It was in 1888 thatTHE OLD BAMBOO-HEWER'S STORY (Taketorimonogatari) was translated into English for the first time and published in London by F. V. Dickins. Eight years later, in 1906, he revised it completely and included it in hisPRIMITIVE & MEDIAEVAL JAPANESE TEXTS. In the preface he wrote, “I desire here to acknowledge my great indebtedness to the writings of Dr. Aston, Prof. B. H. Chamberlain, Dr. Karl Florenz and Sir Ernest Satow : to my friend, Mr. Minakata Kumagusu.”
Kumagusu stayed in London from 1892 to 1900. During his stay, he met F. V. Dickins, then registrar of University of London. According to Kumagusu's diary, Dickins showed him his translation ofTAKETORIMONOGATARIand asked for his opinion. On reading it, Kumagusu criticised it severely from his point of view as a Japanese. The diary says Dickins got very angry, because he was proud of his rendering. However, Dickins accepted Kumagusu's helpful advice. It took him eight years to revise it thoroughly. This shows that Dickins was fascinated by the story of Kaguyahime, simple, graceful and genuinely Japanese.

抄録全体を表示

Tsubouchi Shoyo's intention in renderingJuliusCaesar into a Joruri play may have required the then Japanese people to call their minds to th.e democratic society which he thought desirable for the future of Japan. Reciting Joruri was then so popular among the common people that his Joruri version ofJulius Caesarprobably was, I think, most suitable for him to enlighten them about what democracy was. He seems to have taken great pains over putting the characters' names into Japanese. He adopted the two ways of expressing them in Japanese. One is the way called 'Yutb-Yomi.' This is the peculiar way of expressing Japanese personal names in Chinese characters. The first character is pronounced in Chinese, while the second one is rendered into Japanese. Another is the way called 'Manyo-Yomi.' In theManyoshuthe Japanese people employed Chinese characters phonetically for representing Japanese sounds. He expressed the characters' names in Chinese characters following the manner of theManyoshu. He used some rhetorical devices in his Joruri version. The chief one may be the 'Makura-Kotoba.' or the 'pillow-word, ' which consists almost invariably of five syllables. Another may be the 'Kake-Kotoba' or the 'pivot-word, ' which makes possible the expression of double meanings. He translatesJulius Caesarfaithfully in spirit and writes his translation in Joruri-styled sentence making suitable combinations of five- and seven-syllable words. We cannot fail, I think, to notice some rhetorical influence of Chikamatsu, Mokuami and Bakin on Shoyo's Joruri version of Shakespeare'sJuliusCaesar.

抄録全体を表示

In 1911, the Meiji Emperor set up a kind of academy. One of the schemes the academy established was to translate European classics into Japanese. The academy was soon abolished, and the translation-scheme failed. But one private publishing company, called Kokuminbunko-kankokai (the Publishing Society for People's Library of Literature) enterprised the same plan and managed to found three Libraries : Taiseimeichobunko (the Library of European Classics), Taiseikindaimeichobunko (the Library of European Modern Classics) and Sekaimeisakutaikan (the Library of World Classics).
The translators of the three Libraries mainly consisted of the members of a coterie magazine called “Bungakukai” (the Literary Circle) and the graduates of Tokyo Imperial University called “Akamon [the Red Gate] -school”. The two groups are well known for their contribution to the introduction of English literature to Japan. Therefore, the three Libraries introduced by the society can be regarded as the fruits of their study of English literature.
How did the two groups join? The magazine called “Geien” (the Athenaeum) and the editor Kocho Baba played an important role in merging the two groups. Kocho Baba was a member of “Bungaku-Kai”. Several years after the magazine was discontinued, Kocho and Bin Ueda, another member of the magazine, founded a new periodical called “Geien”. Sohei Morita and Choko Ikuta, who were students of Tokyo University and often visited Kocho, were asked to write for the periodical. That is how the two groups joined to write for “Geien”.
Then, who connected the two groups with the translation project of the society? It seems to have been Shukotsu Togawa, another member of “Bungakukai”. Ogai Mori's diary says that the first person who asked Ogai to publish his translations of short stories as one of Taiseimeichobunko was Shukotsu Togawa. It was also Shukotsu who recommended Tokuboku Hirata to Kyusaku Tsuruta, the owner of the publishing company.
The Libraries are very interesting because they show what books were read and appreciated by Japanese literary men in the Meiji era. To show how interesting the libraries are, one example is mentioned; the connection between the works of the Libraries and Soseki Natsume, a great novelist and scholar in English literature. Toyoichiro Nogami, one of Soseki's students, translatedGulliver' s TravelsandPrideandPrejudicefor Sekaimeisakutaikan. He chose the two novels because Soseki praised them as masterpieces and strongly recommended him to read them. Another of Soseki's students, Masaki Minakawa, translated George Meredith'sThe ShavingofShagpat. He translated it because his other teacher, Lafcadio Hearn, recommended it to him and he was very impressed by the novel. He asked Soseki to help publish it, but Soseki died before he could find a publisher for him. However, Toyoichiro Nogami used his influence to have it published as a volume in the Library because he knew Soseki also thought quite highly of the novel. Therefore, we can say that Soseki influenced his students in their choice of novels for the Libraries.
I believe this one example is enough to tell us that the three Libraries of World Literature published by the society are worthy of attention.

抄録全体を表示

J.S.Mill's works were widely read in early Meiji Japan, and his main books includingOn Liberty, Representative Government and Utilitarianismwere successively translated into Japanese. This article examines two translations : “Subjection of Women” (1878) and “Mill on Education” (1885). The first is translation of first two chapters ofSubjection of Womenby Motoi Fukamauchi, who also translated Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason. The second is translation ofPrinciples of Political Economy, BkV, Chap 11, § 9, by Ko Matsushima who was famous for his translation of Spencer'sSocial Statics. These two translations aimed to enlighten the readers about sexual equality and freedom of education. Mill was famous for his claim of sexual equality, and he tried to defend free education from state interference. In these translations, we can point out enormous impact of Mill's thought upon early Meiji Japan.

抄録全体を表示

“Kyoiku Chokugo” was formally introduced abroad by Dairoku Kikuchi in1907. The official English translation is the Imperial Rescript on Education which was based on Kikuchi's tentative translation. The purpose of this paper is to clarify the characteristics of the authorized version.
Kikuchi prepared his translation of the Imperial Rescript relative to Education for his lectures on Japanese education at the University of London. His version was criticized in the English scholars' circles in Japan, and some other versions appeared before long. However, Kikuchi didn't support these versions, especially those written in biblical English.
After that, the Imperial Rescript on Education was translated faithfully from the original, keeping the solemn tone. It was translated as the fundamental principle of Japanese education in order to gain approval overseas. The key word “Kokutai” in Japanese was changed from Kikuchi's “national constitution” to “the fundamental character of Our Empire”, and this is the only free translation in the official version. At London University, Kikuchi pointed out the importance of “Kokutai” to the British citizens and explained its translation, which symbolized the national characteristics of Japan before World War II.

抄録全体を表示

It is well known that the English word “philosophy” was translated into Japanese astetsugakuby Amane Nishi.
The writer makes clear the circumstances under which Nishi coined the termtetsugaku.
However, before Nishi coined it, the wordrigakuwas the term most com-monly used to mean “philosophy.”
In 1791-92, in a translation of a Dutch book on astronomy, YoshinagaMotoki translated “philosophy” into various terms, such as 儒教・智学・窮理学・性理学・性理術. This was the first recorded translation of “philosophy” into these terms. And after twenty years, in a few Dutch-Japanese or English-Japanese dictionaries compiled around 1810, we can find the wordrigaku (理学).A case can be made that Yoshinaga Motoki and Dutch interpreters played an important role in the translation of the word “philosophy” into Japanese. But why didtetsugahucome to replacerigakuas the commonly accepted translation whenrigakuhad been used for so many years.
After presenting a report at the regular monthly meeting in April, 1993, the writer tried to throw new light on this question, as well as on the issues of why opinions are divided on the books in which the termtetsugakuappeared, and why “philosophy” was not translated into its exact Japanese equivalentaichigaku (愛智学).

抄録全体を表示

The Tokugawas established the School Fuchu (Shizuoka) Gakumonjo in Suruga in the autumn of 1868 as their major undertaking after the debacle of the Shogunate. In straitened circumstances they found a gleam of light in educa-tion for their future.
Gohachiro Namura was the head of the professors of English at this school. Unfortunately, however, we seldom come across his name as such in the litera-ture concerning the school. Instead, the name of Taizo Namura, who has nothing to do with the school, is often seen as a professor at the school. There are cases where Taizo's personal history is mistaken for Gohachiro's, or, vice versa.
In this paper, the causes of this confusion are discussed, and personal his-tories of Gohachiro and Taizo are presented. Gohachiro was a son of Hachiemon Namura, a very able official Dutch interpreter at Nagasaki. Taizo is said to have become a stepson of Hachiemon. Both Gohachiro and Taizo learnd Dutch and worked as Dutch intepreters at Nagasaki in the beginning, and they learned English and other foreign languages in addition, which made them indispensa-ble persons for modernization of Japan.
Gohachiro was one of the Japanese who studied and taught English earliest in Japan : he was one of the compilers of an English and Japanese dictionary, 1851-1854 (uncompleted), the second English and Japanese dictionary compiled in Japan. He was one of the interpreters when the Treaty of Peace and Amity was signed between the United States and Japan in 1854. He served as the chief interpreter of the first Japanese embassy to the United States in 1860, and also of the Japanese embassy to Russia in 1866.
Taizo was known for his ability in French. He was appointed an interpreter for a group of French technical instructors and workers for the construction of an iron foundary in Yokohama in 1862. He went to France to work for an International Exhibition at Paris in 1867, which Japan took part in for the first time. After the Restoration of 1868 he was employed by the new government at Nagasaki, where he taught French at a language institute transmitted to the new government. He entered the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Tokyo in 1869. He moved to the Ministry of Justice in 1872. He was appointed as an Acting President of the Supreme Court in 1892, and as a member of the House of Peers in 1894. One of his most important contribution was, perhaps, the introduction of French law into Japan, serving as an interpreter and assistant for a famous French professor in law, Dr. Gustave Emile Boissonade de Fontarabie (1825-1910).
The confusion between Gohachiro and Taizo was originated in a simple mistake in a paper published in 1917, where the author wrote “Gohachiro (Taizo) Namura”, in his judgement that Taizo must have been Gohachiro's later name. Then, another authour, in his book published in 1934, noted just “Taizo Namura” in the list of professors at the school. Because this book is one of the basic books in the field, the confusion has been handed down to many other authors.

抄録全体を表示

German medicine had overwhelming influence by its theoretical study on the medical circles of Japan from the 10th year of Meiji (1877). It was adopted by the Daigaku-tokoO, the predecessor of the medical department of the Tokyo Imperial University, in 1869, when British medicine, whose supeority in practical medicine was shown by William Willis, was being forgotten in the medical circles, and doctors and students were showing a marked trend toward medical research for research's sake.
Kanehiro Takagi, who learned British medicine as a Japanese naval surgeon at the attached medical school of St. Thomas's Hospital in London, insisted on having to change such a trend and make more account of medical treatment in order to deliver patients from their illness. He supposed beriberi, which in those days was thought to be caused by germs, would be caused by lack of some nutriments. He buckled himself down to the work of improving meals of the naval men and at last succeeded in protecting them against beriberi. And since 1884 an outbreak of beriberi had never been seen among the Japanese navy.
This paper treats from the viewpoint of the English studies in Japan how much British medicine influenced upon Kanehiro Takagi, one of the naval surgeons in the Meiji era, and also how much British pragmatism infiltrated into the Japanese navy. After all Takagi owed a great deal to British medicine based on pragmatism and it can be said that his success in stamping out beriberi among the Japanese navy was a victory of British medicine.

抄録全体を表示

Edwin Dun came to Japan in 1873 and served for ten years as agricultural expert for Kaitakushi (the Development Commission) at Hokkaido. In 1884, he became Second Secretary of the U.S. Legation in Japan. Later he became First Secretary. He served as U.S. Minister to Japan from 1893 to 1897.
While Dun's contributions to Hokkaido agriculture are summarized in Dr. Shin'ichiro Takakura's Short Biography of Edwin Dun [in Japanese], Dun's family and educational backgrounds have not been well known.
Based on research conducted in Ohio, this present study first confirms that Dun was born at Chillicothe, Ohio, and not at Springfield, Ohio, as has been commonly believed. The study then reveals that Dun's major at Miami University in Ohio was not Law or Agriculture, as has been assumed. The study discloses that he stayed only a year at Miami University and was in the English and Scientific Department, where the Latin and Greek languages were not required.
Dun seems to have gained practical knowledge of farming operations through the management of his family farm, not from Miami University. He taught himself basic veterinary medicine, most probably by using William Youatt's Every Man His Own Cattle Doctor (1848) and other books.
Some people have puzzled over how a farmer like Dun could become a diplomat. This study reveals that his great uncle, R. G. Dun, head of Dun and Bradstreet, was instrumental in securing President Arthur's appointment of Dun to Second Secretary. It has been generally believed that Senator Allen G. Thurman, Dun's uncle-in-law, was involved in this appointment, but the study shows Thurman was influential only in Dun's promotion to Minister.
This study also suggests that Dun had close connections with fellow Ohioans living in Japan while he was there. These people include N. W. Holt, a machinist ; A. J. Bingham and D. W. Stevens, diplomats ; and M. C. Harris, a missionary.

抄録全体を表示

In 1887, Ernest Wilson Clement came to Japan and taught English in Mito Middle School, while doing evangelical activities in Ibaraki Prefecture. But he thought a school solidly based on Christianity should be founded in order to realize his vision in Japan. So he returned to the U. S. in 1893 and raised money to open a new school. In the same year, he went back to Japan again as a Baptist missionary and opened the Tokyo Baptist Academy in the Tsukiji foreign settlement in the following year. In 1899 the school was moved to Ushigome and the name was changed to Duncan Academy. In 1905, a Higher Course was approved by the Government.
Tasuku Sakata entered the school as one of the first Higher Course students. He was born in Akita Prefecture in 1879. His mother was the eldest daughter of Naiki Hinata, the captain of the “Byakkotai” Regiment of Aizu, which was famous for the suicides of its boy soldiers at the end of the Tokugawa Shogunate. Sakata had worked as a miner from his childhood due to the poverty of his family because the Aizu clan was defeated by the Meiji governmental army. After working in Ashio copper mine, he entered the cavalry school and became a teacher of horsemanship in the Military Academy. About that time, he also attended the Bible class in Duncan Academy. After serving in the Russo-Japanese war, he entered Duncan Academy fulltime, and went on to the First Higher School and Tokyo Imperial University. In 1919 he became the first principal of Kanto Gakuin Middle School in Yokohama.

抄録全体を表示

It was not until the middle of the Meiji era that a dictionary of English synonyms was first published in Japan. It was compiled on the basis of dictionaries of synonyms by G. Crabb and G. Graham. Crabb's dictionary was the most popular not only in Britain but also in America. Yet it was difficult for Japanese learners to understand, because it comprised the description of etymology and the quotations from classical writers. On the other hand, Graham's dictionary, which was edited for British students, had some features which enabled even Japanese students to recognize the differences of each pair of English synonyms with ease.
Some dictionaries of English synonyms published in the last ten years of the Meiji era were translations of British ones. Others were compiled from the viewpoint of Japanese studying English. Their ingenious authors took into consideration trouble spots for Japanese students or linguistic interference by the Japanese language.

抄録全体を表示

Approximately fifty passengers left Yokohama on board the American steamer America on March 26, 1872. Their names were listed on The Japan Weekly Mail issued on April 6, 1872. But it was difficult to identify them because of the queer romanized spelling of their Japanese names.
On investigation those passengers were able to be classified into five groups.
(1) Ex-Daimyos who were going to visit foreign countries.
(2) Students despatched by Kaitaku-shi (Reclamation Bureau of Hokkaido).
(3) Young successors to the Mitsuis, a famous family of wealth.
(4) Students despatched by Kan-no-ryo (Office of Promoting Agriculture).
(5) Officials of the Ministry of Finance.
In those days various government offices used to send their officials to foreign countries for studying, but many of them could not display their ability to the full. So the projects were not successful.
In 1873 the government changed its policy and called back most of them to Japan.
It was possible in most cases to clarify the dates of their return and the ships they boarded by looking over ' the Shipping Intelligence' on The Japan Weekly Mail.
What became of those students? Some changed their courses of life and rose up as military officers or diplomats, while many of them are remained unknown. Some of the data about them are available by looking over “The Meiji Hen-nenshi”, a collection of newspaper articles.

抄録全体を表示

This study attempts to examine the aspects, debated by modern historians in the U.S.A., of Tokugawa Japan. The academic foundation of Tokugawa Japan could be largely divided into two schools, namely the Norman line and the Reischauer line.
The Norman line, influenced by the Japanese Marxist ideology, argued that Meiji Japan was undemocratic with its roots in the Tokugawa period. As a result, they tended to have a negative view toward the Tokugawa period. On the other hand, the Reischauer line, based on the modernization theory, claimed that the Meiji period brought upon a successful development for modern society. This thesis resulted in a positive view that Tokugawa Japan must have had a precondition relating to modernization.
Although evaluated differently, both lines have recognized the existence of a link between the Tokugawa and the Meiji period. Therefore, the understanding of Tokugawa Japan seems to be determined by the evaluation of Meiji and what followed.
This Tokugawa (traditional society) -VS.-Meiji (modern society) contrast shows the approach in which the American academic circle analyzes the Tokugawa period. What is needed for a better understanding of Tokugawa Japan will be a constructive dialogue between the Norman line and the Reischauer.

抄録全体を表示