竹島問題の歴史

19.4.12

1876 - Watanabe Kouki's "Opinion on Matsushima - 1"

The following letter was written by Watanabe Kouki (渡辺洪基), who was the Director of the Bureau of Documents in Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1876. The undated letter was written in response to two letters written in July 1876, one of which was a petition written by a man named  Mutoh Heigaku (武藤平学) to develop an island he referred to as "Matsushima." 

We know that the Watanabe letter was written in response to the Mutoh petition because that is how it was described in an 1881 Japanese Ministry Report entitled, "A Study of Historical Evidence of Takeshima" (竹島考証). Here is what was written just before the Watanabe letter in the 1881 report.
"In regard to the two above letters, Watanabe Kouki (渡辺洪基) wrote his opinion in two letters. Items No. 11 and No. 12 are those letters."
The Mutoh petition was one of the "two above letters" in the report. It was labeled Item No. 8. This means that the Watanabe letter was written in 1876, sometime after Mutoh's July petition. You can seen Mutoh Heigaku's petiton HERE.

The Watanabe letter explained that there was confusion in the Foreign Ministry in regard to the location of the Matsushima described in Mutoh's petition, but it also said that Liancourt Rocks (Matsushima / Hornet Rocks) were Japanese.



Therefore, if the “Matsushima” being talked about here is Takeshima (Ulleungdo), then it belongs to them. If the Matsushima is not Takeshima, then it must belong to Japan.
Mr. Watanabe urged that a survey ship be sent to the area to clear up the mystery, which is what the Japanese government eventually did in 1880. The survey determined that the Matsushima being referred to in the petition was, in fact, Ulleungdo.
The following is a translation of Mr. Watanabe's letter, which can be found as Item No. 11 in the third and last volume of the 1881 text, "A Study of Historical Evidence of Takeshima" (竹島考証):
Opinion on Matsushima - 1

There are several brief descriptions of Takeshima (Ulleungdo) in past records, but there are no discussions of Matsushima. However, these days people are talking a great deal about Matsushima. There are various views. Some say that it is two islands, and some say that it is one island with two names, but I have not heard that it has been decided either way.

The (mentioned) “Takeshima” is considered to be Chosun’s Ulleungdo, which the Shogunate ended up entrusting to them (Koreans) as a convenient quick fix, without considering future implications. Therefore, if the “Matsushima” being talked about here is Takeshima (Ulleungdo), then it belongs to them. If the Matsushima is not Takeshima, then it must belong to Japan. It is still inconclusive.

The location of Matsushima is considered important because it is situated between Joseon and Japan. It is on sea routes between Nagasaki and Vladisvostok and between Shimonseiki and Wonsan, so this is a critical location, where English and Russian warships are frequently seen. So we should be very careful. Even if it is part of Joseon, we still have to protect it. As things stand now, we have no answers to give if other countries ask us about the island. This means the island is ownerless.

Many records say that “Argonaut,” which is the Western name for Takeshima (Ulleungdo), does not exist, and that “Dagelet,” which refers to Matsushima, is actually Takeshima (Ulleungdo). So what we call "Matsushima” (Liancourt Rocks) is called “Hornet Rocks” by Westerners. Foreign maps show Hornet Rocks to be Japanese territory, but there is still no agreement among countries concerning the other two islands.

We do not have the answers either, so the area should be surveyed to determine under whose jurisdiction it belongs. Therefore, we should first contact Shimane Prefecture and investigate their relationship up to now. At the same time, we need to dispatch a ship to do a survey of the area. If Chosun has already started, we need to determine their progress and consider our options. I respectfully urge that this matter be dealt with as soon as possible.

Watanabe Kouki, Director of the Bureau of Documents

44 comments:

  1. Pacifist & Kaneganese,

    I am not sure of the date of the Watanabe letter, but I think it was written in 1877. Can one of you please confirm that? Also, can you check to make sure the translation is correct?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kaneganese,

    Here is the Japanese if you would like to make a similar Japanese language post:

    昔者竹島ノ記事略説多クシテ松島ノ事説論スル者ナシ 而テ今者人松嶋ニ喋々ス 然り而テ此二嶋或ハ一島両名或ハ二嶋也ト諸説紛々朝野其是非ヲ決スル者ヲ聞カス 彼竹島ナル者ハ朝鮮ノ蔚陵島トシ幕府倫安ノ議遂ニ彼ニ委ス 故ニ此所謂松嶋ナル者竹嶋ナレハ彼ニ属シ若竹島以外ニ在ル松島ナレハ 我ニ属セサルヲ得サルモ之ヲ決論スル者無シ然ルニ松嶋ナル者我国ト朝鮮トノ間ニ位シ長崎ヨリ浦潮港ニ至リ馬関其他石州因州伯州壱岐ヨリ彼要地タル 「ラサレフ」港ヘノ道ニ当タルヲ以テ頗ル要地ト為シ連綿此近傍ニ英魯其船艦ヲ出没ス若シ夫我国ノ部分ナランニハ之ニ多少ノ注意無ル可ラス 彼国ナラン歟又保護ヲ加ヘサル可ラス 況ンヤ他国我ニ糺ス 之ニ答フルニ決辞ナキヲ如何セン 然ラハ則無主ノ一島ノミ諸書ニ就テ案スルニ竹嶋洋名アルゴナウト嶋ナル者ハ 全ク烏有ノ者ニシテ其松島デラセ嶋ナル者ハ本来ノ竹嶋即チ?陵島ニシテ我松嶋ナル者ハ洋名ホルネットロックスナルカ如シ 然ルヲ洋客竹嶋ヲ認テ松嶋ト為シ更ニ竹嶋ナル者ヲ想起セシ者ノ如シ而テ此ホルネットロックスノ 我国ニ属スルハ各国ノ地図皆然リ他ノ二嶋ニ至リテハ各国其認ムル所ヲ同フセス 我国論又確拠無シ 是実ニ其地ノ形勢ヲ察シ其所属ノ地ヲ定メ而テ其責ニ任スル所ヲ両国間ニ定メサル可ラサル者タリ因テ先ツ嶋根県ニ照会シ其従来ノ習例ヲ糺シ併セテ船艦ヲ派シテ其地勢ヲ見若シ彼既ニ著手セハ 其宰政ノ模様ヲ実査シ然ル後ニ其方略ヲ定メント要ス 請フ速ニ採リテ議スル者アラン事ヲ伏望ス

    記錄局長渡辺洪基立案

    ReplyDelete
  3. Gerry,

    It is wrtten in 1878, and his mame read as Watanabe K"ou"ki, not K"uo"ki.

    Thank you for original Japanese transcript. I am going to write the Japanes version today. By the way, I made few changes to the previous posts. I will write where I changed later. But the colour I used for Yaemon's testimony looks different from yours. I tried several, but it still different and I have no idea which is the right one...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you, Kaneganese.

    The color I used for the quoted text is located on firth row, second column from the right on the color palette. By the way, I changed the color for you in your Japanese language post.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Comrades, I fill a vacant character "?" in Gerry's comments.
    Certainly, "?陵島" is "蔚陵島".

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks, 小嶋日向守

    ReplyDelete
  7. The title of this post "Watanabe Says Liancourt Rocks are Japanese" is groundless false. He never said that. He said " Foreign maps show Hornet Rocks to be Japanese territory." He was just citing the western map.


    Watanabe Kouki's opinion was just one of the MOFA officials' who had different opinions about the Matsushima in Mutoh's petition. His opinion sounds favorable to Japan, but unfortunately his opinion turned out to be useless.


    Watanabe Kouki said "....but if it was not Ulleungdo, then it belonged to Japan." Watanabe Kouki hoped Matusushim in Mutoh's petion to be an profitable looking island like Ulleongdo and he desired to make it Japan's. He had no idea Mutoh was actually referring to Dokdo which was a barren island. Unfortunately, his hope didn't come true.


    Mutoh's Matsushima turned out to be Ulleungdo ending the ongoing debate. Amagi must have found Dokdo. Then why didn't Watanabe Kouki claim it as Japanese land? He said "....but if it was not Ulleungdo, then it belonged to Japan." Japan must have known Dokdo which was an attached map to Ulleungdo belonged to Korea and had no interest in it because it was not looking profitable like Ulleongdo. It was just a useless small islets.

    This is a whole point. Nothing more. Don't abuse Watanabe Kouki's geological confusion to distort the fact.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Gerry, you're being silly again.

    Your original post (dated June, 2007) was titled "1878 - Watanabe Says Liancourt Rocks are Japanese".
    But right after my comment here, you immediately changed the title of this post to "1876 - Watanabe Says Liancourt Rocks are Japanese".

    Your original post said that Watanabe was "Director of the Bureau of Documents in Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1878", but you changed that to "1876" as well.

    It's funny, because in comment #1 (back in June 2007) you said, "Pacifist & Kaneganese, I am not sure of the date of the Watanabe letter, but I think it was written in 1877. Can one of you please confirm that?"

    And then in comment #3 Kaneganese said, "Gerry,It is wrtten in 1878".
    And then in comment #4, you said, "Thank you, Kaneganese."

    So, what made you change your mind? Have you found some new evidence somewhere?
    Could you show it to us?


    Also, while you were at it, you should have changed the title to "Watanabe Says Liancourt Rocks May Be Japanese".
    Watanabe never said that the Liancourt Rocks are Japanese, he was just musing that they might be.

    ReplyDelete
  9. jk6411 wrote:

    Your original post (dated June, 2007) was titled "1878 - Watanabe Says Liancourt Rocks are Japanese".
    But right after my comment here, you immediately changed the title of this post to "1876 - Watanabe Says Liancourt Rocks are Japanese".


    My original Watanabe post was made five years ago. I have learned a few things about Japanese history since then. This post needed updated, which was why I changed the date, and there are still a few other posts on this site that need updating. I have been pretty lazy about maintaining this site.

    The Watanabe letter was written in 1876, and I have already given you just one of the reasons why I know it was written in 1876. There is still another reason that I have not mentioned, but I will let you figure that out yourself.

    Why do you think the Watanabe letter was written in 1878? Because that is what my old post had said? Or because that is what is written on your hero Steve Barber's site? What is your source for saying it was written in 1878?

    You should know that Steve Barber gets a lot of his stuff from our site, including his information about the Watanabe letter, because he cannot read Japanese and can barely read Korean. That might be why his site still claims the letter was written in 1878. However, if you go to Steve's site HERE, you will see that he describes Watanabe's letter as an 1876 document in the title, but then refers to it as an 1878 document in his description. Why did he describe it as a 1876 document in the title? He also comes to the same faulty conclusion as you, that it was written after the 1877 Dajoukan Instruction.

    So, JK, why do you think the Watanabe letter was written in 1878? What is your souce?

    ReplyDelete
  10. jk6411 wrote:

    Also, while you were at it, you should have changed the title to "Watanabe Says Liancourt Rocks May Be Japanese".
    Watanabe never said that the Liancourt Rocks are Japanese, he was just musing that they might be.


    Watanabe did not say it "may" be Japanese; he said it "must" be Japanese." Here is what he wrote:

    Therefore, if the “Matsushima” being talked about here is Takeshima (Ulleungdo), then it belongs to them. If the Matsushima is not Takeshima, then it must belong to Japan.

    Watanabe also wrote the following:

    So what we call "Matsushima” (Liancourt Rocks) is called “Hornet Rocks” (Liancourt Rocks) by Westerners. Foreign maps show Hornet Rocks to be Japanese territory, but there is still no agreement among countries concerning the other two islands.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Gerry Bevers,

    Watanabe said "If the Matsushima is not Takeshima, then it must belong to Japan.". In this sentence, "it" doesn't indicate Liancourt Rocks. He never imagined "Matsushima" being talked about could be Liancourt Rocks, even in his dream. To Watanabe, "it" should have been great looking island like Ulleongdo.


    He also didn't say "Hornet Rocks to be Japanese territory". As I wrote previously, he was just citing what foreign maps said. What he said was "Foreign maps show Hornet Rocks to be Japanese territory." But you wrote as if Watanabe said so, which is very misleading.


    If he said "Hornet Rocks to be Japanese territory", why didn't he take any meaure to make it Japanese territory? It was because Liancourt Rocks were not new Matsushima in his mind. He didn't care about Hornet Rocks at all.


    JK6411's title "Watanabe Says Liancourt Rocks May Be Japanese" sounds much more proper than your "Watanabe Says Liancourt Rocks are Japanese." Watanabe didn't say Liancourt Rocks are Japanese.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Sloww,

    Watanabe was the Director of the Bureau of Documents in Japan's Foreign Ministry. He knew that Takeshima (Ulleungdo) had been conceded to Korea in 1696 partly because of its closeness to Korea and because it appeared on Korean maps. However, he also knew that Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks) had not been conceded to Korea because of its closeness to Japan. This was explained in Watanabe's second letter, which is not posted here. In the second letter, Liancourt Rocks was even referred to as "Oki's Matsushima."

    What Watanabe was confused about was whether the Matsushima in Mutoh's petition was referring to Ulleungdo, to "Oki's Matsushima," or to some other island. If it had been referring to "Oki's Matsushima," then it would have definitely been Japan's.

    In reference to foreign maps showing Hornet Rocks (Liancourt Rocks) to be Japanese territory, Watanabe said that had been agreed on among countries, but that the two other islands (Argonaunt and the mysterious Matsushima) had not yet been agreed on.

    Watanabe was unsure of the size and geography of Liancourt Rocks (Matsushima / Hornet Rocks), but he knew them to be Japanese.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Gerry,
    I am not sure of the date of the Watanabe letter

    Since there is no date in the text, it is unknown.

    "In the second letter, Liancourt Rocks was even referred to as "Oki's Matsushima."

    Isn't the 2nd recommendation by Watanabe known in South Korea? It prove that Sloww's interpretation is wrong.
    松島は竹島より我近き方にあれば日本に屬し朝鮮又異論ある能はす。(If Matsushima is near us from Takeshima, it belongs to Japan. And It can't say Korean territory or other objection.)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Gerry,

    These are not even real "letters", as you claim.
    In the 竹島考証 Vol.3, No.11, it says in the introduction, "Regarding the last two letters, Kuoki Watanabe wrote these two "opinions". They are Items No.11 and No.12."

    These were simply Watanabe's "opinions" about the two petitions to develop "Matsushima" which were submited to MOFA.
    That's why they were undated. And why they weren't adressed to anyone.
    (His two "opinions" are titled "Concerning Matsushima".)

    Also, Watanabe says in his opinion #1, "..these days people are talking a great deal about Matsushima. There are various views."
    So, there were various views within MOFA concerning Matsushima.
    Watanabe's was simply one of them.
    So.. why should we care so much about what he said?

    By the way, were you ever able to ascertain exactly when Kuoki Watanabe was Director of the Bureau of Documents in Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs? (In the original post you said 1878. Why have you changed it to 1876?)

    (Was Watanabe really such an important historical figure, as you would like to have us believe?)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Gerry Bevers,

    The title "Watanabe Says Liancourt Rocks are Japanese" was given to Watanbe's letter written in 1876(?). In his letter of 1876(?), he didn't say "Liancourt Rocks are Japanese." That's why your title is misleading.

    You wrote "In reference to foreign maps showing Hornet Rocks (Liancourt Rocks) to be Japanese territory, Watanabe said that had been agreed on among countries, but that the two other islands (Argonaunt and the mysterious Matsushima) had not yet been agreed on." But Watanabe didn't say that had been agreed on among countries. He didn't show any of his own opinion about the ownership of Hornet Rocks. That's why your title is misleading.

    Even in his other letter, there's no clue that Watanabe said "Liancourt Rocks are Japanese." Mr. Watanabe didn't know the exact ownership of Matsushima. He said
    "if Matsushima is not Takeshima, then it can return to either Inaba (因幡), Oki (隠岐), Iwami (石見), or another province. If we do that, then we have to find out from the prefectures. We have to investigate and ask these prefectures if Matsushima is a neighboring island, if Takeshima and Matsushima are the same island, or if they are different islands." If he really believed Matsushima was a Japanese territory, as you mislead, he shouldn't have said that.

    You wrote "In the second letter, Liancourt Rocks was even referred to as "Oki's Matsushima." Did Watanabe say so? Can you tell me his whole sentence? I'm sure he didn't mean "Liancourt Rocks are Japanese."

    There's one more thing to say. In Steve Barber's site, at least there's no title of posts based on the distortion of historial documents.

    ReplyDelete
  16. opp,

    opp,

    You wrote:
    Isn't the 2nd recommendation by Watanabe known in South Korea? It prove that Sloww's interpretation is wrong.
    松島は竹島より我近き方にあれば日本に屬し朝鮮又異論ある能はす。(If Matsushima is near us from Takeshima, it belongs to Japan. And It can't say Korean territory or other objection.)

    Could you tell me why my interpretation is wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  17. sloww

    “松島は竹島より我近き方にあれば日本に屬し朝鮮又異論ある能はす。(If Matsushima is near us from Takeshima, it belongs to Japan. And It can't say Korean territory or other objection.)”

    What island do you think this Japanese Matsushima is?

    ReplyDelete
  18. correction

    If Matsushima is near us from Takeshima, it belongs to Japan. And It can't say Korean territory or other objection.


    Because Matsushima is closer to us than Takeshima, it belongs to Japan. And It can't say Korean territory or other objection.

    ReplyDelete
  19. opp,

    I asked why “松島は竹島より我近き方にあれば日本に屬し朝鮮又異論ある能はす。(If Matsushima is near us from Takeshima, it belongs to Japan. And It can't say Korean territory or other objection.)” proves my interpretation is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  20. sloww
    If your interpretation is right, "Japanese Matsushima" does not Liancourt Rocks. However, Watanabe has concluded that Japanese Matsushima exists.

    In order to take consistency of this, Matsushima other than a Liancourt Rocks or Ulleungdo has to exist. Then I here you about Japanese Matsushima which Watanabe referred according to your interpretation.

    ReplyDelete
  21. opp,

    What was my interpretation? You should have written in detail what and how I interpreted.

    In Watanabe's letter posted above, I said he had no idea about Japanese Matsushima. In his other letter written later, it seems he became to know about Japanese Matsushima. I didn't say his later letter shows Watanabe didn't know the existence of Japanese Matsushima. I wrote he didn't know exactly the ownership of Matsushima.

    You should have read my comments carefully befor interpreting them as you want.

    ReplyDelete
  22. >I wrote he didn't know exactly the ownership of Matsushima.

    I cannot think that you read the 2nd Watanabe's recommendation.

    1.The Matsuhima is not other Matsushima which was also called as Takeshima, whose Korean name is Ulleungdo.
    2.The former Shimane governor knows the Matsushima.
    3.Around of the Matsuhima is 1.5 ri
    4.The Matsuhima is written at the southernmost of the Rossian maps.
    5.The Matsushima is drawn also on the British, Weimar and French map.
    6.Since the Matsushima is small compared with Takeshima, books of our country didn’t describe the island.
    7.Dispute with Chosun is also only Takeshima. (The Matsuhima didn’t contain the despute)
    8.The Matsushima is different although the Shogunate made Takeshima the Korean territory.

    Watanabe said this Matsuhima is Japanese territory.
    He didn't know local administrative boundaries in Japan but he knew that the Matsushima is Japanese territory.

    The zone of local administration doesn't mean the country border.

    Wrong: he didn't know exactly the state ownership of Matsushima

    Correct: he knew that the local ownership about Matsushima was not decided, though the state ownership is Japan.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Watanabe knew existence of Matsushima(Liancourt Rocks) with the geographical features correctly. He also understood confusion of the name correctly. And he thought that Matsushima(Liancourt Rocks) was a Japanese territory. 2nd Watanabe's recommendation proves these facts.

    Sloww: He never imagined "Matsushima" being talked about could be Liancourt Rocks, even in his dream. To Watanabe, "it" should have been great looking island like Ulleongdo. If he said "Hornet Rocks to be Japanese territory", why didn't he take any meaure to make it Japanese territory? It was because Liancourt Rocks were not new Matsushima in his mind. He didn't care about Hornet Rocks at all.

    If Sloww has read the 2nd Watanabe's recommendation, he did not make such a mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  24. opp,


    You failed to prove I was wrong. You don't know even what I exactly said. Nevertheless, I fully understand what you want to believe and insist.

    Watanabe's personal opinion seems to be very important to you, but his opinion turned out to be not important.

    Don't forget there were other MOFA official's opinions such as Tanabe Taichi's.

    Tanabe Taichi's opinion is :

    "I have heard that Japanese use the name "Matsushima," but the actual name is "Usan(=Dokdo)," which is part of Joseon's Ulleungdo (蔚陵島). Concerning Joseon's ownership of Ulleungdo (蔚陵島), there was a dispute during the old government (Tokugawa) when, after exchanging several documents to support our claims, we agreed to give it up, a fact that is permanently written in our two histories. To dispatch someone to inspect without any reason is like counting another's treasure, and trespassing into a neighbor's territory." (Translation by Gerry Bevers in http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/06/1877-different-japanese-views-on.html)

    ReplyDelete
  25. Sloww:Watanabe's personal opinion seems to be very important to you, but his opinion turned out to be not important.


    I have not said such a thing, though I said that presumption of another island including opinion of Tanabe or Watanabe did not affect present Takeshima's sovereignty according to the international law. Although sovereignty is not influenced , I said that your interpretation about the recognition of Watanabe was wrong.

    Sloww: He never imagined "Matsushima" being talked about could be Liancourt Rocks, even in his dream. To Watanabe, "it" should have been great looking island like Ulleongdo. If he said "Hornet Rocks to be Japanese territory", why didn't he take any meaure to make it Japanese territory? It was because Liancourt Rocks were not new Matsushima in his mind. He didn't care about Hornet Rocks at all.


    Sloww:Tanabe Taichi's opinion
    This is Tanabe’s personal opinion according to your standard. What kind of relation does the opinion of Tanabe have with the your above wrong interpretation about the recognition of Watanabe?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Opp wrote:

    Since there is no date in the text, it is unknown.

    Yes, the exact dates of the Watanabe letters are unknown since they were undated, but we know they were written between July 1876 and December 31, 1876.

    We know the Watanabe letters were written after July 1876 because it was reported in the 竹島考証 that the first letter was written in response to Mutoh's July 1876 petition. And we know Watanabe's letter was written before December 31, 1876 because immediately after Watanabe's second letter, the following was written:

    "In November of the same year, 瀨脇壽人, Deputy Director for Trade at the Vladivostok Harbor, went to Russia and was also thinking about Matsushima...."

    Since 瀨脇壽人 went to Russia in November 1876, the phrase "in ... the same year" tells us that Watanabe's letters were written in 1876. Also, the documents in that section of the 竹島考証 seem to be in chronological order. Watanabe's second letter was "Item No. 12, and "Item No. 13" was a letter dated December 19, 1876, which suggests that Watanabe's letters were written before December 19, 1876.

    ReplyDelete
  27. jk6411 wrote:

    So, there were various views within MOFA concerning Matsushima.
    Watanabe's was simply one of them.
    So.. why should we care so much about what he said?


    No, Mr. Watanabe's "letter" was summarizing the different views at the Foreign Ministry concerning Mutoh's mysterious Matsushima, which was why he started it with the following paragraph:

    There are several brief descriptions of Takeshima (Ulleungdo) in past records, but there are no discussions of Matsushima. However, these days people are talking a great deal about Matsushima. There are various views. Some say that it is two islands, and some say that it is one island with two names, but I have not heard that it has been decided either way.

    Also, in his closing paragraph, he used the pronoun "we," not "I."

    ReplyDelete
  28. Poor Sloww would believe this propaganda site.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japans-watanabe-koukis-confusion-about-matsushima-%E6%9D%BE%E5%B3%B6

    This propaganda site disguised Watanabe's 2nd proposition and wrote the distorted interpretation(essay). The comment of sloww and jk6411 is a copy of this site. Probably, they will not be able to read the original text and do not have the ability to detect concealment and fabrication. Then, pitiful they cannot but believe the fabrication interpretation.

    ReplyDelete
  29. opp,

    I don't care whatever you say. You have proved yourself you are such a unintelligent poster of this blog full of distortion.


    What I care is the intelligent readers who can tell the truth from the false made by the pro-Japanese people like you.


    I had a nice talk with you. It was fun to read your very illogical thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  30. The following is the first part of Watanabe's second letter. Notice how he kept referring to Liancourt Rocks as "Oki's Matsushima," in a way that suggested it was generally accepted knowledge. He also probably referred to it as "Oki's Matsushima" to distinguish it from the mysterious Matsushima in Mutoh's petition:

    Concerning Matsushima 2

    I have heard that Matsushima (松島) and Takeshima (竹島) are just two names for the same island, Takeshima, which is called Ulleungdo in Korea. However, I have also heard from the Governor of the Tottori Prefecture that there are, indeed, two islands. According to writings by Toda Takayoshi (戶田敬義), Katou (加藤), and Ken Kanamori (金森謙), there is an island called Takeshima about 40 ri to the north of the West Island (西島) of Oki’s Matsushima (隱岐囯松島) . West Island is just a small island of Matsushima that islanders call “Next Island” (次島). Also, it is said that Takeshima is about 140 ri by ship from Yonago in Houki Province (伯州米子). They say that you can sail from Yonago to Izumo (出雲) and then on past Oki’s Matsushima (隠岐丿松島) to reach Takeshima.

    ReplyDelete
  31. The following is the second paragraph from Watanabe's second letter (1876) concerning Matsushima:

    Concerning Matsushima 2 (part 2)

    However, it is also written that it is about 60 ri by ship from Oki’s Fukushima (福島), also called Fukuura (福浦), to Matsushima, and then about 40 ri from Matsushima to Takeshima. Moreover, it is about 40 ri from Takeshima on to Korea. This is based on the story of an old man who in the 1724, the 9th year of Kyoho (亨保), testified that he had sailed there several times. When asked he said, “The distance from the village of 目三柳 in Aimi County (會見郡) of Houki Province (伯州) to Oki’s Dogo Island (隠岐ノ後島 is between 35 and 36 ri. Using this distance one can guess the distance from Takeshima to the mountains of Korea to be about 40 ri.” Based on this, there definitely seems to be two islands.

    ReplyDelete
  32. The following is the third paragraph from Watanabe's second letter (1876) concerning Matsushima:

    Concerning Matsushima 2 (part 3)

    If we look at Western texts, the British “Imperial Gazetteer” says that Dagelet Island (pronounced as “Dazera”), namely Matsushima, is an island in the Sea of Japan that is situated between the Japanese Archipelago and the Korean Peninsula. Its northwest corner is at 137 degrees (should read “37 degrees”) 25 minutes north latitude and 130 degrees 56 minutes east longitude (Greenwich means). It was named by La Pérouse in 1787. It has a coastline of sheer cliffs and is approximately 9 ri around. It is covered by dense forest up to its highest point.

    ReplyDelete
  33. In Watanabe's second letter introduced by Gerry Bevers, I could find "Oki's Matsushima" only twice, which is far from Watanabe's keeping referring Dokdo as Oki's Matsushima.

    There's no clue Watanabe believed Matsushima was Oki's firmly enough to say "Liancourt Rocks are Japanese."as Gerry Bevers misled. "Oki's Matsushima" was not what Watanabe said. Watanabe was just citing the document he heard. He was citing the content of 竹島図説 published in 1751(?), which is far from suggesting "Oki's Matsushima" was generally accepted knowledge. The expression "Oki's Matsushima" was used by the Japanese fishermen who trespassed to Ulleongdo.

    Believing and saying is different from citing. "Matsushima is Japanese." is different from "I heard Takeshima is to the north of the Oki's Matsushima."

    When writing his second letter, Watanabe seemed to get acquainted with Japanese traditional Matsushima, but it seems he still had no interest in it. His main concern was figuring out what Mutoh's Matsushima was.

    Watanabe never said "Liancourt Rocks are Japanese."

    ReplyDelete
  34. sloww
    What I care is the intelligent readers who can tell the truth from the false made by the pro-Japanese people like you.

    Why did your intelligent readers ignore the Watanabe's 2nd proposal? Why was the your intelligent reader's interraption contradictory to the 2nd proposal?
    people will see only what they want to see.

    ReplyDelete
  35. sloww
    Watanabe seemed to get acquainted with Japanese traditional Matsushima, but it seems he still had no interest in it.

    He had much interest.
    若シ外國ノ問ニ逢フ又答フル所ヲ知ラス、若我物トセン歟之ニ關スル義務ナカルヘカフス之ヲ朝鮮ニ歸セン歟、外國ニ主意セサルヲ得ス、是再考ス所以ナリ

    Watanabe never said "Liancourt Rocks are Japanese."

    Japanese traditional Matsushima is Liancourt Rocks and he said Japanese.

    ReplyDelete
  36. opp,

    I decided not to respond to your illogical comment because it's waste of time, but I can't help telling you the right thing.

    Watanabe became to know Matsushima(Dokdo) from the document, but he never said "Liancourt Rocks are Japanese".

    ReplyDelete
  37. The following is the 4th paragraph of Watanabe's second letter (1876) concerning Matsushima:

    Concerning Matsushima 2 (part 4)

    Also, “Lippincott’s Pronouncing Gazetteer” says that Dagelet is a small island in the Sea of Japan that is exactly between Japan and Korea. It has a circumference of 8 ri and is positioned at 37 degrees 25 minutes north latitude and 130 degrees 56 minutes east longitude. If you look this up on a map, the location of the island labeled as Dagelet, or Matsushima, on the British navigational chart seems to be the same in both books.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Sloww wrote:

    There's no clue Watanabe believed Matsushima was Oki's firmly enough to say "Liancourt Rocks are Japanese."as Gerry Bevers misled. "Oki's Matsushima" was not what Watanabe said. Watanabe was just citing the document he heard.

    Watanabe said, "Therefore, if the Matsushima being talked about here is Takeshima (Ulleungdo), then it belongs to them. If the Matsushima is not Takeshima, then it must belong to Japan."

    "Oki's Matsushima" was not Takeshima (Ulleungdo), so that means that Watanabe believed that Oki's Matsushima "must belong to Japan."

    In the meantime, Koreans also believed Liancourt Rocks (Oki's Matsushima) to be Japanese, even though they never traveled there and did not know anything about it, other than that it was a small, "insignificant island connected to Japanese territory" that was visible in the distance to the southeast of Ulleungdo.

    ReplyDelete
  39. "The Imperial Gazetteer" (1855):

    DAGELET. an isl. Sea of Japan, between isl. Niphon and the penisnsula of Corea; lat. (N.E. point) 37º 25' N.; lon. 130º 56' E. (a.); so named by La Perouse, who visited it in 1787. It is about 9 m. in circumference, and the shore is environed by a perpendicular wall of rock. It is covered up to the summits of its highest evelations with wood.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Gerry Bevers,

    You are genius on distorting documents even Japanese ones. It looks like your purpose of blogging is misleading the readers, not telling the truth. The biggest victim of your misleading is Japanese readers.

    The Matsushima being talked about in Watanabe's letter is not Japanese traditional Matsushima(Dokdo). It is the Matshushima Mutoh wrongly referred to in his petition. The Matsushima in Mutoh's petition is the Ulleongdo. Mutoh was confused about the names of two islands. You should tell your readers Japanese traditional Matsushima(Dokdo) and Mutoh's Matsushima(Ulleongdo) are not same islands.

    When Watanabe said "If the Matsushima is not Takeshima, then it must belong to Japan.", he did mean the other islands than Takeshima, no matter what it is, must belong to Japan. It didn't specifically mean Dokdo. He had no interest in Dokdo at all. Anyway, he was such a greedy imperial Japanese expansionist.

    I'm sure even some Japanese people know you are misleading and they are ashamed of the fact you are on Japanese side. Of course, the pro-Japanese people especially in this blog is an exception. They must be proud of your clever work of distortion.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Sloww wrote:

    You should tell your readers Japanese traditional Matsushima(Dokdo) and Mutoh's Matsushima(Ulleongdo) are not same islands.

    As he wrote in his letter, Watanabe believed there were two islands, "Oki's Matsushima" and Takeshima (Ulleungdo). He said if Mutoh's mysterious Matsushima was referring to Ulleungdo, then it belonged to Korea. However, if it were Oki's Matsushima, then "it must belong to Japan," as he wrote in his first letter. Also, later in his second letter he wrote the following.

    Moreover, the names "Matsushima" and "Takeshima" are, of course, Japanese names. From that we can assume that they were seen as Japanese islands.

    Next, in regard to our country's relationship with Korea, the late Shogunate did not quarreling, so it gave Takeshima to Korea based only on the fact that it was geographically closer and because it appeared on their map as Ulleungdo.

    However, there are two islands, Matsushima and Takeshima. Since Matsushima is closer to our country than Takeshima, Chosun cannot possibly deny that it belongs to Japan.


    Watanabe was unsure of the location of Mutoh's Matsushima, but he definitely considered "Oki's Matsushima" to be Japanese territory because of its history and its being closer to Japan than to Korea.

    That is why in his letter Watanabe seemed so interested in the distances between the islands. He calculated 40 ri from "Oki's Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks) to Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and 40 ri more from Takeshima to the Korean mainland. That would be 80 ri from Oki's Matsushima to the Korean mainland compared to only 60 ri from Oki Prefecture to Oki's Matsushima.

    It doesn't take a genius, Sloww, to read what Watanabe, himself, wrote: "Since Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks) is closer to our country than Takeshima (Ulleungdo), Chosun cannot possibly deny that it belongs to Japan."

    ReplyDelete
  42. Gerry Bevers,

    An ordinary people can't pick up each piece of wording of Watanabe's and fabricate them for the purpose of misleading.

    It's impossible for you to prove "Watanabe Says Liancourt Rocks are Japanese." because he didn't say it.

    Believe whatever you like if you feel comfortable with it, but misleading the readers is immoral.

    Watanabe's personal opinion is not worth my time. I have more important things to do in this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Sloww wrote:

    Watanabe's personal opinion is not worth my time. I have more important things to do in this blog.

    More important things? Such as ignoring the obvious and making unsupported claims that I am trying to distort the facts?

    ReplyDelete
  44. sloww:I decided not to respond to your illogical comment because it's waste of time, but I can't help telling you the right thing.

    I understand that you don't want to know the truth.

    sloww:Watanabe became to know Matsushima(Dokdo) from the document, but he never said "Liancourt Rocks are Japanese".

    International law gives priority to the actual over the nominal thing. Watanabe's Matsuhima is actual Liancourt Rocks.
    "homines id quod volunt credunt"

    ReplyDelete