SOURCE: De Poorter, Erika. “The Theoretical Writings of Zeami.” In Zeami's Talks on Sarugaku: An Annotated Translation of the Sarugaku Dangi, pp. 45-56. Amsterdam: J. C. Geiben, Publisher, 1986.

[In the excerpt below, De Poorter surveys Zeami's theoretical writings, underscoring their “hidden” or “secret” quality as texts intended for a narrow, private audience.]

SECRET TRADITIONS

Zeami began the Fūshi kaden, the first of a score of theoretical writings about Nō, in about 1400, after having already gained many years of experience as an actor, writer and director. As far as we know this was the first treatise on the art of Nō (Nōgakuron) in Japan. In a certain sense this was only natural, because Sarugaku had, after all, matured only one generation earlier to become an art form acknowledged and supported even by the shōgun.

There are probably several reasons why Zeami came to put his ideas about Nō into writing. In the first place it was part of his aim to have secret writings, such as those existing for other art forms, in his family. It is even thought that he composed his writings in order to strengthen the position of his son Motomasa, as it was customary in other arts to give secret writings to successors, even if only by way of legitimization.

Zeami himself said that he recorded one thing and another in order to initiate his descendants into his father Kan'ami's art and his own, and in order to ensure the survival of this art. He says, for example, at the end of chapter III of the Fūshi kaden: “As I defend the family and hold the art in high esteem, I stored deep in my heart the things which my deceased father told me, and recorded a summary of it. It is because I fear that they forget the criticism of the world, and the way might be ruined. It is absolutely not to contribute to the abilities of others. I only leave instructions for my descendants¹.” In the closing section of chapter V of the Fūshi kaden we read: “Since I received the guidance of my deceased father from my youth and became an adult, during more than twenty years by looking and listening I inherited his style. For the sake of the way, for the sake of the family I wrote this. It is not for a personal motive².” They were hiden, “secret traditions”, texts which might only be handed on to successors; there was certainly no intention of allowing rival actors or spectators to read them. In several places Zeami impressed upon the reader of a treatise that it “Should not be shown to others. Secret tradition. Secret tradition”³. “This paragraph is extremely secret”⁴ or “Except serious artists, one should not let anyone have even one single look at these paragraphs”⁵.

It is not clear of every piece of writing to whom Zeami wished to give it. Only in some cases was there an explicit statement at the end about the person for whom it was destined. So we learn that Zeami handed over chapter VII of the Fūshi kaden to his younger brother Shirō, and in 1418 wanted to give another copy of this same chapter to a certain Mototsugu, who (as already stated) remains unidentified⁶. The Sandō was intended for his son Motoyoshi, and the Rikugi and Shūgyoku tokka were destined for the Konparu leader—in all probability his presumed son-in-law Zenchiku⁷—while the Shudōsho (Book for Learning the Way, 1430) was dedicated to the members of the group⁸.

Curiously enough, not a single work expressly states that it was intended for his successor Motomasa, yet Motomasa appears to have received the Kakyō, for instance⁹. Omote and Kōsai accordingly come to the justifiable conclusion that many texts were automatically intended for Motomasa, even when this is not explicitly stated¹⁰. Kanai Kiyomitsu also comes to the same conclusion¹¹. However, his reasons for thinking so—deduced from the fact that Zeami wrote no more hiden after Motomasa's death—appear to me to be rather weak. Admittedly Zeami did not write any theoretical treatise after his son's death, with the exception of the Kyakuraika of 1433. However, in my opinion it may well have been for emotional reasons that he ceased to write treatises after the loss of his successor. Kōsai is of the opinion that it was not purely accidental that Zeami composed most of his writings in the period after he had retired and had been succeeded by Motomasa. According to Kōsai this rather suggests that the secret treatises were written in order to strengthen Motomasa's position against his cousin On'ami, who was older and adopted, and therefore could also claim the right of succession¹². However, as we saw, it is unclear precisely when Motomasa became leader. We only know that he was leader in 1429 and that Zeami was a lay monk in 1422¹³.

It is indeed true that Zeami wrote all but one of his treatises between 1418 and 1433, and I would consider this as his second, most creative phase as a theoretician. His theoretical work is usually divided into three periods which correspond with the reigning years of successive Ashikaga shōguns. We have seen how important shōguns were for an actor's career, yet I am still unconvinced of the value in making such a division in Zeami's work. The first period is reckoned from 1400 to 1408 (the death of Yoshimitsu). That is indeed the period in which the greater part of the Fūshi kaden must have been written, but it has not been established that the work was already complete in 1408. The last version of chapter VII is even dated 1418, although it appears from Zeami's postscript that the first version of this chapter must already have been completed some years earlier. The most productive phase should then follow from 1418 (or according to some 1408) to 1428 (the death of Yoshimochi). After 1428 comes the third and least important period, through the reigning years of Yoshinori until Zeami's death¹⁴. Here I would like to propose however that, after a first phase in which the Fūshi kaden came into being, only one period should be divided off, that between 1418 and 1433 during which Zeami produced one writing after another. This period was marked by two very drastic events in his life—at the beginning, his becoming a lay monk (certainly before 1422, at all events) and at the end, the death of his son in 1432.

As we have stated, Kōsai assumes that Zeami's great productivity in this period must have been the consequence of his concern for Motomasa's precarious position. However, there could be a wholly plausible explanation in the fact that in those years Zeami—who was perhaps no longer leader by then—simply had much more time for writing down his experiences and ideas about his art. On the other hand, at the beginning of the 1420s Zeami was probably fully occupied with educating his children, who must still have been young then (I believe that Motomasa must have been born between 1398 and 1404 and Motoyoshi between 1398 and 1411)¹⁵. As Omote also suggests¹⁶ this too could have been a stimulus for the drafting of the many treatises from this period. What one should also not lose sight of is the fact (lightly touched upon by Nishi)¹⁷ that in those years the Dengaku actor Kiami stood high in the favour of Shōgun Yoshimochi. This important rival's success was perhaps yet another direct motive for Zeami to commit to paper his advice and instruction to his successors.

It is equally remarkable that not one text has been preserved that was dedicated to On'ami (although the rift, as we have said, could only have taken place in about 1429)¹⁸ while an outsider such as Konparu definitely received texts in 1428, still during Motomasa's lifetime. One should not conclude from this alone, as Kōsai does¹⁹, that Zeami probably gave no writings to his nephew. It certainly gives food for thought that, as we shall see later, in the Kanze family at Kyōto, the Kyō Kanze, who descended directly from On'ami, originally virtually no texts from Zeami were handed down. The only ones which did exist in the family—small excerpts from Zeami's earliest work—in all probability came down to that branch of the family via Zeami's younger brother Shirō.

Most of the writings were inherited by the family of Zeami's direct descendants, the so-called Ochi Kanze. The Sarugaku dangi also formed a part of that collection. In addition the Konparu family, descending from Zenchiku, also possessed a number of Zeami's hiden. As we have seen, Zenchiku very probably obtained two treatises, and it is thought that he was able to copy further texts. In the Kyakuraika we read, for instance, that Motomasa thought that Zenchiku was also eligible for hiden: “But Motomasa probably thought that except for Konparu (= Zenchiku) there was no person able to keep for posterity the family's name in this way, and he said he had allowed Konparu to have a look at the one volume of the most important tradition.”²⁰ This was probably the Kakyō, of which Zeami himself also said that it was “extremely secret”²¹. Omote even suspects that Zenchiku held some of Zeami's texts in his keeping before the Ochi Kanze group was set up, and that he secretly copied them at that time²². Thus Zeami's treatises were handed down and preserved over several generations within three Nō families: the Kanze of Ochi, the Konparu and the Kanze of Kyōto. Practically no one outside these families set eyes on the texts²³.

However, the Ochi Kanze family died out in the first half of the 16th century. The line was continued by Kanze Jūrō (active around 1550) the oldest son of the sixth official leader (so actually the seventh) of the Kanze of Kyōto. At that moment the way was open for the Kyō Kanze to copy the handed-down texts of the Ochi Kanze, which was done on a large scale by Kanze Mototada (Buddhist name Sōsetsu, 1509-1583) Jūrō's younger brother and seventh (eighth) leader of the Kanze, and by Kanze Motohisa (?-1577) the eighth (ninth) leader²⁴. Three manuscripts of the Sarugaku dangi, thought to be in Sōsetsu's handwriting, are still preserved today in the Kanze family, as we shall see in chapter V. Jūrō was later Nō tutor to Tokugawa Ieyasu (1542-1616) and presented him with several texts belonging to his family, among which was a copy of the Sarugaku dangi. Some texts in Ieyasu's possession were in their turn subsequently copied by lovers of Nō, including Hosokawa Yūsai (1534-1610). This man also appears to have copied the Sarugaku dangi because there are two manuscripts of this text still in existence today which can be traced back to a Hosokawa copy.

Copying went still further in the Edo period. Texts in the possession of the Konparu family were copied by a collateral branch, the Hachizaemon family. Kanze Kiyochika (1693-1747) the fourteenth (fifteenth) leader and his successor Kanze Motoaki (1722-1774) collected and copied yet more texts, and in 1772 Motoaki even published an annotated text of the Shudōsho, which he gave to members of his company. This was, then, the first of Zeami's texts to be printed. A number of texts in the possession of the Kanze leaders were copied for the Tayasu family, a collateral branch of the Tokugawa. More copies were also made of the Sarugaku dangi in the Edo period. At the beginning of the 19th century the writer Ryutei Tanehiko (real name Takaya Tomohisa, 1783-1842) discovered, entirely accidentally in an antiquarian shop, an ancient manuscript of this text—probably the copy that had belonged to Tokugawa Ieyasu, and possibly to the Ochi Kanze originally. This manuscript was subsequently copied by various acquaintances of his. The number of copied texts thus gradually increased, it is true, but this still does not mean that Zeami's writings were read on a large scale. We can even say that the outside world did not know of their existence until the beginning of the 20th century.

DISCOVERY

This kind of texts had become completely unintelligible for people of the 20th century. In circa 1905 the banker Yasuda Zennosuke (1879-1936) bought, in a secondhand bookseller's the copy of the Sarugaku dangi that had once belonged to Ryūtei Tanehiko (the so-called Tanehikobon), but because he could read it only with difficulty he lent it to the philologist Ōwada Tateki (1857-1910). Yasuda heard nothing more for a long while until the day came when he received the manuscript back, returned without any explanation and in precisely the same newspaper wrapping as that in which he himself had lent it. Then he understood that Ōwada was also unable to read the text, and he resolved to await better times²⁵. Some years later he found, in the same bookseller's, a collection of sixteen of Zeami's texts that had belonged to the one-time daimyō family Hori. A copy of the Sarugaku dangi formed part of this collection (the so-called Hori-bon). With these texts also, Yasuda could do little better.

At about the same time, however, the historian Yoshida Tōgo (1864-1918) copied another text of the Sarugaku dangi at the home of the philologist and historian Kosugi Sugimura (1834-1910) (the so-called Kosugibon) and published a first article about it in June 1908, which was followed by the publication of the text in July of the same year²⁶. When Yasuda saw this he placed all his texts at the disposal of Yoshida, who studied them and published them in 1909 as a collection under the title Nōgaku koten Zeami jūrokubu-shū (Classics from the Nō: The Sixteen Texts of Zeami). As we shall see further on, Yoshida did not (alas) take one of Yasuda's manuscripts as a basic text for the Sarugaku dangi in this publication, but reprinted his text edition from Kosugi's manuscript from the year before²⁷.

It is thought that the sixteen manuscripts originating from the Hori family were all copied by the same person in the first half of the 17th century. It is not clear by whom this was done, or under what circumstances. However, considering the fact that texts from the last years of Zeami's life, such as the Museki isshi, the Kyakuraika and the Kintōsho, formed part of this collection, it is believed that the texts copied must have been handed down in the family of Zeami's direct descendants, the Ochi Kanze²⁸, the genealogy of which cannot be traced after the middle of the 16th century. This valuable collection was, alas, burned during the 1923 earthquake, so that today we are wholly dependant upon the text edition of Yoshida's, already mentioned.

Yoshida called his edition “Sixteen Texts”, but on closer examination there appear in reality to be only fifteen, because he treated chapter VII of the Fūshi kaden as a separate text. In his edition the Fūshi kaden is indeed incomplete, since chapter VI is still missing. This published text of Yoshida's opened the way for many thorough studies of Zeami and of Nō in the following decades. After 1909 still more of Zeami's secret manuscripts came to light, among which there were even a few in his handwriting or that of Zenchiku. The following are only the most important discoveries.

In 1931 a manuscript of chapter VI of the Fūshi kaden, in Zeami's handwriting, was found in the possession of the Kanze family, through which the whole of this text ultimately became known. In 1941 Kawase Kazuma (1906 -) discovered, among old documents of the Konparu family in the Hōzanji temple in Ikoma at Nara, important manuscripts connected with Zeami which he published two years later under the title Zeami jihitsu denshoshū (Collection of Handed-down Texts in the Handwriting of Zeami). This collection contained six treatises as well as seven Nō texts and two letters to Zenchiku. These treatises are certainly Zeami's, but are not in his handwriting²⁹.

In 1956 a copy of the Shūgyoku tokka was found in the Konparu family. This is the last of Zeami's treatises to be discovered up to now, so that today a total of twenty-one different writings of his are known³⁰. Two of these—the Museki isshi already frequently mentioned, and the Kintōsho—are not Nō treatises (Nōgakuron) in the strict sense, while the Sarugaku dangi is really by his son Motoyoshi. Nevertheless the texts are usually published together in the text editions³¹. Of the twenty-one writings fourteen can be dated on the basis of dates mentioned in their postscripts. The remainder are dated by comparing their content and terminology with that of the explicity dated works³².

As stated, the first phase of Zeami's theoretical work was occupied with one single treatise, the Fūshi kaden, commonly known as the Kadensho (Book on the Transmission of the Flower)³³. In the first two chapters of this work Zeami treats of the following subjects in turn: the training of an actor, explained in practice methods for seven different age groups (I), and mimicry (monomane) and the depiction of nine different character types (II). Chapter III (finished in 1400) contains a study in dialogue form of performing and acting. Chapter IV is dedicated to the history of Sarugaku art. In chapter V (finished in 1402, according to the postscript)³⁴ Zeami discusses extensively the different styles an actor must master in order to be successful. The last two chapters of the Fūshi kaden treat principally of the composition and staging of plays (VI) and of the concept “flower” (hana) (VII).

Zeami mentions in several places that the content of his writing is based on the instructions he received from his father Kan'ami. However, we cannot know with certainty how far Kan'ami's theories were indeed reproduced in the Fūshi kaden. It is, at all events, more than probable that Zeami, who lost his father-instructor in 1384 and only began the treatise fifteen years later, to a great extent worked over and rounded out Kan'ami's theories on the basis of his own experience of many years. It is also conceivable that he idealized his father, and assigned to him a greater role in the formulation of the theories than Kan'ami had in reality performed. After the Fūshi kaden Zeami was to write many more treatises, but by and large we can say that the germs of all his later theories are already present in the Fūshi kaden, and consequently this work is regarded as being the most fundamental in Zeami's oeuvre. Two sections of the Sarugaku dangi quote from this important treatise³⁵.

In the second phase, Zeami wrote all his other theoretical works, of which there are too many to summarise here. I shall therefore limit myself to the three most important works and the two that are also touched upon in the text of the Sarugaku dangi. A survey of all twenty-one writings can be found in Appendix I³⁶. The Kakyō, already frequently mentioned, undoubtedly forms the peak of this second phase. The treatise was completed in 1424, but a part of it already existed in 1418, having at that time the title Kashu (The Practice of the Flower)³⁷. The first part of the Kakyō contains a detailed description of the principal acting techniques—song, dance and mimicry. In the second half Zeami examines more abstract problems such as the acquisition of a personal style, and the actor's state of mind while performing. Moreover this treatise gives a clear picture of Zeami's artistic ideals, and the concept of yūgen is also extensively discussed³⁸.

Another important work is the Sandō, usually called Nōsakusho (Book about Playwriting)³⁹ in older publications. In this treatise of 1423 Zeami provided guide lines for the writing of new plays. This he called “the life of our art”⁴⁰. Together with chapter VI of the Fūshi kaden and sections 112 to 135 of the Sarugaku dangi, the Sandō is the most important material for the study of Zeami's conception of drama writing. In various places in the Sarugaku dangi we find quotations from, or references to, this treatise⁴¹ which, as we saw, Zeami dedicated to Motoyoshi.

One of Zeami's most enigmatic works is the Kyūi (The Nine Levels). In the first part of this short, undated treatise he distinguished nine aesthetic levels by which the artistic qualities of actors or plays could be judged. In the second part he explained the order in which stages of training must proceed in order to reach these levels⁴².

Here I must mention two further, less important works from this period: the Fūgyokushū (A Collection of Styles) and the Shudōsho, which are also discussed in Motoyoshi's notes⁴³. The first is an undated treatment of vocal training. The Shudōsho of 1430 is a short tract about the duties and tasks of players and musicians in achieving harmonious team work during the performance. Zeami, as we saw, wrote this treatise for the benefit of all the members of his group. Because of this some authors suspect that he drew up these rules at a time when unrest or dissension had possibly broken out within his own group, in connection with the rift with On'ami⁴⁴.

Thus far we have dealt with the treatises from the second period which, as stated, ended in 1433. The Sarugaku dangi also, dated 1430, though based upon conversations from before that time, must be considered as belonging to Zeami's second period.

CONTENT

Zeami's writings contain too many instructions and theories to be reproduced in a few paragraphs, and it is moreover dangerous to do this on the basis of quotations torn from their contexts in the treatises. Yet I believe that we have a good summary of his most important ideas in sections 1 to 3 of the Sarugaku dangi.

The Sarugaku dangi begins with the following definition of the Sarugaku art: “The art of theatrical entertainment is entirely [based on] imitation, but as Sarugaku is Kagura, the two elements dancing and singing should be called its basic arts.” According to Zeami, dramatic art is based upon imitation (monomane); what precisely he meant by this we shall discuss further on. Beside this, dance and song form an essential part of the Sarugaku art, and consequently Zeami also gives many instructions for these in his treatises. The importance he attaches to these two elements (nikyoku), is evident from the close of section 1 where he says: “… how could one call someone who does not perform [skilfully] the two elements dancing and singing, a perfect performer?”

New terms are again introduced in section 2 based on quotations from the Sandō: “[Those who have attained] the level of supreme accomplishment have elegant beauty in dancing and singing as their basic style and they have to be equally good in the three characters.” The “elegant beauty” (yūgen) mentioned here is undoubtedly the most famous of Zeami's aesthetic terms, and we will return to it. What Zeami means by the term “the three characters” (santai) at the end of the quotation is the three basic types of roles. According to his view, all the personalia from the Sarugaku repertoire can be reduced to these three types: the old person (rōtai), the woman (nyotai), and the warrior (guntai). An actor must be able to act all three of these types equally well, and may not specialise in only one of them. Thus section 2 ends with the warning words from the Sandō: “Artistes [who are only specialists in acting] the warrior and the demonic person, achieve fame for a while, but they do not remain famous in the world.”

We read in section 3 the following quotation from the Fūshi kaden: “In Yamato [Sarugaku], Ōmi [Sarugaku] and Dengaku the styles are different. But the real master may not be lacking in even one of the styles. [Some] people however, after having mastered only one style, do not know how to proceed to all the [other] styles, and they shun them.” An actor thus has to master all styles, in Zeami's jargon “the ten styles” (jittei). His most important term is, however, hana (flower). This is also mentioned in section 3: “Styles and patterns are different and individual, but the flower that looks attractive is not missing in Yamato [Sarugaku], Ōmi [Sarugaku] and Dengaku.” Except in these sections, the terms hana, yūgen and monomane seldom occur in the rest of the Sarugaku dangi. However, they are the three essential terms in Zeami's remaining treatises and will therefore shortly be explained here⁴⁵.

From Zeami's biography it appears that the fate of actors and companies in the 15th century depended very much on the favour of the powerful. On the other hand popularity with the common folk was also important for the economic condition of a theatre company. All this meant that the actors must be prepared to present their art in a way which appealed to the taste of each kind of audience and which surpassed that of rivals.

The actor's greatest task according to Zeami was to keep the spectators enthralled. His term hana, the flower, must also be explained from this viewpoint. There is agreement today that what Zeami meant by hana was the effect, the impression made on the public by a performance, or to put it another way, the sensations that an actor awakens in the spectators by his playing. It is obvious that hana had the greatest importance for Zeami, just by the fact that no less than six Nō treatises of the nineteen have this word in their titles (see Appendix I). In his writings he deals in detail with the means for, as he puts it “allowing the flower to blossom”. Strangely enough, nowhere does he give a definition of hana. We are only told in chapter VII of the Fūshi kaden: “The flower, to be interesting, and to be novel, are the same thing.”⁴⁶

According to Zeami a first requisite for hana is to have as great a repertoire as possible. This makes it possible to make frequent variations in the programmes. In the Fūshi kaden he says: “A heart that completely masters many pieces, is the seed of the flower.”⁴⁷ A second requisite is adaptability; an actor must be able to adjust to every sort of audience. In section 3 of the Sarugaku dangi we are told for instance that: “In this art the support and esteem of the general public are above all things [the basis of] long life and prosperity when running a group. Therefore, to adapt oneself to the circumstances and to the places, and to perform so that even stupid eyes think there is really [something in it], is [the basis of] long life and prosperity.” According to Zeami an actor must always know which pieces will be best suited to a particular performance. He must be able to compose new pieces as necessary, and not be afraid of making immediate alterations to existing passages⁴⁸. An actor must also look to the mood of the audience in order to be able to give them unexpected surprises and so keep them spellbound. We find several passages in the writings that provide evidence of Zeami's outstanding insight into the psychology of the spectators⁴⁹.

Zeami distinguishes two kinds of flower: a temporary bloom (jibun no hana) and what he calls the true flower (makoto no hana). The temporary flower, which “like the blossom of a [real] flower soon will fade”⁵⁰, is exclusively dependant upon external factors and usually occurs in young actors. They can temporarily grip the audience by their youthful beauty, but, warns Zeami, this hana must not be confused with the true flower. According to him an actor must strive towards this true flower, which comes only to actors who have a thorough grounding in, and complete mastery over the art. This true flower, once gained, will not easily wither even in later life. “Only in the case of the true flower, the principle of blossoming and the principle of fading will be in the heart. Therefore, it will be ever-blooming.”⁵¹

Zeami repeatedly impresses upon the reader that an actor who wishes to gain the true flower must dedicate himself fully to the art of drama and must practice continually. In various compositions he accordingly worked out a detailed programme for the ideal training. Zeami also used the concept “flower” (although with the Chinese pronunciation ka) in other terms, for instance kafū (flower style = fascinating style) or in the designations of aesthetic levels expounded in the Kyūi already mentioned.

As stated, Zeami's most important aesthetic term is yūgen (elegant beauty). The original meaning of this word in Chinese was “obscure and profound”, “impenetrable”. From the 12th century this word was used in Japan for the judgement of poems. Yūgen initially meant “profound” but during the course of the 13th and 14th centuries the meaning changed continuously until by Zeami's time the term had come to mean in treatises on poetry, among other things, “the beauty of gentle gracefulness”⁵². Next, yūgen also occurred in everyday speech, where it constituted a qualification for anything refined and beautiful⁵³. Here I shall leave out of further consideration the question of whether Zeami adopted this term from poetry or just from the colloquial tongue⁵⁴. In his Nō treatises we again meet with yūgen, with the meaning of a beauty that is combined with elegance, gentleness and quietness.

In the Kakyō Zeami gives the following definition of yūgen: “Only to be beautiful and soft is the essence of yūgen. The calm aspect of the human body is yūgen of the human body. If one refines one's language and carefully studies the word-usage in vogue among the nobility and courtiers, and if the language one uses is then elegant, even if somewhat vapid, that is yūgen of the language. And in music, if the melody flows beautifully and sounds sweet, that is yūgen of the music. As far as dance is concerned, if one practices well and the positions of the human body are beautiful with a peaceful aspect, and if it appears to be interesting, that is yūgen of the dance. And if in the mimicry the three characters appear beautiful, that is yūgen.”⁵⁵

According to Zeami yūgen must be pursued in the depiction of each persona, in song, dance and music, and even in the composition and language of Nō plays. If sufficient yūgen is present, then hana will come to the spectators. This beauty called yūgen was (so we are further told by Zeami) particularly characteristic of the art of Ōmi Sarugaku. Yamato Sarugaku on the other hand was, according to Zeami, originally based only on the so-called monomane (imitation or mimicry) but from Kan'ami onwards, monomane was combined with yūgen. By monomane Zeami meant not the realistic depiction of a person but the rendering of the essential characteristics—of the actual essence of that persona. As stated, for him there are three basic types for mimicry: the old person, the woman and the warrior, from which all others can be derived.

However, whatever he is depicting an actor must always know the degree to which his impersonation is creating yūgen—a factor he must never neglect. For instance, in the depiction of an old person the actor must give the impression of age without losing the total effect of beauty; thus Zeami thinks that one should avoid the playing of ugly characters as far as possible.

Thus there exists a close link between, as it were, the dosage of monomane and the amount of yūgen present: the more yūgen is naturally present in a character, the more mimicry is permissible. Yūgen can, by the very nature of things, be present in some characters (for instance women and youngsters) and if one mimics these well and intensely, yūgen will of itself come to exist. But in the case of such types as old people, warriors or demons with little yūgen in their appearance one may not impersonate them too much but must on the contrary be able to produce extra yūgen in one's mimicry. A trained actor knows how much he may impersonate and how he can replenish the yūgen that is lacking. Too much mimicry while neglecting yūgen is fatal, but Zeami also warns that where a player neglects mimicry and wants to create only beauty, his playing is weakened and the performance will turn out to be a failure as well.

In his writings he dealt with the most diverse subjects in the field of drama, but we can still confirm that Zeami was an actor before all else, and that in most of his theoretical writings he wanted in the first place to give practical advice for a successful performance. The designation “aesthetic treatises” which one sometimes comes across, is to my mind only applicable to a small part of his theoretical output. We would therefore do better simply to give this the name of the “Nō treatises” or the “secret writings” of Zeami. In many cases I would myself give preference to “Zeami's instructions to Nō actors”. This is particularly applicable to the Sarugaku dangi, the conversations written down by Motoyoshi.

Notes

1. Cf. Omote, ZZ, 37.

2. Cf. Omote, ZZ, 46.

3. Cf. Kashu no uchi nukigaki (Omote, ZZ, 71).

4. Cf. Kakyō (Omote, ZZ, 101).

5. Cf. Fūshi kaden, chapter VI (Omote, ZZ, 54).

6. See p. 36.

7. See p. 36.

8. Cf. Shudōsho (Omote, ZZ, 240).

9. See chap. II, note 76.

10. Cf. Omote, ZZ, 548 and Kōsai, ZZS, 93.

11. Cf. Kanai Kiyomitsu, Nō no kenkyu, 878-879.

12. Cf. Kōsai, ZZS, 93.

13. See pp. 38-39.

14. Cf. Kawase, TZN, 9-10, McKinnon, “Zeami on the Nō …”, 105-106, 108-109 and 116, Konishi Jin'ichi, Nōgakuron kenkyū, 20-21, Hisamatsu & Nishio, KN, 313-326, Nishi, Zeami kenkyū, 30-31, Konishi, Zeami-shū, 10, Nishino Haruo, survey of Zeami's writings in Nogami Toyoichirō (ed.), Sōgō shinteihan Nōgaku zensho, vol. 1, 312-317 and Toshihiko & Toyo Izutsu, The Theory of Beauty in the Classical Aesthetics of Japan, 97-98. Tsubaki gives a somewhat different division into three periods. Cf. Tsubaki, “An Analysis …”, 60-63.

15. See p. 38 and p. 59.

16. Cf. Omote, ZZ, 548.

17. Cf. Nishi, Zeami kenkyū, 31-36.

18. See p. 40.

19. Cf. Kōsai, ZZS, 93.

20. Cf. Omote, ZZ, 246.

21. Cf. Kakyō (Omote, ZZ, 101).

22. Cf. Omote, ZZ, 549. For the following sections about the handing down of the texts and their discovery, frequent use has been made of the work of Omote (ZZ, 549-551).

23. Omote suspects however that a few texts, such as the first part of the Fūshi kaden and the Ongyoku kuden must have been to some extend known among the Nō players. The Fūshi kaden was also copied for daimyō. Cf. Omote, ZZ, 549.

24. See also Kawase, Tanehiko-bon …, 8 and 10.

25. Cf. Kawase, Tanehiko-bon …, 3-4.

26. Yoshida Tōgo, “Zeshi rokujū igo Sarugaku dangi ni tsukite” and Zeshi rokujū igo Sarugaku dangi.

27. See also introd., note 7 and pp. 61 and 64.

28. See also Kawase, ZJD, 3-4 and TZN, 53.

29. Kawase had himself already noticed that one of the treatises (Yūgaku shudō fūken) was not in Zeami's handwriting. Cf. Kawase, ZJD, 36-37. In a recent article Omote has, in a very convincing manner, tried to prove on the grounds of letter-usage that four texts could definitely not be in Zeami's handwriting. Cf. Omote Akira & Gotō Yūko, “Zeami no hiragana-gaki no yōjihō no tokushoku”. The four texts in question are Fūshi kaden, Shikadō, Kakyō and Rikugi. The sixth text Yūgaku geifū goi (=Goi) was copied together with the Shikadō. Cf. Omote, ZZ, 557 and 563. Five Nō texts and both letters are now considered to be in Zeami's handwriting. Cf. Omote Akira, “Zeami jihitsu monjo wo megutte”, 1.

30. In Kawase's text edition TZN, 23 texts were included. Likewise western authors such as Benl, O'Neill and Sieffert who have taken Kawase's text edition as their basis, give 23 titles in their surveys. Today two of these texts (Ongyoku goi and Ongyoku no uchi ni mutsu no daiji) are no longer regarded as being Zeami's.

31. For the principal text editions from 1909 onwards, see introd., notes 1 and 7-14. Konishi, Zeami-shū is not mentioned there because it does not include the SD.

32. For a good chronological survey of the 21 writings see Hisamatsu & Nishio, KN, 312.

33. This was the title of this treatise in Yoshida's text edition of 1909. From two places in chapter V of the Fūshi kaden (Omote, ZZ, 42 and 44) and the postscript to the Kakyō (Omote, ZZ, 109) it appears that Fūshi kaden was the title. However, Zeami certainly used the short title Kaden, as is evident from, for instance, sections 3 and 19 of the SD.

34. According to Omote, however, this date is not certain. He suspects rather strongly that the postscript was added later by someone else. Cf. Omote, ZZ, 552.

35. Sections 3 and 19. It is not clear whether it was Motoyoshi who was quoting from the treatises or Zeami himself during the conversations. There is more on this question on p. 73.

36. For a short discussion of the content of the works see McKinnon, “Zeami on the Nō …”, 110-118 and Tsubaki, “An Analysis …”, 226-235.

37. This is evident from the postscript of the Kashu no uchi nukigaki (Omote, ZZ, 71).

38. For a good description of the Kakyō see the recent article of Mark J. Nearman, “Kakyō: Zeami's Fundamental Principles of Acting”, 333-336.

39. Nōsakusho is the title given by Yoshida. From the SD and the Shiki shūgen (see p. 57 and section 82, note 4) it appears that Sandō is the correct title. Cf. Omote, ZZ, 560.

40. Cf. Fūshi kaden, chapter VI (Omote, ZZ, 47).

41. In sections 2, 112, 118, 134 and 135. See also pp. 73 and 75.

42. For a good introduction to the Kyūi see Mark J. Nearman, “Zeami's Kyūi: A Pedagogical Guide for Teachers of Acting”, 299-305.

43. The Fūgyokushū is quoted in sections 92 and 108. The Shudōsho is referred to in section 157. See also pp. 73 and 75.

44. Cf. Kanai, Nō no kenkyū, 880 and Omote, ZZ, 567.

45. For a good, concise discussion of Zeami's theories see also the contribution of Katō Shūichi in the text edition of Omote (ZZ, 515-541).

46. Cf. Omote, ZZ, 55.

47. Cf. chapter III (Omote, ZZ, 37).

48. Zeami gives a concrete example of this in section 117 of the SD.

49. See for example section 39 of the SD about what he calls “to deceive the people” (hito no kokoro wo bakasu).

50. Cf. Fūshi kaden, chapter III (Omote, ZZ, 36).

51. Ibid.

52. Cf. Tsubaki, “An Analysis …”, 109. For an exposition of the changes in the meaning of the concept of yūgen in the writings on poetry see Tsubaki, “An Analysis …”, 97-109, Hisamatsu Sen'ichi, The Vocabulary of Japanese Literary Aesthetics, 33-40 and 112, and Robert H. Brower, Japanese Court Poetry, 265-271. Yūgen is also considered briefly in the recent study Izutsu, The Theory of Beauty …, 26-28. This is in the first place a philosophical treatise, rather unapproachable for the layman and moreover presented in an English strongly influenced by Japanese.

53. Cf. Tsubaki, “An Analysis …”, 103-104.

54. See on this Tsubaki, “An Analysis …”, 111-112.

55. Cf. Omote, ZZ, 97.

Bibliography

Abbreviations

KN—Karonshū Nōgakuronshū (see Hisamatsu & Nishio)

MN—Monumenta Nipponica

NKBT—Nihon koten bungaku taikei

SD—Sarugaku dangi

TZN—Tōchū Zeami nijūsanbu-shū (see Kawase)

ZJD—Zeami jihitsu denshoshū (see Kawase)

ZZ—Zeami Zenchiku (see Omote)

ZZS—Zoku Zeami shinkō (see Kōsai)

Titles mentioned in the notes

Brower, Robert H., Japanese Court Poetry, Stanford, 1961.

Hisamatsu Sen'ichi & Nishio Minoru, Karonshū Nōgakuronshū, Tōkyō: Iwanami shoten, 1961 (NKBT 65).

Hisamatsu Sen'ichi, The Vocabulary of Japanese Literary Aesthetics, Tōkyō: Centre for East Asian Cultural Studies, 1963.

Izutsu Toshihiko & Toyo, The Theory of Beauty in the Classical Aesthetics of Japan, The Hague-Boston-London, 1981 [In Appendix I: Izutsu (1981)].

Kanai Kiyomitsu, Nō no kenkyū, Tōkyō: Ōfūsha, 1969.

Kawase Kazuma, Zeami jihitsu denshoshū, Tōkyō: Wanya shoten, 1943.

———, Tōchū Zeami nijūsanbu-shū, Tōkyō: Nōgakusha, 1945.

———, Tanehiko-bon Sarugaku dangi kaisetsu, Tōkyō: Yūshō-dō shoten, 1979 (Seikadō kikōsho 7).

Konishi Jin'ichi, Nōgakuron kenkyū, Tōkyō: Hanawa shobō, 1972 (Hanawa sensho 10).

——— (comp.), Zeami-shū, Tōkyō: Chikuma shobō, 1970 (Nihon no shisō 8).

Kōsai Tsutomu, Zoku Zeami shinkō, Tōkyō: Wanya shoten, 1970.

McKinnon, Richard N., “Zeami on the Nō: A Study of 15th Century Japanese Dramatic Criticism”, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harverd University, 1951 [In Appendix I: McKinnon (1951)].

Nearman, Mark J., “Kakyō: Zeami's Fundamental Principles of Acting”, MN XXXVII (1982), 333-374 & 459-494 and XXXVIII (1983), 49-71 [In Appendix I: Nearman (1982-1983)].

Nishi Kazuyoshi, Zeami kenkyū, Tōkyō: Sarubia shuppan, 1968.

Nogami Toyoichirō (ed.), Sōgō shinteihan Nōgaku zensho, Tōkyō: Sōgensha, 1979-1981, 7 vols.

Omote Akira & Katō Shūichi, Zeami Zenchiku, Tōkyō: Iwanami shoten, 1979 (1st ed. 1974) (Nihon shisō taikei 24).

Omote Akira & Gotō Yūko, “Zeami no hiragana-gaki no yōjihō no tokushoku”, Nōgaku kenkyū, 5 (1979-1980), 1-90 & 6 (1980), 1-80.

Omote Akira, “Zeami jihitsu monjo wo megutte”, Zeami-Sono shōgai to gyōseki, Kokuritsu Nōgakudō kaijō isshūnen kinen (Aki no tokubetsu tenji), catalogue publ. by Kokuritsu gekijō, 1984, 1-3.

Tsubaki, Andrew Takahisa, “An Analysis and Interpretation of Zeami's concept of Yūgen”, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, 1967 [In Appendix III: Tsubaki (1967)].

Yoshida Tōgo, “Zeshi rokujū igo Sarugaku dangi ni tsukite”, Nōgaku, vol. 6, 6 (June 1908), 20-25.

———, Zeshi rokujū igo Sarugaku dangi kōi narabi hoketsu, Tōkyō: Nōgakkan, October 1908.