竹島問題の歴史

1.6.15

"Yanko" island "never incorporated into Korean territory," Black Dragon Society Bulletin, 10 March 1901

On 10 March 1901, the Black Dragon Society of Japan, also called the Amur River Society, published a collection of articles that included one that announced the discovery of a new, unnamed island midway between the Korean island of Ulleungdo and Japan's Oki County. Not only did the article claim the island did not appear on British, Russian and Japanese sea charts, but the article also claimed the island "has never been incorporated into Joseon territory" (又朝鮮の版圖にも編せられず).

The discovery of a new island in the Sea of Japan in 1901 was big news not only in Japan, but also in Canada and the United States, where several newspapers reported the discovery. It was hard for people to believe that an island in the Sea of Japan could have gone undiscovered for so long.

The article in the March 10 publication also claimed that both Japanese and Korean fisherman referred to the newly discovered island as "Yanko," which the article claimed was discovered by a Japanese fisherman a couple of years earlier.

The island described in the article was almost certainly Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima / Dokdo), which had been discovered centuries earlier by Japanese fishermen and did appear on British, Russian, and Japanese sea charts at the time, so the article was wrong to claim the island was newly discovered.
 
The editor and publisher of the Black Dragon Society publication was a man named Kuzuu Shuusuke (葛生修亮), who, according to another article in the same publication, had spent a few years in Korea researching its geography, so he probably got his information on the mysterious island of "Yanko" in Korea, where he was enrolled in the Association of Korean Fishery. The fact that he knew that both Japanese and Korean fishermen referred to the newly discovered island as "Yanko" suggests that he had either traveled to Ulleungdo during his trip to Korea or interviewed someone who had been to Ulleungdo, where both Japanese and Korean fishermen probably knew of the island. Also, it is very likely someone in Korea told him that "Yanko" was not part of Korean territory, someone who knew of the island.
 
The following is Kaneganese's English translation of the 10 March 1901 Japanese article:
"A Newly Discovered Island in the Sea of Japan"

About 30 ri southeast of Joseon’s Ulleungdo, and about the same distance northwest of Japan’s Oki County, there is an unnamed island unknown to the world. The island has never been shown on British sea charts, nor on sea charts of Japan or Russia. It has also never been incorporated into Joseon territory, but the island does, in fact, exist. Those who have returned from Ulleungdo have said that one can see it in the distance to the southeast from the highest peak of Ulleungdo when the weather is good. 
According to the history of this island’s discovery, one or two years ago, when a western Japan fishing boat with diving apparatus was searching for fish far out to sea in an unfamiliar area, the crew unexpectedly saw the island. They happily established a base there and explored the surrounding waters. There were many fish, but, unfortunately, many of them could not be caught because of a colony of several hundred sea lions. They were forced to return frustrated. 
After this incident some fishing experts investigated and reported that the fishing boat with the diving apparatus probably went to the island in about May or June, which is the breeding season for sea lions. They said that was probably why they were obstructed. 
According to the diving contractor, who himself saw the island, it has a slope of close to 30 cho, and the hills are not very high. Here and there are weeds and bushes. The shape of the island is quite irregular, so it is a good place for ships to harbor and avoid the wind and waves. However, even if you dig a few feet below the surface, there is no water, so it cannot be described as a good place for processing sea products.
However,  it is still sufficiently worthwhile for navigators and fishermen to explore. By the way, Japanese and Korean fishermen call this island "Yanko."
-----------------------
Here is the Japanese:
日本海中未發見の一嶋 
朝鮮の欝陵島を東南に去ることを三十里、我帝國の隠岐國を西北に距ること又殆んど同里数の海中に於て世人未知の無名島あり 此島未だ英國の海圖にも載せられず 日本露西亜の海圖にも記されず 又朝鮮の版圖にも編せられず 然れども其島の存在することは事実にして、現に欝陵島より帰りたるものは晴天の日同島山峯の高處に於て東南の方に遥かに島あるを認むと云へり  
今此島發見の歴史を聞くに 一二年前西國筋の一潜水器船魚類を尋ねて遠く海中に出でたる時 見馴れざる場所に不圖一島嶼あるを認め 悦んで此處に根拠を据へ其四隣の海中を漁り廻りたるに 魚類の生息することは非常なれども 不幸にして數百頭の海馬の群れに悩まされ 何分にも饒多なる魚類の捕獲を全ふせず、ホウボウの体にて逃げ帰らざるべからざることとなりぬ、 
其後此事を以て或水産家に糺したるに 潜水器船の同島に到りたるは季節恰も五六月の交なりし故 海馬の産期に当るを以て其妨害を受けたるものなるべしと云ふ  
同潜水業者が實見せる所にては 同島は流れ三十町に近く丘陵甚だ高からざれ共處々雑草雑木を生じ 島形又極めて屈曲多く漁船を泊し風浪を避くるには頗る好地位に在り 但し地上數尺の間は之を穿て其水を得ざるを以て 現今の處水産物製造場としては未だ好都合なりと云ふを得ずとのことなり 去れど 
航海家水産業者の為めには尚ほ充分探険の価値あるべし 因みに曰く 日韓漁民は此島を呼んで「ヤンコ」と云へり
10 March 1901 Article from the Black Dragon Society publication


Publishing information page from the 10 March 1901 Black Dragon Society publication

13 April 1901 Article from "The Tokyo Daily Newspaper." This article is very similar to that in the Black Dragon Society publication, but it omits the reference to Russian sea charts and the sentence that says the island is not part of Joseon territory. This was probably done to fit the article within the limited space on the pages of the newspaper.


14 April 1901 Article from "The Japan Times"

18 April 1901 Article from the "San-in Shimbun"

31 May 1901 Article from "The Long Island Farmer," Jamaica, New York

22 June 1901 Article from the "Straits Times," Singapore

30 July 1901 Article from "The Pacific Commercial Advertiser," Honolulu

64 comments:

  1. Please let me know if I got anything wrong or if I need to add anything.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm glad to see this blog showing its usual style.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Good job, Gerry,

    I think this is the first time Kuzuu’s report was translated and introduced in English.

    Yoon So-young윤소영 尹素英 found this article and translated in Korean.

    https://www.i815.or.kr/media_data/thesis/2012/20120201.pdf
    1900년대 초 일본 측 조선어업 조사 자료에 보이는 독도
    한국독립운동사연구 제41집 * 독립기념관 한국독립운동사연구소 연구원.

    ユン・ソヨン* 
    「1900年代初めの日本側朝鮮漁業調査資料に見える独島」
    『韓国独立運動史研究』第41集 2012.4  *独立記念館 韓国独立運動史研究所 研究員

    24p

    일본해 중의 미발견의 섬

    조선의 울릉도에서 동남으로 가기를 30리, 우리 帝國의 오키(隱岐) 國
    에서 서북으로 거의 같은 거리 海中에 세상 사람이 알지 못하는 무명의
    섬이 있다. 이 섬은 아직 영국 해도에도 실리지 않고 일본과 러시아 해도
    에도 실리지 않았다. 또 조선의 판도에도 속하지 않는다. 그렇지만 그 섬
    이 존재하는 것은 사실로서 실제로 울릉도에서 돌아온 자는 맑은 날 이
    섬이 산봉우리의 높은 곳에서 동남쪽으로 멀리 섬이 있는 것을 알 수 있
    다고 하였다. 지금 이 섬이 발견된 역사를 들으니 일이년 전에 서쪽 지방
    (西國)의 潛水器船이 魚類를 찾아서 멀리 海中으로 나갔을 때 익숙하지
    않은 장소에서 뜻밖에 섬이 하나 있는 것을 보고 기뻐하여 이곳에 근거
    를 잡고 사방 海中을 돌아다니니 어류가 매우 많은데 불행히도 수백 마
    리의 강치 무리가 많아서 많은 어류를 포획할 수 없고 허둥지둥 돌아오
    지 않을 수 없었다. 그 후 이 일로 혹은 수산가들이 조사하여 밝혀보니
    잠수기선이 이 섬에 간 것은 계절이 아마 5~6월경이라 강치의 産期에 해
    당하여 방해를 받았을 것이라고 한다. 동 잠수업자가 직접 본 바로는 이
    섬은 경사면이 30정에 가깝고 구릉은 그다지 높지 않다. 곳곳에 잡초 잡
    목이 자라있고 섬의 형태는 매우 굴곡이 많고 어선을 정박하여 풍랑을
    피하기에는 매우 좋은 위치에 있다. 단 지상에서 몇 척 사이를 파도 물이
    없어서 현재 수산물 제조장으로서는 아직 형편이 좋다고 할 수 없다고
    한다. 그렇지만 항해가와 수산업자를 위해서는 역시 충분히 탐험가치가
    있을 것이다. 참고로 말하자면 日韓 어민은 이 섬을 불러 ‘양코’라고 한다.53)
    53)內田良平文書硏究會, 『黑龍會關係資料集』 1, 柏書房, 1992.


    윤소영(尹素英)
    http://kyujanggak.snu.ac.kr/_Board/boardDetail.jsp?id=1774&type=36
    이번 강의를 해 주실 분은 독립기념관 한국독립운동사연구소 연구원으로 재직중인 윤소영(尹素英) 선생님입니다.
    윤 선생님은 숙명여대 사학과를 졸업하고 일본 오차노미즈여자대학(お茶の水女子大學)에서 라는 논문으로 박사학위를 받았습니다. 충남대학교 인문과학연구소 연구원, 한서대학교 내포지역발전연구소 연구교수 등을 역임했으며, 개항기에서 일제강점기까지의 한일관계사에 대한 연구를 다수 발표한 바 있습니다. 저서로 , (공저), (공저), (공저), 역서로 등이 있습니다.


    尹素英  博士(人文科学)
    近代韓日関係史専攻 / 韓国独立紀念館韓国独立運動史研究所研究員 /
    お茶の水女子大学大学院卒業
    代表論著:博士学位論文 『転換期の朝鮮の対外認識と対外政策-朴珪壽を中心に-』1995/『五つの主題で編んだ韓国文化史』語文学社、2006/「近代国家形成期における韓国と日本の賢母良妻論」『韓国民族運動史研究』44、2005.9/「日本語雑誌<朝鮮及び満州>にみる1910年代の京城」『地方史と地方文化』9巻1号、2006.
    http://hanbimun.com/about/about_jp.php

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yoon So-young says in her article above that the Korean fishermen who called the island “Yanko” were Ulleungdo islanders.

    But it was not proved at all.

    Who were the fishermen who called it Yanko or the situation that the Korean get to know the the island is unknown.

    On the contrary it is clear that the Japanese who knew the name were from Ooita Prefecture.

    又た附近に鱶漁の好網代あり、數年以来五六月の候に至れば大分懸鱶縄船の出漁するものあり、昨年春季同處より歸航したる漁夫に就て之れ聞くに

    The informants of Kuzuu were the fishermen from Ooita who were purchasing shark fins near the Riancourt Islands. Maybe they are from Saganoseki 佐賀関in Ooita.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Gerry,

    I don’t think Kuzuu has visited Ulleoung Island.
    In his article about Ulleoung-Do, he says
    “it is said that~” ~と云ふ “it is said that~” ~と云ふ so many times.

    If he really visited the island, he should have said more declaratively.

    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.jp/2007/06/1903-fishery-guide-of-sea-around-korea.html
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.jp/2007/06/361903liancourt-rocks-liancourt-rocks.html

    ReplyDelete
  7. Matsu,

    I would suspect that it was Ulleungdo fishermen who used the Japanese name of "Yanko" to refer to the island since Japanese fishermen coming to Ulleungdo would have had to tell them the name.

    One of the interesting things about the article is that it claimed the island was undiscovered and unnamed, even though Japanese fishermen had known about the island for centuries and had a name for it, but Koreans had never traveled to the island or given it a name until they apparently adopted the Japanese fishermen's name for the island. If Japanese and Korean fishermen were calling the island "Yanko," how can the article claim it was unnamed? If Japanese fishermen had known about the island for centuries, how can the article claim it was undiscovered? Therefore, this article seems to be talking about the island from the Korean point of view since Koreans had never traveled to the island or given it a name.

    Kuzuu was most likely getting much of his information about the island in Korea, where hardly anything was known about the Liancourt Rocks. If he had gotten his information from Japanese fishermen in Shimane Prefecture or on Oki Island, he would not have made the claim that the island was undiscovered and unnamed.


    The article claims the island was discovered by a Japanese Scuba fishing boat that accidently found the island two years earlier as it was searching for fish in the middle of the Sea of Japan, but that does not make sense. Why would a Japanese Scuba fishing boat be looking for fish in the middle of the Sea of Japan? The fishing boat was most likely on its way to fish Ulleungdo when it discovered the island. When the fishing boat finally arrived at Ulleungdo, after giving up on fishing the mystery island, the Japanese fishermen on that particular fishing boat most likely told the fishermen on Ulleungdo about their discovery. For the shoreline fishermen on Ulleungdo, who had never been to the "unnamed island," but who might have seen it in the distance from the top of Ulleungdo's highest peak, it was a new discovery. And since the Koreans had no name for the island, they simply adopted the name used by Japanese fishermen, which just happened to be an abbreviated version of the correct name for the island.

    Therefore, this article seems to be describing the first time that Koreans, not Japanese, learned details of Liancourt Rocks, which means it would have been about 1899 since the article said Japanese fishermen had reported their discovery two years before the 1901 publication of the article.

    ReplyDelete
  8. CORRECTION: The article said the island was discovered one or two years before the article was published, which means it could have been in 1899 or 1900.

    Remember that in June 1900, Japanese and Korean officials traveled to Ulleungdo to survey the island. An official from the Japanese Consulate in Busan was included in the group, so Kuzuu may have gotten his information about "Yanko" from Korean or Japanese officials returning from Ulleungdo in 1900.

    Also, in the spring of 1899, Ulleungdo Island Supervisor Bae Gye-ju (裵季周) reported that large numbers of Japanese had just recently started coming to Ulleungdo, which prompted Korea's Interior Ministry to send Chief Commissioner of the Korean Customs Service Sir John McLeavy Brown to Ulleungdo to investigate the situation. Kuzuu could have also gotten his information about "Yanko" from him or from the report he filed.

    Anyway, it is interesting that "Yanko" was supposedly "newly" discovered in 1899 or 1900, which just happened to be the time that large numbers of Japanese had reportedly started arriving in Ulleungdo. Again, I think it was considered a new discovery for Koreans, but not Japanese.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Gerry,

    Thank you for adding the Nichi Nichi and Japan Times article.
    I think it is better the Straits Times would be added.
    The information of Yanko spread not only to the United States but to Singapore in Asia.

    It is just like “copy & paste” in our days.
    Information can be spread without any new further investigation.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I found more newspaper added in your “older post”

    3 Oct 1901 Article in the "Plymouth Republican"
    Plymouth, Indiana, USA 1901. 10.3

    27 July 1901 Article from the "Journal Junior" of "The Minneapolis Journal"
    Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA 1901.7.27


    I am sending 『地学雑誌』PDF.
    I think Kaneganese have it already.


    『地学雑誌』13輯148巻(1901.5)pp.301-302

    ● 日本海中の一島嶼(ヤンコ)
    去る四月中旬 東京發行の各新聞紙は日本海中に一島嶼を發見せることを報せり、
    其いふ所に從へは
    韓國欝陵島を東南に去ること三十里 我日本國隱岐を西北に距ること殆んと同里數の海上に 未た世人に知られさる一島嶼を發見せり、該島は 未た本邦の海圖には載らす イキリスの海圖にも亦之を記せされとも 其島の存在は確實にして、現に欝陵島にありし日本人は晴天の日 山の高所より東南を望みたるに 遙に島影を認めたりといへり、今此の島發見の歴史を聞くに 一兩年前 九州邊の一潜水器船が 魚族を追ふて遠く海中に出てたるに、見慣れさる所に一島嶼の存在せることを發見し 喜んで之を根據地と定め 其四隣の海中を漁り回りたるに、此の邊魚族の棲息せるもの頗る多かりしも 海馬數百群を爲して潜水器船を沮みたれば 終に目的を終へすして引還したりといふ、此の船中にありし潜水業者の實見したる所なりとて報する所によれは 其島は長さ三十町に近く 丘陵甚た高からされとも 處々に蓁〓蕪穢、島形又極めて屈曲に富み 漁船を泊し風浪を避くるに最も便あり、只地上より數尺の間は之を鑚るも水を得ず 從て現今の所にては水産物製造場としての價値は乏しといふべし、故に學者實業家は猶充分なる探検を施すの餘地を留む、日韓漁民之を指してヤンコと呼へりといふ

    以上の記事に據るに其位置固より確實ならず、想ふに此の島は未だ海圖に示されすといふも 其記事及び稱呼より之を察せば 恰もLiancourt rocksリアンコートロツクに符合せり、或は之を指すに非ずやと疑はるヽも 尚其精確なる斷定は精細なる報告を得たる後に非れは下す能はず、
    且らく參照の爲めに 左に朝鮮水路誌第二版(明治三十二年水路部刊行)二六三頁よりリアンコート島に關する記事を抄録せん

    リアンコールト列岩
    此列岩は洋紀一八四九年佛國船「Liancourt」初て發見し稱呼を其船名に取る 其後一八五四年露國「フレガツト」形艦「Pall as」は此列岩を「Menalai」及「Olivutsa」列岩と名つけ 一八五五年英艦「Hornet」は此の列岩を探検して「ホル子ツト」列島と名つけり 該艦長「Forsyth」の言に據れば 此列岩は北緯三七度一四分東經一三一度五五分の處に位する二座の不毛嶼にして 鳥糞常に嶼上に堆積し嶼色爲めに白し 而して北西彳西至南東彳東の長さ約一里 二嶼の間距離約二鏈半にして 見たる所一礁脉ありて之を連結す●西嶼は海面上高さ約四一〇呎にして其形棒糖の如し 東嶼は較低くして平頂なり●此列岩附近は水頗深きか如しと雖 其位置は實に凾館に向て日本海を航行する船舶の直道に當れるを以て頗危險なりとす


    *『朝鮮水路誌』第二版(明治三十二年)は、上のようなひらがなではなく、カタカナ表記である。またLiancourtなどの表記はアルファベットではなく「リアンコールト」のようにカタカナ表記である。これを引用した人(『地学雑誌』の記者)は「Liancourt」などの原綴りを知っている、かなり専門知識のある人であろう。

    http://dl.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/1085075
    263~265p
    159~160コマ /202

    リアンコールト列岩
    此列岩ハ 洋紀一八四九年 佛國船「リアンコールト」 初テ之ヲ發見シ 偁呼ヲ其船名ニ取ル 其後一八五四年 露国「フレガット」形艦「パラス」ハ 此列岩ヲ メナライ及ヲリヴツァ列岩ト名ツケ 一八五五年 英艦「ホル子ット」ハ 此列岩ヲ探検シテ ホル子ット列島ト名ツケリ 該艦長フォルシィスノ言ニ據レハ 此列岩ハ 北緯三七度一四分 東経一三一度五五分ノ處ニ位スル 二坐ノ不毛岩嶼ニシテ 鳥糞常ニ嶼上ニ堆積シ 嶼色為メニ白シ 而シテ北西彳西至南東彳東ノ長さ約一里 ニ嶼ノ間距離約二鏈半ニシテ 見タル所一礁脉アリテ之ヲ連結ス ○西嶼ハ 海面上高サ約四一〇呎ニシテ其形棒糖ノ如シ 東嶼ハ 較々低クシテ平頂ナリ ○此列岩附近ハ水頗ル深キカ如シト雖 其位置ハ 實ニ函館ニ向テ日本海ヲ航行スル船舶ノ直水道ニ當レルヲ以テ 頗危險ナリトス

    ReplyDelete
  11. Matsu,

    I had already found those two articles and added them to the post below this one yesterday.

    I have sent Kaneganese my translation of the 地学雑誌 and asked her to check it for me. The portion on Liancourt was already translated in one of our old posts as follows:

    Liancourt Rocks

    LIANCOURT ROCKS are named after the French ship Liancourt, which discovered them in 1849; they were also called Menalai and Olivutsa rocks by the Russian frigate Pallas in 1854, and Hornet islands by H.M.S. Hornet in 1855. Captain Forsyth, of the latter vessel, gives their position as lat. 37°14′N. long. 131°55′E., and describes them as being two barren rocky islets, covered with guano, which makes them appear white; they are about a mile in extent N.W. by W. and S.E. by E., a quarter of a mile apart, and apparently joined together by a reef. The western islet, elevated about 410 feet above the sea, has a sugar-loaf form; the easternmost is much lower and flat-topped. The water appeared deep close-to, but they are dangerous from their position, being directly in the track of vessels steering up the Sea of Japan for Hakodate.

    ReplyDelete
  12. matsuさん
    蓁〓蕪穢
    ちょっと気になりました。蓁蓁蕪穢 または 蓁々蕪穢 でしょうか?

    ReplyDelete
  13. 画像拝見しました。「蓁莾蕪穢」ですね。「蓁莾荒穢」という場合もある熟語です。

    ReplyDelete
  14. Gerry,

    Your comment above is very interesting.

    2/6/15 00:38

    >Kuzuu may have gotten his information about "Yanko" from Korean or Japanese officials returning from Ulleungdo in 1900.
    Remember that in June 1900, Japanese and Korean officials traveled to Ulleungdo to survey the island. An official from the Japanese Consulate in Busan was included in the group.

    →Yes, 赤塚正助(Akatsuka Shousuke ) was one of them.
    They (Kuzuu and Akatsuka) maybe knew each other in Pusan.
    Akatsuka can be the informant of Kuzuu.
    It is very interesting Idea.

    >Also, in the spring of 1899, Ulleungdo Island Supervisor Bae Gye-ju (裵季周) reported that large numbers of Japanese had just recently started coming to Ulleungdo, which prompted Korea's Interior Ministry to send Chief Commissioner of the Korean Customs Service Sir John McLeavy Brown to Ulleungdo to investigate the situation. Kuzuu could have also gotten his information about "Yanko" from him or from the report he filed.

    I am not sure Kuzuu could get to know the Chief Commissioner of the Korean Customs Service Sir John McLeavy Brown.
    But it is also an interesting Idea that he got the information from his report.
    .

    Kuzuu started his investigation in Korea in Feb.1899, and was back in Japan in Oct.1900.
    It is written in the beginning of「韓国沿海事情」1901.3.10 (黒龍会『会報』第一集)

    I think his investigation was not about general geography, but more concentrated in “fishery”

    ReplyDelete
  15. Matsu, I just saw your suggestion above about adding "The Straits Times" article and have added it.

    赤塚正助 (Akatsuka Shousuke) might be a good person to research. He probably had notes of his interviews with the Japanese on Ulleungdo that he did not put in his report, maybe because he felt it did not pertain to Ulleungdo, such as the island of Yanko. I wonder if his decedents have any of his old notes.

    Here is a link to the Wikipedia article on 赤塚正助

    ReplyDelete
  16. Gerry,

    I saw Akatsuka’s face on the picture for the first time.
    Thank you very much for introducing the site.
    http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%B5%A4%E5%A1%9A%E6%AD%A3%E5%8A%A9

    赤塚正助 Akatsuka shousuke is the writer of this 1900 map.
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.jp/2008/04/1900-japanese-map-of-ulleungdo.html

    I knew he was from Satsuma 薩摩, but didn’t know he later became a lawmaker.

    It is worth for searching his descent family.

    Japanese government has begun to collect documents to show Takeshima’s history as Japanese territory.
    They say they have budgets.

    I hope they will visit his decedents and find some documents during his mission as 在釜山領事官補.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Wow! His grave is SOO near to my family's.
    Next time, I have to visit his, too.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This?
    http://www6.plala.or.jp/guti/cemetery/PERSON/A/akatsuka_sho.html

    But MATSU here is not me.

    赤塚正助1872(明治5)~1942.5.6(昭和17)
    1898(M31)外務省に入省。鬱陵島に行った1900年は28歳、入省2年目の新人。

    葛生修亮は 1874(明治7)‐1958(昭和33)
    赤塚が2つ年上ですね。葛生は26歳。

    当時、釜山には日本の漁業関係者の拠点があり、領事館も支援していたはずですから、
    知り合っていても不思議はありません。赤塚正助がアモイから釜山に移った時期が問題ですが。

    赤塚正助氏 『三州名士録大鑑』上巻
    http://dl.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/1189119
    114~117コマ 114コマに写真。

    ReplyDelete
  19. I have added the "San-in Shimbun" article. I think I got it right.

    ReplyDelete
  20. It is great collection of interesting documents. However, I’m curious as to how the character “編” is translated to mean “attached to” in Kanji.
    http://tangorin.com/kanji/編

    IMHO - The Kanji definition (translation) I think best suits this character would be “compiled to” “This island is not compiled to Chosun Territory. Meaning in the literary sense. I think the author is stating he couldn’t find Korean geographical compilations (records-documents) showing Yanko as part of Korea. Not surprisingly so…

    It appears the Korean Prof may have made an error. I think the character “編” (Pyeon) was wrongly translated as “續” (Sok) What do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  21. I think "attached to" is suitable for the whole meaning of that sentence. This "編" would have been used by the meaning of "編成(organize)".

    ReplyDelete
  22. The best translation here is compiled, or part of a book. This also could mean recorded. I think Gerry based his translation on the Korean one. The Korean used the term “belong to” a “part of” or attached. However the character is not “續”

    Consider the context. First the author talks about Yanko not being on British, Russian and Japanese Sea Charts. And then he states “ALSO” Meaning likewise Yanko is not in Korean records. Why would he say “ALSO” and then talk about territorial ownership of Yanko?

    Then the author states “HOWEVER the island exists” Why would he say the island doesn’t belong to Korea BUT is does exist?? The previous sentences are more about the existence of Yanko (Dokdo) not the territorial limits of Chosun. A more logical interpretation would be “The island has never been shown on British sea charts, nor on sea charts of Japan or Russia. It is also is not compiled to (recorded as) Chosun Territory but it the island does, in fact exist.”

    Both in character usage and context the translation “attached to” seems unlikely.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Steve, the Korean word for "to incorporate [territory]" is 편입 (編入)하다. You or especially your Korean wife should know that since Koreans use it all the time to claim that Japan's "incorporation of Dokdo was illegal" (불법 독도 편입).

    Therefore, though I think it is somewhat nitpicking, a more accurate translation of 又朝鮮の版圖にも編せられず might be "and is not incorporated into Korean territory."

    ReplyDelete
  24. Really Gerry? That's very interesting.

    Trouble is... I can't seem to find the character "入" anywhere. Can you help me?

    Seriously, are you going start arbitrarily adding Kanji/Hanja characters to all of your "translations" to suit your agenda Gerry?

    Deliberately manipulating historical records...hmmm. Who needs a Hanja dictionary when ya got photoshop!

    ReplyDelete
  25. 「編」 itself has a meaning of "compile = incorporate". In Japanese, 「朝鮮の版図に編する」 definately and precisely means "incorporate into Korean territory". So 「朝鮮の版圖にも編せられず」 simply means "never been incorporated into Korean territory, too". This is very easy Japanese and there's no room for other interpretation even if there is no "入". Let's not do stupid word game but more constructive discussion here, please?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Really, Steve? And I can't seem to find the Chinese character for "book" in the passage to support your "compiled book" theory. (Steve wrote: "The best translation here is compiled, or part of a book.")

    I do not speak Japanese, Steve, but apparently after writing "into Joseon territory" the Japanese probably felt that simply writing 編 (편) would be enough for most people to be able to interpret its meaning as "incorporate" or "organize." Of course, if 編 had been preceded by the words "into a book," then you translation of "compiled" might make more sense.

    In old literary Chinese, single characters were used and interpreted by their location in the sentence and the context of the sentence. Two-character combinations are a relatively new thing. Really, Steve, you should get out more.

    ReplyDelete
  27. So, Kaneganese, do you think I should change it to "and has never been incorporated into Korean territory"? Would that be more accurate?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Gerry,

    Yes, in this context, it would be the most accurate translation.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Sure Kaneganese, maybe you can cite some written dictionary examples. That would be nice! Please help us out here OK?

    As you've said the word 編 can be meant to mean compile and that would be in a literary sense. This would be because the author is citing maps and records not making territorial defintions. You guys are taking it a step further to imply the Korean governent never "incorporated" Dokdo

    The author was citing compiled data from Sea Charts. (Japanese, British and Russian) Chosun not having modern sea charts so the author checked related Koreann documents and couldn't find Yanko.

    Consider the fact the data in this report was published in the spring of 1900. The information was from the previous fishing season of 1899.

    This was before Korea incorporated Dokdo. So it really doesn't amount to much.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Gerry wrote.

    "In old literary Chinese, single characters were used and interpreted by their location in the sentence and the context of the sentence"

    Thanks for supporting me. The term compiled here would be compiled as in the from of records.

    Kuzuu Shuusuke was citing documents to ascertain whether Yanko could be found in related material.
    Thats why he said. HOWEVER is does exist. Meaning although Russia, English and Japan hadn't mapped it and Chosun had not compiled the island (Yanko) it really as there.

    Your translation is out of context.

    Furthermore why would he list it under Kangwando-Ulleungdo in the subsequent 1903 edition Of Chosun's Fishing Manual if is was not "attached to" Chosun?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Steve Dokdo? Why do you even bother using all these aliases? Why don't you just use your real name, Steve Barber? Your ignorance and silly arguments give you away like fingerprints and DNA.

    First, you are making a fool of yourself, again. Even Koreans translate the sentence the way we have translated it here. For example, in one of my comments above, Yun So-yeong (尹素英) translated the sentence as "또 조선의 판도에도 속하지 않는다." which translates as follows:

    "Also, it does not belong to Joseon territory."

    Who is Yun So-yeong (尹素英)? She is a researcher at an institute in the Independence Hall of Korea, which is in Cheonan City in South Chungcheong Province. They have a "Dokdo School" there. Ms. Yun graduated from Sukmyeong Women's University with a degree in History. She did her doctorate in Japan at Ochanomizu University, which is national women's universities there. She has worked at various other institutes, as well. So, is Mr. Yun also mistranslating it, Steve?

    Second, this report was published in the spring of 1901, not 1900. If you could read Chinese, you would be able to read that on one of the pages I posted above.

    I am not going to waste anymore time on you, Steve, because I know from experience that you are incapable of discussing this topic seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  32. The aliases? Just new accounts after old ones got jacked.

    Gerry, you’re dead right on my date error. I meant the data was from the fishing season of 1900 before Chosun incorporated Dokdo. It’s funny how this information was not found on my version of the 1901 fishing guide. I don’t need to read Chinese because I have almost the same record on file. (A more complete version)

    With regard to Yun So-Yeong’s translation.

    I asked in my first post. She made a leap from the Japanese-Kanji character translation into the colloquial Korean usage I find questionable and out of the context in consideration of the related material.

    By coincidence I find her translation suits a similar character “속” At a glance it appears she may have an error. You yourself used the definition “attached to” as well fits the character 續 perfectly. “Belong to” is even another totally different character.

    So maybe you can show us where the Hanji character “編” can be translated as“속하지 않는다”

    But it’s the context that makes the translation an oddity. “The island was not incorporated part of Korea territory BUT it exists…? That’s like saying New York is not part of Canada but it exists….”

    More context. The author is simply quoting heresay from fisherman and citing his knowledge acquired during his stay in Korea years before. “The Korean Fishery Association” was a Japanese group trying to make inroads into plundering Korea’s waters.

    Consider the fact the Black Dragons were a right wing organization founded from the Genyosha. Picture a modern Yakuza with a fishing licence. It’s hard to image their territorial perceptions as a representative of Japan’s government. (yet)

    Say Gerry, didn’t you once call Korean Dokdo Professors goofballs?

    ReplyDelete
  33. BTW, here is the 1903 Edtion of the Chosun Fishing Guide Edited by the same man (葛生修吉) You can see Yanko listed under Gangwando and Ulleungdo. Whatever the translation, it appears he had a serious change of heart.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/black-dragon-1903-0.jpg

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/black-dragon-1903-2.jpg

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/black-dragon-1903-1.jpg

    It seems you don’t have these important documents on file Mr Bevers. How could you miss such important records. Oh well, help yourself and enjoy!

    ReplyDelete
  34. Wrong again, Steve Dokdo.

    We published a translation of the 1903 "Navigation and Fishing Guide of Korean Waters" (韓海通漁指) eight years ago, back in 2007. In fact, you got your translation of the guide from our site. Remember?

    Just because Liancourt Rocks was listed in the Kangwon Province section does not mean the author considered them Korean territory. He made that clear in the 1901 document above. If you are traveling from Western Japan toward the waters around Kangwon Province's Ulleungdo, you have to pass by Liancourt Rocks. The author did not say the Rocks were a part of Ulleungdo.

    The map of Korea in the front of the fishing guide shows only Ulleungdo as Korean territory, not Liancourt Rocks.

    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/06/1903-fishery-guide-of-sea-around-korea.html

    ReplyDelete
  35. Correction: "Navigation and Fishing Guide of Korean Waters" (韓海通漁指針)

    ReplyDelete
  36. Correction: 韓海通漁指針 should probably be translated as "Commercial Fishing Guide for Korean Waters," assuming 通漁 means "commercial fishing" instead of "navigation and fishing."

    ReplyDelete
  37. Yun So-yeong has translated the word "編" into "属", not "續".
    Therefore, "It does not belong to Joseon territory"
    It's a clean translation.

    However, the original word is "編".
    "and has never been weaved into Korean territory"
    "and has never been compiled into Korean territory"
    "and has never been incorporated into Korean territory"

    I think the last translation is the best.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Thank you, 小嶋日向守.

    By the way, do the Japanese translate the 通 in 韓海通漁指針 as 通商 or 通航 or some other word?

    ReplyDelete
  39. I have updated my post on the 1903 Black Dragon Society fishing guide, adding the Japanese and copies of the original documents.

    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/06/1903-fishery-guide-of-sea-around-korea.html

    ReplyDelete
  40. What does this sentence mean?

    34年8月以来新たに郡守を遣はして之れに投治せしむ。

    What I am really interested in is the last part? What does 投治せしむ mean? When describing Ulleungdo in the 1903 Black Dragon Society fishing guide, The Japanese seems to say 落治せしむ, but it was transcribed as 投治せしむ . If せしむ means something like "allowed," then couldn't 落治せしむ mean "allowed to govern separately"?

    Here is the first paragraph under the description of Ulleungdo, as transcribed on the Tanaka Web site:

    欝陵島(ウーリャントー)

    奮と春川府直轄なりし処、34年8月以来新たに郡守を遣はして之れに投治せしむ。 北緯130度45分乃至53分50秒、東経37度34分40秒乃至31分50秒の間に位置し、平海郡越松浦の南40余里の海中に在る孤島にして、韓人は別名之を武陵又は羽陵とも書す、乃ち古の于山國にして、支那人之を松島と呼ぶ。

    ReplyDelete
  41. 通means a verb "commute" or "frequent".

    通漁
    commuting to fishing grounds
    engaging in fishery
    working in fisheries

    指針
    guides
    guidelines
    circumstances
    general condition
    general situation

    ReplyDelete
  42. Today I also noticed in the original 1903 Black Dragon Society document that Ulleungdo and other places in the Gangwon Province section had circle symbols above their names and the county they belonged to in parenthesis after their names, but Yanko (ヤンコ) Island had a triangle symbol above it, not a circle, which suggests it was somehow different than the other places in Gangwon Province. I think the triangle symbol may just be like a footnote symbol, telling fisherman about the Rocks, but not saying it was part of Ulleungdo or Gangwon Province. Also, if it had been considered an island under the administration of Ulleungdo County, then I think 鬱島郡 would have been listed in parenthesis after the name "Yanko," as was the case with other place names in Gangwon Province.

    Also, the document said a County Magistrate was dispatched to Ulleungdo in the 8th lunar month of 1901, but I think that is a mistake and should be 1900, since the county was established in the 8th lunar month of 1900.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Thank you, 小嶋日向守.

    But you seem to be thinking of 通 as a verb, but couldn't it also be an adjective or a noun? For example, as nouns 通漁 could mean "transit (通) [and] fishing (漁)" guide, and as an adjective and a noun, 通漁 could mean "commercial (通) fishing (漁)" guide.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Mmmm...I can't figure out which 漢字 is used in ithe text. 「統治」 is the mostly used for "govern" in Japanese. 投 and 統 has same pronunciation in Japanese, so it could be typo or some kind of oriental habit as 小嶋-san suggested before. There's no 投 used before, though.

    ReplyDelete
  45. On the 13th day of the 10th lunar month, Japan and Korea agreed on new fishing regulations, in which Japanese and Koreans could have fishing operations along the coastlines, rivers, streams, and lakes of each other's country. These regulations were referred to as 通漁規則, which makes me think 通漁 means "commercial fishing."

    Below is the announcement recorded in the Records of the Joseon Dynasty on November 13, 1908:

    十三日。 內閣告示第二十三號, 爲韓日兩國臣民漁業, 韓國政府與統監府, 本年十月三十一日成協定書, 自韓國漁業法施行日實施。

    協定書。 一, 日本國臣民在韓國沿海、江灣、河川及湖池, 韓國臣民在日本國沿海、江灣、河川及湖池, 得營漁業。 二, 兩國之一方臣民, 在他一方版圖內營漁業者, 可遵守其營漁業地施行之漁業所關法規也。 三, 韓國漁業所關之法規中, 遇有當屬之司法裁判所之事項, 日本國臣民則自當該日本官廳執行。 四, 開國四百九十八年十月二十日, 明治二十二年十一月十二日調印之韓日兩國通漁規則, 其他兩國通漁所關之協定, 總行廢止

    내각(內閣) 고시 제23호, 〈 한국과 일본 두 나라 국민들의 어업(漁業)을 위하여 한국 정부와 통감부(統監府)는 올해 10월 13일에 협정서(協定書)를 작성하고 한국 어업법(漁業法) 시행일로부터 실시〉

    〈협정서(協定書)〉

    1. 일본국 국민은 한국의 연해, 강, 만(灣), 하천, 호수에서 어업을 경영할 수 있으며, 한국의 국민은 일본국의 연해, 강, 만, 하천 및 호수에서 어업을 경영할 수 있다.

    2. 두 나라 일방의 국민이 다른 일방의 영토 안에서 어업을 경영하는 경우에 그 어업 경영지에 시행하는 어업관계 법규를 준수해야 한다.

    3. 한국 어업 관계 법규 가운데 사법 재판소에 속해야 할 사항이 있을 경우에 일본국 국민은 당해 일본 관청에서 집행한다.

    4. 개국 498년 10월 20일 명치 22년 11월 12일 조인한 한국과 일본 두 나라 통어 규칙(通漁規則)과 그 밖의 두 나라 통어(通漁)에 관한 협정은 모두 폐지한다.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Kaneganese,

    What does the Japanese (せしむ) attached to the two characters mean?

    ReplyDelete
  47. 「せしむ」「しむ」 means "Let someone do"" in Japanese. This sentence "let 郡守 govern (Ulleungdo)".

    ReplyDelete
  48. It's a bit difficult to translate 「通漁」 into English. It simply means fishing outside their usual fishing ground in front of their house. (It' has no territorial meaning by the way, since even inside Japan, they use 「通漁」 when fishermen go outside their usual fishing ground. ) That's why they need for manuals. They have to come and go between the fishing ground outside and their home. So it is commercial, ofcourse, but it is more like "come and go" or " go to" .

    ReplyDelete
  49. The opening word "奮と" is a misreading.
    "舊ゟ" is right.
    The character "ゟ" is an ligature of Hiragana, its numberings 309F in the .unicode
    "舊ゟ" = "舊より"="旧より" ="いにしえより"
    Since acient times

    蒞治(りち) = 莅治 蒞uni849E

    (Original text)
    欝陵島(ウーリヤントー)
    舊ゟ春川府直轄なりし處、三十四年八月以來新たに郡守を遣はして之れに蒞治せしむ
    北緯百三十度四十五分乃至五十三分五十秒、東經三十七度三十四分四十秒乃至三十一分五十秒の間に位置し、平海郡越松浦の南四十餘里の海中に在る孤島にして、韓人は別名之を武陵又は羽陵とも書す、乃ち古の干(ママ)山國にして、支那人之を松島と呼ぶ

    (Today's casual text)
    欝陵島(ウーリャントー)
    旧より春川府直轄なりし処、34年8月以来新たに郡守を遣はして之れに莅治せしむ。 北緯130度45分乃至53分50秒、東経37度34分40秒乃至31分50秒の間に位置し、平海郡越松浦の南40余里の海中に在る孤島にして、韓人は別名之を武陵又は羽陵とも書す、乃ち古の于山國にして、支那人之を松島と呼ぶ。

    ReplyDelete
  50. 通勤、通学、通漁

    勤めに通う、学校に通う、漁に通う。

    ReplyDelete
  51. Thank you, Kaneganese.

    I think the characters are 落治, not 投治, and I think 落治 means 떨어져서 (落) 정치 (政治)하다 , which translates as "govern (治) apart (落)" or "govern separately," separate from 春川府直轄. So, 落治せしむ would mean "let him govern separately."

    ReplyDelete
  52. It seems 通漁 is a translation as "fishery," which is defined in English as follows:
    ---------------------------

    1: the occupation, industry, or season of taking fish or other sea animals (as sponges, shrimp, or seals) : fishing

    2: a place for catching fish or taking other sea animals

    3: a fishing establishment; also : its fishermen

    4: the legal right to take fish at a particular place or in particular waters

    5: the technology of fishery —usually used in plural
    ------------------------

    There are basically two kinds of fishing: "pleasure fishing" and "commercial fishing". In 1903, I do not think the Black Dragon Society fishing guide was meant for pleasure fishermen, so I think "Commercial Fishing Guide for Korean Waters" is still the best translation for 韓海通漁指針, but I guess "Fishery Guide for Korean Waters" or simply "Fishing Guide for Korean Waters" will also work.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Gerry,

    小嶋-san deciphered two hard reading Chinese letters for us.

    "奮と" is "舊ゟ" .
    It means from ancient times, according to his explanation.

    "投治" is "蒞治" (りち) = 莅治. 蒞uni849E
    I'm not perfectly sure about meaning, but it's probably "govern".

    ReplyDelete
  54. "Fishery( or Fishing) Guide for Korean Waters" will be enough as the translation of "韓海通漁指針", I think.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Thank you, Kaneganese. You are right. 蒞治 (이치) means "to rule" or "to govern."

    蒞 means "to overlook"; "to manage"; "to exercise the duties of office", or "to rule." Its synonyms are 莅, 涖, and 䇐.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Thank you, Chaamiey. I have changed it to "Fishery Guide for Korean Waters."

    ReplyDelete
  57. I have also made the changes that Mr. 小嶋 and Kaneganese suggested.

    After reading the translation, I don't think I spent much time, if any, proofreading Pacifist's translation of the 1903 fishing guidebook, even though Pacifist had asked me to check it and add the map. I guess that was a busy time for me, and I forgot.

    ReplyDelete
  58. 確かに「奮」は書き間違いのようで、本には「舊」と書いてあるのでしょうが、これは「旧」の旧字なので「舊と」(もと)と読んでいいのではないでしょうか。

    ReplyDelete
  59. Oh, I see not that it was Mr. 小嶋 who deciphered 蒞治. Thank you, Mr. 小嶋 .

    ReplyDelete
  60. Chaamiey 様
    たしかに「と」の形に似ている文字ですが、他の活字、たとえば、「松島と」「稱なりとし」「大なるものとす」の「と」比べてみると違う活字のように見えませんか? 他の「と」は、筆の運びが残っているような字体です。ところが、「舊と」のように見える活字は、縦棒にcをつなげたような字体です。
    他の活字の「と」とは違うと思います。だから「より」の合わせ字だと思います。

    ただし、読み方は貴殿のおっしゃるように、「もとより」の方が自然ですね。「いにしえ」としたのは、私の間違いでした。
    たぶん「舊(もと)より」、「旧(もと)より」でよいのではないでしょうか。

    ReplyDelete
  61. 訂正します。
    合略仮名の「しく」のようですね。
    したがって、読み方は「舊(ひさ)しく」。

    ReplyDelete
  62. 小嶋日向守さん、

     大まかな意味は同じようなものなのでそんなにこだわるところではないのですが、

     この本は一般に読んでもらうために分かりやすく書かれているという印象がありまして、はたして合略仮名を使ってあるのだろうかと思いました。前後のページを見ても合略仮名は出て来ないようです。
     問題の文字が他に多数出て来る「と」とは違うというのはそうだと思いますが、一方で、前ぺージの「江原道」の書き始めでは「本道は、舊と穢貊の地にして」とあって、ここの「と」は明らかに平仮名の「と」です。問題の箇所も、使った活字は他と違ってもこれと同じではなかろうかと思いました。

    「しく」については、「舊」を「ひさ」と読む読み方があるのかどうか良く分かりません。

    まあ資料の意味からすればさして影響ない部分ですので、あまり突き詰める必要もないのかも知れませんが、私の印象としてはやはりこれは「舊と」(もと)かなあと思っています。

    ReplyDelete
  63. コメントありがとうございます。
    「しく」の合略仮名は、ユニコードには収録されていませんね。ウィキペディアの合略仮名の項目によれば、1876年に、ウイーン王立印刷局が出版した文字活字の総合見本帳『Alfabete des gesammten Erdkreises』には平仮名の合略仮名79文字、片仮名の合略仮名14文字が収録されているそうですが、ネット上では、「しく」の合略仮名の活字が見つかりませんでした。
    しかし、
    http://www.benricho.org/kana/wa.html
    このURLの下の方に、「かしく・かしこ」の合略仮名が出ていました。
    アクセスして見ていただけば、縦棒の右隣にくるっとまわった小さな「ろ」のような、変体仮名の「可」がありまして、縦棒の「し」と「C」のような「く」または「こ」の下の横棒からなる、ひらがな三文字を一文字にした活字の「かしく」です。この三文字からなる合略仮名から、「可」を取った活字が、合略仮名の「しく」の形になるはずです。

    次に「舊しく」の読み方の例ですが、上田秋成の雨月物語のサイトがありました。
    http://www.komazawa-u.ac.jp/~hagi/tx_ugetumonogatari.txt
    (淺茅が宿)
    祖父より舊(ひさ)しくこゝに
    舊(ひさ)しく住なれし里
    舊(ふる)き友
    などがあり、舊の読み方を「古い」と「久しい」の使い分けがされています。

    もちろん一般的に、「旧・舊」には「もと」という読み方もありますが、もしここがそう読むべき箇所だとすると、「舊は」と「は」が続いて「舊(もと)は」となっていたはずで、つづく「春川府」との間に、助詞の「は」がないので何だかすわりが悪いと思います。
    それに、「舊と」だと「もとと」のようになってしまう気がします。もっとも、送りがなの基準が現在とは違っていて一定していない時代の活字本ですから、それもありえないことはないのでしょうが、そうだとすると、今度は逆に、「舊(も)と」という読み方と送りがなになっている類例を他の文献で見つける必要があることになります。

    まあ意味的には、「随分と長い間」、「比較的長い一定期間」という意味で使われている箇所だと思います。

    英語では、
    for a long time
    for quite a while
    for a fixed period of time
    などはどうでしょうか。

    ReplyDelete
  64. ちょっと面倒なことになってしまいましたので整理とまとめです。

    matsuさんお示しの国会図書館の近代デジタル
    http://dl.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/802140
    で同書の全文が見られますので、本文をざっと見てみました。

    他の平仮名の活字も注意してみると、「な」、「を」、「し」も現在使われているものと変体仮名に近い書体の活字が交じって使われていることがわかりました。同じひらがなでも別の書体の活字が複数あります。

    茶阿彌さんのおっしゃる通り、「と」の活字にも書体が違うものが交じっています。
    ざっと五種類くらい使用されているようです。
    少し大きめで、筆の運びが残る「と」これが一番多く使用されている
    少し小さめで、筆の運びが残る「と」
    大きさは中くらいで、一見「さ」のように見える「と」
    縦棒にCをつなげたような字体で、Cの縦棒から右へのはみ出しがない、問題の「と」
    現在一般によく見る活字の「と」

    茶阿弥さんが示された「と」は筆の運びが残る大きめの「と」と問題の「と」です。
    「舊と穢貊の地にして」 ※穢貊(わいはく)
    「舊と春川府内直轄」

    この二つの箇所を比べると、両方とも「舊と」という活字と判断して間違いない。
    すなわち、私の合略仮名の説は、引っ込めるべきですね。

    しかし、私は以前に明治期の文献で、合略仮名の「しく」が印刷されているものを確かにみた記憶があります。その活字は、縦棒にCを繋げた問題の活字に良く似ていたように思います。前回のコメントでしめした「かしく」のような活字でした。

    この本に、合略仮名が存在するかどうかという点に関しては、
    コマ番号64、原本の92頁を見て下さい。
    「公等若し兩國善隣の實を擧げる●を忘れずんば、須らく意を茲に留められんこ●を●、
    余乃ち漁業協會の設立ある所以 を明説し、.」
    という個所で、字体の違う「と」および、合略仮名の「こと」が使われています。

    ほかに明白な変体仮名の例としては、
    コマ番 34右 「交付春るものと春」などこの頁の前後では「す」が全て「春」になっています。
    コマ番 54左 と コマ番77左には、変体仮名の「尓」が使われています。

    難読字の例として
    コマ番30 右 「●顛末を」 ●は「其」の略字か?
    コマ番38 右 「之れ●の救助」 ●は「等」か?

    誤植の例として
    コマ番 33右「ものとす」を「のもとす」と誤植。一見、「のしさす」に似た形の字体。

    以上の点から私の推理と結論

    葛生は、「舊と穢貊の地にして」と、「舊と春川府内直轄」の個所をともに、原稿用紙のひとますに、明治前期までは一般的であった「しく」の合略仮名を用いて、つまり、江戸時代以来の続き文字として、「舊(ひさ)しく」と書いたが、印刷する際に、植字工が「と」と判読して結果として、誤植になった。だから、本文テキストは「舊と」のままにして、

    ※この箇所、判読不明あるいは誤植か。読み方は「舊(も)と」あるいは「舊(ひさ)しく」
    かとでもしておくのが無難かと思います。

    話は変わりまして、
    コマ番号の37に、「通漁するもの」という文があります。「通漁」を通勤、通学と同じような意味で使われていることがわかるので、「通商と漁業」とすべきだというゲリーさんの説は間違いだと思います。

    もうひとつ、「蒞治」すなわち「莅治」の意味ですが、「臨む」と同じ意味の漢字なので、「遠隔地の首長が、名目的に鬱陵島を監理していた状態から、直接現地に臨み、赴任、駐箚して、島の監督を行う」という解釈でよいと思います。

    ReplyDelete