^{page 100 note 1} The characters with which the name Kusemai came normally to be written have also been found used on occasions of Bugaku dances and Kōwaka-mai (see Matsusaburō, Toda, ‘Kusemai no kenkyū’, Engekishi kenkyū, II, 1932, 21–2).Google Scholar When he did not use kana, Zeami Motokiyo (1363–1443) always used the above character to write the word kuse, but as the Manzai Jugō nikki spells it phonetically with Chinese characters in an entry for 1427 (quoted Kobayashi, Nōgaku shiryō, 70), there was evidently no universally accepted way of writing ‘Kusemai’ at any rate by the first half of the fifteenth century. See Iwahashi Koyata, Nihon geinō-shi, 1951, 45, on the various ways in which the name was written.

^{page 101 note 1} These are henceforth referred to collectively as the ‘Writings’ and are regarded as comprising the articles edited by Kawase Kazuma in his (Tōchū) Zeami nijūsambu-shū, 1945, although, strictly speaking, not all of them were written down by Zeami himself. For convenience, page references have been given to this single-volume work only, but comparison with Nose Asaji's two-volume Zeami jūrokubu-shō hyūshaku, 1944, is assumed throughout.

^{page 101 note 2} Also referred to in the ‘Writings’ as Kaidō-kudari. Although Sanari Kentarū (Yūkyoku taihan, VII, 62) states that there is no Nō containing this Kusemai, the Kokon yōkyoku kaidai, 482, and Nonomura Kaizō (‘Genkō kakuryū Rankyoku-kō’, Nōen nisshō, 108) both give Ōsaka monogurui as such a play. The text of this play was not available to me, but the self-contained nature of Tōgoku-kudari, its unsuitable length for inclusion intact in a Nō play (the Kokon yōkyoku kaidai remarks that Ōsaka monogurui is ‘an extraordinarily long piece’), the fact that Saikoku-kudari, to which it is very similar, has not been so used, and Zeami's quotation of the first lines of these pieces in the ‘Go-on’ (Kawase, op. cit., 218), leave no doubt that the present Rankyoku texts are the original ones and not, as so many are, extracts from Nō plays.

^{page 101 note 3} The long quotation in the ‘Go-on’ (Kawase, op. cit., 215) which is described as Taishi, one of the Kusemai telling the story of Prince Shōtoku, corresponds to the whole kuse section, consisting of kuri, sashi, and kuse proper, of the Nō Jōgū Taishi. The impression given by the description, that Zeami was perhaps quoting the whole of the Kusemai and not part of the Nō, is therefore somewhat doubtful. (Although the Nō is not now performed, the text is given in the Yōkyoku sōsho, II, 1914–15, and in the Yōkyoku sambyakugojūban-shū, Nihon meicho zenshvi series, XXIX, 1928. The present Rankyoku Jōgū Taishi omits the line which forms the kuri in the play and which is the beginning of the sashi according to Zeami.)

^{page 102 note 1} Hereafter, the term ‘Kusemai’ is used to mean only the independent pieces and ‘kuse’ the forms found within Nō plays.

^{page 102 note 2} But the quotation in the ‘Go-on’ (Kawase, op. cit., 216) of a line from a piece called Ri Fujin, which was set to music by Kan-ami, proves to be the same as the beginning of the sashi preceding the kuse in Zeami's play Hana gatami. Ri Fujin is not described in the ‘Go-on’ as a Kusemai and if it were a Nō play, like most of the other pieces quoted there that are not so described, this would be some indication that Zeami used in bis play the kuse from the Nō Ri Fujin and, therefore, that kuse were used in plays before the death of Kan-ami.

^{page 102 note 3} According to Nogami Toyoichirō, Kan-ami Kiyotsugu, 1939,134. There and in the following pages he also gives figures concerning the use of kuse in each of the five traditional groups of Nō plays.

^{page 102 note 4} This was the view of the writer of the Sarugaku denki (written in the early eighteenth century; contained in Enseki jisshu, I) who stated that the 66 pieces performed by Hata no Kokatsu for Prince Shōtoku (572–621) were Kusemai and that they were made into Nōl; by the addition of other sung parts at the beginning and end. Although this latter theory has often been dismissed, it is undoubtedly what happened to many Kusemai.

^{page 102 note 5} The Kanze, Hōshō, and Komparu schools use the name ‘Rankyoku’ for their pieces, and the Kongō and Kita schools ‘Kusemai’. Strictly speaking, Rankyoku is a wider term since it means ‘advanced, developed musical pieces’; but as nearly all the pieces chosen for their musical quality and ability to stand alone are the kuse sections of plays, Rankyoku and Kusemai are almost synonymous as used in present-day Nō.

^{page 102 note 6} See Tatsuyuki, Takano, Nihon engeki no kenkyō, II, 1928, 156.Google Scholar

^{page 102 note 7} As mentioned above, the Rankyoku Jōgū Taishi, for example, omits part of the introduction to the kuse proper. It is therefore usually preferable to refer to the full text of the play when one is known to exist.

^{page 103 note 1} ‘Sarugaku dangi’ (Kawase, op. cit., 295). The short song known as shidai which is found in present-day Nō consists of two lines of 7 and 5 syllables which are then repeated and followed by two more lines, usually of 7 and 4 syllables; see below, however, on the question of what Zeami meant by the term shidai.

^{page 103 note 2} ibid. and ‘Nōsakusho’ (ibid., 115).

^{page 103 note 3} See Toda, op. cit., 41–2, for details of the numbers of Nō having different types of kuse. (Tōgan kqji, however, has an ichi-dan kuse and not the fuller type of kuse as he indicates.) For the various types of kuse and the names given to them, see also such works as the introduction by Nonomura to Yōkyoku sambyakugojūban-shū, 46–7.

^{page 103 note 4} The kuri and sashi are of no fixed length and are sung out of time to the musical accompaniment, unlike the kuse itself. The sashi is not so much sung as delivered as a kind of chant or recitative.

^{page 103 note 5} Kawase, op. cit., 113.

^{page 103 note 6} ibid., 115.

^{page 104 note 1} ibid., 295.

^{page 104 note 2} That is, the texts of the seven plays given by Kawase in his Zeami jihitsu densho-shū, 1943. Five of these have kuse but all are ichi-dan kuse with no shidai. (To be exact, one of the five plays in question, a version of Yoro-boshi, is not in Zeami's own hand, but is a copy made in 1711 of a text written by Zeami.)

^{page 104 note 3} op. cit., 42–4.

^{page 104 note 4} ibid., 44.

^{page 105 note 1} ‘Go-on’ (Kawase, Zeami nijūsambu-shū, 202, 214).

^{page 105 note 2} See, for example, Kawase, Zeami jihitsu densho-shū, 159, 223.

^{page 105 note 3} Kawase, Zeami nijūsambu-shū, 113.

^{page 105 note 4} ibid., 115.

^{page 105 note 5} ‘Sarugaku dangi’ (ibid., 296). Rin-ami was also known as Tama-rin, but Kobayashi (‘ Tama-rin kō’, Muromachi nōgakki) pointed out that this was probably only a nickname descriptive of the first character of his name Rin-ami, used to distinguish him from a contemporary who had the same name written with a different first character.

^{page 105 note 6} ‘Go-on’ (Kawase, Zeami nijūsambu-shū, 217, 219) and ‘Sarugaku dangi’ (ibid., 296). Little is known about Nan-ami, who died in 1381, but he seems to have been one of the artistic coterie which the shogun Ashikaga Yoshimitsu gathered about him. It is clear from references in the ‘Writings’ that he had considerable musical skill and was a good counsellor to Kan-ami and his son.

^{page 105 note 7} ‘Go-on’ (ibid., 217).

^{page 105 note 8} ‘Go-on’ (ibid., 217, 219), and ‘Sarugaku dangi’ (ibid., 296).

^{page 106 note 1} ibid., 218–19.

^{page 106 note 2} A term for pieces in the original, thoroughgoing Kusemai style, as distinct from the later modified style.

^{page 106 note 3} Presumably because of the previous sentence, which states that the other three pieces mentioned were ‘within Sarugaku’, Nose (Zeami jūrokubu-shū hyōshaku, II, 236) read into tada the implication that Tōgoku-kudari and Saikoku-kudari were unconnected with Sarugaku. But this was patently not so: they are mentioned a number of times in the ‘Writings’ and even figure in the lists of noteworthy pieces in the ‘Go-on’; Zeami himself performed Tōgokukudari as a boy (‘Sarugaku dangi’: Kawase, Zeami nijūsambu-shū, 296); and both have survived to the present day as special sung pieces in the Nō repertoires. A comparison with a very similar but more explicit passage only a little, earlier in the same work (‘Go-on’: ibid., 217) which states that Shirahige, Tura no minato, and Jigoku were like true, uncompromising Kusemai even though they were within Sarugaku, while Tōgoku-kudari and Saikoku-kudari were much softer in style, suggests two possible interpretations of the passage in question: (i) The term ‘Sarugaku’ was used in the not uncommon meaning of ‘Nō play’, so that the sense was that ‘the three thoroughgoing Kusemai pieces have been used in Nō plays. Tōgoku-kudari and Saikoku-kudari are just literary compositions by Rin-ami…’; (ii) The writer, having already described the style of the three pieces, meant to reiterate that even these extreme Kusemai were found in Sarugaku (in addition, of course, to pieces in modified musical styles). In either case, the implication would be that the two pieces by Kin-ami were not comparable with the other three as Kusemai.

^{page 106 note 4} See Nogami, Kan-ami Kiyotsugu, 126–9, on this.

^{page 106 note 5} In most cases these kuse are described in the texts of the plays as ‘Kusemai’ or ‘Mai’ and, in some, the character concerned represents some kind of performer of Kusemai.

^{page 107 note 1} The text of this discarded play is available in a number of collections. Some of these (e.g. Yōkyoku hyōshaku, 1911–12, v, and Yōkyoku sambyakugojūban-shū) give the kuse as a long 2-dan kuse, but others (e.g., Yōkyoku sūsho, I, and Y၍kyoku zenshū, Kokumin bunko kankŋkai ed., II) divide it into two parts. It is true that the phrasing of the first shidai is repeated at the end of the first part, but the division into two parts probably only arose from the usage in the Kanze school which has two Rankyoku corresponding to the two parts of the kuse. In content the kuse is one connected piece and is so given in the Kita schools; cf. Yura no minato, n. 8, below.

^{page 107 note 2} Although this play is no longer in the repertoires, the text is given in the Yōkyoku sambyakugojūban-shū.

^{page 107 note 3} In all cases except Taishi only short quotations from the Kusemai are known. The names of the Kusemai are given in brackets after the names of the Nō plays in which the derived kuse are found. Two other Kusemai are mentioned in the ‘Writings’, Seisui-ji (‘Sarugaku dangi’: Kawase, Zeami nijūsambu-shū, 357) and Yoshino-yama (‘Go-on’: ibid., 201–2); but neither can be identified with any known kuse.

^{page 107 note 4} ‘Go-on’ (ibid., 219) and ‘Sarugaku dangi’ (ibid., 296).

^{page 107 note 5} ‘Go-on’ (ibid.,, 218). The ‘Sarugaku dangi’ (ibid., 295) quotes another line, also to be found in the kuse in Utaura, to illustrate a point about the music of Kusemai.

^{page 107 note 6} ‘Sarugaku dangi’ (ibid., 296).

^{page 107 note 7} ‘Go-on’ (ibid., 219). See below concerning the sometime use of this Kusemai in the Nō Tsuchi-guruma.

^{page 107 note 8} ‘Go-on’ (ibid., 218). As Zeami quoted a line from this piece (now to be found in the Rankyoku Yura monogurui) in the ‘Sarugaku dangi’ (ibid., 295) to illustrate a point about Kusemai, Yura no minato almost certainly had the standard form—beginning and ending with a shidai and being in two dan—which he described there. Unfortunately, the text of the Nō in which it was used is not extant to show for certain that it contained shidai, but the line quoted in the ‘Go-on ’ is shown as a kuri, and the present Rankyoku text of Yura monogurui shows that there followed a sashi and a two-dan kuse. (The Rankyoku is really one continuous piece, as in the Kita school. The Kanze division into two parts is purely arbitrary; cf. Oki no in above.)

^{page 108 note 1} ‘Go-on’ (ibid., 199–200).

^{page 108 note 2} ibid., 200.

^{page 108 note 3} ibid., 215. The text of this play, which is not now performed, is given in Yōkyoku sōsho, II, and Yōkyoku sambyakugojūban-shū.

^{page 108 note 4} ibid., 213.

^{page 108 note 5} ibid., 218.

^{page 108 note 6} ibid., 212. As the lines quoted in the ‘Go-on’ are the same as the kuri, sashi, and the beginning of the kuse in the present-day play Yoro-boshi (this alternative form of the name Yoro-bōshi, used in the play itself, has been current since the time of Zeami and is the more common now), it is clear that Kanze Motomasa, the author of that play, used some form of Zeami's Kusemai when writing it. But Zeami used this same Kusemai in his own play Yoro-boshi (see Kawase, Zeami jihitsu densho-shū, 259–60) which was in existence by 1429; and since Motomasa did not die until 1432, he may have taken over the kuse section from Zeami's play instead of direct from the Kusemai. Any modifications that Zeami made to the original Kusemai in using it in his Nō would, in that case, have been repeated by Motomasa. It appears from the ‘Sarugaku dangi’ (Kawase, Zeami nijūsambu-shū, 295) that such modifications were made for, immediately before the statement that Kusemai should begin and end with shidai and should have two dan, it says ‘The Kusemai Yoro-boshi is essentially Kusemai in character’. Thus, originally it was probably a model of its kind and much closer to Zeami's regular form than can be shown now.

^{page 108 note 7} ‘Go-on’ (ibid., 216). This piece is not described in the ‘Go-on’ as a Kusemai but, unless it was itself a Nō, it is more likely to have been a Kusemai than any other type of independent sung piece since the quotation in the ‘Go-on ’ introduces the kuse in Hana-gatami.

^{page 108 note 8} The section in question is not described as a Kusemai in the play, but as a character representing a woman dresses in male attire and then performs what is a kuse section in the Nō, it seems very likely that it was intended as such.

^{page 109 note 9} Although the type of performance represented is not specified in the play, the donning of a ceremonial hat (eboshi) used by men and a comparison with the Nō Giō show that it was probably intended as a Kusemai.

^{page 109 note 10} For the reasons given for Kakitsubata above, it is likely that the kuse section was intended as a representation of a Kusemai.

^{page 109 note 11} To have the Shirabyōsbi Giō and Hotoke dance a Kusemai together, as this play does, was probably an anachronism, but it may indicate that Kusemai were performed by Shirabyōshi in the Muromachi period.

^{page 109 note 12} Because both this play and Tōei have the same sashi and kuse, telling of one Huo Ti's alleged invention of the boat, and this story is unconnected with the subjectrmatter of either play, Iwahashi (Nihon geinō-shi, 48–9) has suggested that it was probably a Kusemai current at the time the plays were written. In neither play, however, is it described as a Kusemai.

^{page 109 note 13} This play is not in the present repertoires, but it has two sections, described in the text as Kusemai, which are still used as the Rankyoku Bijin soroe and Tsumado. The full text of the play is given in Yōkyoku hyōshaku, v, but as this is unreliable in its marking of the parts of the kuse section (in neither case, for example, does it mark the sashi), comparison should be made with the Rankyoku texts.

^{page 109 note 14} This play is not in the repertoires, but the full text is given in Shin yōkyoku hyakuban, 1912, and the kuse, described in the play as a Kusemai, is used as a Rankyoku.

^{page 109 note 15} See n. 12, above.

^{page 109 note 1} ‘Sarugaku dangi’ (Kawase, Zeami nijūsamhu-shū, 295).

^{page 110 note 1} ibid., 319.