The Works and Mysteries of Sharaku

June 12th, 2011:

Sharaku's Actor Segawa Kikunojō III as Oshizu, Wife of Tanabe Bunzō. [1]

As I mentioned last time, today we went to the last day of the Sharaku exhibit held at the Tokyo National Museum in Ueno.  Tōshūsai Sharaku (東洲斎 写楽) has become one of the most famous ukiyo-e artists even though his career spanned a brief 10 months from 1794-1795.  His fame comes from his unique style in depicting the kabuki actors that make up the majority of his work.  His style was drastically different from other artists at the time, his portraits dramatic and imbuing the personality of the actors and the character of the actor's role in these plays like no other.  Sharaku has claim by some to be one of the greatest portrait artists ever and created a style that was the most groundbreaking since the introduction of polychromatic printing about 30 years prior.  What has added to Sharaku's fame is the mysteries of his life and work are as compelling as the art itself.  Most of his life is a mystery as almost nothing is known of him and there's even debate to whether he ever actually existed.  His abrupt entrance into the art world, rapid change of style and mysterious disappearance less than a year later only add to the intrigue created by his revolutionary work.  I hope to explain here his works and what is known about his life and possibly uncover some of that mystery before describing the exhibit and my experiences there.

Attempting to write an actual biography of the famed artist is basically impossible.  So little is known about him that writing about the certainty of his actual existence, much less actual details of most of his life is an exercise in foolishness.  Instead, what I will do here is discuss the various theories surrounding Sharaku and explain the good and bad parts of each.  I will do the same for the theories explaining his disappearance in 1795 and hopefully show not only the difficulty of this task, but also some possibilities of his true identity and an explanation and context for his work.

One theory being that Sharaku isn't a person at all.  Instead it was a creation of the publishing house and other artists that had worked there. [2]  The reasons given for this theory is the rapidly changing style through Sharaku's short career and even his name of Sharaku.  Sharaku might be taken as short for Sharakusai (洒落臭い) meaning impertinent, imprudent, cheeky or in this context 'nonsense.'  If this were true, even the name would just be an inside joke of the artists impersonating this new artist. [3]  However, without much else to go on and lack of any confirmation, this theory still seems unlikely.

Another theory is that Sharaku is actually the great and famous artist Hokusai himself.  Hokusai had disappeared from the art world during the years of 1792-1796, in between which Sharaku had his art career. [4] Also, Sharaku and Hokusai share many of the same stylistic features, specifically in their samurai prints which are more traditional in format and depiction, making it easier to compare styles.  Since these prints had less room for artistic license, Hokusai would have a harder time trying to conceal his artistic identity and that's why the stylistic similarities have come out. [5]  Here's an example of this stylistic similarity with the depiction of the same kabuki actor by Sharaku and Hokusai:

Sharaku's Actor Sakata Hangorō III as Fujikawa Mizuemon. [6]

Hokusai's Actor Sakata Hangorō III as a Traveling Priest, actually Chinzei Hachirō Tamteomo. [7]

Notice specifically the similarity in faces between these prints by Sharaku and Hokusai. [8]  This theory is not limited to just Hokusai though, as the painter Maruyama Okyo, the writer Jippensha Ikku and even his publisher Tsutaya have been theorized as actually being Sharaku. [9]  Each of these theories have various points, but none very compelling without any evidence.

At the present time, the most compelling argument is that Sharaku was Saitō Jūrōbei, a Nō actor under the Lord of Awa. [10]  This is the most compelling argument due to having some historical documentation.  This was written about by the historian Saitō Gesshin in his 1844 update to Zōho ukiyo-e ruikō (Enlarged History of Floating World Prints).  He had also written that Saitō Jūrōbei had lived in Hachōbori, Edo while with the visiting Nō troupe of the Lord of Awa (present-day Tokushima). [11]  For many years this was questioned, as there was no documentation of such a person existing even though there should have been.  The source came into question for its accuracy 50 years after the fact and with nothing at all to confirm it.  However, information has been found of a Saitō Jūrōbei living in Hachōbori now making it the most likely identity of Sharaku. [12]

There are also other points that strengthen this argument.  The Lord of Awa had arrived in Edo on the 6th day of the 4th month of 1793 (4/6/1793) and then was absent from the 21st day of the 4th month of 1794 (4/21/1794) to the 2nd day of the 4th month of 1796 (4/2/1796).  If Saitō Jūrōbei did not have to accompany his lord during this time, then he would have been free to attempt printmaking at this time, which coincided with his active period of the 5th month of 1794 to the 1st month of 1795. [13]  His proximity to Osaka from Awa means he might have trained under Ryūkōsai who was making portraits of similar settings and style as Sharaku 3 years prior to Sharaku's career.  This can't be proven, but the connection does fit considering the pieces of the puzzle that are known. [14]  This is the only theory with some historical evidence, due to its recording in the art histories relatively contemporary to the time of Sharaku.  However, with so little information and historical fact along with many competing theories, Sharaku still remains to this day not only one of the greatest art mysteries of Japan, but throughout the art world as well.

Sharaku's period of work is just a short 10 months in the years of 1794 and 1795.  However, during this time he would have an incredible output of 164 known works (basically one new work every other day).  Almost all of these works are of kabuki actors in their roles, as ukiyo-e was a popular form of advertising the kabuki performances.  His other works are that of sumo and a few memorial prints.  His work is often broken up into 4 phases, not only because most of his prints advertised for 4 separate kabuki seasons, but also because his style changed dramatically in each one.  At the time, kabuki would have the same play for some weeks at a time and then take a break before a new play performance would begin.

Sharaku's entry into the art world and 1st period came in the 5th month of 1794.  This first period comprises of 28 ōban size ōkubi-e portraits backed by ground mica. [15]  Ōban refers to the size of the print being 10 x 15 inches or 25.4 x 38 centimeters. [16]  The ōkubi-e referring to the large portraits that were the nature of his form of portraiture during this stage. [17]  This first stage is Sharaku's most famous, most important and best work.  All of the prints that I have showed so far from Sharaku have been from this first phase and all of his very famous works have come from this stage.  Here are a few more from this 1st phase of work:

Sharaku's Actor Bando Mitsugorō II as Ishii Genzō. [18]

Sharaku's Actors Nakajima Wadaemon as Bōdara Chōzaemon and Nakamura Konozō as Gon of the Kanagawaya. [19]
There are also a few prints like this where two actors have been paired together in the same print.

The prints from this 1st phase are spectacular, especially when considering that almost no one else at the time was doing this.  Ukiyo-e prints had a set style by this time, as can be seen in the similarity in style of the ukiyo-e prints by other artists that I have showed in the past two posts and from any other ukiyo-e prints you have also seen.  The prints in the 1st phase of Sharaku's works push past these traditional boundaries.  The subjects take up almost all of the space and are enlarged to a half body portrait compared to the full-length works that most other artists were doing.  This style also allows for a larger face, which when combined with the subject's eyes focusing outside of the canvas creates much more energy in the work than other works where the subject is framed neatly inside the borders of the canvas.  Even though the designs are simple in detail, the emphasis of strong lines creates personality, character and added energy to the subjects.  In this way, the character is no longer the idealized form as in many other ukiyo-e prints, but a lifelike portrayal of the actor with his characteristics and even flaws to see, as well as the personality of the part that he is playing.  This life-likeness and energy in the subject matter is unique in the form of ukiyo-e and make his works really powerful, especially if you get the chance to see the pairing of the kabuki actors staring down at each other, looking like they are about ready to leap out of the page and strike down the other.  Even with a singular color background, the ground purple mica of these prints creates a texture and shine that adds to the work as a whole.

Only 2-3 months later, his style starts to change in what is known as his 2nd phase, releasing 38 more prints for the next kabuki season.  This time, 8 are of the ōban size and 30 are hosoban size, all being full-length style portraits. [20]  Hosoban is 5 x 13 inches or 14.5 x 33 centimeters, so smaller than the ōban size. [21]  At this point, the characteristics that made his work from the 1st phase so remarkable has been subdued and is slowly conforming back to the traditional ukiyo-e style.  Here are some of his works from the 7th and 8th months of 1794:

Sharaku's Shinozuka Uraemon Reading the Prologue at the Miyako Theater. [22]
This print to me represents a middle ground of the styles from the 2 phases.

Sharaku's Actors Ichikawa Komazō III as Kameya Chūbei  and Nakayama Tomisaburō as Umegawa. [23]
One of the more famous works from his 2nd phase, and one of the only famous works not from the 1st phase.

Sharaku's Actors Ichikawa Omezō as Tomita Hyōtarō and Ōtani Oniji III as Kawashima Jibugo. [24]
The same actor in this print was in the first print I showed of Sharaku's in the last post if you wish to compare the style of the 2 phases.

Sharaku's Actor Bandō Hikosaburō III as Obiya Chōemon. [25]

Sharaku's Actors Segawa Tomisaburō II as the Courtesan Toyama and Ishikawa Kurizō as Higashiyama Yoshiwakamaru. [26]

These 5 prints give a good range of the stylistic changes during Sharaku's 2nd phase.  During this time, the characters shrink fitting inside the page instead of looming larger than life outside the bounds of the prints as in the 1st phase.  There's less use of line involved in the composition, making the pieces much like the formal style of ukyio-e art and also removing the character and personality that the subjects radiated before.  The energy from before is gone as the subjects interact fully inside the frame, instead of beyond the borders as in previous works.  In general, this 2nd phase is a reverting back to the traditional styles and forms of ukiyo-e and a backing away from the elements that made the 1st phase groundbreaking, unique and powerful.

However, this change of style might not have been done fully based on choice.  There's a lot of reasoning suggesting that Sharaku was persuaded to change his style.  This might have been done by the asking of his publisher, Tsutaya to increase the amount of buyers by making more widely appealing works and to use cheaper materials. [27]  Or Tsutaya might have asked Sharaku to switch to full-length portraits and change his style because people were uncomfortable with this 'extreme realism' that Sharaku had introduced. [28]  In fact, Sharaku's prints could have been penalized by the kabuki actors he depicted and their fans.  The costs of prints might have been subsidized by the kabuki estabilishment and they would not have been happy about being depicted realistically, especially the onnagata, or female impersonators who were depicted as man portraying woman in Sharaku's works instead of like women in the normal prints.  They could have used the withholding of subsidies to also force the change if these subsidies did indeed exist. [29]  These factors combined with him probably not having fully developed his style by this time could have led to the rapid changes in style that we see from him. [30]  This pattern continues through the 3rd and 4th phases as well.  It's easy to notice his style continuing to change during this time, and you might also be able to notice that his prints continue to shrink in size and cuts in cost, as the mica backing is also done away with in his later prints.

His 3rd phase is from the 11th month of 1794 and also happens to be his most prolific.  During this time, he produced 64 different prints.  4 ōban sized, 47 hosoban sized and 13 aiban sized.  These are all in the full-length style, except for 3 aiban in the ōkubi-e style that was the mark of his earlier work. [31]  The aiban prints are 9 x 13 inches or 22.5 x 34.5 centimeters, so these are even smaller and would be the smallest size of his prints. [32]  Here are some prints from this phase representative of the new changes in Sharaku's style and work:

Sharaku's Actor Segawa Kikunojō III, also called Hamamuraya Rokō , as the Maid Ohama. [33]
One of the three aiban prints in the ōkubi-e style.  His original way of depicting portraiture is back, but his style has changed as it is more formal and lacks the realistic blemishes of his earlier work.  Also the mica backing is gone, as this is just ink on paper.

Sharaku's Actor Sanokawa Ichimatsu III as Ihohata. [34]
His sparse backgrounds that drew the focus only on the person of before is gone as background elements and even props are being added to his compositions.

Sharaku's Actor Sawamura Sōjūrō III as Ōtomo no Kuronushi. [35]
More props on his actors.  It feels like his focus has changed from focusing on the realistic depictions of the people in his portraits to focusing on the costumes that they wore.  Many of the pieces seem to focus in on the clothing in fine detail, while the rest of the print is simple.  Much like his first phase when the faces were detailed and everything else was simplified.  Maybe Sharaku wanting to only draw realistically and no longer able to do so with faces, moved on to the clothing as the next logical step.

Sharaku's Actor Ichikawa Komazō III as Shinozuka Gorō (Sadatsuna). [36]

During this phase, much of his work is working in the same style as his contemporaries.  Even the ōkubi-e prints that were the definition of his style in the 1st phase have changed.  The removal of the ground mica in the background causes a large loss of effect from his earlier prints.  Also, there is less focus on realistic depiction in the faces making for less personality in the characters and a more formal form.  I'm sure the actors portraying these women in the prints were happy for this change.  Due to these changes, the ōkubi-e style isn't even so novel, as it was also already being used in prints of beautiful women at the time called Bijinga (美人畫), meaning aptly enough, 'beautiful person picture.'  Although there is still one print in the ōkubi-e style depicting a male actor in this phase, so it's not completely empty of innovation.  This would be the last time though that Sharaku would use the ōkubi-e style in his art.

His other prints also fall in line with the more traditional form and style of ukiyo-e.  The actors have become framed within the print and they take their formal forms here with traditional motifs along the borders, in the background and even as props interacting with the character.  The excessive realism of his earlier works are gone, and along with it the energy and personality imbued with it.  However, I feel not all of this realism that Sharaku strived so hard to depict throughout his art is lost.  Possibly not being allowed to use the realism that he wanted to in the people and faces of his portraits, he instead has to place that within the costumes that the kabuki actors are wearing.  For many of the works from this phase, the clothing is highly detailed and becomes the focus and what the eye is attracted to while looking at the piece.

His 4th phase would be in the 1st month of 1795 with 15 prints.  Of these 15 prints, 10 are hosoban and 5 are aiban.  All of them being full-length portraits. [37]  These 15 prints would be the last of his works in ukiyo-e.

Sharaku's Actor Ichikawa Ebizō as Kudō Saemon Suketsune. [38]
The 4th phase still has some emphasis in costume, although even now the details and lines have become weaker.

Sharaku's Actor Sawamura Sōjūrō III as Satsuma Gengobei. [39]
Otherwise, many of his prints from this time look no different than those of even Suzuki Harunobu's work.  Even though Harunobu preceded Sharaku by 30 years and was the beginning of full color prints in ukiyo-e.   

Sharaku's Actor Iwai Kumesaburō as the Geisha Kumekichi. [40]
His original style has diminished even to the point that some of his works start to feel very bland.

Sharaku's Actor Ichikawa Danjūrō VI as Soga no Gorō Tokimune. [41]
Combined with his flaws in depicting bodies and other parts besides the face, it seems unlikely that Sharaku could continue to match his other contemporaries using the same style.

There is not much else to say here besides what I wrote in the captions.  By the 4th Phase, Sharaku had completely transferred his style into the traditional ukiyo-e style.  It would be difficult to pick out anything remarkable about these prints compared to Sharaku's contemporaries at the time.  Combined with the difficulties he had throughout his career of depicting bodies and other parts besides the face accurately and aesthetically pleasing, Sharaku was not going to be able to match other artists while using the same style.  The things that set him apart were his focus on realism and using that for portraits with the ōkubi-e style.  With all of that removed by this phase, his works during this time don't have much going for them.

After these last few prints, Sharaku had disappeared never to be heard from again.  Just like his life before emerging as an artist, there are a variety of theories on the reason of his disappearance.  These theories revolve around two main ideas that either his work's unpopularity led to his quitting or not having further opportunities; or other commitments forced him to leave the art world.

The lack of sales on his work led to his quitting or departure from the art world is the first main theory.  Around the time of Sharaku, Ota Nanpō, who was an artist and writer wrote of Sharaku in the Ukiyo-e ruikō, the predecessor to the book I mentioned earlier. [42]  At the time he wrote about Sharaku as,

"Sharaku designed likenesses of Kabuki actors, but because he depicted them too truthfully, his prints did not conform to accepted ideas, and his career was short." [43]

Based on other artists at the time, Sharaku's prints weren't popular and didn't sell because of his focus on realism.  If this is true, he might not have been able to find a publisher willing to publish his works even if he wished to continue.  This suggests that perhaps his publisher Tsutaya finally ended his encouragement and support of Sharaku due to disappointing sales of his work. [44]  Or perhaps this isn't the case.  Utamaro, who was one of the most famous and popular ukiyo-e artists and others also left publisher Tsutaya at the same time, but they went on to other publishers to continue working while Sharaku didn't.  Maybe Sharaku had made his statement to the art world and wasn't going to continue dealing with market and publisher demands regarding his work. [45]  Going further on this thought with the other ideas, perhaps Sharaku intended to continue working, but couldn't find the support of another publisher due to his breaking from traditional ideas in his work.  Or it's even possible that Sharaku had the support of Tsutaya to continue working even though his prints weren't selling, but Sharaku wouldn't have the same support from other publishers because of this.  These are the main arguments for this theory.

The other theory is based on Sharaku having other commitments or other reasons to leave the art world.  Most of these focus on the basis of Sharaku being the Nō actor Saitō Jūrōbei.  If Sharaku was Saitō Jūrōbei, then he might have had commitments to his Nō troupe or to his lord that would have forced the end of his art career. [46]  Other speculation is that perhaps his master was unhappy with his association with kabuki, which was of a lower class than the Nō, which he was a part of.  This is only speculation though. [47]

Some of these theories are better than others.  At some point, the unpopularity of his work and the economic reasons had to factor into the decision somehow.  Whether by his publisher, Tsutaya, another publisher that Sharaku might have switched to or even the support he needed to continue working regardless.  The theory of his commitments seem a little more shaky.  With the use of an alias and the only documented identity of Sharaku coming many years after the fact, it seems unlikely that his identity would be well known.  In terms of the commitments to his Nō troupe, this would definitely be a factor, but with his lord still gone until the 4th month of 1796 according to the sources I found, it also seems unlikely that there was an immediate need to end his career after the 1st month of 1795.  Also many of these theories are based on his forcing to quit based on external forces, but I wonder if there was not some decision on his own to leave the art world when he did.  Whether he felt he had completed what he had set out to do, was tired of the changes he had to make to his art or discouraged from the lack of success that he had.

His disappearance in 1795 was so complete that we almost would have never heard of him again, much less would he have the fame that he has today without the work of Julius Kurth.  Julius Kurth was an art historian and in 1910 discovered, conducted research and wrote a book about the artist, bringing him back from the shadows as Sharaku had stayed disappeared before this.  Upon being compared as equal to Rembrandt and Velazquez as the world's greatest portraitists, Sharaku had re-entered the spotlight. [48]  After this, he has come to be known as one of the most important ukiyo-e artists, and as first written by Julius Kurth, has status as one of the world's best portraitists as well.

However, part of me wonders if his fame as one of the most famous ukiyo-e artists is really deserved.  The work of his masterpieces as an artist isn't in question, but his fame as a ukiyo-e artist is puzzling.  We already know that his prints weren't commercially successful and the actors that he depicted didn't like them either.  While some artists have success even without commercial success, we can't even say that Sharaku had success artistically at the time.  Other men of culture that were his contemporaries didn't see his work as a success either.

"(Sharaku) drew portraits of actors, but he ended up drawing them in an undesirable way as he was trying hard to depict them too truthfully," as written by Ota Shokusanjin, a writer during the time of Sharaku. [49]

If he wasn't even successful as an artist then, then why he is one of the most famous ukiyo-e artists now.  Being rediscovered and deemed important by Julius Kurth, a German, at the time of 1910 complicates Sharaku's legacy as a ukiyo-e artist.  Is his legacy accurate in the realm of Japanese ukiyo-e prints or a construction helped along by an outside force?  While puzzling over this dilemma and researching for anything that might help decide things one way or the other, I came across the writing of James A. Michener on the subject.  At this point for me, things had come scarily full circle.  James A. Michener is the famous writer from the town of Doylestown, Pennsylvania.  Doylestown just happens to be the town near where I came from upon moving to Japan.  I had now reached full circle here.  I had moved from a town around Doylestown to Japan in order to study about a Japanese artist written about from the most famous person from Doylestown.  At this point, pushed along by the insane amount of time it has taken to do the research for this post, it felt like it was a sign that it was time to pack it up and move back.  However, I'm still here and Michener's comments on Sharaku really match my feelings on Sharaku, although I needed the much more elegant words of Michener to finish piecing it all together for me.

"His power lay not in technical skill but in the psychological content of his portraits.  This is a dangerous qualification to propose because it immediately accepts that a western mind is applying a western concept --that human portraiture needs psychological content--whereas obviously much eastern art is composed on exactly contrary principles, whereby a portrait is intended to be mainly decorative." [50]

also:

"This means that Sharaku is praised in western circles because he is less Japanese than any other ukiyo-e master.  Abandoning the traditional styles of his nation, he acquired one that makes western acceptance easy, and it is ironic that today great numbers of westerners applaud Sharaku because he is so Japanese, whereas the truth is that he is largely un-Japanese and quite like us." [51]

These criticisms of his fame as a Japanese ukiyo-e master, not the qualities that make Sharaku a great artist are what seems to have happened to Sharaku and his work.  His contemporaries at the time of his work felt that his art was unappealing and attempted to depict his subjects too realistically to the point where some were uncomfortable with his innovations in style and form.  It is likely these feelings contributed to his short career and led to his work being ignored and largely forgotten for a long time.  This would continue only until a westerner (Julius Kurth, German) would publish a book comparing him with the greats of western portraiture and then Sharaku would come back into the spotlight and become one of the most famous ukiyo-e artists that he is today.  What complicates the issue is that his fame within Japan is just as great or greater than outside of it.  Would Sharaku have always been famous if rediscovered by one of his own countrymen and without the comparisons to giants in the western art world?  Was Sharaku an artist that unfortunately had been lost and this rediscovery only restored the fame as a Japanese artist he would have always had?  Or has this western connection and comparison influenced / augmented his fame as a Japanese artist?  Of course it would be impossible to come to any definitive conclusion to this.  One thing that makes the argument more interesting and more impossible to solve at the same time is the timing of Julius Kurth's work.  When his book was published in 1910, Japan was still modernizing and westernizing, trying to be equals with the other western powers.  With this praise of one of their own, Sharaku could have possibly became the cultural link of a Japanese artist that could be celebrated as an equal to the great western ones.  Whether this generated any increase in fame or popularity for Sharaku as a Japanese artist would be an interesting debate.

This exhibit at the Tokyo National Museum shows the fame and praise Sharaku has as a Japanese ukiyo-e master.  The exhibit itself was incredible for its completeness.  It was the first time for me to attend an exhibition of an artist with almost all of their works present.  Being able to see an artist's full work up-close is an amazing experience that everyone should try and experience if possible.  Seeing the actor prints paired together as they would be, their intense expressions squaring off at each other like they were ready to leap off of their prints and lock into a duel at any minute has become my main image of Sharaku's work.  Through that kind of experience, one can really get the chance to more fully understand an artist's work better than any other way.  Not only did the exhibit have this, but it had full explanations and history of the art and the artist in Japanese and English (A surprise to me, as a few weeks before at a Rembrandt exhibit there was no English at all).  Showings of other artists' works at the same time as Sharaku for context and multiple copies of some of his works to show the effects of aging on the art over time also greatly added to the exhibit and the understanding of the artist.  It's how art exhibits should be, but the mixture of private and public collectors, the price of the works and an unwillingness to lend them out makes this experience disappointingly rare.

While he disappeared for over 110 years until found again by Julius Kurth, and much of his life and work still remains a mystery, Sharaku deserves the fame and praise that he has received as an artist, regardless of the complexities of his fame as a Japanese ukiyo-e master.  His unique style brings out not only the qualities of his subjects, but also those of whom they are trying to portray themselves.  This style, so drastically different from his other ukiyo-e contemporaries, those before him and even after him, makes not only his importance and fame from his ukiyo-e prints deserved, but also his ranking among the greatest of portraitists.

References:

1. "Actor Segawa Kikunojō III as Oshizu, Wife of Tanabe Bunzō," Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/actor-segawa-kikunoj-iii-as-oshizu-wife-of-tanabe-bunz-234877.

2. "Biography," Artrev.com.

http://www.artrev.com/art/artists/biography.asp?aid=450&artist=Toshusai%20Sharaku.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

5. Japan Echo Inc. "MASTER IN DISGUISE: Professor Sheds Light on Mystery Ukiyo-e Artist," Trends in Japan.

http://web-japan.org/trends98/honbun/ntj990323.html.

6. "Actor Sakata Hangorō III as Fujikawa Mizuemon," Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/actor-sakata-hangor-iii-as-fujikawa-mizuemon-234883.

7. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. "Actor Sakata Hangorō III as a Traveling Priest, actually Chinzei Hachirō Tametomo," MFA Educators Online.

http://educators.mfa.org/objects/detail/264196?related_people_text=Katsushika+Hokusai&page=45.

8. Japan Echo Inc. "MASTER IN DISGUISE: Professor Sheds Light on Mystery Ukiyo-e Artist."

9. Hideki Inoue, "Sharaku, Whoever he was, Turned Ukiyo-e on its Head with his Realistic Style," Asahi.com, May 14, 2011,

http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201105130213.html, (accessed January 30, 2012).

10. John Fiorillo, "Tōshūsai Sharaku (active 1794-1795)," Viewing Japanese Prints.

http://www.viewingjapaneseprints.net/texts/ukiyoetexts/ukiyoe_pages/sharaku3.html.

11. Ibid.

12. Hideki Inoue, "Sharaku, Whoever he was, Turned Ukiyo-e on its Head with his Realistic Style."

13. John Fiorillo, "Tōshūsai Sharaku (active 1794-1795)."

14. Ibid.

15. Ibid.

16. "Japanese Prints Sizes," Artelino.

http://www.artelino.com/articles/japanese_print_sizes.asp.

17. Kumi Matsumaru, "The many faces of Sharaku," Daily Yomiuri Online, May 20, 2011, http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/features/arts/T110519003574.htm (accessed January 30, 2012).

18. "Actor Bando Mitsugorō II as Ishii Genzō," Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/actor-bando-mitsugor-ii-as-ishii-genz-234870.

19. "Actors Nakajima Wadaemon as Bōdara Chōzaemon and Nakamura Konozō as Gon of the Kanagawaya," Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/actors-nakajima-wadaemon-as-b-dara-ch-zaemon-and-nakamura-konoz-as-gon-of-the-kanagawaya-234861.

20. John Fiorillo, "Tōshūsai Sharaku (active 1794-1795)."

21. "Japanese Prints Sizes," Artelino.

22. "Shinozuka Uraemon Reading the Prologue at the Miyako Theater," Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/shinozuka-uraemon-reading-the-prologue-at-the-miyako-theater-234863.

23. "Actors Ichikawa Komazō III as Kameya Chūbei and Nakayama Tomisaburō as Umegawa," Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/actors-ichikawa-komaz-iii-as-kameya-ch-bei-and-nakayama-tomisabur-as-umegawa-234865.

24. "Actors Ichikawa Omezō as Tomita Hyōtarō and Ōtani Oniji III as Kawashima Jibugo," Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/actors-ichikawa-omez-as-tomita-hy-tar-and-tani-oniji-iii-as-kawashima-jibugor-234867.

25. "Actor Bandō Hikosaburō III as Obiya Chōemon," Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/actor-band-hikosabur-iii-as-obiya-ch-emon-234888.

26. "Actors Segawa Tomisaburō II as the Courtesan Toyama and Ishikawa Kurizō as Higashiyama Yoshiwakamaru," Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/actors-segawa-tomisabur-ii-as-the-courtesan-toyama-and-ishikawa-kuriz-as-higashiyama-yoshiwakamaru-234887.

27. Kumi Matsumaru, "The many faces of Sharaku," Daily Yomiuri Online.


28. C.B. Liddell, "Knowing Sharaku's Art Without Knowing the Artist," The Japan Times Online, May 26, 2011, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/fa20110526a1.html (accessed February 1, 2012).


29. "Sharaku: The Mystery Man Unmasked," The Independent, May 17, 2011, http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/features/sharaku-the-mystery-man-unmasked-2284970.html (accessed February 1, 2012).


30. Kumi Matsumaru, "The many faces of Sharaku," Daily Yomiuri Online.


31. John Fiorillo, "Tōshūsai Sharaku (active 1794-1795)."


32. "Japanese Prints Sizes," Artelino. 


33. "Actor Segawa Kikunojō III, also called Hamamuraya Rokō, as the Maid Ohama," Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.
http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/actor-segawa-kikunoj-iii-also-called-hamamuraya-rok-as-the-maid-ohama-233501.

34. "Actor Sanokawa Ichimatsu III as Ihohata," Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.
http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/actor-sanokawa-ichimatsu-iii-as-ihohata-233507.

35. "Actor Sawamura Sōjūrō III as Ōtomo no Kuronushi," Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.
http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/actor-sawamura-s-j-r-iii-as-tomo-no-kuronushi-234895.

36. "Actor Ichikawa Komazō III as Shinozuka Gorō (Sadatsuna)," Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.
http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/actor-ichikawa-komaz-iii-as-shinozuka-gor-sadatsuna-234889.

37. John Fiorillo, "Tōshūsai Sharaku (active 1794-1795)."

38. "Actor Ichikawa Ebizō as Kudō Saemon Suketsune," Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.
http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/actor-ichikawa-ebiz-as-kud-saemon-suketsune-233509.

39. "Actor Sawamura Sōjūrō III as Satsuma Gengobei," Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.
http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/actor-sawamura-s-j-r-iii-as-satsuma-gengobei-233513.

40. "Actor Iwai Kumesaburō as the Geisha Kumekichi," Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.
http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/actor-iwai-kumesabur-as-the-geisha-kumekichi-231535.

41. "Actor Ichikawa Danjūrō VI as Soga no Gorō Tokimune," Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.
http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/actor-ichikawa-danj-r-vi-as-soga-no-gor-tokimune-234890.

42. John Fiorillo, "Tōshūsai Sharaku (active 1794-1795)."

43. "Biography," Artrev.com.

44. John Fiorillo, "Tōshūsai Sharaku (active 1794-1795)."

45. "Sharaku: The Mystery Man Unmasked," The Independent.

46. John Fiorillo, "Tōshūsai Sharaku (active 1794-1795)."

47. "Biography," Artrev.com.

48. Hideki Inoue, "Sharaku, Whoever he was, Turned Ukiyo-e on its Head with his Realistic Style," Asahi.com.


49. Ibid.

50. James A. Michener, The Floating World (University of Hawaii Press, 1983), 177.

51. Ibid., 178.