百科全書「教導説」の検討 : 箕作鱗祥による「Education」の翻訳

[Notes] "Kyo-Do Setsu": a theory of teaching and leading people. "Kyo" means "teaching." "Do" "leading" and "Setsu" "a theory" respectively. "Kyo-Iku Ron": a theory of teaching and bringing up people." "Iku" means "bringing up" and "Ron" "a theory" respectively. "Hyakka-Zensho": "Hyak(u)" means "one hundred." "Ka" "items" and "Zensho" "Encyclopaedia" respectively. "CIP": the abbreviation of "Chambers's Information for the People. The Ministry of Kyo-bu: the Ministry organized by "Kyo-do shoku" et al., Buddhist and Shinto priests et al. who instructed people at the time. "Shoku" means "officer." In 1873, Rinsho Mitsukuri (1846-97) translated and published an Article "Education" of CIP as "Kyo-Do Setsu" and in 1878, he revised the title to "Kyo-Iku Ron". This paper discusses the Japanese words translated from an English word "Education" in CIP in 1860s, and tries to find a clue that makes clear a state of political and social confusion in the early days of Meiji era. Some questions which arose as to the translation are as follows: 1) What was the original translated as "Kyo-Do Setsu" ? 2) When was the original published in UK ? 3) When was the original brought in Japan ? 4) How did Mitusuri translate the original ? 5)Why did the translator translate "Education" into "Kyo-Do Setsu" as the title ? 6) Why are the two Japanese words, "Kyo-Do" and "Kyo-Iku," for one English word "Education" mixed in the version ? 7) Why did the translator change "Kyo-Do" to "Kyo-Iku" in the title and text of the revised version in 1878 ? These questions were explained by a comparison between the original and translated version of the Article "Education" in CIP as follows: 1) The original CIP is concluded to be the London and Edinburgh edition CIP without the date of publication (n.d. UK ed.). which is owned by the National Diet Library in Japan by a comparison between the contents of the original and the version. 2) In 1867, CIP was published in Philadelphia, USA, 1867 (US ed.), of which the contents are completely the same as those of the n.d. UK ed. CIP. Many versions of UK ed. and USA ed. were published in almost the same year as if to be paired. However. there is no UK ed. to match 1867 US ed. Only the above n.d. UK ed. can fill in the blank. The year of publication of n.d. UK ed. is, therefore. concluded to be 1867. 3) There are two views about the date when the n.d.-UK CIP was imported to Japan. Verbeck(1830-98) view and Fukuzawa (1834-1901) one. The present paper proposes another possibility. There is a presentation stamp on the n.d. UK CIP which shows that the presentation was made by the late Yoshinari Hatakeyama. Hatakeyama (1843-76) was a student studying abroad, in UK between 1865 and 1867 and in USA between 1867 and 1873. T here is a possibility that Hatakeyama bought the n.d.UK CIP in 1867 and sent it to Japan. 4) The style of the Japanese versions in 1860s was written in classical Japanese in Chinese style and was an adaptation (free translation) rather than a translation (literal one). This paper confirms that Mitsukuri's version was also the same as the style in 1860s. 5) In the Mitsukuri version, an English word "Education" is translated into two Japanese words, "Kyo-do" and "Kyo-iku". The two Japanese words are different in meaning: the former is "teaching and leading" and the latter "teaching and bringing up." The question why the two Japanese words were mixed in the version is discussed as follows: (a) As Mitsukuri knew that the English word "Education" had been translated into Japanese word "Kyo-iku". he may have made a mistake in selecting Japanese words. To examine whether the selection was a careless mistake, the number of two words, "Kyo-do" and "Kyo-iku". was counted. The number was 128 for "Kyo-do" and 13 for "Kyo-iku". The number of 13 for "Kyo-iku" is too many for a mistake. The mixing, therefore, may not have been done carelessly but intentionally. (b) We examined the translator may have varied the words according to the context of the original or the translated version, but there was no systematic difference in the context. (c) Finally the political and social effect on the translator, Mitsukuri, was examined. At the time there was a conflict between the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Kyo-bu." Did the conflict have an effect on Mitsukuri's translation? There is no sign of mental turmoil in his career. 6) Both "Kyo-do" and "Kyo-iku" are used in official documents of the Ministry of Education at that time. The mixing, therefore, may have occurred unintentionally in translation and even in the official documents. As the Meiji government concentrated its administrative power on the central administration, the government seems to have settled on using one word "Kyo-iku." Therefore, Mitsukuri must have revised the title from "Kyo-do-setsu" to "Kyo-iku-ron."