Iwanami Shoten, 1960. 238–240.

Furuta Shôkin. “Nihon Zenshû-shi: Rinzai-shû” [History of Jay panese Zen: TheRinzai school]. In Zen no ReZZ kishss i: Nihon [History of Zen: Japanf ]. Ed. NishitaniKeiji i. Tokyo: Chikuma Shobô, 1967. Vol. 4 of Kôza ZeKK n [Lectures on Zen]. 5–88.

Goodman, David G. “Introduction.” In Japa anese Drama and Cud lture in thtt e 1960s:The Return ofo the Godf sdd . New York: M.E. Sharpe, 1988. 3–32.

Green, Keith, and Jill LeBihan. Critical Tl hTT eoryr any d Practice: A Coursed book. London:Routledge, 1996.

Hachijô Kadensho [Eight-volume book of transmission of teachings on the Flower].Ed. Nakamura Yasuo. In Kodai ChKK ûsei Geijutsuron. [Theory on artistry y from thy e

183B ibliography

ancient to medieval periods]. Ed. Hayaa ashiya Tatsusaburô. Tokykk o: Iwanami Shoten,1973. Vol. 23 of NihonNN Shisô Tô aikeiTT [Collected Japanese thought, hereafter aff bbre-viatevv d NSTNN ]. 511–665.T

Hanayagi Isaburoh. Lecture and demonstration of odori movements. The Center foff rEast Asian Studies of the University of Pennsylvania in collaboration with theUniversity of the Arts. Philadelphia. March 5, 2001.

Hayaa ashiya Tatsusaburô. Chûsei Geinôshi no Kenkyûk [A studydd of the entertainmeny thistory in the medieval period]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1960.

———. “Kodai Chûsei no Geijutsu Shisô” [Artistry thought in the ancient andmedieval periods]. In Kodai Chûsei Geiji utsurojj n. 713–747.

———. Nihon Engn eki no Kankyôk [Environment of Japanese theater]. Kyoto:Ôyashima Shuppan, 1947.

Hijikata Umeko. Hijikata Umeko Jiden [AutoAA biography of Hijif kata Umeko]. Tokyokk :Hayaa akawa Shobô, 1976.

Hu Shih. “Development of Zen Buddhism in China.” The Chinese Social andPolitical Science Review 15.4 (1932): 475–505.

Hurst, G. Cameron, III. Armed Martiad l Arts of Japan: Sworl drr smansdd hss ip and Arcd heryr .New Haven: Yale Universitytt Press, 1998y .

———. “RyRR uha in the Martial and Other Japanese Arts.” Journal oJJ fo Asian Martiaf lArts 4.4 (1995): 12–25.

Ihara Toshirô. Meiji i Enjj gn ekishi [History of Meiji theater]. Tokyo: Waseda DaigakuShuppanbu, 1933; rpt., Tokykk o: Kuresu Shuppan, 1996.

———. Nihon Engn ekishi [History oy f Jaf panese theater]. Tokyo: Waseda DaigakuShuppanbu, 1904; rpt., Tokyo: Kuresu Skk huppan, 1996.

Ikeda Yuba, Janet. “Triumphant Survivor on Japan’s Cultural Battlefieff ld of tf heSixteenth Century. Hosokawa YûYY sai 1534–1610: Warrior, Nijô Poet and Guardianof the Kokin Denjujj .” Diss. Princeton Universitytt , 1993yy .

Imai Masaharu. Personal interview (Q and A after lecture). March 5, 1996.Imao Tetsuya. “ ‘Onnagata Hiden’ to Kikunojo ô no Ishiki” [“The secret transmissions

of af n onnaga agg ta” and Kikunojô’s consciousness]. Engn egg kigi agg ku 1 (March 1959): 52–57.Ishiguro Kichijirô. Chûsei Geidôron no Shisô: Kenkô Zeami Shinkei [Thought of the

WaWW yaa of arts in the medievaly period: Kenkô, Zeami, and Shinkei]. Tokykk o: KokushoKankôkai, 1993.

Jôfuku Isamu. Motoori NorinaMM ga agg [Motoori Norinaga]. Tokykk o: Yoshikawa Kôbunkan,1980.

Kagayaa ama Naozô. Shin-kabuki no SuSS ju imichijj [The trace of shin-kabuki]. Tokykk o:Mokujisha, 1967.

Kano, Ayako. Actingn Lig ke a Woman in Modern Japa an: ThTT eater, Gender, andNationalismNN . New York: Palgrave, 2001.

———. “Japanese Theater and Imperialism: Romance and Resistance.” U.S.–JapanWomen’s Journal English Supplement 12 (1996): 17–47.

Karatani Kôjin. Nihon Kindai Bungn aku no Kigg gi en [Origins of modern Japaneseliterature]. Tokyo: KôKK dansha, 1988.

Kasulis, Thomas P. “Editor’s Introduction.” In Yuasa Yasuo. ThTT e Body: Towardrr ad nEastern Mind-Body Ty hTT eoryr . Ed. Thomas P. Kasulis. Trans. Nagatomo Shigenoriand Thomas P. Kasulis. New York: State Universitytt of New York Press, 1987y .1–15.

Katô Shûichi. “Meiji Shoki no Hon’yaku: Naze, Nani o, Ikani Yakushitaka” [Thetranslation in early Meiji i: Why, what, and how they translated]. In Hon’yakHH uno Shisô [The translation thought]. Ed. Katô Shûichi and Maruyuu ama Masao.

B ibliography184

Tokykk o: Iwanami Shoten, 1991. Vol. 15 of Nihon Kn indaiKK Shisô Tô aikeiTT [An outAA lineof mof dern Japanese thought]. 342–380.

Katô Shûichi. “Zeami no Senjn utsu matawa Nôgakuron” [Zeami’s strategy or the nohtheory]. In Zeami ZencZZ hiku [Zeami and Zenchiku, hereafter aff bbreviated ZZ].Z

fEd. Omote Akira and Katô Shûichi. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1974. Vol. 24 ofNST. 515–541.TT

Katsumata Shunkykk ô. Kôbô Daishi no Shisô to sono Genryr û [The thought of KôbôDaishi and its origins]. Tokyo: Sankibôbusshorin, 1981.

———. “Rekishi Katei to Kongôkai” [The historical process and kongôkai]. InMikkyk ô no Rekishi [History of esoteric Buddhism]. Ed. Miyasaka YûYY shô, UmeharaTakeshi, and Kanaoka Shûyû. Tokyo: Shunjûsha, 1977. Vol. 2 of Kôza Mikkyk ô[Lectures on esoteric Buddhism]. 96–116.

Kawamori Yoshizô. “Hon’yaku-ron” [Theory on translation]. In Hon’yaku Bungaku[Translation literature]. Ed. Kawamori Yoshizô. Tokykk o: Kadokawa Shoten, 1961.Vol. 21 of VV Kindai Bungn aku Kanshô Kôzgg a [Lectures on the appreciation of modernliterature]. 7–24.

Kawatake Shigetoshi. Nihon Engeki Zenshiss [Complete history of Japanese theater].Tokykk o: Iwanami Shoten, 1959.

Kinjn insai Shin’ô. Kokon Yakusha Rongn o Sakigi akgg e [The great and first actors’ analectsthrough all ages]. Ed. Gunjn i Masakatsu. In Kinsei Geidôron f[Theory on the Way yaa oy farts in the premodern period]. Ed. Nishiyama Matsunosuke, Watanabe Ichirô, andGunji Masakatsu. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1972. Vol. 61 of NSNN T. 463–492.TT

Kitagawa Tadahiko. ZeamiZZ [Zeami]. Tokykk o: Chûôkôronsha, 1972.KlKK ein, Susan Blakeley. Allege ories ofo Desire: Esoteric Literarf yr Commentaries oy fo Mef dieval

JapaJJ n. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002.Komiya Toyotaka. Bashô Zeami Hiden Kaô n [Bashô, Zeami, hiden, and intuition].

Tokyo: Hakuju itsu Shoin, 1947.Konparu Zenpô. ZenpZZ ô Zô ôZZ tan (a.k.a. Zenpô Zô ôZZ dan) [A talk by Zenpô]. Ed. Kitagawa

Tadahiko et al. In Kodai Chûsei Geiji utsurojj n. 479–510.KôKK sai Tsutomu. Zeshi SankZZ yûk [A comA parative study oy f tf he honorable Zeami]. Tokyo:

Wan’WW ya Shoten, 1979.KuKK bo Sakae. Osanai Kaoru [Osanai Kaoru]. In Kubo Sakae Zenshû [The complete

works of Kubo Sakae]. Vol. 7. Tokykk o: San’ichi Shobô, 1962. 9–183.Kûkai, Kôbô Daishi. Goshôrai Mi okurokuMM [The list of imported items bestowed upon

entreatytt ]. In KôbôKK Dô aishi Chosaku Zu enshûZZ [The complete works of Kôbô Daishi,hereafter aff bbreviated KDKK CZ]. Ed. Katsumata Shunkyô. Vol. 2. Tokyo:ZSankibôbusshorin, 1970. 1–32.

———. Henjn ô Hakki Seireishûjj (a.k.a. HenHH jn ô Hokki Shôrjj yr ôshû) [Collection of theuniversally shining spirit of Kûkai]. In KDCZ. Ed. Katsumata Shunkyô. Vol. 3.ZZTokyo: Sankibôbusshorin, 1973. 85–463.

———. Henjôjj Hakki Seireishô û (a.k.a. HenjHH ôjj Hokki Shô ôryôshû) [Collection of tf heuniversally shininy g spirit of Kûkai]. In Sangô Shô îki Seireishû [Indications of thegoals of the three teachings; Collection of the universally shining spirit of Kûkai].Ed. Watanabe Shôkô and Miyasaka YûYY shô. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1965. Vol. 71of NKBT. 149–471.TT

Kumakura Isao. “Hiden no Shisô” [Thought of hiden]. In GeinGG ô to Chinkonô[Entertainment and requiescat]. Ed. Moriya Takeshi. Tokyo: Shunjn ûsha, 1988. Vol. 7of Taikei Bukkyk ô to Nihonjn ijj n [Surveyee of Buddhism and the Jay pa anese]. 259–296.

KuKK masaka Atsuko. Natsume Sôseki no Kenkyûk [A studydd of Natsume Sôseki]. Toky ykk o:Ôfûsha, 1973.

185B ibliography

Kuroda RyRR ô. Kan no Kenkyûk [A studydd of intuition]. Toky ykk o: Kôdansha, 1980.———. “Zen no Shinrigaku” [Psychology oy f Zenf ]. In Zen no GaiZZ yôi [Outline of Zenf ].

Ed. Inoue Tetsuju irô, Ui Hakuju u, and Suzuki Daisetsu. Tokyo: Shun’yôdô Shoten,1937. Vol. 1 of Zen no KZZ ôKK za [Lectures on Zen]. 57–113.

LaFleur, William R. Buddhism: A Cultural Perspectivl e. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1988.

———. The Karma ofo Words: Buddhism and the Literarf yr Arts in Medieval Jay pa an.Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983.

———. Rev. of Six Circles, One Dewdrop: ThTT e Religio-Aesthtt etic World of Kompard uZenchiku, by Arthur H. Thornhill III. HarvarHH drr Journad l ol fo Asiatic Stuf diesee 56.2(1996): 527–535.

Laqueur, Thomas. Makingn Sex: Bodg yd and Gender y from the Greeks to Freuff d. Cambridge:Harvard University Press, 1990.

Linjn i Yixuan. The Recorded Sayings of Ch’an Master Lin-chi Hui-chao of ChenPrefe ecture: Comff pm lied byb His Humble Heir Hui-y j- an ojj fo San-shenf gn [sic]. Trans. RuthFuller Sasaki. KyKK oto: Institute for Zen Studies, 1975.

———. Rinzairoku [The recorded sayings of Linjn i]. Ed. and trans. Iriya Yoshitaka.Tokykk o: Iwanami Shoten, 1989.

Lyotard, Jean-François. The Postmodern Condition: A Repe ort on Knowledgedd . Trans.Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: Universitytt of Minnesoty aPress, 1984.

Maruyuu ama Masao. “ ‘Dearu’ Koto to ‘Suru’ Koto” [“A being” and “a doing”]. InNihon no Shisô [Japanese thought]. Tokykk o: Iwanami Shoten, 1961. 153–180.

Matisoff, Susan. “Images off f Exif le and Pilgrimage: Zeami’s Kintôt sho.” MonumentMM attNiNN pponi ica 34.4 (1979): 449–465.

———. “Kintôt sho: Zeami’s Song of Exif le.” Monumenta NMM iNN pponi ica 32.4 (1977):441–458.

Matsumoto Shinko. Meiji EngeMM kironshss i [History of Meiji theatrical theory]. Tokyo:Engeki Shuppansha, 1980.

Matsunaga Teitoku. Taionki [Owing a debt of gratitude documentary]. Ed. OdakaToshio. In Taionki Oritakushiba no Ki Rantô KotohaTT ja imjj e f[Owing a debt ofgratitude documentary; Burning firewood record; Origins of Dutch studies]. Ed.

fOdaka Toshio and Matsumura Akira. Tokykk o: Iwanami Shoten, 1964. Vol. 95 ofNKNN BKK T. 19–132.T.T

Matsunaga Yûkei. MikkMM yk ô: Indo kara Nihon eno Denshô [Esoteric Buddhism:Traditions from India to Japan]. Tokykk o: Chûôkôronsha, 1989.

Minamoto Ryôen. Tokugu awa Shisô Shôshgg i [Concise history of Tokugawa thought].Tokyo: Chûôkôronsha, 1973.

Miura Isshû. “Koan Study in Rinzai Zen.” Trans. Ruth Fuller Sasaki. In Miura Isshûand Ruth Fuller Sasaki. The Zen Koan: Its History and Use in Rinzai Zed n. SanDiego: Harcourt Brace and Company, 196yy 5. 33–76.

Miwa Masatane. Kaga aku Hiden no Kenkgg yk û [A studydd of y hiden of poetry studies]y .Tokyo: Kazama Shobô, 1994.

Miyamoto Musashi. Gorin no ShSS o [Book of five rings]. Ed. Watanabe Ichirô. In KinseiGeidôron. 355–394.

———. Heihô Sanjn ûjj gû o-kajôa [Thirtytt -five items of swordsmanship]. Ed. WatanabeIchirô. In KinseiKK Geidôron. 395–400.

Mizushina Haruki. Osanai Kaoru [Osanai Kaoru]. Tokyo: Jijitsûshinsha, 1961.Mori Arinori. “Han Hon’AA yaku Shugi no Ronri” [The logic of anti-transf lationism]. In

Hon’yaku no Shisô. 315–327.

B ibliography186

Morinaga, Maki Isaka. “The Gender of Onnaga atgg att as the Imitating Imitated: ItsHistoricitytt , Peryy formativitff ytt , anyy d Involvement in the Circulation of Femininitf ytt .yy ”positions: east asia cultures critique 10.2 (2002): 245–284.

———. “Osanai Kaoru’s Dilemma: ‘Amateurism AA by Professionaff ls’ in ModernJapanese Theatre.” TDR/R T// hTT e Drama Review 49.1 (Spring 2005): 119–133.

———. “Osanai Kaoru to Shirôtoshugi: Hiden no Jissenkei ni taisuru Hitei, Muka,Dakykk ô” [Osanai Kaoru and amateurism: Denial, nullification, and compromisewith the regime of esotericism]. In ww Nihon Kinsei Kokka no Shosô [Various appear-ances of premodern Japanese nation]. Ed. Nishimura Keiko. Tokyo: TokyôdôShuppan, 1999. 271–297.

Morita Sôhei. “Haiyû Muyô-ron” [On actors as deadwood]. In JiJJ yi û Gekijôi [The FreeTheater]. Ed. Osanai Kaoru and Ichikawa Sadanjn i. Tokyo: Ikubundô, 1912.157–159.

Moriya Takeshi. “Commentary.” Inyy Zenpô Zô ôZZ tan (a.k.a. Zenpô Zô ôZZ dan y) [A talk byZenpô]. In Kodai Chûsei Geiji utsurojj n. 794–797.

Morohashi Tetsuju i. Dai Kanwa JitenJJ [Comprehensive Chinese–Japanese dictionary].Tokyo: Taishûkan Shoten, 1955–1960. 13 vols.

Motoori Norinaga. AshiwakeobunAA e [Small boat shoving through the reed]. InMotoori Norinaga a Zenshgg û [The complete works of Motoori Norinaf ga,hereafter abbreviated MNMM ZNN ]. Ed. Ôkubo Tadashi. Vol. 2. Tokykk o: Chikuma Shobô,1968. 1–83.

———. Kôgô odan [Post-lecture talks]. In MNZ. Vol. 14. Tokyo: Chikuma Shobô,ZZ1972. 173–190.

———. Naobi no Mitama [The honorable spirit of the two deities, Ônaobi andKan’naobi]. In MNZ. Vol. 14. 117–134.ZZ

Nakajima Zuiryû. Teitoku Eitaiki [Eternal record of Teitof ku]. In Kanda Toyoho.Haisho Keifu Itsuwashû [Collection of books, genealogy, and anecdotes of yy haikaipoetry]. Tokyo: Shunjûsha, 1930. Vol. 32 of Fukyûban Haisho Taikei [Collectionof haikai poetry books, they popular edition]. 163–248.

Nakamura Itaru. “Hachijôbon ‘Kadensho’ no Kenkyû Sono 1: Muromachi MakkiShodensho tono Kankei ni tsuite” [A studydd oy f HachiHH ji ôbon Kadenshjj o]. TokyôkGakugu ei Daigi aku Kigg yôi 2.24 (1973): 221–240. [The translated title is given in thejournal.]

———. Zeami Densho Yôgô o Sakuin [An index of words in Zeami’s transmissionbooks]. Tokykk o: Kasama Shoin, 1985.

Nakamura Yasuo. “Commentary.” Inyy HachiHH jôi Kadenshoô . In KodaiKK ChûseiGeijutsuronjj . 797–802.

Nakano Hiroyuki and Takase Akiko (eds). “Hon’yaku Bungaku Nenpyô” [Thechronological table of translation literature]. In Hon’y’ aku Bungn akugg . 321–337.

Nanbô-roku [Nanbô memorandum]. Ed. Nishiyama Matsunosuke. In KiKK nseiGeidôron. 9–175.

Narukawa Takeo. Zeami Hana no TetsuZZ gu akugg [Zeami, philosophy of the Flower]y .Tokyo: Tamagawa Daigakk ku Shuppanbu, 1980.

Natsume Sôseki. “Shirôto to Kurôto” [Amateurs and professionals]. In SôsekiZenshû [The complete works of Sôseki]. Vol. 11. Tokykk o: Iwanami Shoten, 1966.421–430.

———. “Tsubouchi Hakase to Hamuretto” [Dr. Tsubouchi and Hamlet]. In SôsekiZenshû. Vol. 11. 286–291.

Nijô Yoshimoto. Hekirenshô [ArAA bitrary rengagg poetry exegesis]. Ed. Ijichi Tetsuo.In Rengaronshû Nôgakuronshû Haironshû [Collection of rengagg ypoetrytheories; Collection of noh artistry theories; Collection of y haikai poetry theories]y .

187B ibliography

Ed. Ijichi Tetsuo, Omote Akira, and Kuriyama Riichi. Tokyo: Shôgakukan, 1973.Vol. VV 51 of Nihon Koten Bungn aku Zenshgg û [Collection of Jaf panese classical litera-ture, hereafter aff bbreviated NKBZ ]. 15–61.

Nishida Kitarô. Zen no Kenkyû [An inquiry into tAA he good]. Tokyo: Iwanami Skk hoten,1950.

Nishio Minoru. “Commentary.” In Nôgakuronshû y[Collection of nof h artistrytheories]. In Karonshû Nôgô akuronshûgg . 311–336.

Nishiyama Matsunosuke. Edo Culture: Daily Life anll d Diversions in Urd ban Japan,1600–1868. Trans. and ed. Gerald Groemer. Honolulu: University of Hawai’f iPress, 1997.

———. Geidô to Dentô [The Way of arts and traditions]. Tokyo: YoshikawaKôbunkan, 1984. Vol. 6 of Nishiyi ama Matsunosuke Chosakushû [The collectedworks of Nishiyama Matsunosuke, hereafter abbreviated NMNN CMM ].

———. Iemoto no Kenkyû [A studydd oy f iemoto, the stem-family head]. Toky ykk o:Yoshikawa Kôbunkan, 1982. Vol. 1 of NMCMM .

———. IemotoseiII no To enkaiTT [The development of the iemoto system]. Tokykk o:Yoshikawa Kôbunkan, 1982. Vol. 2 of NMC.

———. “Introduction.” In NanbôNN -roku. In KinseiKK Geidôron. 9.f———. “Kinsei Geidô Shisô no Tokushitsu to sono Tenkai” [The characteristics of

premodern thought of the Wayaa of arts and its develoy pment]. In Kinsei Geidôron.585–611.

———. “Kinsei no Yûgeiron” [Theory ony gei entertainment in the premodernperiod]. In KinseiKK Geidôron. 612–644.

Noguchi Takehiko. Sanninshô no Hakken Madô e [Until the discovery of tf he thirdperson]. Tokyo: Chikuma Shobô, 1994.

Nose Asaji. NôNN gaku Genryô û Kû ôKK [A stuA dy odd f tf he origins of nof h]. Tokyo: IwanamikkShoten, 1938.

Ogawa Kyôichi. Edo Bakuhan Daimyôke Jiten [Dictionary of the shogunate anddaimyo in the Edo era]. Vol. 2. Tokykk o: Hara Shobô, 1992. 3 vols.

Okada Yachiyo. WaWW kakihi no Osanai Kaoru [Osanai Kaoru in his youth]. Tokyo:Nihon Tosho Sentâ, 1987.

Okamura Keishin. “Mikkykk ô Shugyô no Hôhô to Shisô: Sono Kitei ni Arumono”[Methodology and thouy ght of esoteric Buddhist cultivation: That which underliesthe foundation]. In MitsuMM gu i to Shugyôu [Esoteric ritual and cultivation]. Ed. YuasaYasuo. Tokyo: Shunjn ûsha, 1989. Vol. 3 of Taikei Bukkyk ô to Nihonjn injj . 79–117.

Omote Akira. “Zeami to Zenchiku no Densho” [Transmission books by Zeami any dZenchiku]. In ZZ. 542–582.ZZ

O’Neill, P. G. “Organization and Authority in the Traditional Arts.” MoMM dern AsianStudies 18.4 (1984): 631–645.

Ortolani, Benito. ThTT e Japanese ThTT eatre: From ShSS amanistic Ritual to Contemporarl yrPlPP uralism. Rev. ed. Princeton: Princeton Universitytt Press, 199y 5.

Osanai Kaoru. “Bungaku to Engeki no Sesshokuten” [The point where literature andtheater encounter each other]. In Osanai Kaoru Engekiron Zenshû [The completewritings on tww heatrical theory of Osanai Kaoru, f hereafter aff bbreviated OKEZEE ].Ed. Sugai Yukio. Vol. 2. Tokykk o: Miraisha, 1965. 53–62.

———. “Butai Kantoku no Nin’mu to Ken’i” [The dutytt any d authoritytt oy f a staf gedirector]. In OKEZEE . Vol. 2. 13–18.ZZ

———. “Engeki Biji utsu Mondô” [Dialogue on the art of the theater]. In OKEZ.ZZ.ZVol. 1. TokVV ykk o: Miraisha, 1964. 183–190.

———. “Engeki no Jissaika to shite” [In my capacity as a theater practitioner]. InOKEZEE . Vol. 2. 111–115.Z.Z.Z

B ibliography188

Osanai Kaoru. “Engeki no Shin-Shimei” [True missions of tf heater]. In OKEOO ZEE . Vol. 1.ZZ289–292.

———. “Engeki to Shakai” [Theater and society]tt . In OKEOO ZEE . Vol. 2. 69–77.ZZ———. “Futatabi ‘Geijutsu ka Goraku ka’ ” [“Is it art or, alternatively, entertain-

ment?” Part 2]. In OKEZEE . Vol. 1. 286–289.ZZ———. “Geijutsu ka Goraku ka” [Is it art or, alternatively, entertainment?]. In

OKEOO ZEE . Vol. 1. 281–286.ZZ———. Gikyoku Sahô [Play making]. In OKEOO ZEE . Vol. 5. Tokyo: Miraisha, 1968. 9–92.ZZ———. “Gôzun Kurêgu no Daini Taiwa” [The second dialogue of Gordon Craig].

In OKEOO ZEE . Vol. 1. 327–346.ZZ———. “Gôzun Kurêgu no Tegami” [A letter of Gordon Craig]. In OKEZEE . Vol. 3.ZZ

Tokyo: Miraisha, 1965. 139–144.———. “ ‘Ikeru Shikabane’ ni tsuite no Rongi” [A discussion on ThTT e Living Corpse].

In OKEZEE . Vol. 1. 66–83.ZZ———. “Jiyû Gekiji ô no Keikaku” [Plan of the Free Theater]. In OKEOO ZEE . Vol. 1.ZZZ

101–109.———. “Kokugeki no Shôrai” [The future of the national theater]. In OKEZEE . Vol. 2.ZZ

63–69.———. “KyKK ûgeki Shinpyô” [New critique of the old theater]. In OKEOO ZEE . Vol. 4.ZZ

Tokykk o: Miraisha, 1966. 50–66.———. “Maniawase: Sadanji no Tameno Joyû Yôsei ni tsuite” [Makeshift: On actress

training for Sadanji]. In OKEOO ZEE . Vol. 2. 12–13.ZZ———. “Mokei Butai no Maede” [Being in front off f a staf ge model]. In OKEZEE . Vol. 1.ZZ

26–29.———. “Nihon Engeki no Shôrai” [The future of the Japanese theater]. In OKEZ.ZZ

Vol.VV 5. 105–123.———. “Nihon Shôrai no Geki” [Theater of Japan in the future]. In OKEOO ZEE . Vol. 1.ZZ

255–257.w———. “Shingeki Fukkô no Tameni” [In the interest of the renaissance of the New

Theater]. In OKEZEE . Vol. 1. 35–65.ZZ———. “Tsukiji Shôgekijô to Watakushi” [The Tsukiji Little Theater and I]. In

OKEZEE . Vol. 2. 43–44.ZZZ———. “Tsukiji Shôgekijô wa Nani no Tameni Sonzai Suruka” [For what purposes

does the Tsukiji i Little Theater exist?]. In OKEOO ZEE . Vol. 2. 48–49.ZZ——— (Osanai Nadeshiko), trans. Romeo endo JuriettoJJ [Romeo and Juliet]. KabukiKK

55 supplement (November 1904): 1–46.——— (“Romeo” geki no tekiyakusha). “Gekihyôka Shosensei ni Môshiage Sôrô”

[Allow me to express my opinion to the theater critics]. Kabuki 56 (December1904): 62–68.

Ottaviani, Gioia. “ ‘Difference’ anff d ‘Reflexivity’: Osanai Kaoru and the ShSS ingekiMovement.” Asian ThTT eatre Journal 11.2 (Fall 1994): 213–230.

Ozaki Hirotsugu. Shimamura HôSS gô etsu: Nihon Kindaigi eki no Sôshishatachi 1[Shimamura Hôgetsu: The founders of modern Japanese theater, Part 1]. Tokyo:Miraisha, 1965.

Ôzasa Yoshio. Nihon Gendai Engn ekishi: Meiji i Taishô hejj n [History of Jay panesecontemporary theater: The Meiji i and Taishô eras]. Tokyo: Hakusuisha, 1985.

———. Nihon Gendai Engn ekishi: Taishô Shôwa-Shoki hen [History of Jay panese con-temporary theater: The Taishô and early y Shôwa eras]. Toky ykk o: Hakusuisha, 1986.

Powell, Brian. “Japan’s First Modern Theater: The Tsukiji i Shôgekiji ô and ItsCompany, 1924–26.”yy Monumenta NipponicaMM 30.1 (1975): 69–85.

189B ibliography

Rath, Eric Clemence. “Actors of Inf fluence: Discourse and Institutional Growth in theHistory oy f Nof h Theater.” Diss. Universitytt oy f Micf higan, 1998.

———. “Legends, Secrets, and AutAA horitytt : HachiHH jôi Kadenshoô and Early Moy dernNoh.” Monumenta NiNN pponi ica 54.2 (1999): 169–194.

Rimer, J. Thomas. “The Background of Zeami’s Treatises.” In Zeami Motokiyo. Onthe Art of the Nô Drama: The Major Treatises of Zeami. Trans. J. Thomas Rimerand Yamazaki Masakazu. Princeton: Princeton Universitytt Press, 1984. xvii–xxviiiy .

Robertson, Jennifer. “Tff he Shingaku Woman: Straight from tff he Heart.” In RecreatingnJaJJ pa anese Women, 1600–1945 f. Ed. Gail Lee Berstein. Berkeley: Universitytt oy fCalifornia Press, 1991. 88–107ff .

Rose, Mark. Authtt ors and Owners: Td hTT e Invention of Copyrightgg . Cambridge: HarvardUniversity Press, 1993.

Saichô, Dengyô Daishi. Dengyn ô Daishi Shôsoku (Shô)ô f[The selected correspondence ofDengyô Daishi]. In Saichô Kô ûkaiKK Shû [The collected works of Saichô and Kûkai].Ed. Watanabe Shôkô. Tokyo: Chikuma Shobô, 1969. Vol. 1 of Nihon no Shisô[Japanese thought]. 55–108.

Said, Edward W. Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books, 1979.Sakai, Naoki. “Joron: Nashonaritî to Bo/koku/go no Seiji” [Introduction:

Nationality and the politics of mother/nation’s/tongue]. In NashonaritîNN noDatsukôchiku [Deconstruction of nationalitytt ]. Ed. Sakai Naoki, Brett de Bary, anyy dIyotani Toshio. Tokyo: Kashiwa Shobô, 1996. 9–53.

———. Translss ation anll d Sud bjectivitjj ytt : On “Japa an” and Cud ltural National lism.Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997f .

———. Voices of thtt e Past: ThTT e Status of Language in Eighgg teenthtt -Century JapaneseDiscoursii e. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991.

Sasaki, Ruth Fuller. “The History of the Koan in Rinzaiy (Lin-chi) Zen.” In Miura Isshûand Ruth Fuller Sasaki. The Zen Koan: Its Historyr and Use in Rinzai Zey n. 1–32.

Sato, Hiroaki. “Introduction.” In Yagyû Munenori. The Sword and the Mind. Trans.Hiroaki Sato. Woodstock: Overlook Press, 1986. 1–19.

Seki Hirono. Yaban to shiteno Ie ShakaiYY [The ie societytt as the savay ge]. Tokykk o:Ochanomizu Shobô, 1987.

Sharf,ff Robert H. “Whose Zen? Zen Nationalism Revisited.” In Rude Awakeningn s:ggZen, thtt e Kyoto School, & tll htt e Question of NationaQQ lism. Ed. James W. Heisig andJohn C. Maraldo. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1994. 40–51.

Shikitei Sanba. Kakusha Hyôbanki [Audience review]. Ed. Kumakura Isao. In KabukiKK[KabukiKK ]. Ed. Gondô Yoshikazu, Munemasa Isoo, and Moriya Takeshi. Tokyo:San’ichi Shobô, 1973. Vol. 6 of Nihon Shomin Bunka Shiryô Shô ûsei [Collectedhistorical documents of Japanese popular culture]. Ed. Geinôshi Kenkykk ûkai[Performing arts history study ydd group]. 479–529.

Shinkei. Sasamege otot [Private talks]. Ed. Ijichi Tetsuo. In Rengn aronshû Nôgg gô akuronshûggHaironshûHH . 63–160.

Shively, Donald H. “The Social Environment of Tokuyy gawa Kabuki.” In JamesR. Brandon, William P. Malm, and Donald H. Shively.yy sStudies in Kn abuki:KK I: tsIIActing, Music, and Historicad l Contextl . Honolulu: Universitytt oy f Hawai’i Press,f1978. 1–61.

Sugai Yukio. “Bibliographical Introduction.” In OKEOO ZEE . Vol. 1. 461–481.ZZ———. “Bibliographical Introduction.” In OKEZEE . Vol. 2. 291–328.ZZ———. “Bibliographical Introduction.” In OKEOO ZEE . Vol. 3. 315–336.ZZ———. “Bibliographical Introduction.” In OKEZEE . Vol. 4. 323–336.ZZ———. “Bibliographical Introduction.” In OKEOO ZEE . Vol. 5. 229–238.ZZ

B ibliography190

Sugai Yukio. “Commentary.” Inyy OKEOO ZEE . Vol. 1. 482–511.ZZ———. “Commentary.yy ” In OKEOO ZEE . Vol. 3. 337–372.ZZ———. “Commentary.yy ” In OKEOO ZEE . Vol. 5. 239–266.ZZ———. “Jiyû Gekijô Ronsô” [The Free Theater debates]. In KinKK dai no Engeki I

[Theater in modern times, I]. Ed. Suwa Haruo and Sugai Yukio. Tokyo:Benseisha, 1997. Vol. 5 of Kôza Nihon no EngekiKK [Lectures on Japanese theater].67–79.

———. “Kindaigeki no Seiritsu to sono Juyô no Tayôsei” [The formation of moderntheater and the variety of its acceptancef ]. In Kindai no Engeki I. 8–34.II

———. “Tsukiji Shôgekijô Ronsô” [The Tsukiji Little Theater debates]. In Kindaino Engn eki IIII [Theater in modern times, II]. Ed. Suwa Haruo and Sugai Yukio.Tokyo: Benseisha, 1996. Vol. 6 of Kôza Nihon no EnKK gn eki. 8–21.

Suzuki, Daisetz Teitaro. Studies in thtt e La©kâvatâtt ra Sûtra. Boulder: Prajñâ Press,1981.

———. “Zen: A Reply to Hu Shih.” Philosopo hyh East and Westy 3.1 (1953): 25–46.———. Zen and Japa anese Culturerr . New York: Pantheon Books, 1959.Takuan Sôhô. Fudôchi Shinmyô Roku: Divine Record of Immovable Wisdom. In Yagyû

Munenori. The Sword and the MinTT d. 110–120.Toida Michizô. KanKK ’ami’ to Zo eamiZZ [Kan’ami and Zeami]. Tokykk o: Iwanami Shoten,

1994.Tsubouchi Shôyô. “ ‘Makubesu Hyôshaku’ no Shogen” [Some words on the

“Commentary on Macbeth”]. Iny ShôSS yô ô Senshû [Selected works of Shôyô].Supplement 3. Tokykk o: Shun’yôdô, 1927. 161–169.

———. “Saôgeki no Hon’yaku ni taisuru Watakushi no Taido no Hensen” [Thetransition of my attituf de toward the translation of Sf hakespearean plays]. In Shôyô ôSenshû. Vol. 5. Tokyo: Shun’yôdô, 1927. 584–590.

———. Shîzaru Kidan: Jiyîî û no Tachi Nagori no Kireajû ijj [Strange tale of Caesar: Bladeof freedom, wistful sharpness]. In Shôyô ô Senshô û. Supplement 2. Tokyo: Shun’yôdô,1927. 293–439.

Turner, Victor. ThTT e Anthtt ropo ologyo oy fo Perf fr ormancff e. New York: PAPP J PuA blications, 1986.———. From Ritual to Theatre: The Human Seriousness ofo Plaf ya . New York: PAJA

Publications, 1982.Ueki Yukinobu. “Sarugaku-nô no Keisei” [The formation of sarugu akugg noh]. In Nô

[Noh]. Ed. Geinôshi Kenkykk ûkai [Performing arts history study ydd group]. Tokykk o:Heibonsha, 1970. Vol. 3 of NihonNN no Ko otenKK Geinô [Japanese classical performingarts]. 7–47.

Ueno Chizuko. “Orientarizumu to Jendâ” [Orientalism and gender]. In BoseiFashizumu: Haha naru Shizen no Yûwaku [Fascism of motherhood: The seductionof nature as mother]. Ed. Kanô Mikiyo. Tokyo: Gakuyô Shobô, 1995. 108–131.

———. “ ‘Watashi’ no Meta-Shakaigaku” [Meta sociology of “I”f ]. In Inoue Shun,Ueno Chizuko, Ôsawa Masachi, Mita Munesuke, and Yoshimi Shun’ya. GendaiShakai no Shakaigi akgg u [Sociology of contemy porary society ytt ]. Tokykk o: IwanamiShoten, 1997. Vol. 1 of Iwanami KôKK za Gendai Shakaigaku [Iwanami lectures oncontemporary sociology]. 47–82.

Ueyama Shunpei. KûkaiKK [Kûkai]. Tokykk o: Asahi Shinbunsha, 1992.Uno, Kathleen S. “Women and Changes in the Household Division of Labor.” In

Recreatingn Jag pa anese Women, 1600–1945. 17–41.WWaWW lthall, Anne. “PeriAA pheries: Rural Culture in Tokugawa Japan.” MonumentaMM

Nipponica 39.4 (1984): 371–392.WWarren, HenrWW y Clarke.y Buddhism in Translations. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass

Publishers, 1986.

191B ibliography

WWatanabe Ichirô. “Heihô Densho Keisei ni tsuite no Ichi-Shiron” [A workinWW g thesison the formation off f transmission f books on swordsmanship and military sciencey ].In KinseiKK Geidôron. 645–673.

———. “Introduction.” In Miyamoto Musashi. Gorin no ShoSS . 355.———. “Introduction.” In Yagyû Munenori. Heihô Kadenshô o [Family transmission

book on swordsmanship]. Ed. Watanabe Ichirô. In Kinsei GeidôronKK . 301.———. “Introduction.” In Yagyû Muneyoshi and Matsudaira Nobusada.

Shinkageryû Heihû ô Mokuroku no Kotô ott [Table of contents of f tf he Shin-kage schoolswordsmanship]. Ed. Watanabe Ichirô. In Kinsei Geidôron. 345.

WWright, Arthur F.WW Buddhism in ChCC inese Historyr . Stanford: Stanford University Press,1959.

YYagyû Munenori.YY The Book ofo Familf yll Traditions on the Art oy fo Waf r. In MiyamotoMusashi. The Book of Five Ringsk . 63–111.

———. Heihô Kadenshô o. In Kinsei Geidôron. 301–343.———. Heihô Kaden Sho: Familyll -Transmitted Book on Swordsmanshipi . In Yagyû

Munenori. The Sword and the Mind. 20–109.YYagyû Muneyoshi and Matsudaira Nobusada.YY Shinkageryû Heihô Mokuroku no KotSS ott .

In KinseiKK Geidôron. 345–354.YYamada Mumon. “EnYY ô” [Huineng]. In Zen no Rekishi: Chûgoku [History oy f Zenf :

China]. Ed. Nishitani Keiji i. Tokyo: Chikuma Shobô, 1967. Vol. 3 of KôzaKK Za enZZ .143–156.

YYanaYY gida Izumi. Meiji i Shoki no Hon’jj y’ aku Bungn akgg u y[Translation literature of earlyMeiji]. Tokyo: Shôhakukan Shoten, 1935. Vol. 1 of MeiMM ji i Bunjj gn aku Sôkagg n[Collected works of Meijif literature].

YYosYY hitake Yoshinori. Meiji TaishMM ô no Hon’yakushô i [The history of transf lation in theMeiji and Taishô eras]. Tokyo: Kenkyûsha Shuppan, 1959.

YYuasa Yasuo.YY Shintairon: TSS ôTT yô ôteki Shinshinron to Gendai [Theory on the body ydd : AnAAEastern mind–body theory and the present]. Tokyo: Kôdansha, 1990.

———. “Sôron: Shugyô to Shuhô no Rekishi Shinrigaku” [Overview: Historicalpsychology oy f cuf ltivation and esoteric ritual]. In MitsuMM gu i to Shugyôu . 3–37.

Zeami Motokiyo. FûFF gyû okushû [A collection concerning musical performance]. In ZZ.ZZ155–160.

———. Fûshikaden [Transmission of teachings on stytt le and the Flower]. Ed. Nishiyy oMinoru. In Karonshû Nôgô akuronshgg û. 341–398. [Abbreviated as the NKNN BKK T version.]

———. FûshikadenFF . Ed. Omote Akira. In Rengn aronshû Nôgg gô akuronshû Haironshûgg .213–297. [Abbreviated as the NKBZ version.]

———. Fûshikaden. In ZZ. 13–65.Z.Z———. Fushss izuke ShSS idai [The application of melody]. In ZZ. 145–154.ZZ———. Goongyn oku Jôjôô [Matters concerning the five modes of musical expression]. In

ZZ. 197–204.ZZ———. Kakyk ô [A mirror of the Flower]. In ZZ. 83–109.ZZ———. Kashu-no-uchi Nukigaki (NôNN ni Johakyô û no Kotoû ) [Excerpts from tff he Flower

learning: Noh’s three segments of introduction, breaking, and rapid]. In ZZ.ZZ67–71.

———. Kintôsho [Book of the golden island]. In ZZ. 249–257.ZZ———. Kyakuraika [The Flower of returning]. In ZZ. 245–248.Z.ZZ———. Ongyn oku Kuden (Ongyn oku Kowadashi Kuden) [Oral transmission of musical

(and vocal) production]. In ZZ. 73–81.ZZ———. Rikugu i [Six principles]. In ZZ. 179–182.ZZ———. Sandô [The three wayaa s]. In ZZ. 133–144.ZZ———. Shikadô [The path to the Flower]. In ZZ. 111–119.ZZ

B ibliography192

Zeami Motokiyo. Shudôsho [Learning the Way]aa . In ZZ. 233–240.ZZ———. Shûgyoku Tokka [Finding gems and gaining the Flower]. In ZZ. 183–196.ZZZ———. Teachingn s on Stgg ytt le and the Flower (FûFF shikaden). Trans. J. Thomas Rimer and

Yamazaki Masakazu. In On the Art of the NôNN Drama: The Major Treatises of Zeamiô .3–63.

———. Yûgaku Shudô Fûken [Accounts of artistic joy anf d learning the Way]. In ZZ.ZZ161–167.

———. Zeshi Rokujûjj Igo Sarugaku Dangû i [A talk on sarugass ku noh by the honorableZeami, whww o is over sixty]. In ZZ. 259–314.ZZ

AAkizuki Ryômin 4AA 2AAmoghavaAA ja ra (Chi. Bukong jingang) 5AArai Eizô 75AA , 86AAshiwakeobune [Small boat shoving

through the reed] 98AAvalokitAA eåvara bodhisattva 73

Barthes, Roland 16, 137–138Bungei KyKK ôkai [Literary society ytt ] 107,

109, 111, 116, 126–128, 133,174 (n65)

Butler, Judith 106, 170 (n20)

Chan Buddhism, see alsll o Zen Buddhism77–80, 162–163 (n12)

Daodejing,gg see LaoziDaxue [The great learning] 41–42,

50, 93

“Eizan no Chô-hôshi Rishushakukyô oMotomuru ni Tôsuru Sho” [Thereply to Priest Chô of Mount yEi, who seeks the commentarysutra on the Adhyarthaåatikâ-prajñâpâramitâ sutra] 6

Engeki Kairyôkai [Theater reformassociation] 108, 126

“Engeki no Jissaika to shite” [In mycapacity as a theater practitioner]115, 118, 169 (n8)

Enman’i-za, see KonKK paru-zaepisteme 3, 16, 39, 85, 103, 106,

150–151 (n89), 164 (n34), 170(n22, n23)

esoteric Buddhism 1, 3–7, 41, 76, 81,167 (n96)

Foucault, Michel 106, 150–151(n89), 170 (n22, n23)

Fudôchi Shinmym ô-roku [Divine record of immovable wisdom] 24

Fuju iwara-no Kiyosuke 54, 56Fuju iwara-no Teika 85, 165 (n67)Fûshikaden [Transmission of teachings

on style and the Flower] 25, 37,48–97, 148 (n70), 150 (n81, n83),154 (n16, n22), 155 (n26), 156(n39), 156–158 (n48), 160 (n90),166 (n73), 166–167 (n86)

FushizukeFF Shidai [The application ofmelody] 57

Geijutsu-za [Art theater] 104–105,111, 115–117, 123, 127, 172–173(n53), 174 (n63)

Gendai no Iemotott [Contemporaryiemoto] 101

gongagg n, see also kôan 78Goongyoku JôJJ jô ôjj [Matters concerning

the five modes of musicalexpression] 57

Gorin no ShoSS [Book ok f five ringsff ]23–26, 146 (n25, n26),148 (n55)

Hachiji ô Kadenshojj (a.k.a. HachiHH ji ôbonjjKadenshoKK ) [Eight-volume bookof transmission of teachings on the Flower] 8, 37, 69, 91–92,98, 117, 123, 150 (n81),166–167 (n86)

Hada-no Motokiyo, see alsll o ZeamiMotokiyo 53

Hada-no Motoyoshi, see alsoll Motoyoshi47, 53

Hakuin Ekaku 42, 77Hata-no Kawakatsu 52–53, 58, 66,

131, 154 (n16)Heihô KadenshHH o [Book of family

transmission on swordsmanship]19–97, 144 (n1), 146 (n24), 148(n55, n71), 148–149 (n72), 150(n88), 151 (n107)

Index

Index194

HekirenshôHH [ArAA bitrary rengan poetryexegesis] 60

Hiji ikata Yoshi 105, 121, 174 (n66)honzetsu (authentic sources) 59,

61, 97Horie Rinkô 68–69, 98Huineng 10, 54, 56, 83–84Hurst, G. Cameron, III 7, 12, 22, 71,

145 (n11), 163 (n20)

Ibsen, Henrik 110, 120, 127, 132,134, 174 (n65)

Ichikawa Danjûrô IX 108, 123Ichikawa Enjn aku, see Ichikawa

Shôchô IIIchikawa Sadanjn i II 110–111, 114–115,

117, 120, 123, 175 (n73)Ichikawa Shôchô II 110, 116–117,

174 (n67)iemoto 3, 7, 9, 20–21, 71–72,

101–102, 141 (n4), 145–146(n21), 146 (n27), 162 (n4),168 (n6)

Ihara Toshirô (a.k.a. Seiseien) 73–74,89, 109

Ii Yôhô 107, 111, 117, 121ishin denshin (transmission of mind by

mind) 54, 62, 64, 96, 156 (n39),159–160 (n77)

Jiyû Gekijô [Free theater] 103, 107,109–111, 115–118, 120–122,124, 126–128, 130, 132–133,176 (n89)

JJohn Gabriel BorkmaJJ n 110, 115–116,120, 127

Kakusha HyHH ôbanki [Audience review]112

Kakyô [A mirror of the Flower] 57,61, 93, 155 (n26), 156–158 (n48),160 (n89), 165 (n53)

Kamiizumi Hidetsuna 19, 62,144 (n2)

Kan’ami Kiyotsugu 51–53, 55, 57–58,61, 91, 155 (n26), 156–158 (n48),161 (n100)

Kano, AyAA ako 171 (n28, n32),172–173 (n53)

Kanze-zaKK , see also YûYY zaki-za 52, 65,91–92

Karatani KôjKK in 106, 108, 126,170 (n23)

KashKK u (a.k.a. KashKK û) [The Flowerlearning] 82, 165 (n53)

Kasulis, Thomas P. 29katagia (fundamental mold) 59–60,

72, 85, 88Katô Shûichi 73–74, 126Kawakami Otojirô 109, 122–123,

176 (n87)Kawamori Yoshizô 126kechimyaku, see alsoll ketsumyaku 67,

149–150 (n80)ketsumyaku, see alsoll kechimyaku 37,

67, 149–150 (n80)KinKK jn insai Shin’ô 73KitaKK gawa Tadahiko 53, 161 (n100)kôan, see also gongn angg 42, 60–62,

77–79, 96, 142 (n21)kokin denjun 9, 12, 14, 63, 67–68, 71,

89, 91, 98–99, 143–144 (n39)KoKK kon Yakushss a Rongn o Sakigi agg ke

[The great and first actors’analects through all ages]73–74

Koma-no CKK hikazane 67, 93,160 (n89)

Konparu Ujikatsu 24,KK147 (n54)

Konparu Zenchiku 24, 47, 53, 57,KK61, 68, 156–158 (n48)

Konparu Zenpô 47KKKonparu-zaKK 53, 92Kubo Sakae 111, 172 (n43)KKKûkai, Kôbô Daishi 4–6, 76, 14KK 2

(n17), 167 (n96)Kumakura Isao 4, 9, 47–48, 90, 94,KK

143 (n30), 149 (n78)Kuroda RKK yôRR 42, 47–48, 142 (n21),

153 (n12)KyaKK kuraika [The Flower of returning]

68, 160–161 (n91)kyôge betsudenk (separate transmission

outside the scriptures) 62, 96Kyôhabutae [KyKK o silk] 68, 98Kyôkunshô [Precept exegesis] 93,

160 (n89)

195Index

LaFleur, William R. 12, 66, 76, 138,143 (n34)

Lanka school (Chi. Lengqiezong) 80La©kâvatââ âra sutra 80–81, 83–84Laozi 33, 50, 93Layman Pang 50, 93Linjn i, see also Rinzai

The Linji school 77Linji Yixuan 77, 79–81, 164 (n38)Linjn ijj lu [The recorded sayings of

Linji] 77, 79–81, 164 (n38)Longjgg i 50, 93Lunyu [The analects of Conf fuciusff ]

54, 60

Maigi etsushô [Monthly exey gesis] 85,165 (n67)

Manura 50, 93Maruyuu ama Masao 109, 160 (n83),

177 (n103)Matsui Sumako 115, 117, 174 (n65)Matsunaga Teitoku 68Mazu Daoyi 5yy 0Miki Takeji 117, 175 (n69)Milindapañha [Questions of Mif linda]

79, 137Miyamoto Musashi 22–25, 98, 146

(n25, n26), 148 (n55)Mori Ôgai 104, 117, 171 (n35)Morita Kan’ya XII 108Morita Sôhei 120–121Motomasa 68, 160 (n91)Motoori Norinaga 14–15, 63–64,

98–99, 117, 167–168 (n112)Motoyoshi 47, 52–53, 160 (n91)

Nâgasena 79, 137Nakajima Zuiryû 68–69, 98Nakamura Yasuo 69, 91–92, 150 (n81)Nanbô Sôkei 47, 153 (n11)Nanbô-roku [Nanbô memorandum]

47, 153 (n11)Natsume Sôseki 127–129, 132, 134,

177–178 (n111)Nihon Engn ekishiss [History of Jay panese

theater] 73Nihon Kindai Bungn agg ku no Kigi en

[Origins of modern Japaneseliterature] 106, 170 (n23)

nihonjn in-ronjj (the theory oy fJapaneseness) 9–11, 63–64,101–102, 140, 145–146 (n21),159–160 (n77)

Nijô Yoshimoto 60, 153 (n12)Nishida Kitarô 30Nishiyama Matsunosuke 9, 20–21,

71–72, 75–76, 101–102, 121,141 (n4), 145–146 (n21),162 (n4), 168 (n6)

Noguchi Takehiko 125

Omote Akira 54, 155 (n26), 156 (n30)Ongyoku Kuden (a.k.a. Ongyoku

Kowadashss i Kuden) [Oraltransmission of musical (and vocal)production] 57, 91

onnaga agg ta 66, 73–74, 89, 110–111,116–117, 160 (n84), 161–162(n2), 174 (n67), 176 (n96)

“Onnagata Hiden” [The secrettransmissions of an onnaga agg ta]73–74, 89, 161–162 (n2)

Ono-no Komachi 54, 56–57Osanai Kaoru 12–13, 17, 103–136,

138, 164 (n34), 168–169 (n7),169 (n8, n11, n14), 170 (n17),171 (n35, n39), 171 (n40), 172(n43, n45), 173 (n55), 173–174(n56), 174 (n63, n66), 175 (n69),175 (n82), 176 (n95), 176–177(n97), 178–179 (n130), 179(n131–n133)

Ôzasa Yoshio 107–108, 110, 112,123, 126, 149–150 (n80),172–173 (n53), 173 (n55), 174(n65), 175 (n70), 176 (n87)

Rimer, J. Thomas 56, 153 (n12),156–158 (n48)

RiRR nzai, see alsll o LinjinThe Rinzai school 24, 42, 77–78Rinzairoku [The recorded sayings of

Linjn i] 77, 164 (n38)Rishushakukyô [The commentary

sutra on the Adhyarthaåatikâ-prajñâpâramitâ sutra, a.k.a.the Praja ñâpâramitâ-naya sutra]5–6

Index196

Rôdoku Kenkykk ûkai [Elocution studyy yddgroup], see also Bungei KyôKK kai 133

Rokumeikan [The deer cry pavilion]108–109, 126

Rose, Mark 104

Saddharma-puƒ∂arîka sutra (the Lotussutra) 54

Saichô, Dengyô Daishi 5–6,142 (n17)

Sakai, Naoki 11, 125, 129, 131Sandô [The three ways] 59Sanjô Kintada 69, 91, 153 (n12)Sarugaku Dangi, see Zeshi Rokujûjj Igû o

Sarugu aku Dangg gn iSasaki, Ruth Fuller 77Sasamegoto [Private talks] 56,

156–158 (n48)Sato, Hiroaki 50, 62, 148–149 (n72)Segawa Kikunojô I 73–74,

161–162 (n2)Seki Hirono 66, 149 (n79)Sen-no Rikyûkk 47, 153 (n11)Shenhui 83Shenxiu 83–84Shikadô [The path to the Flower] 57,

146 (n24)Shikitei Sanba 112Shimamura Hôgetsu 104, 111,

115–116, 123, 174 (n63)shin-engn eki (new theater) 107–109,

112, 122, 171 (n28)shingn eki (the New Theater) 103–134,

171 (n32), 176–177 (n97)“Shingeki Fukkô no Tameni [In the

interest of the renaissance ofthe New Theater] 116,132–133, 169 (n14),173–174 (n56)

Shinkei 56, 156–158 (n48)shss inpa (“new school”) 107–108,

111, 117, 121, 175 (n70),178–179 (n130)

Shudôsho [Learning the Way] 91Shûgyû oku Tokka [Finding gems

and gaining the Flower]57, 61

Sudô Sadanori 107–109Suzuki Daisetsu (a.k.a. Daisetz Teitaro

Suzuki) 76, 80–81, 83

TaionkiTT [Owing a debt of gratitudedocumentary] 68

Takuan Sôhô 24, 50, 93, 145 (n18)Teitoku Eitaiki [Eternal record of

Teitoku] 6TT 9Toyohara-no Muneaki 67, 160 (n89)Tsubouchi Shôyô 17, 107, 109, 111,

116, 126–129, 171 (n35), 174(n65), 178–179 (n130)

Tsukiji Shôgekijô [Tsukiji little theater]103, 105, 111, 121–122, 124, 172(n43), 174 (n66)

Ueyama Shunpei 5Uno, Kathleen S. 37

Vimalakîrti-nirdeåa sutra 54, 56

Watanabe Ichirô 24, 62, 145 (n17)

Yagyû Munenori 12–14, 17, 19–41,45, 50, 54, 62–65, 73, 76–77,82–84, 86, 88–89, 93, 96, 98,117, 140, 145 (n18, n20),174–175 (n68)

Yagyû Muneyoshi 19, 24, 50, 62,147 (n54), 148 (n55)

Yakushss a Banashiss [The actors’analects] 47

Yamazaki Masakazu 56,156–158 (n48)

Yoshida Tôgo 73, 91, 154 (n16)Yuasa Yasuo 29Yûzaki-za, see also Kanze-za 12KK ,

52, 61

Zeami JûJJ rokubushû [The sixteen worksof Zeami] 73, 91

Zeami Motokiyo 12–15, 17, 24–25,37, 45–96, 117–118, 120,138–140, 143 (n34), 146 (n24),148 (n70), 150 (n83), 151 (n105),153 (n12), 154 (n16, n22), 155(n25, n26), 156 (n34, n37, n39),156–158 (n48), 159 (n63), 160(n89, n91), 166 (n73), 167–168(n112), 174–175 (n68)

Zen Buddhism, see also Chan Buddhism 7, 9–10, 20, 24, 33,39, 41–42, 50, 54, 57, 60–63,

197Index

76–81, 83, 93, 142 (n21),145–146 (n21), 150 (n88), 152(n5), 162–163 (n12), 163 (n20),164 (n38), 177 (n99)

Zenpô Zô ôZZ tan (a.k.a. ZenpZZ ô Zô ôZZ dan)[A talk by Zenpô] 47–48

Zeshi Rokujûu Iû gII o Sarugu aku Dangg gin [Atalk on saruss gu agg ku noh by ty hehonorable Zeami, whww o is over sixty]tt47–48, 55, 152 (n9), 156–158(n48)

Zhongfeng 33, 50, 93