解説
第17首のこのページは、見出しどおり “Bend the Line”（線を曲げる）を要に据え、「相手が上段なら、自分も上段に立ち（このままに）、突き出てくる“槍＝攻撃線”を曲げて制し、勝ちを得よ」という運用原理を一行で言い切っている、と読める。ここでの肝は三点――①相手の構え（上段）に合わせて立つ、②心身をこのままに（動揺なく）保つ、③攻撃の“線”を折れずに曲げる**――で、ページの英題と訳文（「Where there is jōdan, I take jōdan; as I am…」）もこの三拍子をまっすぐ補強している。真正面からぶつからず、線そのものを変調させて勝つ、というわけだ。
この読みを植芝盛平の六つのプライマーに通すと、設計図がさらにくっきりする。プライマーの第一原理〈の〈武＝宇宙原理〉は「ぶつからずに整合させて動かす」という世界観を与え、プライマーの第二原理の〈神や人との合気〉は神や相手の構えに合わせて立つ起点になる。プライマーの第三原理の〈心魂一如〉は「このままに」の無隙を支え、プライマーの第四原理の〈和合美化〉は線を壊さず“美しく曲げる”方向づけを担う。プライマーの第五原理の〈体＝道場、心＝修業者／修行者／学び手〉は日々の所作で攻撃線を“受け止めずに曲げる”稽古を可能にし、プライマーの第六原理の〈「至愛」の源に順う〉は勝ち方の質（折らず、傷めず、ただ曲げて済ます）を測る最上位の拠りどころになる。第17首は、この六つの骨組みを一本の“線の運転法”として結んでいる。
直前の三首とも噛み合う。第14首は「極意探しに走るな、答えは目の前にある」と視座を正し、第15首は「左右の応酬は捨て、“人の心”を一直線に送れ」とベクトルを一本化し、第16首は「上段に立ち、陰を陽として見極めよ」と見（まなこ）と構えを決めた。その延長で第17首は、相手の上段に自分の上段を“そのまま”合わせ、突きのラインをほんのわずかに外し＝曲げて、相手の意図を空振りへと変調させる作法を示す。つまり――見る（第16首）→出す（第15首）→いま目の前で調える（第14首）の流れを、“線を曲げる”という具体の一手で完成させるページだ。
口語要約のひとこと
「相手が上段なら、こっちもそのまま上段で、突きの線を曲げて勝て。」
歌の折り目――構えを写し、槍の文法を曲げる
第17首でまず見落とせないのは、上の句と下の句が、単に意味を二分するだけでなく、〈構え〉から〈作用〉へと品詞の密度まで転調させている点である。五句に分けて読むと、上の句「上段は／吾も上段／このままに」は、〈上段・吾・上段・まま〉という名詞性の強い語によって静止した構えの面をつくり、下の句「打ち突く槍を／くつして勝つべし」は、〈打つ・突く・屈す・勝つ〉という動詞の連鎖によって運動を起こす。しかも「上段」は文字どおり上の句に重ねて置かれ、「屈す」は下の句へ降りて現れるため、歌体そのものが、高く掲げた線を下で曲げる見取り図となっている。これは地名を働かせる歌枕ではなく、語の位置と意味とを一致させる、配置による見立てである。
第三句「このままに」は、その上の句と下の句を折り合わせる蝶番となる。前へ戻せば「吾も上段にある、そのままの状態」を受け、後ろへ送れば「このままに、打ち突く槍を屈して勝つ」と最終述語へ掛かる。「まま」という同音の反復も、変化しない状態を耳のうえで持続させる。したがって第三句には意味上の三句切れに似た間が生じるものの、助詞「に」が後続の動作へ向かって開いたままであるため、文法上は強く切れない。切字によって断って転ずるのではなく、無切れを基調としながら、その連続の内部に折り目だけをつくる。すなわち、この歌は、切って曲がるのではなく、切れずに曲がる。
冒頭の「上段は／吾も上段」に働く反復も、単なる平行法だけではない。語順を骨格だけにすれば〈上段―吾―上段〉となり、「吾」が同一の構えによって両側から包まれる額縁構造をつくる。最初の「は」は上段を場として掲げ、次の「も」は、すでにもう一つの上段が存在することを前提として、その場へ「吾」を加える。相手はここで名指されず、係助詞「も」の前提のうちにだけ影としている。さらに句境の「は／吾」は、発声すれば「わ／われ」と音を継ぎ、最初の上段から吾の上段へ切れ目なく渡る。「吾も上段」には「構ふ」「取る」「立つ」などの動詞も、名詞述語を閉じる断定辞も省かれているため、構えは説明されるのではなく、その場へそのまま置かれる。第二句末の「上段」は局所的には体言止めに似た静止をつくるが、歌全体は「べし」によって終わるため、厳密な意味での体言止めではない。
句末の助詞を追うと、この歌の運動設計はさらに明瞭になる。第一句の「は」は場を立て、第二句の「も」はその場へ吾を重ね、第三句の「に」は状態を保ち、第四句の「を」は到来する攻撃線を捉え、結句の「べし」がその一連を規範として閉じる。第一句・第三句・第四句がそれぞれ「は・に・を」という助詞で開かれ、第二句も述語を省略したまま次へ渡るため、結句に至るまで完全な文法的停止が置かれない。なかでも第四句末「槍を」の格助詞止めは、槍を空中へ突き出したまま述語を遅らせる句跨りとして働く。ここでの「を」は第一義的には「屈す」の対象を示す対格であり、移動経路を示す経過域的な「を」と取る必要はない。
さらに「打ち突く槍を」という構造では、「槍」は連体修飾節「打ち突く」の内部では攻撃の担い手として前へ出るが、直後の「を」によって、主節では屈せられる対象へと組み替えられる。槍は一つの名詞句の内部で、〈攻めるもの〉から〈処理されるもの〉へ役割を反転させるのである。つまり、身体が槍の方向を変えるより先に、文法が槍の格と役割を曲げている。しかも槍を操る人物は明示されず、人物は〈上段〉と〈槍〉という構えと攻撃線へ換喩的に還元される。勝つべき対象として正面に残るのは人ではなく、屈せられる一本の線である。
字面には、第四句の「突く（つく）」から結句の「くつして」へ、〈つく／くつ〉という交差配列も現れる。これは厳密な掛詞でも語源的な関係でもないが、直進する二字を AB から BA へ書き返す、表記上の音響的な折り返しとして読める。このページの説明どおり「くつして」の「つ」を促音表記と取り、「くっして」と読誦するなら、音声上では完全な〈つく／くつ〉の反転にはならず、代わって「くっ」の一拍に閉鎖と急制動が生じる。字面は槍の線を反転させ、声はその線を一拍だけ塞き止めるのである。さらに同じ「つ」は、「突く」では前へ出る一拍、「くつして」では促音として閉じる一拍、「勝つ」では再び開いて終局へ進む一拍となる。攻撃・屈曲・勝ちという三つの局面を、同じ文字が働きを変えながら渡ってゆく。
下の句の〈打ち―突く／屈し―勝つ〉も、攻撃側の二動詞と応答側の二動詞とを向かい合わせる、二対二の対句的構成をなす。「上段・打つ・突く・槍・屈す・勝つ」は、古典和歌の狭義の縁語と断定するより、武技を中心とした縁語的語彙場と見るのが適切である。とりわけ「打ち」「突く」が直進する力を畳み掛けるのに対し、「屈し」「勝つ」はその力を受けて変形し、結果へ送り直す。勝ちは攻撃線の外から持ち込まれるのではない。相手の「突く」にすでに含まれていた音・運動・方向を折り返すことによって、同じ語彙場の内部から生成される。
音数律については、本文上の分岐を隠さず示す必要がある。掲出本文「くつして勝つべし」をそのまま読めば、結句は〈く・っ・し・て・か・つ・べ・し〉の八拍となり、全体は五・七・五・七・八の一拍字余りになる。受容上の効果として見れば、まさに「屈して」と言う箇所で定型の線そのものが一拍ふくらみ、結句がわずかに撓む。一方、「屈し勝つべし」と校訂すれば〈く・っ・し・か・つ・べ・し〉の七拍に整い、裸の連用形「屈し」から「勝つべし」へ鋭く接続する。前者は「屈して、勝つ」という過程を接続助詞「て」によって明示し、後者は〈屈し勝つ〉を一息の動作へ圧縮する。どちらにも異なる詩的効果があるが、後者を採る場合には、単なる仮名遣いの更新ではなく、「て」を削った韻律的校訂であることを明記すべきである。作者の意図を確定できない段階では、字余りを意図的技法と断定するより、まず伝承本文に生じている有意な律動として扱うのが堅実である。
分類を厳密にすれば、この歌に確実に働いているのは、反復法、額縁的な包摂構造、対句、省略法、連続する句跨り、第四句の格助詞止め、無切れ、動詞の畳み掛け、縁語的語彙場、表記上の交差配列、促音による急制動、そして本文を保存する場合の結句字余りである。これに対し、明確な歌枕・枕詞・伝統的序詞はなく、「は」「も」が置かれていても特殊な結びを要求する古典的係り結びは成立しない。また結句「勝つべし」は体言止めでも切字でもなく、助動詞「べし」による規範的・箴言的な終止である。その閉じ方は「かな」「けり」のような詠嘆の余白を残すものではないが、余韻が消えるわけではない。「勝つべし」で文法は断固として閉じても、第四句で突き出された槍の線は、読む身体のうちでなお屈し、曲がり続ける――それがこの一首の、感傷ではなく運動として残る余韻である。
発話行為理論
オースティンの区分では、発話行為（locutionary act）は、音声・語彙・文法を一定の意味と指示へ組み上げ、意味ある言表を成立させる働きである。より細かくは、音を発する音声的行為、特定言語の語と文法を用いる語法的行為、そこへ意味と指示を与える意味指示的行為が重なっている（Austin, 1962, pp. 94–98）。 第17首の発話行為は、〈上段に対して上段を重ね、このままの構えで、打ち突く槍を屈し、勝つべきである〉という命題内容に尽きない。上の句から下の句への〈折り目〉では、第一・二句の「上段／上段」が第四句の「打ち突く槍」へ、構えの二重像から攻撃の一本線へと折り返され、第三句「このままに」は第四句をまたいで第五句「くつして勝つべし」へ掛かる。第一・二句と第四句、第三句と第五句という二組の反響が、意味内容そのものを折り畳むのである。厳密な固定語としての切字を置かない無切れの運びでも、第一句末「は」の提示と第三句末の呼吸上の間が切字的な働きを分担し、「このままに」の〈まま／間〉をめぐる掛詞的多義が、不動の状態・間合い・時機を一つの言表のうちに共存させる。
発話内行為（illocutionary act）の主力は、技法の描写や勝敗の予測ではなく、教示・勧告・訓令である。オースティンの分類では、命令、促し、助言、警告、および特定の行為方針を採るよう働きかける発話は、権能や影響力を行使する行使型（exercitive）に置かれる（Austin, 1962, pp. 151, 154–155）。 結句「勝つべし」は、〈上段を合わせたまま、直線を正面衝突で受けず、屈曲へ変えよ〉という規範的な発話内力を顕在化させる。オースティンが指摘するように、発話の力は明示的な遂行動詞だけでなく、法・語調・構文によっても示されるため、「べし」は本首における発話内力の標識として働く（Austin, 1962, pp. 73, 99–100）。 しかも、その訓令は結句だけに封じ込められていない。第一・二句では同型の構えが先に実演され、第四句では処理すべき攻撃線が露出し、第三句から第五句への折り返しでは、変えないことが曲げることへ接続される。切字的な間は訓令を断ち切らず、結句へ送る力を一度ため、掛詞は単線的な操作命令を〈心身を乱さないこと・間を失わないこと・時機を外さないこと〉という複合的な教示へ拡げている。
発話媒介行為（perlocutionary act）として企図されるのは、攻撃を人との力比べとして捉える認知を、処理可能な一本の線として捉える認知へ変え、緊張や反射的な衝突を静め、構えを保ったまま線を屈曲させる身体運用を生じさせることである。オースティンのいう発話媒介行為は、発話によって感情・思考・行為に生じる結果であり、説得、抑止、覚醒などを含むが、意図された結果が必ず生じるとは限らず、意図されなかった結果が生じる場合もある（Austin, 1962, pp. 101–105）。 本首では、「上段」の反復が構えの照応を記憶へ留め、第三句の間が呼吸と時機を一度止め、第四句末「槍を」が攻撃線を空中へ差し出したまま保持し、結句の「くつして」が、その線を声の内部で屈曲させる。したがって企図される効果は、単に「線を曲げよ」と納得させることではなく、直進を受けて折り返す文法を稽古身体へ残すことにある。第17首は線の曲げ方を説明するだけではない。句の折り目によって、線を曲げる身体そのものを作ろうとする――言葉の線が曲がるところで、稽古の線もまた曲がり始める。
コーダ
この一首が最後に残すのは、単なる「勝ち方」ではない。むしろ、勝ちがどこから、どのようなかたちで生まれうるのかという問いである。「上段は／吾も上段」と同じ構えを重ねることは、相手を外から模倣することではなく、すでに立ち上がっている力の場へ、余分な対立を加えずに入ることである。そこでは、吾と相手との差は消されない。しかし、その差をただちに衝突へ翻訳する必要もない。同じ高さに立つことによって初めて、一本の直線は、曲がりうる関係として見えてくる。
その中心にある「このままに」は、不動を命じる言葉でありながら、静止を意味しない。構えを崩さず、心魂を散らさず、それでも到来するものへ閉じない――その矛盾を一つの身体に保つ言葉である。第四句の「槍を」は、攻撃線を空中へ差し出したまま結句を待つ。そして「屈し」あるいは「くつして」に至るとき、槍は断ち切られるのではなく、直進だけを運命とする状態から解かれる。曲げるとは、外から別の形を押しつけることではない。線の内部にすでに潜んでいた、別の進み方を現れさせることである。
だから「勝つべし」の勝ちは、相手を壊した結果としてのみ測られない。線を折らず、身体を損なわず、攻撃の力そのものを別の帰結へ送り直せたか――その質が問われている。「べし」の断固たる終止は、勝利を保証する予言ではなく、勝利がどのようなものでなければならないかを定める倫理的な閉じである。直線をより強い直線で押し返すなら、勝敗は生じても、この歌の「勝ち」にはまだ届かない。
こうして第17首は、構えの歌であると同時に、変容の歌となる。語の線は切れずに句をまたぎ、槍の格を反転させ、促音の一拍で直進を塞き、最後には読む身体の内部へ曲線の文法を残す。稽古とは、その文法を何度も身体へ書き込むことであり、武とは、迫るものを消滅させるのではなく、その行き先を調える働きなのだろう。一本の槍が迫るたびに問われるのは、線を折る力なのか――それとも、線が切れずに曲がる場所となれるか、なのか。
English Translation
Commentary
This page on Dōka 17 can be read as placing “Bend the Line”—sen o mageru (線を曲げる)—at its pivot, exactly as the heading announces, and declaring in a single stroke the operational principle: when the opponent takes jōdan (上段), stand in jōdan as well, remain kono mama ni (このままに)—just as one is—and bend and govern the oncoming “spear,” the line of attack, so as to prevail. Three points are decisive here: first, stand in correspondence with the opponent’s guard, jōdan (上段); second, keep body and heart-mind kono mama ni (このままに), without disturbance; and third, bend the “line” of attack without breaking it. The page’s English title and translation—“Where there is jōdan, I take jōdan; as I am…”—directly reinforce this three-beat structure. The point, in other words, is to prevail not by colliding head-on, but by modulating the line itself.
Passed through Ueshiba Morihei’s Six Primers, this reading resolves into an even sharper blueprint. Primer 1, “Bu = Cosmic Principle” (Bu = Uchū Genri; 武＝宇宙原理), supplies the worldview of bringing movement into alignment rather than driving it through collision. Primer 2, “Aiki with Kami / Another / Others” (Kami ya Hito to no Aiki; 神や人との合気), provides the starting point of standing in correspondence with the kami’s and opponent’s guard. Primer 3, “Heart-mind and Spirit, Inseparable” (Shinkon Ichinyo; 心魂一如), sustains the openingless composure of “kono mama ni (このままに).” Primer 4, “Harmonization and Beautification” (Wagō Bika; 和合美化), directs the line toward being “beautifully bent” rather than destroyed. Primer 5, “Body = Dōjō; Heart-mind = Practitioner / Ascetic / Learner” (Tai/Karada = Dōjō, Kokoro = Shugyōsha / Shugyōsha / Manabite; 体＝道場、心＝修業者／修行者／学び手), makes it possible to cultivate, through everyday movement, the practice of bending the line of attack rather than stopping it head-on. Primer 6, “Follow the Source of ‘Supreme Love’” (“Shiai” no Minamoto ni Shitagau;「至愛」の源に順う), becomes the highest criterion by which the quality of victory is measured: do not break, do not injure, but merely bend and let the matter end there. Dōka 17 joins these six frameworks into a single method for steering a line.
It interlocks equally well with the three poems immediately preceding it. Dōka 14 corrects the standpoint: do not run about searching for the secret; the answer is already before the eyes. Dōka 15 unifies the vector: abandon the exchange of left and right and send the “human heart-mind,” hito no kokoro (人の心), along one straight line. Dōka 16 establishes the seeing eye and the guard: stand in jōdan (上段) and discern in (陰), yin, as yō (陽), yang. Extending that sequence, Dōka 17 aligns one’s own jōdan with the opponent’s “just as it is,” shifts the line of the thrust ever so slightly aside—bending it—and modulates the opponent’s intention into a miss. It is thus the page that completes the movement of seeing in Dōka 16 → issuing forth in Dōka 15 → setting in order what stands here, now, before the eyes in Dōka 14, through the concrete act of “bending the line.”
In one colloquial sentence
“If the opponent takes jōdan (上段), take jōdan too, just as one is—bend the line of the thrust and prevail.”
The poem’s fold: Mirroring the guard, bending the grammar of the spear
What must first be recognized in Dōka 17 is that the upper and lower verses do more than divide the poem’s meaning in two: they modulate even the density of its parts of speech as the poem passes from “guard” into “action.” Read across its five lines, the upper verse, kami-no-ku (上の句)—“jōdan wa / ware mo jōdan / kono mama ni (上段は／吾も上段／このままに)”—constructs a plane of arrested posture through the strongly nominal words jōdan (上段), ware (吾), jōdan (上段), and mama (まま). The lower verse, shimo-no-ku (下の句)—“uchi-tsuku yari o / kutsushite katsu beshi (打ち突く槍を／くつして勝つべし)”—sets motion in train through a chain of verbs: utsu (打つ), to strike; tsuku (突く), to thrust; kussu (屈す), to bend or subdue; and katsu (勝つ), to prevail. Moreover, jōdan is placed literally in the upper verse, while kussu descends into the lower verse. The verse form itself thus becomes a diagram of a line raised high and bent below. This is not an utamakura (歌枕) that activates a place-name, but a form of mitate (見立て) produced through arrangement—the position of the word is made to coincide with its meaning.
The third line, “kono mama ni (このままに),” forms the hinge that folds the upper and lower verses together. Folded backward, it receives the sense, “I too am in jōdan, remaining in precisely that state.” Sent forward, it reaches across the fourth line toward the final predicate: “Remaining thus, bend the striking and thrusting spear and prevail.” The repetition of the sound ma within mama (まま) likewise sustains the unchanged condition at the level of hearing. The third line therefore produces a semantic pause resembling sanku-gire (三句切れ), a third-line break; grammatically, however, it does not cut strongly, because the particle ni (に) remains open toward the action that follows. Rather than severing and turning through a kireji (切れ字), the poem proceeds through mukire (無切れ), an unbroken syntax, creating only a fold within that continuity. In other words, this poem does not bend by being cut. It bends without breaking.
The repetition in the opening “jōdan wa / ware mo jōdan (上段は／吾も上段)” is likewise more than simple parallelism. Reduced to its structural frame, it becomes jōdan—ware—jōdan (上段―吾―上段): “I,” ware (吾), is enclosed on both sides by the same guard. The first particle, wa (は), raises jōdan as the field of the utterance; the following mo (も) adds “I” to that field while presupposing that another jōdan already exists there. The opponent is never named. The opponent remains present only as a shadow within the presupposition carried by mo. Across the line boundary, wa / ware (は／吾) continues in speech as wa / ware (わ／われ), carrying the sound without interruption from the first jōdan into the jōdan of “I.” In “ware mo jōdan (吾も上段),” verbs such as kamau (構ふ), to take a guard; toru (取る), to assume; or tatsu (立つ), to stand, are omitted, as is any assertive copula that would close the nominal predicate. The guard is not explained; it is simply placed there, just as it is. The second line’s final jōdan produces a localized stillness resembling taigendome (体言止め), a noun-ending, but because the poem as a whole concludes with beshi (べし), it is not taigendome in the strict sense.
Following the line-final particles makes the poem’s kinetic design still clearer. The first line’s wa (は) establishes the field; the second line’s mo (も) places “I” upon it; the third line’s ni (に) sustains the state; the fourth line’s o (を) catches the arriving line of attack; and the closing beshi (べし) seals the entire sequence as a norm. The first, third, and fourth lines remain open through the particles wa, ni, and o, while the second line also passes onward with its predicate omitted. No complete grammatical stop appears before the final line. Most strikingly, the fourth-line ending “yari o (槍を)” functions as an ending on a case particle and as an enjambment that leaves the spear thrust outward into the air while delaying its predicate. Here o primarily marks the spear as the accusative object of kussu (屈す). There is no need to interpret it as a path-marking o indicating the route through which movement passes.
Within the structure “uchi-tsuku yari o (打ち突く槍を),” the spear steps forward as the bearer of attack within the attributive clause “uchi-tsuku (打ち突く),” yet the immediately following o (を) reorganizes it, within the main clause, as the object to be bent or subdued. Within a single noun phrase, the spear reverses its role from “that which attacks” to “that which is handled.” Before the body changes the direction of the spear, grammar has already bent its case and function. The person wielding the spear is never made explicit; the person is metonymically reduced to the guard, jōdan (上段), and the line of attack, yari (槍). What remains before the practitioner as the object to be overcome is not a person, but one line to be bent.
On the written surface, a further crossing appears between tsuku (突く) in the fourth line and kutsushite (くつして) in the closing line: tsuku / kutsu (つく／くつ). This is neither a strict kakekotoba (掛詞) nor an etymological relation, but it may be read as an orthographic and acoustic foldback that rewrites two forward-driving sounds from AB into BA. Following the page’s explanation, if the tsu (つ) in kutsushite is taken as notation for a sokuon (促音) and recited as kusshite (くっして), the spoken form no longer produces a complete reversal of tsuku / kutsu. In its place, closure and abrupt braking occur within the compact beat ku’ (くっ). The written surface reverses the line of the spear; the voice blocks that line for a single beat. The same sign tsu (つ) also changes its function as it passes through the poem: in tsuku (突く), it is a beat that advances forward; in kutsushite (くつして), it closes as a geminate stop; and in katsu (勝つ), it opens once again and moves toward the conclusion. The same character traverses attack, flexion, and victory while changing the work it performs.
The lower verse’s structure, uchi—tsuku / kusshi—katsu (打ち―突く／屈し―勝つ), likewise creates a two-against-two parallelism, setting the two verbs of attack opposite the two verbs of response. The sequence jōdan–utsu–tsuku–yari–kussu–katsu (上段・打つ・突く・槍・屈す・勝つ) is better understood as a martial, engo-like lexical field than as engo (縁語) in the narrow sense of classical waka. In particular, while uchi (打ち) and tsuku (突く) pile up forward-driving force, kusshi (屈し) and katsu (勝つ) receive that force, reshape it, and redirect it toward a result. Victory is not imported from outside the attacking line. It is generated from within the same lexical field by folding back the sound, motion, and direction already contained in the opponent’s tsuku (突く).
The poem’s moraic meter must be discussed without concealing the textual divergence. If the displayed text, “kutsushite katsu beshi (くつして勝つべし),” is read as transmitted—with the tsu functioning as a sokuon—the closing line contains eight mora:
ku / [sokuon] / shi / te / ka / tsu / be / shi
(く・っ・し・て・か・つ・べ・し)
The poem therefore takes the form 5–7–5–7–8, with a one-mora ji-amari (字余り) in the final line. Considered as an effect within reception, the line of the fixed form itself swells by one mora precisely where it says “to bend,” kusshite (屈して), and the closing line flexes slightly out of measure. If, by contrast, the text is emended to “kusshi katsu beshi (屈し勝つべし),” the line resolves into seven mora:
ku / [sokuon] / shi / ka / tsu / be / shi
(く・っ・し・か・つ・べ・し)
The bare continuative form kusshi (屈し) then joins sharply and immediately to “katsu beshi (勝つべし).” The former reading makes the process “bend, and then prevail” explicit through the conjunctive particle te (て); the latter compresses “kusshi-katsu (屈し勝つ)” into a single-breath action. Both produce distinct poetic effects. If the latter is adopted, however, it should be identified not as a mere modernization of kana orthography, but as a metrical emendation that removes te. Where authorial intention cannot yet be established, it is more prudent to treat the extra mora not as a demonstrably intentional technique, but first as a meaningful rhythmic feature present in the transmitted text.
Classified strictly, the devices that can be said to operate with confidence are repetition, a framing structure of enclosure, parallelism, ellipsis, successive enjambments, the fourth line’s ending on a case particle, mukire (無切れ), the accumulation of verbs, an engo-like lexical field, graphic chiasmus, abrupt braking through the sokuon (促音), and—if the transmitted text is retained—final-line jiamari (字余り). By contrast, the poem contains no clear utamakura (歌枕), makurakotoba (枕詞), or traditional joshi (序詞). Although wa (は) and mo (も) appear, they do not establish the classical construction of kakari-musubi (係り結び), in which a binding particle demands a special concluding form. Nor is the closing “katsu beshi (勝つべし)” an instance of taigendome (体言止め) or a kireji (切れ字); it is a normative, aphoristic closure produced through the auxiliary beshi (べし). That closure does not leave the same exclamatory openness as kana (かな) or keri (けり), but this does not mean that its resonance, yoin (余韻), disappears. Grammar closes decisively with “katsu beshi,” yet the line of the spear thrust outward in the fourth line continues to bend within the body that reads it. This is the poem’s lingering resonance—not sentiment left behind, but motion.
Speech Act Theory
In Austin’s (1962) distinction, the locutionary act is the work of organizing sound, vocabulary, and grammar into a determinate sense and reference, thereby producing a meaningful utterance. More finely divided, it comprises the phonetic act of producing sounds, the phatic act of uttering the words and grammar of a particular language, and the rhetic act of giving those words sense and reference (pp. 94–98).
The locutionary act of Dōka 17 is not exhausted by the propositional content, “Set jōdan against jōdan, remain in this very state, bend the striking and thrusting spear, and prevail as one ought.” At the fold between the upper and lower verses, the “jōdan / jōdan (上段／上段)” of the first and second lines folds toward the fourth line’s “uchi-tsuku yari (打ち突く槍),” transforming a doubled image of the guard into a single line of attack. The third line, “kono mama ni (このままに),” reaches across the fourth line and attaches itself to the fifth: “kutsushite katsu beshi (くつして勝つべし).” Two sets of resonance—the first and second lines with the fourth, and the third line with the fifth—fold the meaning of the utterance itself.
Even within the poem’s mukire (無切れ), its syntactically unbroken movement without a fixed kireji (切れ字), the presentation created by the first line’s final wa (は) and the respiratory pause after the third line divide the labor of a cutting word without severing the utterance. At the same time, the kakekotoba-like polysemy surrounding mama / ma (まま／間) allows an unmoving state, combative spacing, and opportune timing to coexist within a single locution.
The principal illocutionary force is not the description of a technique or the prediction of victory, but instruction, counsel, and injunction. In Austin’s classification, orders, urgings, advice, warnings, and utterances that seek to bring about the adoption of a particular course of action fall within the exercitive category, through which authority or influence is exercised (Austin, 1962, pp. 151, 154–155).
The closing “katsu beshi (勝つべし)” makes explicit the poem’s normative illocutionary force: maintain the matched jōdan without disturbance; do not receive the straight line through frontal collision; convert it instead into curvature. As Austin observes, the force of an utterance may be indicated not only by an explicit performative verb, but by mood, tone, and construction. The auxiliary beshi (べし) therefore functions in this poem as a marker of illocutionary force (Austin, 1962, pp. 73, 99–100).
That injunction, however, is not confined to the closing line. The first and second lines first perform the correspondence of identical guards; the fourth exposes the line of attack that must be handled; and the fold from the third line into the fifth joins not-changing to bending. The kireji-like pause does not cut the injunction apart. It stores its force for an instant and sends it onward into the final line. The kakekotoba-like pivot, meanwhile, expands what might otherwise be a single-line technical command into a composite teaching: do not disturb body and heart-mind, do not lose the interval, and do not miss the moment.
The intended perlocutionary effect is to transform the perception of attack from a contest of force against another person into the perception of a single, manageable line; to quiet tension and reflexive collision; and to produce an embodied capacity to bend that line while preserving the guard. For Austin, the perlocutionary act consists in the consequences that an utterance produces in feeling, thought, or action, including such effects as persuading, deterring, and awakening. The intended consequence does not necessarily occur, and unintended consequences may occur in its place (Austin, 1962, pp. 101–105).
In this poem, the repetition of jōdan (上段) fixes the correspondence of the guards in memory. The pause in the third line checks breath and timing for an instant. The fourth-line ending “yari o (槍を)” holds the line of attack extended into the air, while the closing kutsushite (くつして) bends that line within the voice itself. The intended effect is therefore not merely to produce intellectual agreement with the proposition “bend the line.” It is to leave within the trained body a grammar that receives straight advance and folds it back.
Dōka 17 does not simply explain how a line is bent. Through the folds of its phrases, it seeks to make the body that bends it. Where the line of language begins to curve, the line of practice begins to curve as well.
Coda
What this poem finally leaves behind is not merely a method for “winning.” It leaves the deeper question of where victory may arise and what form it must take. To place “jōdan against jōdan” in “jōdan wa / ware mo jōdan” is not to imitate the opponent from outside. It is to enter a field of force already taking shape without adding another layer of opposition to it. The difference between self and other is not erased there. Yet neither must that difference immediately be translated into collision. Only by standing at the same height does the straight line become visible as a relation capable of curvature.
At the center of this relation stands “kono mama ni” (このままに). It commands constancy without demanding immobility. It names the capacity to preserve the guard, keep heart-mind and spirit from scattering, and nevertheless remain open to what arrives. The fourth line’s “yari o” (槍を) leaves the attacking line extended in the air, awaiting its predicate. When the poem reaches “kusshi” (屈し) or “kutsushite” (くつして), the spear is not broken; it is released from the assumption that straight advance is its only possible destiny. To bend a line is not necessarily to impose a foreign shape upon it. It is to disclose another course already latent within the force of its movement.
The victory of “katsu beshi” (勝つべし) therefore cannot be measured only by the defeat or destruction of another. What matters is whether the line could be redirected without being shattered, whether the body could be spared, and whether the force of attack could be carried toward another consequence. The uncompromising closure of beshi is not a prophecy guaranteeing victory. It is an ethical determination of what victory ought to be. A straight line may be overcome by a stronger straight line, and a winner may still emerge; yet such a result has not necessarily reached the victory spoken by this poem.
Dōka 17 thus becomes a poem of transformation as much as a poem of guard. Its verbal line crosses from phrase to phrase without breaking, reverses the spear’s grammatical role, arrests direct advance within the compact beat of the geminate stop, and finally leaves a grammar of curvature inside the body that reads it. Practice is the repeated inscription of that grammar into embodiment. Bu (武), in this light, is not the power to erase what approaches, but the capacity to bring its destination into order. Whenever another spear comes forward, is the question truly how forcefully its line can be broken—or whether one can become the place in which that line bends without breaking?
References
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford University Press.
Bennett, A. C. (2015). Kendo: Culture of the sword. University of California Press.
Breen, J., & Teeuwen, M. (2010). A new history of Shinto. Wiley‑Blackwell.
Frellesvig, B. (2010). A history of the Japanese language. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511778322
Friday, K. F. (2004). Samurai, warfare and the state in early medieval Japan. Routledge.
Goldsbury, P. (2012, July 22). Aikido vs. religion and philosophy (1). Aikido Journal.
Green, T. A., & Svinth, J. R. (Eds.). (2010). Martial arts of the world: An encyclopedia of history and innovation. ABC‑CLIO.
Greenhalgh, M. (2003). Aikido and spirituality: Japanese religious influences in a martial art (Master’s thesis). Durham University e-Theses. https://etheses.dur.ac.uk/4081/
Hirano, Y. (2017). The relationship between nature and human feelings in Heian waka: “kakekotoba” as the poetic device. In Waka and modernity (pp. 57–78). Edizioni Ca’ Foscari.
Hizume, S. (2023). 平安時代の仮名表記（日本言語学会資料, pp. 1–14）. 日本言語学会.
Ishikawa, T. (). 宝蔵院流創流期、戦国末の合戦体験者が、術技継承に当たり「直槍は突くもの」と伝えたことに関する考察 [A study on the transmission of the principle “The Straight Spear is for Thrusting” by veterans of late Sengoku period battles during the founding era of the Hōzōin-ryū]. 武道学研究, 53 (Supplement). https://doi.org/10.11214/budo.53.S_28
Iwata, K.（岩田久美加）. (2014). 『万葉集』における体言止めについて [On taigen dome (nominal endings) in the Man’yōshū]. 秋田高専研究紀要, 51, 59–68.
JapanDict.com. (n.d.). 屈する. In JapanDict. Retrieved October 26, 2025 from https://www.japandict.com/%E5%B1%88%E3%81%99%E3%82%8B
Kasulis, T. P. (2004). Shinto: The way home. University of Hawai‘i Press.
Kobayashi, R., & Frankovich, R. (1996). Doka: The poems of Ueshiba Morihei. Furyu: The Budo Journal (Winter 1996).
Lee, J. (2014). 室町時代から明治時代初期までの促音の表記に関する研究（博士論文）[A Study on the notation (orthography) of sokuon (double consonants) from the Muromachi period to the early Meiji period (Doctoral Dissertation)]. 名古屋大学.
Ono, K. (2018). Accusative / perlative case 「を」[Blog]. Classical Japanese. Retrieved October 22, 2025, from https://classicaljapanese.wordpress.com/2018/10/11/accusative-perlative-case-%e3%80%8c%e3%82%92%e3%80%8d/
Pranin, S. (2002, August 2). Morihei Ueshiba and Onisaburo Deguchi. Aikido Journal.
Pranin, S. (2011, August 27). Doka 道歌. Aikido Journal.
SengokuDaimyo. (n.d.). Expressing obligation/probability (‑beshi) in classical Japanese. Retrieved October 26, 2025, from https://sengokudaimyo.com/bungo/expressing-concepts
Shirane, H. (2005). Classical Japanese: A grammar. Columbia University Press.
Suzuki, M. (2006). 感性コミュニケーションメディアとしての俳句 [Haiku as a Kansei communication media]. 人工知能学会誌, 21(2), 189–195.
Tamaoka, K. (2004). Mora or syllable? Which unit do Japanese use in naming visually presented stimuli? Applied Psycholinguistics, 25(3), 433–457.
Ueshiba, M. (1977). 合気道奥義（道歌）(S. Abe, Ed.). 阿部, 醒石. Retrieved from http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~yp7h-td/douka.htm
Vovin, A. (2003). A reference grammar of Classical Japanese prose. RoutledgeCurzon.
Appendix I: Change Modification Log
09 AUG 26 - Updated formatting; added additional poetics analysis; refactored Speech Acts analysis; added translation of commentary to English; added codas to Japanese and English commentaries.23 MAY 26 - Phase V Speech Acts (Austin, 1962) analysis added in Japanese.02 FEB 26 - Updated APA reference list formatting. 21 DEC 25 - Phase V styling applied to waka.22 OCT 25 - Updated translation in critical translation step of Phase IV; has better pivot, grab, is less "clacky", and more "grrrrrr!".10 OCT 25 - Phase III completion.14 APR 20 - Initial notes transferred.