Tsūji, Interpreters in and Around Early Modern Japan (Translation History) [1st ed. 2023] 303137651X, 9783031376511

Citation preview

TRANSLATION HISTORY

Tsūji, Interpreters in and Around Early Modern Japan Edited by

m i no s a i t o m i k i s at o

Translation History

Series Editors Andrea Rizzi, School of Languages and Linguistics, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia Anthony Pym, School of Languages and Linguistics, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia Birgit Lang, School of Languages and Linguistics, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia Belén Bistué, CONICET - Universidad Nacional de Cuyo, Mendoza, Argentina Esmaeil Haddadian Moghaddam, Translation Studies Research Unit, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium Kayoko Takeda, College of Intercultural Communication, Rikkyo University, Tokyo, Japan

This series is the first to take a global and interdisciplinary view of translation and translators across time, place, and cultures. It also offers an untapped opportunity for interactions between translation and interpreting studies, comparative literature, art history, and print and book history. Translation History aims to become an essential forum for scholars, graduate students, and general readers who are interested in or work on the history and practice of translation and its cultural agents (translators, interpreters, publishers, editors, artists, cultural institutions, governments). Thus, the editors welcome proposals which address new approaches to the subject area in the following ways: • Work which historicise translation in all its forms and expressions: orality, textuality, ideology, language, sociology, and culture • Work offering conceptual frameworks to scholars working on communication and mediation in the history of religion, political theory, print, science, and culture. All proposals and final manuscripts are peer-reviewed by experts in the field, either on the editorial board or beyond. The series publishes book-length studies (80,000 words), as well as shorter publications (25,000 to 50,000 words) which will appear as Palgrave Pivot publications.

Mino Saito · Miki Sato Editors

Tsuji, ¯ Interpreters in and Around Early Modern Japan

Editors Mino Saito Juntendo University Tokyo, Japan

Miki Sato Sapporo University Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan

ISSN 2523-8701 ISSN 2523-871X (electronic) Translation History ISBN 978-3-031-37651-1 ISBN 978-3-031-37652-8 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37652-8 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Acknowledgements

The publication of this book would not have been possible without the support we received. Our sincere gratitude extends to the following parties and others whose support is not listed here. First, the authors of this book are truly grateful to the anonymous reviewers. They provided highly instructive and helpful comments that facilitated the improvement of their chapters. We sincerely thank the reviewers for their professional and scholarly support. We would like to express our gratitude to the editors of the Series of Translation History. They provided us with the specific advice and guidance towards a suitable publication. We are also thankful to Professor Takeda Kayoko at Rikkyo University, Japan, for the advice given to us since we started to plan a publishing proposal. Without her support and encouragement, we would not have been able to publish the book. This book is based on the research projects ‘Theories on Interpreting in the Early Modern Era’ (October 2021, project leader: Naganuma Mikako) and ‘The History of Translation/Interpreting in Japan’ (October 2017 to September 2021, project leader: Sato Miki). All the authors of

v

vi

Acknowledgements

this book have joined these two projects. In addition, the former project in advance of these two, ‘Translational Discourse in Early Modern and Modern Japan’ (October 2014 to September 2017, project leader: Saito Mino), awoke us to the importance of the early-modern ts¯uji for understanding modern phenomena of translation/interpreting. These three projects were supported by the Japan Association for Interpreting and Translation Studies. The editors would like to express their sincere gratitude to the association and all those who joined those projects and contributed papers to this book. We would like to thank them for their collaboration. In particular, Tsuboi Mutsuko, Furukawa Hiroko and Tanaka Miyuki performed highly important tasks concerning the maps included in this publication, which greatly assisted the editors. Naganuma Mikako also offered editors considerable support to maintain consistency in chapters’ discussions, such as using political terms to share the concept of sakoku (the so-called seclusion policy). Above all, we must mention another member of the latest project, Professor Mizuno Akira of Mizuno Institute for Translation and Interpreting Studies, Japan, for providing insightful comments on Chapters 1–8. His contributions have made the chapters relevant to each other. Finally, we are highly honoured to have the opportunity to work with Palgrave Macmillan to publish this book as a part of the Series of Translation History.

Notes on Names and Dates

1. Japanese, Chinese and Ryukyuan names The Japanese, Chinese and Ryukyuan names are written in the family name first order throughout this book. 2. Names of Japanese places This book generally follows the rules of Japan’s Geographical Survey Institute (2016). Japanese has been romanised according to the recommendations of the Department of English Language/Komaba Organization for Educational Development of the University of Tokyo (2009), which is based on the Hepburn system, and Chinese according to Pinyin. 3. Dates, Years and Eras Aiming to be reader-friendly, this book uses the Western calendar when mentioning the years, even though Japan, China and Korea had their own calendar and era names, respectively, in the Early Modern time. When exactly the ‘Early Modern’ or the scope of our book needs to be explained here, as the definition of the age of the Early Modern era in Japan differs among scholars (Brown 2003: 3–4). For instance, Totman

vii

viii

Notes on Names and Dates

(1993: xxv) regards the beginning of the period as 1568 when a powerful warlord Oda Nobunaga (1534–1582) expelled the last sh¯ogun of the Muromachi shogunate (1336–1573) out of Kyoto, the capital of the day. On the other hand, Vaporis (2012: xliii) accepts Early Modern Japan started in the mid-sixteenth century, demonstrating the timeline of the era that starts with 1548 when ‘matchlock muskets are said to have been introduced to Japan by the Portuguese’. Both see the end of the era as 1868, the final year of the Edo shogunate (1603–1868). Considering the unsettled definition of the beginning year of the era, this book considers that the time range of Early Modern Japan is from the mid-sixteenth century to 1868.

References Brown, P. C. (2003) ‘The Political and Institutional History of Early Modern Japan.’ Early Modern Japan, 11, 3–82. Department of English Language/Komaba Organization for Educational Development, The University of Tokyo (2009) ‘Nihongo no R¯omaji Hy¯oki no Suish¯o Keishiki [Recommended System for Romanizing Japanese].’ Retrieved on December 1, 2021, from http://park.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/eigo/ romaji.html Geographical Survey Institute, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (2016) ‘Chimei Nado no Eigo Hy¯oki Kitei [Regulations of Writing Place Names in Alphabets].’ Retrieved on March 20, 2022, from https:// www.gsi.go.jp/common/000138865.pdf Totman, C. D. (1993) Early Modern Japan. Berkeley: University of California Press. Vaporis, C. N. (2012) Voices of Early Modern Japan: Contemporary Accounts of Daily Life During the Age of the Shoguns. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood.

Map 1 East and Southeast Asia

Map 2 Japan and Ryukyu

Contents

1

Introduction Mino Saito and Miki Sato

2

Oranda-ts¯uji (Japanese–Dutch Interpreters) in the Eighteenth Century: The Case of Yoshio K¯ozaemon Miyuki Tanaka

3

4

T¯o-ts¯uji (Japanese–Chinese Interpreters) in Nagasaki: The Case of Tei Einei Yukari Hiratsuka, Mikako Naganuma, Mino Saito, and Miki Sato Amenomori H¯osh¯u and Ch¯osen-ts¯uji (Japanese–Korean Interpreters) in the Eighteenth Century Hiroko Furukawa

5 The Roles of Ryukyuan–Chinese ts¯uji in Early Eighteenth-Century Ryukyu Mino Saito

1

27

51

73

97

xi

xii

6

7

Contents

Arrival of Western Ships and Ikoku-ts¯uji in Ryukyu in the Nineteenth Century: The Case of Itarashiki (Makishi) Ch¯och¯u Mutsuko Tsuboi Ezo-ts¯uji (Japanese–Ainu Interpreters) in the Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries: The Case of Uehara Kumajir¯o Miki Sato

115

141

8

Otokichi as a Castaway-turned-ts¯uji Mikako Naganuma

167

9

Concluding Remarks Miki Sato

189

Index of Names

197

Index of Subjects

201

Contributors

Hiroko Furukawa Tohoku Gakuin University, Sendai, Japan Yukari Hiratsuka Beijing Language and Culture University, Beijing, China; Juntendo University, Tokyo, Japan Mikako Naganuma Kobe City University of Foreign Studies, Kobe, Japan Mino Saito Juntendo University, Tokyo, Japan Miki Sato Sapporo University, Sapporo, Japan Miyuki Tanaka Aoyama Gakuin University, Tokyo, Japan Mutsuko Tsuboi Rikkyo University, Tokyo, Japan

xiii

List of Figures

Chapter 7 Fig. 1 Fig. 2

Translation of waka poems into Ainu in Moshiogusa (1792: 84) The first page of the translation of yukar in Moshiogusa (1792: 90)

152 154

Chapter 8 Fig. 1

A 1836 letter expressing their wish to return to Japan with signatures [F.O. 17/14]

173

xv

1 Introduction Mino Saito and Miki Sato

1

Purpose

In Japan and Ryukyu (present-day Okinawa Prefecture, the southernmost prefecture of Japan) in the Early Modern era (1568–1868), language experts called ts¯uji (通詞/通事/通辞) interpreted and translated between Japanese or Ryukyuan and other languages, and played active roles in various contexts including diplomatic events and publication of dictionaries. This book explores the roles of ts¯uji in communicating with foreign cultures in complex and diverse contexts in different locations in Japan and the Ryukyu Kingdom. Our main purpose is to extend historical research in translation and interpreting studies with new M. Saito (B) Juntendo University, Tokyo, Japan e-mail: [email protected] M. Sato Sapporo University, Sapporo, Japan e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Saito and M. Sato (eds.), Ts¯uji, Interpreters in and Around Early Modern Japan, Translation History, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37652-8_1

1

2

M. Saito and M. Sato

or overlooked information about pre-modern interpreters in Japan and Ryukyu. In this book, the term ts¯uji is both the singular and the plural. The authors of this chapter strongly agree with Guo’s claim about one of the research trends in the history of interpreting that ‘there is increased awareness of the fact that concepts such as interpreting and interpreters are not universal and do not hold stable meanings across languages and cultures’ (2020: 240). Footitt (2022: 31) explains that contextualising interpreters leads to ‘avoiding easy generalisations’. What is required is to explain the meaning of ‘interpreting’ and ‘interpreters’ in a specific context. ‘Interpreters’ in our book consist of ts¯uji in Nagasaki, Tsushima, Ezo, the Ryukyu Kingdom and a castaway-turnedts¯uji born in Japan. This book comprises seven historical case studies that explore the role of ts¯uji in communicating with other cultures in different languages, including Japanese, Dutch, Chinese, Korean, Ryukyuan, English, French, Russian and Ainu (language of the indigenous people of Ezo, ranging from the northern island of current Japan to Sakhalin and the Kurils). Specifically, each chapter focuses on ts¯uji at a particular time and location, concerning the social, political and economic conditions surrounding each group of ts¯uji. Aligned with the growing attention paid to interpreters and translators as mediators or human agents (cf. Baker 1998: xv; Pym 1998/ 2014; Cronin 2003: 63–67; Wolf and Fukari 2007: 14–15; Saldanha and O’Brien 2013: 150), our book introduces the life and works of ts¯uji. The focus is on their performance and achievements in the broader contexts around them—the power relations they were confronted with and their positions in society. Discussions about ts¯uji along with their social, political and economic contexts offer readers a comprehensive understanding of the reality of language experts in Japan and the Ryukyu Kingdom at the time. This will help avoid overgeneralisation.

2

The Term ‘Tsuji’ ¯

In this section, we elaborate on our book’s keyword, ts¯uji, which has different implications from the word ‘interpreter’. Unlike the English word ‘translation’, which can refer to both immediate or non-immediate

1 Introduction

3

translational activity,1 Japanese terminology commonly distinguishes between these two practices: the practice of non-immediate written translation is called 翻訳 hon’yaku, and that of immediate oral/sign language interpretation is 通訳 ts¯uyaku. However, the former term, 翻訳 hon’yaku, was especially associated with the translation of Buddhist sutras in pre-modern times (Clements 2015: 10). Indeed, it was not until the late Edo era that the term came to mean the general ‘translation’ as it does now. Likewise, it was not until the Meiji era (1868–1912) that the latter term, 通訳 ts¯uyaku, came to be prevalent (Nihon Kokugo Dai-jiten, 日本国語大辞典 Shogakukan Unabridged Dictionary of the Japanese Language2 ). Hung and Wakabayashi (2005: 1–2) identify the significance of Asian concepts of translation that do not necessarily share the same meaning as those of English. Knowledge of those concepts helps relativise translation studies, which is mainly based on Western concepts. Hung and Wakabayashi also discuss the importance of exploring the history of the concept: … contemporary views and practices need to be understood in the context of their origins. [...] The very terminology used in relation to translational activities today can be better understood by tracing its etymology and how these terms have changed over time and accumulated an encrustation of meanings—meanings that do not always map one-to-one onto their English ‘equivalents’. (Hung and Wakabayashi 2005: 2)

They also emphasise that researchers in the field of translation and interpreting studies, being mainly grounded in Western perspectives, lack knowledge of non-Western concepts: It is not necessarily that translation theorists in the West today dismiss non-European thinking on translation as unworthy of attention; rather, they are simply uninformed. Even the most conscientious theorist has little recourse in the face of a dearth of reliable information. The language barrier plays a major role here, compounding the earlier lack of interest in translation “beyond the Western tradition” ... (Hung and Wakabayashi 2005: 1–2)

4

M. Saito and M. Sato

This means that non-Western concepts of translating practices should be shared with a broader audience to inform and reinforce that the concepts and practices of ‘translation’ are not universal. Wakabayashi (2009, 2019) and Clements (2015) are suitable examples to show a specific conceptualisation concerning translation in Japan. They list various pre-modern Japanese equivalents for ‘translation’, arguing that these terms do not encompass the same meaning as the English term ‘translation’. They do so by highlighting etymological differences between the Japanese concepts of ‘translation’ and those of English. Similarly, the term ‘ts¯uji’, referring to people who worked on various language-mediating tasks in and around Early Modern Japan, has a unique etymology and entails diverse implications. The Japanese term currently used for ‘interpreter’ is 通訳者 or 通 訳 in Sinitic letters, pronounced as ts¯uyakusha or ts¯uyaku respectively. According to Shin Kangorin (新漢語林), a widely used Japanese dictionary of Sinitic characters, 通 ts¯u, the first Sinitic character of 通訳者, means ‘to penetrate’, ‘to pass or run through’, ‘to reach’, ‘to understand or realise’, ‘to come and go’, ‘to exchange’ and ‘to utter or express’. The second character, 訳 yaku, means ‘to interpret a meaning of sentences’ and ‘to change one language to another’. The character 者 sha refers to ‘person’. Therefore, ts¯uyakusha 通訳者 literally means a person who changes one language to another to help people understand each other, that is, it is the Japanese counterpart of the English term ‘interpreter’. The term 通訳 ts¯uyaku, without 者 sha, also carries the same meaning. The use of the Japanese word ts¯uyaku became prevalent only during the Meiji era. Before that time, interpreters were referred to as ts¯uji; however, as will become clear in the subsequent chapters, ts¯uji does not necessarily have the same connotation as ts¯uyaku. This publication intentionally distinguishes the term ts¯uji from ts¯uyakusha/ts¯uyaku. In Early Modern Japan, three different sets of Chinese characters were used to represent the term ts¯uji: 通詞; 通辞 and 通事. They used the same character (通 ts¯u ) as mentioned above for the first letter of each character set, while the second letters of each character set, 詞, 辞 and 事, are all pronounced as ji. Nihon Kokugo Dai-jiten suggests that 詞 and 辞 had the same meaning as 言 (gen and koto). They represent ‘an act of expressing something by means of language’ or ‘a language’ itself.

1 Introduction

5

These three letters share the same etymology as the letter 事 ( ji and koto), which means ‘things that happened’. Nihon Kokugo Dai-jiten also expounds that the Japanese meanings of 言 and 事, both pronounced as koto in a Japanised way, were not differentiated clearly in ancient Japan (approximately from the sixth to the twelfth century) because people believed that ‘things that happened’ were not perceived or cognised unless they were ‘expressed in language’. Subsequently, the meanings of both characters were distinguished, with 言 referring only to ‘language’ or ‘expressed word(s)’. The first record of the occupation of interpreters appears in Nihon Shoki, vol. 22 (日本書紀 Chronicles of Japan). Nihon Shoki is an official compilation of the ancient history of Japan, which was completed in the year 720. The Chronicles describe an interpreter of Chinese named Kuratsukuri no Fukuri (鞍作福利), who accompanied the Japanese delegates to the Tang Dynasty in 607. The interpreter was titled osa, written as 通事 in Chinese characters (Yuzawa 2010: 69, 99; Takeda 2013: 14– 15). Osa was also written as 訳語 in Engishiki (延喜式 Procedures of the Engi Era), a record of laws and customs completed in 927 (Yuzawa 2010: 91). According to Yuzawa (2010: 125–130), an ancient record, Nitt¯o Guh¯o Junrei K¯oki (入唐求法巡礼行記 The Record of a Pilgrimage to China in Search of the Law), reveals that the interpreters were assigned various tasks—from interpreting and translating to organising trips and preparing for various necessary tasks to follow the delegates’ missions. This reminds us of the interesting association between 事 ‘things that happened’ and 言 ‘expressed in language’: what the delegates demanded would not come to pass unless they asked the interpreters, via language, to do it. The interpreters would realise what delegates needed via foreign languages. The Chinese characters 通事 illustrate a connection between Japanese ancient concepts and the actual practice of interpreting. In Japan’s medieval times (from the late twelfth century to the midsixteenth century), interpreters were called ts¯uji instead of osa. Ts¯uji was the Chinese-style pronunciation of the same Chinese characters 通事. However, with time, the alternative 通詞 was more frequently used than 通事, with another set of Sinitic letters 通辞 also appearing (Nihon Kokugo Dai-jiten). As mentioned above, the letters 詞 and 辞 had the same implications as 言. Hence, the use of those two characters instead

6

M. Saito and M. Sato

of 事 can indicate that people emphasised language as the main task of ts¯uji than ‘things that happened (by the help of interpreters)’. The three sets of Chinese characters continued to be used for its title in the Early Modern period. 通事 represented ts¯uji of Chinese, whereas those of Dutch were referred to as 通詞. An exception was Ryukyu’s ikokuts¯uji who interpreted Western languages (see Chapter 6), written as 通 事. This is probably because there had been Chinese-Ryukyuan ts¯uji or 通事 there, and people in Ryukyu had gotten used to those characters before the appearance of ikoku-ts¯uji in Ryukyu.

3

Historical Contexts Surrounding Tsuji ¯

As mentioned in Sect. 1, this book places great significance on the various contexts surrounding ts¯uji. This section briefly explains the geopolitical and diplomatic situation surrounding Early Modern Japan, which contributes to understanding the discussions in the subsequent chapters.

3.1

The So-Called ‘Sakoku (鎖 鎖国 a Closed Country)’

Early Modern Japan has been generally referred to as ‘sakoku (鎖国 a closed country)’, which implemented ‘the seclusion policy’ to isolate itself from foreign countries. It is a historical fact that the shogunate banned overseas travel and the entry of foreign vessels in the early seventeenth century, which was considered the beginning of ‘the isolation policy’. To begin with, the term sakoku was coined in the translation of a passage in The History of Japan (Kaempfer 1727/1993), written by the German physician Engelbert Kaempfer (1651–1716). An Orandats¯uji-turned-scholar, Shizuki Tadao (志筑忠雄, 1760–1806), translated its Dutch edition in 1801 (Shizuki and Sugimoto 1801/2015) and he simply rendered the long title of the sixth appendix, in English, ‘An Enquiry, whether it be conducive for the good of the Japanese Empire to keep it shut up, as it now is, and not to suffer its inhabitants to have any commerce with foreign nations, either at home or abroad’ as Sakoku-ron

1 Introduction

7

(鎖国論 An Essay on a Closed Country), coining the term sakoku (鎖国) (Joby 2021: 288–289).3 In other words, it was not the shogunate itself that called the country ‘isolated’ or ‘closed’. Notably, Kaempfer described the state of Japan with its ‘shutting up’ policy as rather praiseworthy, as the country appeared happy and well governed, even though it seemed cut off from foreign trade and communication and in a state of seclusion (Mervart 2009: 328–329). After the end of the Edo era, the term sakoku was considered a state of strict isolation from the rest of the world, with concomitant negative implications. Many discourses on sakoku in the Meiji era represented it as an uncivilised state of a country, and a different and inferior policy to that of the Meiji government which attempted to modernise and West¯ ¯ 2009). Oshima concludes that the discourse ernise the country (Oshima of sakoku continues to exist as a convenient tool for the Japanese to talk about their own uniqueness (2009: 220). Arano (2019: 113–114) indicates that the concept of sakoku had long been an a priori premise of Japanese early modern history. However, the term sakoku and the concept of ‘the isolation policy’ became an issue in the 1970s, followed by a lively discussion among historians, especially from the 1980s onward (Kimura 2009: 1–2). Some studies on diplomatic relations in Japanese history argued that Japanese diplomatic policy in the Edo era was not the complete breaking off of contacts with foreign countries (e.g. Toby 1984/1991, 2008; Arano 1988, 1992, 1993, 2019; Matsukata 2010; Sakai 2020). In particular, Arano and Toby propose that the diplomatic policy of the Tokugawa shogunate should be redefined as the ‘Japan-centred world order cum maritime prohibition system’4 (Toby 1984/1991: xix), which was based on the system China had implemented at the time, but applied in Japan with the Japan-centred ideology, instead of the China-centred worldview5 (Toby 1984/1991, 2008; Arano 1988, 1992, 2019). These studies insist that the policy implemented by the shogunate did not isolate Japan from other countries but prohibited private trading with foreign countries and travelling to and from Japanese territory. Other scholars accept the fact that the so-called isolation policy was actually implemented but argue that the manner the policy functioned differed over

8

M. Saito and M. Sato

time, explaining that the policy was strictly carried out in the seventeenth century and around the nineteenth century. However, this was not always the case during the approximately 300 years of the Edo era (e.g. Matsukata 2016). Thus, the term sakoku, which was widely used to refer to Japan in the Early Modern period, should no longer be accepted as a priori. A pertinent example of this appears in Japanese high school textbooks of Japanese history.6 One of them calls the policy ‘so-called sakoku’ (Oikawa et al. 2020: 179). The study reference for this textbook elaborates this point by adding that the Edo shogunate conducted overseas trade, whereas it forbade travel to and from Japanese territory (Sato et al. 2008: 251–256). Another textbook clearly states that Early Modern Japan never closed itself (Arano et al. 2017: 144), and yet another admits that the implementation of sakoku policy was completed in 1641 (Wakita et al. 2021: 166). Even though there are differences in the way these three textbooks and a study reference book explain sakoku, they all commonly describe that the shogunate had four channels to foreign countries: overseas trade with the Netherlands and China solely via Dejima of Nagasaki, relationships with Korea via the Tsushima, with Ryukyu via the Satsuma, and with Ainu via the Matsumae. Our present publication shares the view that Early Modern Japan was open to the outside world through those four gateways (see Sect. 3.2), even under ‘so-called sakoku’, and hence maintained a balanced diplomatic order in East Asia. In contrast, China retained a tributary system in its diplomatic principle in the area (Sato et al. 2008: 251–256).

3.2

Four Gateways

Our book does not discuss whether the concept of ‘the isolation policy’ or ‘maritime ban’ is appropriate since its focus is on ts¯uji in Early Modern Japan and Ryukyu. It is a historical fact that the Edo shogunate restricted contact with foreigners. Nevertheless, there were trade and communication channels, now known as ‘yottsu no kuchi (四つの口 four gateways /gates)7 where ts¯uji were at work. These included Nagasaki, Tsushima,

1 Introduction

9

Satsuma (–Ryukyu) and Matsumae (see Maps 1 and 2, on pages ix–x, of Early Modern Japan for the locations of each gateway). Nagasaki, located in the north-west of present-day Kyushu region, was open to the Netherlands and China. It was under the direct control of the shogunate, and Nagasaki bugy¯o (magistrates) took charge of relations and commercial trade with the Netherlands and China (Arano 1988: 161; Matsukata 2010: 243–246). The city had already prospered in trade with Portugal and Spain in the sixteenth century before the so-called isolation policy was implemented (Honma 2009: 2). This was because the location of Nagasaki was convenient for maritime traffic by trading vessels and was relatively close to China, with the townspeople being already accustomed to trade transactions. Therefore, the shogunate was able to govern Nagasaki directly, rather than having a domain govern the city. Chapters 2 and 3 of this book respectively discuss ts¯uji of Dutch (Oranda-ts¯uji) and Chinese (T¯o-ts¯uji) in Nagasaki. Tsushima, an island between Nagasaki and the Korean Peninsula, had served as an intermediary between the Japanese archipelago and the Korean Peninsula since Japan’s mediaeval time (late twelfth to midsixteenth centuries) (Arano 1988: 161; Matsukata 2010: 239–240). The Tsushima domain was critical in maintaining the diplomatic ties between Japan and Korea, while they had an official relationship in the Edo era. Chapter 4 considers ts¯uji of Korean language (Ch¯osen-ts¯uji) working there. The Satsuma domain, the south-western part of Kyushu, had a route to the Ryukyu Kingdom, a point of contact with other foreign countries. Although our book does not cover this, the Satsuma domain also had its Chinese, Dutch, English and Korean ts¯uji (Tokunaga 2005: 373–485, 2011: 189–230). The domain needed trained interpreters not only because it had to deal with shipwrecks on its coast where trading vessels from China sailed on the way to Nagasaki, but also because of Satsuma’s strong motivation to collect information on foreign countries to survive in the complicated situation surrounding it, domestically and internationally (Tokunaga 2011: 202). Tokunaga (2005: 441) posits the possibility that Satsuma had its own trade route with Korea, which was also the motivation for training its own ts¯uji.

10

M. Saito and M. Sato

Our book focuses on ts¯uji in Ryukyu connecting the world with Japan through Satsuma (Satsuma–Ryukyu gateway). This gateway was in a more intricate situation than the other three gateways, particularly with regard to the Ryukyu Kingdom in the East Asian context. Although Satsuma was one of the domains under the Edo shogunate, Ryukyu was a kingdom established in 1429 and entered into a tributary relationship with the Ming and Qing Dynasties. In 1609, the Edo shogunate authorised the Satsuma domain to force Ryukyu into submission. Ryukyu subsequently surrendered to Satsuma, and the northern part of Ryukyu became part of the territory of the Satsuma domain. However, its status remained ambiguous: the shogunate treated Ryukyu as an independent kingdom although Satsuma actually controlled it. That was because the shogunate wanted to avoid conflict with China and retain indirect trade with them through Ryukyu. It regularly dispatched diplomatic missions to Edo, while the Kingdom also maintained a tributary relationship with China. Thus, Ryukyu had a dual subordinate relationship with Japan as well as China. Hence, Ryukyu placed itself in a diplomatically complex position dependent on both Japan and China, striking the optimal balance between them. Later, from a geopolitical point of view, the location of Ryukyu was convenient for foreign vessels to access Japan’s mainland, and Ryukyu became an important gateway for Western countries, too. This gateway has been generally called ‘Satsuma gateway’ (Arano 1988; Matsukata 2010). However, Arano (2019: 70) uses the term ‘Satsuma–Ryukyu gateway’ to reflect a geopolitically and diplomatically ambiguous position of the Early Modern Ryukyu. This book refers to the gateway as ‘Satsuma–Ryukyu gateway’ to emphasise the critical position of Ryukyu, which was utilised by the Edo shogunate for access to China and other countries. Two chapters in this book discuss ts¯uji in Ryukyu: Chapter 5 focuses on ts¯uji between Chinese and Ryukyuan, and Chapter 6 discusses ts¯uji of Western languages (ikoku-ts¯uji). Another gateway was Matsumae, located in the southern part of Ezo (present-day Hokkaido), where the relationship with the Ainu people was administered by the Matsumae domain8 (Arano 1988: 161; Matsukata 2010: 242). The Ainu people inhabited not only the presentday Hokkaido island but also Sakhalin and the Kurils, where they had

1 Introduction

11

contact with Russians. Ainu also traded with the Santan people residing in the Amur River region in northern China (Kojima 1989). In other words, Matsumae was the contact point to China and Russia through the Ainu. Ezo-ts¯uji, who interpreted the Ainu language in this gateway, will be described in Chapter 7. The four gateways were the primary places where ts¯uji worked at the forefront of communication with foreign cultures. Ts¯uji acted as mediators between the Japanese and other cultures. The interpreter’s role as a mediator has been discussed from linguistic, cultural and sociological viewpoints (Kondo et al. 1997: 158; Baraldi and Gavioli 2015: 247– 249; Pöllabauer 2015: 355–359; Pöchhacker 2016: 62–63, 169–172). The role of mediators varies by context; notably, the early modern ts¯uji acted as intermediaries in multiple senses, which will be revealed in the following chapters.

3.3

Relationship with Other Asian Regions

Early Modern Japan also made contact with Asian countries other than those connected via the four gateways, and there were ts¯uji of those countries’ languages. According to a diplomatic record, Ts¯uk¯o Ichiran (通航一覧 Survey of Diplomatic Relations, Hayashi c.1853/ 1913) volumes 147 and 148, and records regarding ts¯uji, Yakushi T¯ofu ( 譯司統譜 Record of Appointments of Chinese Interpreters, Egawa 1897), there were ts¯uji of the following languages: Thai; Vietnamese; the ‘Moulu’ language9 used in the Mughal Empire and the Luzonese spoken in Luzon, the Philippines (Wada 1980; Nagashima 1986; Kornicki 2018). Those ts¯uji were stationed at Nagasaki and listed among T¯o-ts¯uji. Wada (1980) describes the details of the hereditary nature of their profession and reveals that the number of those ts¯uji was not large. In addition, Tanimoto (2017) mentions Santan-ts¯uji. The Santan refers to the people who inhabited the Amur River region in northern China. They conducted trade with the Ainu people in Ezo. Despite the lower demand for the above-mentioned Asian languages than for Chinese and Korean, the status of those ts¯uji was guaranteed by the Edo government. This means that the government recognised

12

M. Saito and M. Sato

the diplomatic importance of not only East Asian countries but also the wider Asian region. Diplomatic circumstances in Asia surrounding Early Modern Japan were significant factors in the jobs of ts¯uji, in the sense that ts¯uji were strongly influenced by the international relationships and conditions around Japan. In addition, the relationship with Portugal should be mentioned here with respect to Japan’s international relations around the Early Modern period. Portuguese traders first arrived in Japan in 1543, followed by the missionaries of the Society of Jesus in 1549. They travelled to Japan via China or Macao, collecting information about Japan and contacting the Japanese people living there. Subsequently, Portuguese missionaries went on to promulgate their faith with great zeal. Christianity was spread in western Japan until the shogunate prohibited Christian missionary work in 1612 and expelled the missionaries from Japan in 1614. Portuguese traders were also expelled in 1639 when trade between Japan and Portugal was halted. During that time, there were several ts¯uji between Japanese and Portuguese, such as Joan Rodrigues (c. 1561–c. 1633), a Jesuit missionary. Rodrigues was highly regarded by Toyotomi Hideyoshi (豊臣秀吉, 1536–1598) and by Tokugawa Ieyasu (徳川家 康, 1542–1616), the rulers of Japan from the late sixteenth to the early seventeenth century. Ieyasu appointed him as Tokugawa’s trade agent and gave him the authority to buy goods freighted by Portuguese ships, making him deeply involved in Japan–Macao trading relations. In this regard, Portuguese tçuzu (a Portuguese translation of ts¯uji) played a significant role in trade relationships among Asian regions via Macao. Although this book does not include a case study of Portuguese ts¯uji, it is obvious that the Portuguese ts¯uji was vital in the diplomatic relationships of Early Modern Japan.

4

Literature Review of Historical Studies on Interpreting and Translation

The previous section introduced the historical, regional and diplomatic contexts surrounding ts¯uji. There are many studies in the fields of Japanese history and regional studies on those contexts, some of which

1 Introduction

13

have been mentioned. Regarding ts¯uji, or interpreting and translation in the history of Japan and its neighbours, several scholars have explored diplomatic and other contexts in the fields of history and regional studies as well as in the field of translation and interpreting studies. We briefly review the previous studies on ts¯uji or interpreting and translation in history, which would be indispensable for acquiring the basic knowledge related to our topic. The historian Arano (1993) recognises interpreters as those who serve on the boundary between different groups of people that do not share a common language, and he exemplifies ts¯uji in this regard in seventeenthcentury Japan. Prior to the time of ‘sakoku’, in Hirado of Nagasaki, ts¯uji with a command of Portuguese or Spanish worked at the site of trading. Yuzawa (1997, 2010), a researcher of the history of the Japanese language, describes the existence of interpreters in diplomatic relations between Japan and Bohai, a kingdom that was founded in 698 and fell in 926, located in the northern part of the Korean Peninsula, today’s Northeast China, and the Russian Maritime Province (Primorskiy Kray) in the eighth and ninth centuries. According to Yuzawa, interpreters mainly used Chinese in the diplomatic setting as the lingua franca; however, he explains that there were Japanese interpreters who studied the language of Bohai (Yuzawa 1997: 31–34). Yuzawa (2010) provides detailed explanations of interpreters in ancient Japan, including their training and tasks, which are mentioned in Sect. 2 of this introduction. Kornicki (2018), a Japanologist working on Japanese cultural history, comprehensively explores communication among users of different languages through written Sinitic in pre- and early modern Japan and contemporary China, Korea and Vietnam. He explains how Sinitic scripts spread and became the vernacular in Japan, Korea and Vietnam while describing language-learning systems. He elucidates the existence of interpreter training schools in China, Korea and Japan in pre- and early modern eras, including a Korean school in Tsushima, Japan, which opened in 1727 (Kornicki 2018: 91–92). This school was proposed by Amenomori H¯osh¯u, one of the ts¯uji we study in our publication. Kornicki (2018: 178–179) describes Amenomori’s services to the growth of Korean language learning in the Tsushima domain and his opinions on the vernacular reading of Sinitic texts. Chapter 4 of our

14

M. Saito and M. Sato

volume approaches Amenomori from a different perspective, focusing on his attitude towards foreign cultures. Kornicki (2018: 141–142) briefly mentions another ts¯uji discussed in our book—Tei Junsoku— who brought a Chinese moral textbook from China to Japan via Ryukyu. Chapter 5 provides detailed accounts of his role in the spread of the textbook in relation to its social context. Sugimoto (1981), a Japanese linguist, explores Oranda-ts¯uji (阿蘭陀 通詞 Dutch interpreters) in Nagasaki, which is one of the ts¯uji groups examined in our book, and describes the system of Oranda-ts¯uji and how they studied Dutch. Sugimoto (1981) also introduces books and dictionaries for learning Dutch, English and Russian in early nineteenthcentury Japan. Clements (2015), a cultural historian of Japan, mentions Oranda-ts¯uji while exploring translations in Early Modern Japan or in the Tokugawa era (1603–1868). She highlights the relationship between rangaku (蘭学 Dutch studies) and Oranda-ts¯uji, and introduces several Dutch works in anatomy, geography, and horsemanship, translated by ts¯uji in Nagasaki. The works mentioned above deal with one or more historical groups of ts¯uji in and around Japan and show some of their complex features. Our book will be the first in English to introduce seven different groups of ts¯uji in and around Japan inclusively, depicting a particular individual from each group. An example of translation unique to Japan is introduced by Wakabayashi (2019). She writes about the conceptualisation of ‘translation’ in Japanese history. She explains that kundoku (訓読) as a way of translation, which was originally the way of reading Chinese writing in a Japanised way and later even applied to other languages such as Dutch and English,10 helps us understand the uniqueness of interpreting and translating in Japan. She claims that Japanese people often, not necessarily always, chose a source-oriented approach in literature, language learning, law and sciences since the eighteenth century because they found superiority in source languages and cultures. Wakabayashi (2019) elucidates the significance of focusing on a certain country or region— in her case, Japan—to understand the concept of translation/interpreting precisely without overgeneralisations.

1 Introduction

15

As Pym (1998) mentions, the history of interpreting and translation in a certain country or region at a certain time highlights how the concept of interpreting and translation was constructed in the past. However, in this regard, there is limited research on non-European countries, except for China (e.g., Lung 2011). Moreover, English publications providing comprehensive research on interpreters in Early Modern Japan are lacking. Our book focuses on Japan and Ryukyu mainly in the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries and provides detailed information about interpreting in Early Modern Japan and the Ryukyu Kingdom.

5

Context-Oriented Case Studies

Chapters 2–8 present historical case studies as qualitative research, naturally allocating greater importance to the broader contexts surrounding ts¯uji. Baigorri-Jalón (2015: 184) points out that ‘Most research on interpreting and interpreters in history takes the form of case studies and is based on standard historical methods and sources’. Saldanha and O’Brien (2013: 207) claim that case studies are suitable for ‘studying historical phenomena’. Each of the following seven chapters conducts a historical case study on a particular ts¯uji of a certain region and time, emphasising the contexts in which the ts¯uji engaged in numerous tasks. In this approach, the authors place the subject of their studies in the broader contexts surrounding it, such as historical, regional and diplomatic contexts, as ‘contextualization and a real-life setting’ are necessary for case studies (Saldanha and O’Brien 2013: 207). In other words, when analysing their subject, the authors always refer to its context to understand particular events or actions. Chapters 2 to 8 introduce contexts relevant to the topic at the beginning of the chapter. This method enables us to clarify how the tasks and exact works of ts¯uji were constructed and influenced by contexts. This approach will enhance our understanding of how ts¯uji performed their tasks and how society accepted and reacted to them—namely, the reality of ts¯uji. As highlighted by Saldanha and O’Brien (2013: 215–216), a case study needs to delimit the object of the study by setting ‘temporal boundaries’, ‘social boundaries’ and ‘spatial boundaries’. Our book is about ts¯uji

16

M. Saito and M. Sato

‘in and around Early Modern Japan’; however, of course, it is impossible for one book to cover all ts¯uji in and around Japan in the Early Modern era. Thus, we selected seven major groups of ts¯uji, and each of the following chapters focuses on a particular individual ts¯uji from each of the seven groups. The reason those particular persons were chosen is explained in each chapter. Our case studies share a common interest with the concept of ‘microhistory’. Wakabayashi (2018) explains its methodology in researching translation. She defines the methodology’s features as ‘intensive investigation of a particular object’, ‘the challenging or refining of generalizations, revealing implications that transcend the specific object of study’, and ‘an emphasis on the agency of individuals or groups that are either exceptional or representative in some way, situated within a broader context’ (251, italics in original). Our case studies also focus on a particular ts¯uji in a specific short period of time, who contributed multiple tasks, including interpreting work in particular historical, regional and diplomatic contexts. The seven historical case studies in this volume will show readers how and why ts¯uji’s functions went beyond a linguistic gobetween by providing examples of the agents who joined the complex intercultural communication practices. Case studies could possibly be biased; therefore, referring to several types of sources of information is significant to avoid partiality. ‘Bias is reduced by using multiple sources of information, which also leads to richer descriptions and more convincing arguments’ (Saldanha and O’Brien 2013: 226). As a matter of course, Chapters 2 to 8 refer to both primary and secondary sources. Our primary sources include ts¯uji’s vocational logbook, their sworn oath document, and their published works. Our secondary sources were selected from relevant areas including translation and interpreting studies, history, regional studies, linguistics, cultural studies and intercultural communication studies. This interdisciplinary way of conducting research is relevant to our book because all seven authors of this book specialise in translation and interpreting studies, which is a highly interdisciplinary field (cf. Hatim and Munday 2019: 7–8).

1 Introduction

6

17

Research Team and Overviews of Chapters 2–9

The authors of this publication are members of the research projects ‘Theories on Interpreting in the Early Modern Era’ (October 2021—, project leader: Naganuma Mikako) and ‘The History of Translation/Interpreting in Japan’ (October 2017 to September 2021, project leader: Sato Miki) supported by the Japan Association for Interpreting and Translation Studies (JAITS). Some authors joined ‘Translational Discourse in Early Modern and Modern Japan’ project (October 2014 to September 2017, project leader: Saito Mino) which was organised prior to the aforementioned projects and was also supported by JAITS. They recognised the great significance of acquiring knowledge about the past praxis of inter-language and intercultural communication in Japan so as to understand the modern aspects of interpreting and translation in depth. Gaining a historical viewpoint has widened the authors’ perspectives in translation and interpreting studies. Each of the following chapters describes the outcomes of the decade-long study. Each chapter (Chapters 2–8) focuses on one group of ts¯uji and one individual ts¯uji. In brief, the following aspects are discussed in the respective chapters: Chapter 2, by Tanaka Miyuki, explores Oranda-ts¯uji (阿蘭陀通 詞 Japanese–Dutch interpreters), Yoshio K¯ozaemon (吉雄幸左衛門, 1724–1800), who served as a local official ts¯uji between Japanese magistrates and Dutch traders, and also was a Dutch-style doctor in Nagasaki in the eighteenth century. As context-oriented research, especially focusing on a ‘mistranslation incident’, Tanaka vividly describes three major contextual factors: political pressure, intercultural issues between Dutch merchants and the local administration, and Yoshio’s relationship with Edo-based scholars. These factors affected Yoshio’s life as Oranda-ts¯uji in the feudal Edo period. Her description facilitates our understanding of the background of the ‘incident’ that occurred with Oranda-ts¯uji. In Chapter 3, Hiratsuka Yukari, Naganuma Mikako, Saito Mino, and Sato Miki write about another group of ts¯uji in Nagasaki called T¯ots¯uji (唐通事 Japanese–Chinese interpreters), particularly focusing on Tei Einei (鄭永寧, 1829–1897). Tei played roles as a negotiator/manager

18

M. Saito and M. Sato

in trade operations, a supervisor of the Chinese community, a messenger of overseas information and an educator of the Chinese language. This chapter describes two turning points in his career and explores his works in both the Edo and the Meiji eras. Unlike many other tsuji in the contemporary Japan, who were Japanese (excluding those in Ryukyu, as discussed in Chapters 5 and 6), To-tsuji, including Tei, were not of Japanese descent. These two chapters discuss two different groups of ts¯uji in Nagasaki, a famous gateway of Early Modern Japan. Yoshio in Chapter 2 and Tei in Chapter 3 were at the mercy of Japan’s diplomatic situation in the Edo period. Tanaka reveals more details than the existing studies regarding ts¯uji’s vulnerable social position, and Hiratsuka et al. highlight the vulnerability of ts¯uji. It was the negative side of a ts¯uji’s life as a mediator. In Chapter 4, Furukawa Hiroko provides an example of a multiculturalist in eighteenth-century Tsushima, one of the four gateways. The chapter deals with Amenomori H¯osh¯u (雨森芳洲, 1668–1755), who educated Ch¯osen-ts¯uji (朝鮮通詞 Japanese–Korean interpreters). He believed that ts¯uji needed to communicate with foreigners ‘in all sincerity’ because it was significant in building diplomatic ties. His efforts in creating a good relationship between Japan and Korea reveal that he placed great importance on ethics to avoid ethnocentrism. Another gateway was Satsuma–Ryukyu. The Ryukyu Kingdom was home to the Chinese–Ryukyuan ts¯uji Tei Junsoku (程順則, 1663– 1734), on whom the fifth chapter by Saito Mino focuses. Tei played multiple roles, as ts¯uji as well as a diplomat, scholar and educator, exemplifying the multi-layered activities of ts¯uji. With his knowledge and enthusiasm for education, he introduced a Chinese moral education book to the Ryukyu Kingdom and later to Japan. An interesting viewpoint shared in Chapters 4 and 5 is that Amenomori and Tei both emphasised the significance of sincerity, ethics and morality in ts¯uji training. In today’s interpreters and translators’ training, ethics is considered a requirement for interpreters (cf. Koskinen and Pokorn 2021). Floros (2021: 348) argues that translation history aids in ‘shaping ethical considerations and guiding principles’ in translation and interpreting. Amenomori and Tei required prospective ts¯uji to

1 Introduction

19

be ethical as human beings; such a requirement reminds us that sincerity and moral education must not be forgotten in the training of interpreters as mediators. In Chapter 6, Tsuboi Mutsuko deals with another group of ts¯uji in the Ryukyu Kingdom, the ikoku-ts¯uji (異国通事 Western language interpreters) and focuses on Itarashiki Ch¯och¯u (板良敷朝忠, 1818–1862). In this period, the Kingdom was confronted with Western powers aiming for expansion in East Asia. Itarashiki was a ts¯uji that dealt with Asian and Western languages and engaged in diplomacy. Tsuboi argues that ts¯uji’s position as autonomous interpreters (Cronin 2002) might have enabled them to gain more trust in the Kingdom. In the Satsuma– Ryukyu gateway, Chinese–Ryukuan ts¯uji in Chapter 5 belonged to a lineage extending back to the people from the Fujian Province of China while ikoku-ts¯uji in Chapter 6 were Ryukyuan. Chapter 7, authored by Sato Miki, is about Ezo-ts¯uji (蝦夷通辞 Japanese–Ainu interpreters in Ezo), and Uehara Kumajir¯o (上原熊次郎, ?–1827). Sato discusses Uehara’s translations in the first Japanese–Ainu dictionary he published in 1792, as well as his involvement in acting as interpreter between Russians and Japanese owing to the geopolitical conditions at the time. The former focuses on the translation of literary texts, such as Ainu epics and Japanese waka poetry, considering his intention of the publication. The latter illustrates that the geopolitical context determined Uehara’s position and job. In Chapter 8, Naganuma Mikako discusses a castaway who turned ts¯uji, Otokichi (音吉, c. 1818–1867). After introducing Otokichi’s tumultuous life, Naganuma discusses his vulnerable and marginal position in interpreting in diplomacy between Japan and Britain. She also links his position to the concept of heteronomous interpreters (Cronin 2002). Although Otokichi was born in Japan, he was not an official interpreter appointed by the Japanese government for diplomatic negotiations. Instead, he was hired by the British government as an English–Japanese interpreter, and mediated the negotiations between British and Japanese officials. Similar to the cases of Yoshio K¯ozaemon in Chapter 2 and Tei Einei in Chapter 3, the three individual ts¯uji discussed in Chapters 6, 7 and 8 are those whose lives and social positions were tossed about by difficult

20

M. Saito and M. Sato

geopolitical contexts brought about by the Great Powers of the West and the Japanese policy in response to them. These case studies will provide readers with the particularly challenging conditions surrounding early modern ts¯uji and the image of those who either struggled in or survived the predicaments. In Chapter 9 Sato wraps up the discussion throughout the book and provides concluding comments on the research. Acknowledgements We would like to express our gratitude to Nanjo Etsuko, who carried out her research on Jesuit missionaries from Portugal as a member of our former research project on the history of translation/interpreting in Japan (October 2017–September 2021), supported by the Japan Association for Interpreting and Translation Studies. The paragraph about Joan Rodrigues in Section 3.3 of this Chapter owes very much to her contribution to the research project.

Notes 1. In translation and interpreting studies, scholars consider immediacy as a criterion for categorizing oral and sign language interpreting and written translation. ‘Within the conceptual structure of Translation, interpreting can be distinguished from other types of translational activity most succinctly by its immediacy: in principle, interpreting is performed ‘here and now’ for the benefit of people who want to engage in communication across barriers of language and culture’ (Pöchhacker 2016: 10). 2. This is an academically reliable dictionary by Shogakukan. The citation here is from the second edition published from 2000 to 2002. 3. As Joby indicated (2021: 289), the first Sinitic character 鎖 of sakoku 鎖国 means ‘chain’, ‘lock’, and ‘to close up’ (Shin Kangorin), and thus evokes the connotation of a strict prohibition on contact with the outside world. The connotations may have influenced the later recog¯ nition of the policy, such as the ones that Oshima (2009) explores (see the next paragraph). 4. This is an English translation of ‘kaikin ka-i chitsujo’ (海禁・華夷 秩序). Kaikin (海禁, haijin in Chinese pronunciation) is a policy of maritime ban implemented by the Ming and the early Qing Dynasties.

1 Introduction

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

21

Ka-i chitsujo (華夷秩序) is the world order on which those dynasties based their diplomacy. 華 ka stands for ‘the civilised’, while 夷 i for ‘the barbarians’ (Toby 1984/1991: 211). Chitsujo (秩序) means ‘order’. Early modern China regarded itself as the most civilised and the central of the Asian diplomatic orders, with surrounding countries being considered as barbarians. This was the reason why China required a tributary relationship with neighbouring countries who sought diplomatic relations with the dynasties. Japan did not have a tributary relationship with China. Some scholars have argued that Japan applied the Chinese system of the maritime ban, originally based on a China-centred worldview (i.e. ka-i world order ideology), but rejected the subordination to China in 1621, and that Japan utilised a version of the system of order where it would retain its own independent diplomatic system, regarding itself as the centre against other surrounding countries (i.e. Japan-centred world order ideology) (Toby 1984/1991: 227; Siddle 1996: 38). All textbooks used in Japanese primary and secondary education are officially examined and have to be authorised by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. It indicates that what is written in the textbooks has been officially admitted. Although the Japanese expression ‘yottsu no kuchi (四つの口, four gates/ gateways)’ refers to the communication channels in Early Modern Japan, the term has yet to be academically fixed in both Japanese and English. Scholars have used the word kuchi (口, literally meaning ‘mouth’ and ‘the place one can go in and out’), mado (窓, literally ‘window’) and madoguchi (窓口, ‘contact window’). As to an English term, for example, Joby (2021: xix, 25) translates it as ‘four gates’, Sakata (2018: 307) uses the term ‘four gateways’, and there are other statements using the words ‘window’ (e.g. Laver 2020/2021: 10). Ezo was mainly governed by the Matsumae domain, but the Tokugawa shogunate directly controlled Ezo from 1799 to 1821. See Chapter 7 for more detailed information. Concerning the ‘Moulu’ language, Nagashima (1986: 43) argues that it was either Persian or Urdu, while Kornicki calls it ‘Mogul’, claiming it ‘seems to have been a mixture of Persian and Hindi’ (2018: 94). Since the eighth century, Japanese readers read Chinese words following the guidance of marks and numbers attached to the foreign sentences. With the help of the marks and numbers, the readers can understand the meaning of Chinese texts even if they do not know the original grammatical structures of the language. This is kanbun kundoku (漢

22

M. Saito and M. Sato

文訓読), a well-known and widespread way of reading Chinese in a Japanised way. This kundoku, which used guiding marks and numbers, was applied when learning western languages, although they were not as widespread as kanbun kundoku, which is still taught in high schools in Japan as a part of the Japanese course.

References Arano, Y. (1988) Kinsei Nihon to Higashi Ajia [Early Modern Japan and East Asia]. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. Arano, Y. (1992) ‘Kaikin to Sakoku [The Maritime Prohibition and the Isolation Policy].’ In Y. Arano, M. Ishii and S. Murai (eds.) Ajia no Naka no Nihonshi II: Gaik¯o to Sens¯o [Japanese History in Asia II: Diplomacy and Conflicts]. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. 191–222. Arano, Y. (1993) ‘Ts¯uyaku Ron: Josetsu [Introduction to Interpreting Research].’ In Y. Arano, M. Ishii and S. Murai (eds.) Ajia no Naka no Nihonshi V: Jiishiki to S¯ogo Rikai [Japanese History in Asia V: SelfConsciousness and Mutual Understanding]. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. 243–263. Arano, Y. (2019) “Sakoku” o Minaosu [Review “Isolation Policy”]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. ¯ Arano, Y., Ito, J., Kato, T., Shitara, H., Chiba, I., Murai, S., Onishi, N., ¯ Oba, D., Matsumaru, A., Yokoi, N. and Kabushiki Gaisha Shimizu Shoin Hensh¯ubu (2017) K¯ot¯ogakk¯o Nihonshi B (Shinteiban) [High School Japanese History B (New Edition)]. Tokyo: Shimizu Shoin. Baigorri-Jalón, J. (2015) ‘History.’ In F. Pöchhacker (ed.) Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies. London and New York: Routledge. 183–186. Baker, M. (ed.) (1998) Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London: Routledge. Baraldi, C. and Gavioli, L. (2015) ‘Mediation.’ In F. Pöchhacker (ed.) Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies. London and New York: Routledge. 247– 249. Clements, R. (2015) A Cultural History of Translation in Early Modern Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

1 Introduction

23

Cronin, M. (2002) ‘The Empire Talks Back: Orality, Heteronomy and the Cultural Turn in Interpreting Studies.’ In F. Pöchhacker and M. Shlesinger (eds.) The Interpreting Studies Reader. London and New York: Routledge. 387–397. Cronin, M. (2003) Translation and Globalization. London and New York: Routledge. Egawa, K. (ed.) (1897) Yakushi T¯ofu [Records of Official Interpreters] (National Diet Library Digital Collection: https://dl.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/780540). Floros, G. (2021) ‘Ethics in Translator and Interpreter Education.’ In K. Koskinen and N. K. Pokorn (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Ethics. London and New York: Routledge. 338–350. Footitt, H. (2022) ‘Method in Interpreting History.’ In C. Rundle (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Translation History. London and New York: Routledge. 23–32. Guo, T. (2020) ‘History of Interpreting.’ In M. Baker and G. Saldanha (eds.) Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (Third Edition). London and New York: Routledge. 237–241. Hatim, B. and Munday, J. (2019) Translation: An Advanced Book for Students (Second Edition). London and New York: Routledge. Hayashi, A. (ed.) (c.1853/1913) Ts¯uk¯o Ichiran 4 [Survey of Diplomatic Relations 4]. Tokyo: Kokusho Kank¯okai. Honma, S. (2009) B¯oeki Toshi Nagasaki no Kenky¯u [A Study on Trade City Nagasaki]. Fukuoka: Kyushu University Press. Hung, E. and Wakabayashi, J. (2005) Asian Translation Tradition. Manchester and Northampton, Massachusetts: St. Jerome. Joby, C. (2021) The Dutch Language in Japan (1600–1900): A Cultural and Sociolinguistic Study of Dutch as a Contact Language in Tokugawa and Meiji Japan. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Kaempfer, E. (1727/1993) The History of Japan: Together with a Description of the Kingdom of Siam 1690–1692, Volume III . Translated by J. G. Scheuchzer. Surry: Curzon Press. Kimura, N. (2009) Bakuhansei Kokka to Higashi Ajia Sekai [The Shogunate System and East Asian World]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K¯obunkan. Kojima, K. (1989) ‘18, 19 Seiki ni okeru Karafuto no J¯unin: Santan o Megutte [Inhabitants in Sakhalin in 18–19 Centuries: Regarding to Santan].’ In Hopp¯o Gengo Bunka Kenky¯ukai (ed.) Minzoku Sesshoku: Kita no Shiten kara [Ethnic Contacts: From the Perspective of the North]. Tokyo: Rokk¯o Shuppan. 31–47.

24

M. Saito and M. Sato

Kondo, M., Tebble, H., Alexieva, B., Dam, H. V., Katan, D., Mizuno, A., Setton, R. and Zalka, I. (1997) ‘Intercultural Communication, Negotiation, and Interpreting.’ In Y. Gambier, D. Gile and C. Taylor (eds.) Conference Interpreting: Current Trends in Research. Proceedings of the International Conference on Interpreting: What Do We Know and How? Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 149–166. Kornicki, P. F. (2018) Languages, Scripts, and Chinese Texts in East Asia. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Koskinen, K. and Pokorn, N. K. (eds.) (2021) The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Ethics. London and New York: Routledge. Laver, M. (2020/2021) The Dutch East India Company in Early Modern Japan: Gift Giving and Diplomacy. London, New York, Oxford, New Delhi and Sydney: Bloomsbury Academic. Lung, R. (2011) Interpreters in Early Imperial China. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Matsukata, F. (2010) ‘Ts¯uyaku to “Yottsu no Kuchi” [Interpreters and Four Gateways].’ In Y. Arano, M. Ishii and S. Murai (eds.) Kinseiteki Sekai no Seijuku [The Mature Early Modern World]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K¯obunkan. 235–250. Matsukata, F. (2016) ‘Futatsu no “Sakoku”: “Kaikin, Kai Chitsujo” Ron o Norikoeru [Kan’ei Sakoku and Bakumatsu Sakoku].’ Y¯ogaku: Y¯ogakushi Gakkai Kenky¯u Nenp¯o, 24, 33–52. Mervart, D. (2009) ‘A Closed Country in the Open Seas: Engelbert Kaempfer’s Japanese Solution for European Modernity’s Predicament.’ History of European Ideas, 35 (3), 321–329. Nagashima, H. (1986) ‘Yakushich¯otanwa no Mourugo ni tsuite—Kinsei Nihon ni okeru Indo-Ninshiki no Ichisokumen [On the “Mouru” Language in the Yakushich¯otanwa: An Aspect of Japanese Knowledge on India in the Tokugawa Era].’ Bulletin of Nagasaki Prefectural University of International Economy, 19(4), 133–168. Nihon Shoki [Chronicles of Japan] (National Diet Library Digital Collection: https://dl.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/2544350). Oikawa, Y., Kato, Y., Gomi, F., Sakaue, Y., Sakurai, E., Sasayama, H., Sato, M., Shiraishi, T., Suzuki, J., Takamoku, T., Yoshida, N. and Kabushiki Gaisha Yamakawa Shuppansha (2020) Sh¯osetsu Nihonshi (Kaiteiban) [Detailed Japanese History (Revised Edition)]. Tokyo: Yamakawa Shuppansha. ¯ Oshima, A. (2009) “Sakoku” to iu Gensetsu: Kenperu Cho, Shizuki Tadao Yaku Sakokuron no Juy¯oshi [Discourse of “Sakoku”: the Reception History of

1 Introduction

25

Sakokuron Written by Kaempfer and Translated by Shizuki Tadao]. Kyoto: Minerva Shob¯o. Pöchhacker, F. (2016) Introducing Interpreting Studies (Second Edition). London and New York: Routledge. Pöllabauer, S. (2015) ‘Role.’ In F. Pöchhacker (ed.) Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies. London and New York: Routledge. 355–359. Pym, A. (1998/2014) Method in Translation History. New York: Routledge. Sakai, M. (2020) Kinsei Nitch¯o Kankei to Tsushima Han [Early-Modern Japanese–Korean Relationship and Tsushima Domain]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K¯obunkan. Sakata, M. (2018) ‘Japan in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries.’ In C. Anderson (ed.) A Global History of Convicts and Penal Colonies. London: Bloomsbury Academic. 307–336. Saldanha, G. and O’Brien, S. (2013) Research Methodologies in Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge. Sato, M., Gomi, F., Takano, T. and Toriumi, Y. (eds.) (2008) Sh¯osetsu Nihonshi Kenky¯u (Kaiteiban) [Detailed Explanation of Japanese History (Revised Edition)]. Tokyo: Yamakawa Shuppansha. Shizuki, T. (translation) and Sugimoto, T. (annotation and comment) (1801/ 2015) Shizuki Tadao Yaku Sakokuron: Eiin Honkoku K¯och¯u [Sakokuron Translated by Shizuki Tadao: Photographic Reproduction, Reprinting, and Annotation]. Tokyo: Yasaka Shob¯o. Siddle, R. (1996) Race, Resistance, and the Ainu of Japan. London and New York: Routledge. Sugimoto, T. (1981) Nagasaki Ts¯uji: Kotoba to Bunka no Hon’yakusha [Nagasaki Ts¯uji: Translators of Languages and Cultures]. Tokyo: Kaitakusha. Takeda, K. (2013) ‘Kodai Nihon no Ts¯uyaku [Interpreting in Ancient Japan].’ In K. Torikai (ed.) Yoku Wakaru Hon’yaku Ts¯uyaku Gaku [Understandable Translation and Interpreting Studies]. Kyoto: Minerva Shob¯o. 14–15. Tanimoto, A. (2017) ‘Ezo-Ts¯uji Uehara Kumajir¯o no Edo: Goshomotsu D¯oshin e no Id¯o to Tenmongata Shutsuyaku o Megutte [Kumajir¯o Uehara, the Ainu and Russian Interpreter of Academy in Tokugawa Shogunate].’ Bulletin of the Graduate School of Letters, Hokkaido University, 151, 1–52. Toby, R. P. (1984/1991) State and Diplomacy in Early Modern Japan: Asia in the Development of the Tokugawa Bakufu. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Toby, R. (2008) Zensh¯u Nihon no Rekishi Dai 9 Kan: ‘Sakoku’ to iu Gaik¯o [A Collection of Japanese History, Vol. 9: Diplomacy as ‘Isolation Policy’]. Tokyo: Shogakukan.

26

M. Saito and M. Sato

Tokunaga, K. (2005) Satsuma Han Taigai K¯osh¯o-shi no Kenky¯u [Study on the Satsuma Domain’s History of External Relations]. Fukuoka: Kyushu University Press. Tokunaga, K. (2011) Kaiy¯o Kokka Satsuma [Maritime Satsuma]. Kagoshima: Nanp¯o Shinsha. Wada, M. (1980) ‘Nagasaki T¯o-ts¯uji Ch¯u no Ikoku Ts¯uji ni tsuite – Ton Kin Ts¯uji o Ch¯ushin toshite [Japanese–Western Language Interpreters among Japanese–Chinese Interpreters in Nagasaki: Focusing on Tong King Ts¯uji].’ T¯onan Ajia: Rekishi to Bunka, 9, 24–50. Wakabayashi, J. (2009) ‘An Etymological Exploration of “Translation” in Japan.’ In J. Wakabayashi and R. Kothari (eds.) Decentering Translation Studies: India and Beyond . Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 175–194. Wakabayashi, J. (2018) ‘Microhistory.’ In L. D’hulst and Y. Gambier (eds.) A History of Modern Translation Knowledge: Sources, Concepts, Effects. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 251–254. Wakabayashi, J. (2019) ‘Japanese Conceptualizations of “Translation”.’ In Y. Gambier and U. Stecconi (eds.) A World Atlas of Translation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 55–79. ¯ Wakita, O., Oyama, K., Fukunaga, S., Sakaehara, T., Katsuyama, S., Taira, M., Murata, M., Iizuka, K., Kojita, Y., Kobayashi, H., Hirokawa, S., Kawashima, T., Toyoda, F., Kodama, S., Yano, S., Okuno, H. and Jikky¯o Shuppan Kabushiki Gaisha (2021) Nihonshi B (Shinteiban) [Japanese History B (New Edition)]. Tokyo: Jikky¯o Shuppan. Wolf, M. and Fukari, A. (eds.) (2007) Constructing Sociology of Translation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Yuzawa, T. (1997) ‘Hachi, Ky¯u Seiki Higashi Ajia ni okeru Gaik¯o Y¯o Gengo— Nihon Bokkai Kan o Ch¯ushin toshite [Languages for Diplomacy in the Eighth and Ninth Centuries East Asia: Focusing on the Ones between Japan and Bohai].’ Bungei Gengo Kenky¯u: Gengo Hen, 31, 19–43. Yuzawa, T. (2010) Z¯oho Kaitei Kodai Nihon-jin to Gaikokugo: Higashi Ajia Ibunka K¯ory¯u no Gengo Sekai [Revised and Enlarged Edition, Ancient Japanese People and Foreign Languages: The World of Languages for Intercultural Exchanges in East Asia]. Tokyo: Bensei Shuppan.

2 Oranda-tsuji ¯ (Japanese–Dutch Interpreters) in the Eighteenth Century: The Case of Yoshio Kozaemon ¯ Miyuki Tanaka

1

Introduction

This chapter discusses the Oranda-ts¯uji (阿蘭陀通詞 Japanese–Dutch interpreters) and focuses on one of the most prominent figures among them in eighteenth-century Japan, Yoshio K¯ozaemon (吉雄幸左衛門, 1724–1800). As per the custom of the day, he changed his common name several times, from Sadajir¯o to K¯ozaemon1 and later to K¯osaku. He also used the pen name K¯ogy¯u (耕牛) (Katagiri 2016: 306). Hereafter, he will be referred to as Yoshio to avoid confusion. There are many studies on the Oranda-ts¯uji, including critical biographies, but here we take Yoshio as an example of their vulnerability. To provide an accurate picture of the way of life of the Orandats¯uji in those days, four primary sources are used in this chapter. They are Oranda-ts¯uji Kish¯omon (阿蘭陀通詞起請文 Dutch Interpreters’ M. Tanaka (B) Aoyama Gakuin University, Tokyo, Japan e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Saito and M. Sato (eds.), Ts¯uji, Interpreters in and Around Early Modern Japan, Translation History, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37652-8_2

27

28

M. Tanaka

Sworn Oath, 1771–1855), Rangakukaitei (蘭学階梯 Guide to Dutch Learning, 1788), Hangen Sh¯obairei (半減商売令 An Order to Reduce the Amount of Trade by Half, 1790), and Hankacho (犯科帳 Criminal Judgment Record of 1790–1791). As the Oranda-ts¯uji rarely left any traces of their thoughts and opinions (Katagiri 2000: ix), the documents written or kept by the people involved with the Oranda-ts¯uji are crucial in discovering them. As for the secondary sources, studies by historians such as Arano (1993), Clulow (2014), Goodman (2000), Itazawa (1959), Joby (2021), Katagiri (1995, 2000, 2016, 2021), Kimura (2009, 2012), Kornicki (2017), Matsukata (2007, 2010, 2012), Tanaka-Van Daalen (2010, 2013, 2015), and Torii (1998) are used, together with various others. The Oranda-ts¯uji were local officials stationed in Nagasaki during the Edo period (1603–1868). They worked as intermediaries between the Japanese and Dutch traders and were engaged in translation and interpreting. The profession was practiced from one generation to another by approximately 30 or more official interpreters’ families. These official interpreters were called hon-ts¯uji (本通詞). Additionally, there were almost 100 private interpreters called nai-ts¯uji (内通詞) engaged in various subordinate tasks. Some Oranda-ts¯uji, including Yoshio, excelled in language skills (Katagiri 2000: 22). During their hectic routine jobs as interpreters, they attempted to gain Western knowledge in the absence of access to decent dictionaries or instructors. Despite this challenge, they contributed to the understanding of Western learning. However, Oranda-ts¯uji are often criticized for their poor language skills (Keene 1969: 11) and are rarely given much credit for their achievements. Clements (2015: 155) notes that “little of the interpreter output has been studied” and that there is a “tendency to dismiss their language abilities as insignificant.” They are often marginalized as “just” intermediaries, not worth mentioning. To gain a more accurate historical comprehension of the Oranda-ts¯uji, the broader context in which they lived and the factors that influenced their lives must be examined. Therefore, to describe how the social, economic, and political aspects of the feudal era affected their lives, this chapter first provides an overview of their lives, covering their (1) historical background, (2) assignments, (3) norms, (4) social status,

2 Oranda-tsuji ¯ (Japanese–Dutch Interpreters) …

29

and (5) study of the Dutch language. Following this is a biography of Yoshio, the times he lived in, and his rise to the top position among the ts¯uji members. The discussion then turns to a specific incident of mistranslation when the shogunal administration persecuted him and other high-ranking interpreters. Yoshio was subjected to house arrest for five years. The case of Yoshio is chosen in this chapter as it reveals the underlying principles of the vulnerability of Oranda-ts¯uji in the feudal era. It should be noted that Yoshio was not a typical representative of all the Oranda-ts¯uji. He was from one of the few prestigious and affluent ts¯uji family and reigned as the head of the ts¯uji for decades. However, this incident shows that even with his power and status, Oranda-ts¯uji were so vulnerable to political pressure that they had no power to protect themselves.

2

About the Oranda-tsuji ¯

2.1

Historical Backgrounds of the Oranda-tsuji ¯

When the Edo era began in 1603, the shogunal administration initially did not prohibit the propagation of Christianity. The number of followers continued to increase, especially in Kyushu in the southern part of Japan. There was widespread fear among the rulers that Christian missions would eventually plot a rebellion against them. The shogunate’s biggest concern was that Japan might fall into the hands of Spain or Portugal and become colonized like other Asian or South American countries. Hence, in 1613, the shogunate issued anti-Christian edicts and forced all Japanese Christians to convert to other religions. Many complied with the new rule and abandoned their Christian faith. With the help of local feudal domains, the shogunate began to persecute Christians relentlessly, leading to the execution and deportation of Spanish and Portuguese missionaries. In 1614, more than 300 Christians were exiled overseas, especially to Manila and Macao. They were not permitted to return to Japan.

30

M. Tanaka

Against this historical background, the Shimabara rebellion broke out in the southeastern peninsula of Nagasaki in 1637. It started when impoverished locals, mostly Christians, protested the severe crackdown on Christianity by the shogunate. After an intense battle, the shogunate finally subdued the struggle in 1638 (Sasayama et al. 2019). After this incident, Christianity diminished and was almost eradicated in Japan until 1873. During the rebellion, the Dutch sent warships to support the shogunate. Clulow (2014: 261) explains that the Dutch, “trapped by their own rhetoric and past promises, were compelled to volunteer alongside the shogun’s domestic subordinates for service against the rebels.” Their main aim was to expel the Portuguese from Japan and enhance their position in Japan. The shogunate banned the Portuguese from landing in Japan in 1639. Loyal to the shogunate, the Dutch were allowed to trade because they would not conduct Christian missionary activities. Thus, the Dutch became the sole Western traders in Japan. Regardless of their underlying intentions, the relationship between the Dutch and the Japanese was strictly business from the beginning. This continued until the end of the Edo era. Once the Portuguese left, in 1641, the shogunal administration relocated the Dutch trading house from Hirado2 to a small artificial island, Dejima,3 in Nagasaki, which the Portuguese once occupied. Several ts¯uji families who had accompanied them to Hirado now moved to Nagasaki. Arano (1993: 255–256) explained that when the ts¯uji were in Hirado, the Dutch traders hired them directly and the ts¯uji were involved in foreign trade businesses. However, with this transfer, they left the jurisdiction of the Dutch trading house and became local town officers of Nagasaki. Some ts¯uji who came from Hirado first spoke Portuguese and then gradually switched to Dutch and mastered the language.

2.2

Assignments of the Oranda-tsuji ¯

The Edo shogunate systematically incorporated the Oranda-ts¯uji into its political framework. The ts¯uji worked for the Nagasaki magistrate’s office as local officers assigned to translate various official documents and interpret negotiations between the Nagasaki magistrate and the Dutch trading

2 Oranda-tsuji ¯ (Japanese–Dutch Interpreters) …

31

house. Additionally, they worked on a wide range of trading-related tasks. For example, when the Dutch ships arrived at Nagasaki port, the ts¯uji were the ones who gave instructions for the unloading of cargo; they were also tasked with inspecting the unloaded contents to look for any prohibited items, such as items related to Christianity. They would immediately seize and dispose of such objects if they found them. The other essential job of the ts¯uji involved monitoring the Dutch population. In Japan, the Dutch were “domesticated, confined within a self-designated role as vassal[s]” (Clulow 2014: 261). Members of the ts¯uji had to constantly supervise (spy on) the Dutch people. As Kornicki (2017: 7) writes, the Dutch were displeased with the situation and no longer trusted the ts¯uji. Dutch ships brought foreign trade goods, the latest Western culture, and information from other countries. The Oranda-ts¯uji played an essential role in quickly acquiring this information from the Dutch, translating it into Japanese, compiling it into a document, and submitting it to the shogunate. This document was called Oranda F¯usetsugaki (オランダ風説書 The Dutch Book of Rumors) (Matsukata 2007, 2010, 2012; F¯usetsugaki Kenky¯ukai 2019).

2.3

Norms Followed by the Oranda-tsuji ¯

As the ts¯uji were local officials stationed in Nagasaki, they were required to submit a document to the Nagasaki magistrate pledging that they would faithfully fulfill their duties (Itazawa 1959: 137–141). This document was called Oranda-ts¯uji Kish¯omon (阿蘭陀通詞起請文 Dutch Interpreters’ Sworn Oath, 1771–1855).4 It explains the norms the ts¯uji were required to observe in those days. The Nagasaki magistrate, who had jurisdiction over the ts¯uji, required them to possess a strong will and clear judgment to resist financial temptation, as they were directly involved in trading with the Dutch. The shogunate administration demanded that the ts¯uji be loyal to Japan (Tanaka 2015: 64–65). However, whether the ts¯uji always followed the norms is another issue. During the Edo period, corruption and bribery were widespread among the local officials in Nagasaki. As the ts¯uji worked closely with the Dutch

32

M. Tanaka

in trading, some attempted to obtain favors for themselves by privately trading. In other cases, the ts¯uji worked with other members and hid their misconduct (Sugimoto 1990: 41).

2.4

Social Status of the Oranda-tsuji ¯

Social division was strict during the Edo era, influencing all aspects of people’s lives. Thus, the social status of the ts¯uji was an essential factor that defined them. At the beginning of the Edo era, ranks among the ts¯uji were simple. For example, the ts¯uji were o¯ts¯uji (大通詞 senior interpreter) or kots¯uji (小通詞 junior interpreter). Furthermore, there were several other ranks below them. In addition, the ts¯uji metsuke (通詞目付 inspector interpreter) monitored the ts¯uji. According to Harada (2003), the ranks of ts¯uji multiplied over time to accommodate the increasing number of ts¯uji and the tasks assigned to them. Usually, on the one hand, a well-established Oranda-ts¯uji with long years of experience became a senior interpreter (¯ots¯uji) and received fuchi 5 (扶持 stipend) to cover three persons. On the other hand, young ts¯uji who had just started their career as keiko-ts¯uji (稽古通詞 apprentice interpreters) received either a small remuneration or nothing. According to Karatsu (2012: 35–40), the positions and salaries of the Edo era indicated their social status.6 The high-ranking ts¯uji possessed two sets of swords, similar to the samurai warriors. In contrast, low-ranking ts¯uji were deemed comparable to merchant groups, even though they worked as local officials.

2.5

Study of the Dutch Language

A high level of language skill was indispensable for interpreters and translators. However, the language learning environment of those days did not favor the ts¯uji. The shogunate strictly controlled all contact between the Japanese and Westerners. No one was allowed to leave the country unless expelled, and if someone left, they were never allowed to reenter. Despite these conditions, the Oranda-ts¯uji honed their language skills. ¯ One of the documents written by an Edo-based Dutch scholar, Otsuki

2 Oranda-tsuji ¯ (Japanese–Dutch Interpreters) …

33

Gentaku (大槻玄沢, 1757–1827), who had close contact with the ts¯uji, gives a precise record of how the ts¯uji studied the Dutch language. He was a follower of two renowned scholars, Sugita Genpaku (杉田玄 ¯ 白, 1733–1817) and Maeno Ry¯otaku (前野良沢, 1723–1803). Otsuki visited Nagasaki to learn Dutch and other Western forms of knowledge from Oranda-ts¯uji Motoki Ry¯oei (本木良永, 1735–1794) and Yoshio. ¯ In 1783, Otsuki wrote a book, Rangakukaitei (蘭学階梯 Guide to Dutch Learning, published in 1788), in which he shared a glimpse of how the ts¯uji mastered the language. 修学 彼方ニテ小児ニ教ル書ニ「アベブック」「レッテルコンスト」 等ノ書アリ大抵此等ノ教ヘ方ナリ長崎ノ譯家業ヲウクルノ初メ 皆先ヅ此ノ文字ノ讀法書法並ニ綴リヨウ讀ヨウヲ合点ノ後ハ「 サーメンスプラーカ」トテ平常ノ談話ヲ集タル書アリテコレヲ 伝ヒ習ハスナリ是其通辨ヲ習フノ始メニテ訳家ノ先務トスル所 ナリ是ヲ理会ノ後ハ「ヲップステルレン」トテ其ノ文章ヲ書キ 習ヒ先輩ニ問ヒ朋友ニ索メ或ハ和蘭人ニモ正シ其功ヲ積テ合点 スルトキハ自在ニ通譯モナルナリ ¯ (Otsuki 1788/2000 number of pages: not listed) Learning In the faraway, there are such textbooks for children called A-B-Boek or letterknost. They usually teach in the same manner. When training the ts¯uji in Nagasaki, they first read the letter, write it, and then spell and read. They then learn through books of everyday use called samenspraak. The first duty of the ts¯uji is to begin by learning these. After they master these, they learn to write sentences called opstellen, question their elders, and ask their friends or have the Dutch correct them; when they understand and acquire the skill, they can interpret freely. (Translated by the author)

Based on the textbooks used by the Oranda-ts¯uji, their learning method was similar to that of present-time primary schools or the foreign language learning styles used by adult beginners learning a foreign language. However, these textbooks were insufficient for mastering a

34

M. Tanaka

foreign language. In those days, Nagasaki was the only town in Japan where people could contact native Dutch speakers daily. Young ts¯uji students commuted to Dejima to take lessons directly from members of the Dutch trading house (Kimura 2009: 259; Katagiri 2016: 25). As close and constant contact with native speakers was the most important source for their language learning (Tanaka 1971), this was considered a privilege for the Oranda-ts¯uji. Furthermore, sons born in the ts¯uji family were mandated to master the language under the rigid guild system: they were expected to pass on the ts¯uji kabu (interpreter’s stock) within the family. Usually, they started studying the language at a young age, instructed by their grandfathers, fathers, or uncles who had mastered the language. If there was no one to continue the family business, some talented boys were adopted from a relative or another ts¯uji family, and they followed the same line.

3

Yoshio Kozaemon ¯

3.1

Biography

Yoshio was an Oranda-ts¯uji and a Western-style doctor during the midEdo period. He was born to a prominent ts¯uji family. His ancestors served as interpreters when the Dutch trading house was still in Hirado and they continued to maintain the family business for generations. His father, T¯osabur¯o (藤三郎, ?–1742), was adopted from another ts¯uji family by the name of Shinagawa (品川). He was diligent and hardworking in acquiring language skills. He worked under Imamura Gen’emon (今村源右衛門, 1671–1736), a renowned ts¯uji famed for his excellent Dutch skills. Gen’emon is known to have served as an interpreter during the interrogation of Sidotti Giovanni Battista (1668– 1714), a missionary from Rome (Katagiri 1995) who attempted to enter Japan illegally in 1708 but was caught and placed under house arrest. T¯osabur¯o became an o¯ts¯uji in 1738. Yoshio started studying Dutch when he was a child, as per the custom in ts¯uji families. Owing to his father’s influence as a high-ranking ts¯uji, Yoshio was appointed keiko-ts¯uji in 1737, when he was 14 years old. In

2 Oranda-tsuji ¯ (Japanese–Dutch Interpreters) …

35

1742, he became a kots¯uji at the age of 19, and in 1748, he was promoted to an o¯ts¯uji.7 The ts¯uji could hold two crucial positions. One was nenban-ts¯uji (年 番通詞) and the other was Edoban-ts¯uji (江戸番通詞). The Nenbants¯uji oversaw businesses related to the Dutch trading house, under the Nagasaki magistrate. It was a demanding job that kept them busy throughout the year. An Edoban-ts¯uji’s primary job was to accompany the Dutch captain and other members on their trips to Edo. Apart from interpreting and translating, they took care of accounts and other vital matters. In both cases, high-ranking ts¯uji took turns filling these positions. Yoshio was assigned the positions of nenban-ts¯uji 13 times and Edoban-ts¯uji 11 times (Katagiri 2016: 306). He served as an interpreter for 53 years. No other Oranda-ts¯uji retained their jobs for such a long time. He was undoubtedly the most prominent Oranda-ts¯uji at that time.

3.2

Interest in Western Medicine

Yoshio improved his language skills by studying under medical doctors stationed at the Dutch trading house in Dejima. Although busy with his numerous tasks as Oranda-ts¯uji, he studied Western medicine and gained the opportunity to learn directly from four Dutch doctors successively stationed at the trading house. Among them, Carl Peter Thunberg (1743–1828) significantly influenced Yoshio. Thunberg was a Swedish medical doctor and naturalist stationed in Dejima from 1775 to 1776. He was interested in collecting Japanese flora and fauna. As he was not allowed to leave Dejima, he delegated Yoshio to collect specimens for him and, in turn, taught him “mercury hydrotherapy” as a treatment for syphilis. It was one of the most prevalent diseases in Japan at the time. Yoshio used this therapy to save the lives of several patients. Yoshio later taught Sugita this medical treatment. Sugita is said to have treated many patients with syphilis and became a famous physician. He made an enormous fortune out of this practice (Katagiri 2000: 87–90). In addition to learning the Dutch language and medicine, Yoshio studied astronomy, geography, and honz¯ogaku, a study of plants,

36

M. Tanaka

minerals, and animals for use in Chinese medicine. He later taught it to those in his peer group who aspired to learn it. According to Joby (2021: 169), “K¯ogy¯u produced a small book, which included names of plants used for medical purposes taken from Dodoens’s Cruyde-boeck (1554) in Latin and Dutch.” Although Yoshio often orally translated or summarized the dozens of Dutch books dictated by his followers, he rarely officially published his translational works while alive. Katagiri (2021: 92) pointed out that they were transcripts, indicating that he had no intentions to publicly publish. Most of his works were textbooks for his followers who were studying Western medicine. He wanted to keep them a secret, and his followers copied the text manually and brought them back to their hometowns. After he passed away, one of his oral translation notes, In’ekihappi (因液発備 Excretory Mechanism) Books 1 and 2, was compiled by his followers and published in 1815.

3.3

The Mediator of Western Culture

Dutch scholars and doctors from various parts of Japan visited Yoshio’s residence in Nagasaki. Some of them studied at his private academy called Seish¯ukan (成秀館) where they first explored the Dutch language. Yoshio emphasized the importance of language learning and taught Dutch letters, languages, and translations. He strongly urged his followers to learn the language every day without a break (Katagiri 2000: 22–24). In addition to Dutch, students learned several practical medical procedures in Western medicine, and once they finished mastering all the courses, they were granted a license issued by the academy. Yoshio’s medical procedures were never published and were passed on to his students secretly. However, as the number of students increased each year, the knowledge spread to various parts of Japan and gradually became an established procedure (Katagiri 2000: 213). Yoshio made a considerable fortune with his successful mercury hydrotherapy treatment, and many people followed in his footsteps. Using the money he earned, he imported books from Western countries. Western books were costly in those days, and only a few, such as the affluent feudal lords, could afford them. As an Oranda-ts¯uji, Yoshio

2 Oranda-tsuji ¯ (Japanese–Dutch Interpreters) …

37

was given special permission to place orders; hence, he collected various imported books and textbooks. He displayed valuable books to the guests who visited his residence. According to Joby (2021), Yoshio served as a node of exchange for the circulation of Dutch books in Japan. When he obtained a copy of the History of Japan (1727), written by a former medical doctor stationed in Dejima, Engelbert Kaempher (1651–1716), he sold the book to the feudal lord of Hirado, Matsura Seizan (松浦静 山, 1760–1841). Matsura was an avid collector of Dutch books. Later, the most talented ts¯uji-turned scholar in Nagasaki at that time, Shizuki Tadao (志筑忠雄, 1760–1806),8 translated the appendix of the book and coined a new word “sakoku” (鎖国 isolation) (Joby 2021: 289). At the height of his power, Yoshio constructed a Western-style residence for himself in Nagasaki. He arranged pieces of Western-style furniture from the Netherlands in his parlors. His garden was abundant with imported flora and fauna. Soon thereafter his residence became a local landmark. He hosted the Dutch New Year feast that took place ¯ during the Western New Year. Some Edo scholars like Maeno, Otsuki, Miura Baien (三浦梅園, 1723–1789), a renowned painter Shiba K¯okan (司馬江漢, 1747–1818), and others who visited his residence gained much knowledge about the West from him. Some scholars recorded how they enjoyed Western-style banquets (Katagiri 2000: 147–148). Yoshio was an Oranda-ts¯uji and one of the few cultural mediators and disseminators when the door to the West was closed to most Japanese. However, his glory did not last long. While some prominent Orandats¯uji enjoyed the benefits of foreign trading in Nagasaki, many interpreters were experiencing financial difficulties by the end of the eighteenth century (Tanaka-Van Daalen 2013: 124). The economic situation of the Edo shogunate began to deteriorate rapidly, eventually leading to societal changes. Violent protests and uprisings by farmers and the poor seeking better living conditions caused severe damage to the community, as riots broke out in Japan. The shogunate and local lords used brutal force to crack them down. They strictly ordered people to live frugally and refrain from spending money. Under such social conditions, the lavish lifestyle in Nagasaki, became one of the targets of the shogunate and was ordered to be stopped and punished. An alleged mistranslation incident occurred during this period.

38

M. Tanaka

4

The Mistranslation Incident

4.1

Trading with the Dutch

In brief, this was a case in which Yoshio and other Oranda-ts¯uji were prosecuted and penalized for mistranslating a document. A brief discussion of the backdrop of the incident is provided below. At the time, the Japanese economy was deteriorating. Years of massive exports of precious metals such as gold, silver, and copper took their toll on the Japanese economy as production decreased yearly. As the metals shipped from Japan were of high quality and value to the Netherlands, Dutch merchants wanted to continue the trade. The whole town of Nagasaki was involved in trading. The shogunal administration began taking measures to curb the quantity of precious metal exports. As the economy showed no signs of recovery, the administration began to take steps to improve the situation. Matsudaira Sadanobu (松平定信, 1758/59–1829), the statesman in power at that time, criticized Nagasaki as a “disease” for Japan (Matsudaira 1793/ 1942). Matsudaira became a member of the Shogun Council and implemented several reforms. He organized finances and rectified customs while encouraging the Neo-Confucianism of Zhu Xi and military arts, inspiring morale, and imposing frugality. He highlighted some of the severe problems that needed to be addressed in Nagasaki. As it was a small coastal town with no other primary industry besides trading, the city and its people relied heavily on the profits gained from foreign trade with the Dutch and Chinese. The town was filled with local officials involved in trading. As a result, the local magistrate shouldered considerable labor expenses. In addition, widespread illegal trade in this area caused severe financial difficulties. The administration believed that it was crucial to stop trade losses. They devised a plan to halve the amount of trade with the Dutch. They believed that this would curb the metal outflow. They even planned to urge trading businesses (including the ts¯uji) to abandon their occupations, find jobs in other fields, and leave the town.

2 Oranda-tsuji ¯ (Japanese–Dutch Interpreters) …

4.2

39

Intentional Mistranslation

The goyaku jiken (誤訳事件 mistranslation incident) occurred in 1790 under these circumstances. The incident caused devastating damage to the Oranda-ts¯uji, including Yoshio. Calling this incident a mere case of mistranslation would be inadequate. The reason is that it was not a simple mistake made by the ts¯uji caused by their lack of translating skills. Rather, the ts¯uji consciously modified the translation, as the original order in Japanese was so harsh, and they feared that this might anger Dutch traders. Torii (1998: 167–168), Katagiri (2000: 191–202), Matsuo (2007: 133–136), Kimura (2012: 25–27), Yokoyama (2013: 57–59), and Tanaka-van Daalen (2015: 185–200) explain this incident in detail. The shogun administration had started preparing Hangen Sh¯obairei (半減 商売令) around 1790. This was an order to reduce the amount of trade by half. It stated that the number of Dutch trade ships admitted to Nagasaki would be reduced from two to one. Later, the shogunate handed the document to the captain of the Dutch trading house through the Nagasaki magistrate. The magistrate read it out in Japanese, and the o¯ts¯uji in charge Narabayashi J¯ubei (楢林重兵衛, 1648–1711) roughly translated it into Dutch. An excerpt from the original order is presented as follows: 若弐三艘も乗渡銅商売等於相願候者、一体不届之至ニ付、其節 ハ半減商売余分之荷物ハ不残取上、時宣ニ寄、追而焼捨ニも可 致候

(Hangen Sh¯obairei, 1790 number of pages: not listed) If two or three vessels arrive and (the Dutch) are obstinate in their demand for copper trade, they are inexcusable, and in that case, we will confiscate all the extra cargo from them, and in some cases, burn them away. (Translated by the author)

40

M. Tanaka

Later, the ts¯uji on duty, Yoshio, Narabayashi, and other senior and junior members, officially translated the order into Dutch. However, the translated version of the document handed to the Dutch traders reveals that the ts¯uji had omitted translating the phrase “burn them away” (Torii 1998: 168) making it less harsh than the original. Their translation read that (the Dutch) would never be allowed to take excessive amount of copper out of the country, even if they demanded it forcefully. Soon the shogunate pointed out that the order was not translated into Dutch ad verbum and then interrogated the ts¯uji members. The ts¯uji later explained that they had not understood the intention of the order properly. Moreover, as the order was harsh, they considered that it might invite a strong reaction from the Dutch traders if they translated it verbatim; hence, they decided to simplify the translation.

4.3

The Harsh Punishment

According to Hankacho (犯科帳—自寛政二年至仝三年 Criminal Judgment Record of 1790–1791), after a series of investigations by the shogunate, the final decision regarding the incident was announced (Torii 1998: 168).9 Yoshio, Narabayashi, and a junior interpreter Nishi Kichibei (西吉兵衛, 1747–1818) were dismissed from their positions, and Yoshio was placed under house arrest for five years. Along with him, other ts¯uji were also punished. This was a devastating blow to the members of the ts¯uji guild. It was so severe that even the Dutch captain pleaded for mercy, but his appeal was firmly rejected. The decision by Matsudaira Sadanobu seemed politically motivated (Kimura 2012: 26). One of his aims was to subject influential ts¯uji members to intense pressure and deprive them of their power. Yoshio was one of his chief targets. According to Tanaka-van Daalen (2015: 200–201), the aftermath of this incident pushed ts¯uji families further to the sidelines. The sons plotted to help release their fathers by bribing the Nagasaki magistrate. This plot was soon discovered and they too were deprived of their ts¯uji positions and expelled from the town. As ts¯uji was a legacy passed on from father to son, this incident was another blow to the ts¯uji families.

2 Oranda-tsuji ¯ (Japanese–Dutch Interpreters) …

41

While Yoshio was under house arrest, he was ordered to take care of an orangutan brought to Japan by Dutch traders. As it was trained in Dutch, it did not understand Japanese; therefore, Yoshio was bid by the local authority to train the orangutan to follow orders in Japanese. This episode offers us a glimpse into how Yoshio lived during house arrest. Kimura (2012: 32–33) cited this as an example of how the people of Nagasaki continued to treat him in a friendly manner. Perhaps they understood that he was punished too severely by the shogunate to teach a lesson to the other ts¯uji. Yoshio and Narabayashi were released in 1796. Narabayashi was sent to Ezo, the northern part of Japan, as an Oranda-ts¯uji. The shogunate ordered Yoshio to instruct the young generation of ts¯uji. He spent the rest of his life teaching Dutch translation and interpretation and passed away in 1800, at the age of 77, at his residence in Nagasaki. The mistranslation incident was a turning point in the lives of the Oranda-ts¯uji in the Edo period. After that, prominent Oranda-ts¯uji of the time lost their power and the shogun administration held tight control over others who succeeded them. Simultaneously, the administration became aware of the importance of language specialists. During those days, several vessels from Great Britain, France, the United States of America, and Russia periodically reached the shores of Japan. They demanded that the administration open up the ports. Additionally, some countries started to display military might. Under this threat, the administration felt an urgent need to foster competent ts¯uji to fill national security jobs. Thus, they began to train ts¯uji and conduct examinations independently. Some of the talented ts¯uji were ordered to move to Edo. They were engaged in various translation and interpreting assignments for the administration. While in Nagasaki, some of the ts¯uji were instructed to study French, others were ordered to study Russian and English (see Chapter 7) and the T¯o-ts¯uji (唐通事 Japanese–Chinese interpreters) were assigned to study Manchu (see Chapter 3). A new generation of ts¯uji, not belonging to the original ts¯uji families, gradually began to take over these jobs.

42

5

M. Tanaka

Conclusion

In the past, some historical interpreters in foreign countries and regions were subjected to atrocities by those in power, especially in the context of conquests and colonization. They were abducted and forced to act as language mediators (Delisle and Woodsworth 2012: 261). However, the Oranda-ts¯uji in Japan were legitimate citizens. Although their social position was not high and the authorities suppressed them, they were granted the status of local officers, and their occupation was secured for centuries. Notwithstanding such favorable conditions, Yoshio and the Oranda-ts¯uji faced difficulties. Following Saldanha and O’Brien (2013: 205), in context-oriented translation research, we have investigated external factors affecting individual translators and the circumstances in which translations take place. In the case of Yoshio, one of the leading ts¯uji of his time, three major external factors affected his life: political pressure, cross-cultural issues, and rivalry with other parties. The first factor was the primary focus of this study. Severe political pressure came from the shogunal administration, which demanded strong loyalty. Although Nagasaki’s administrative system appeared to be firmly controlled by the shogunate, local interests were intricately intertwined, and the situation often occurred in favor of Nagasaki (Tanaka-Van Daalen 2015: 182). The administration was often suspicious of the professional integrity of the ts¯uji and pressured for trade with the Dutch to bring enormous fortune in favor of the administration. As the leading figure of the ts¯uji guild, Yoshio was cautious and carried out his duty as a “go-between” in handling the orders but failed when the shogunal administration began to target the guild, as indicated by the case of the mistranslation incident. He was no longer trusted by the administration. The incident caused the ts¯uji to be openly criticized and their reputation was tarnished. This remains in the present times (Katagiri 2000: 195–202). The second factor comprised complaints and demands from the Dutch merchants who probably tormented the members of the ts¯uji guild that dealt with the cross-cultural negotiations between the merchants and the Japanese magistrates’ office. The Japanese–Dutch

2 Oranda-tsuji ¯ (Japanese–Dutch Interpreters) …

43

relationship differed from that of other Asian countries. The Dutch were “forced into a consistently subordinate role” (Clulow 2014: 261). Having been confined to a small island, Dutch traders had little freedom; they voiced their complaints and demanded better conditions. They wished for direct communication with the administration, but this was impossible because the merchants were not allowed to master Japanese officially; thus, they had to rely on the ts¯uji, who acted as “go-betweens.” Today, a record of letters of complaints written by the Dutch trading house exists (Tanaka-Van Daalen 2010). The local administration often denied or ignored their demands, igniting anger from the Dutch and resentment toward the ts¯uji. The third factor is K¯ozaemon’s relationship with Japanese scholars studying Dutch, especially Edo-based scholars. They gradually expressed their disregard for the Oranda-ts¯uji. Some claimed the honor of starting Dutch studies in Japan and disliked relying on the ts¯uji for language support. Dutch scholars, such as Sugita, sought advice and instruction on translation and learned about Western medical treatments from Yoshio. Sugita made a fortune out of his learning. Nevertheless, he later voiced his contempt for the ts¯uji (Haraguchi 2017: 63–81). Yoshio and other Oranda-ts¯uji members achieved a certain level of language skills and attempted to acquire scholarly knowledge. Apart from their hectic daily job requirements, in some cases they went beyond “to acquire a certain quasi-scholarly knowledge of the West” (Goodman 2000: 42). However, after the mistranslation incident, the Oranda-ts¯uji lost their position as the leading language experts and the new generation of scholars in Edo started to take over their roles. Although several interpreting and translation scholars in Japan have discussed Oranda-ts¯uji in the Edo period (Torikai 2001, 2016; Nadamitsu 2007; Torikai and Hiratsuka 2013; Takeda 2015; Tanaka 2015, 2019), the number is limited. In contrast, historians in Japan and overseas have conducted many studies on the Oranda-ts¯uji for decades that are in-depth, informative, and indispensable. However, there are cases in which historians’ points of interest do not coincide with those of interpreting scholars. For example, in Japanese history, one often notices that an Oranda-ts¯uji is depicted as someone working “on the sidelines” or “behind the scenes” of an influential or

44

M. Tanaka

historical figure. Their contributions to linguistic mediation have been trivialized. It is difficult for people to realize the importance of the role of the ts¯uji, as they are not central players. Interpreters are usually not visible unless something unfavorable, such as a mistranslation incident or a crucial incident, occurs. Therefore, scholars must interpret the Orandats¯uji from different perspectives. In doing so, as Lung (2011: 104–105) points out, scholars should not lose sight of the neutral function of interpreters in bridging knowledge, thoughts, and information across the borders of languages, states, and cultures. This study places Yoshio in a relevant context to shed light on the influence of social, economic, and political factors on his life to make the Oranda-ts¯uji more visible and ensure that they are viewed from a positive perspective. At the end of the Edo period in 1868, the organized ts¯uji system in Nagasaki that had secured its position for generations collapsed. Some Oranda-ts¯uji left Nagasaki and sought new environments in other areas such as Tokyo (the former Edo), Yokohama, and Shizuoka. The new Meiji administration hired several talented ts¯uji and opened a new life path for them. They survived the new era by using the language skills and knowledge they had acquired as ts¯uji. Those who could not keep up with the latest generation disappeared, and their whereabouts became unknown (Kimura 2012: 168–173). Finally, it should be noted that the role of the Oranda-ts¯uji was significant. Torii (1998: 170) states that by conversing directly with the Dutch, reading Dutch books, and translating Japanese information into Dutch, they served as an excellent bridge between the Netherlands and Japan, despite the friction between the distinct cultures. Furthermore, Itazawa (1959) notes that the Oranda-ts¯uji played an essential role in the history of negotiations between the two countries. Their position in the history of Japanese culture is significant. The remnants of the Oranda-ts¯uji in Japanese culture require further exploration. Therefore, continued scholarly work by historians and interpreting scholars in Japan and abroad is indispensable.

2 Oranda-tsuji ¯ (Japanese–Dutch Interpreters) …

45

Notes 1. Furthermore, his Dutch signature was “Koozack,” and he used “JOSIWO” as his seal (Katagiri 2000: iii). 2. Hirado is a city in the northwestern part of Nagasaki prefecture. It prospered as a trading port with Portugal, the Netherlands, and China until Japan’s so-called seclusion policy began. 3. Dejima was a small fan-shaped artificial island in the bay of Nagasaki. It was called Deshima or Dejima during the Edo period. First, the Portuguese and later Dutch trading posts were located on the tiny island. It was the only place in Japan officially open to westerners during the Edo period. 4. Kish¯omon was a Japanese document, in which a person swore to various Shinto deities and Buddhist saints that he would not break the contract. In this document, Oranda-ts¯uji stated that they would strictly follow the business rules, interpret whatever they heard from the Dutch faithfully, convey every matter as spoken, and not take sides with the Dutch. 5. From the meaning of “to help” or “to support,” the term refers to a samurai’s provision of rice to retainers and servants. In the Edo period, one samurai’s standard daily living expense was five bales of rice per year. 6. Japanese social division during the Edo period consisted of samurai warriors, peasants, artisans, and merchants. Samurai warriors were considered high-ranking and were allowed to wear sword(s) although there were many divisions among them. 7. Tanaka-van Daalen (2013: 125) pointed out the possibility that the promotion of ts¯uji sometimes was determined by favoritism, bribes, or as a reward for exceptional achievements. 8. Shizuki was called the “patriarch of Dutch learning.” He wrote on astronomy, physics, geography, foreign affairs and the Dutch language. He was one of the few Japanese to understand Dutch grammar rules in those days. 9. The announcement described in the Hankacho (Criminal Judgment Records of 1790 to 1791) is as follows: 半減商売肝要之御趣意請書横文字ニ相洩候を其儘ニ致置 和 解ニは申渡之趣を書取 仲間連印為到差出候段不埒之至 The ts¯uji did not translate the crucial intention of the Hangen Sh¯obairei (an Order to Reduce the Amount of Trade by Half ) into

46

M. Tanaka

Dutch correctly. However, they reported in Japanese that they had translated the order. They signed the paper and submitted it. Such conduct is inexcusable. (Translated by the author)

References Arano, Y. (1993) ‘Ts¯uyaku Ron: Josetsu [Introduction to Interpreting Research].’ In Y. Arano, M. Ishii and S. Murai (eds.) Ajia no Naka no Nihonshi V: Jiishiki to S¯ogo Rikai [Japanese History in Asia V: SelfConsciousness and Mutual Understanding]. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. 243–263. Clements, R. (2015) A Cultural History of Translation in Early Modern Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clulow, A. (2014) The Company and the Shogun: The Dutch Encounter with Tokugawa Japan. New York: Columbia University Press. Delisle, J. and Woodsworth, J. (eds). (2012) Translators through History (Revised Edition). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. F¯usetsugaki Kenky¯ukai. (2019) Oranda Betsudan F¯usetsugaki Sh¯usei [The Collection of Dutch Special News Reports to Japan]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K¯obunkan. Goodman, K. G. (2000) Japan and the Dutch 1600–1853. London and New York: Routledge. Harada, H. (2003) ‘Oranda-ts¯uji no Shokkai to sono Hensen ni tsuite [Dutch Interpreters: The Working Ranks and the Transitions].’ J¯oh¯o Media Gakkai Kenky¯u, 2–1, 45–55. Haraguchi, S. (2017) Nagasaki Ijinden Yoshio K¯ogy¯u [A Hero’s Biography of Nagasaki Yoshio K¯ogy¯u]. Nagasaki: Nagasaki Bunkensha. Itazawa, T. (1959) Nichiran Bunka K¯osh¯o-shi no Kenky¯u [The Study of Cultural Relations between Japan and the Netherlands]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K¯obunkan. Joby, C. (2021) The Dutch Language in Japan (1600–1900): A Cultural and Sociolinguistic Study of Dutch as a Contact Language in Tokugawa and Meiji Japan. Leiden and Boston: Brill.

2 Oranda-tsuji ¯ (Japanese–Dutch Interpreters) …

47

Karatsu, M. (2012) ‘Nagasaki ni okeru Oranda-ts¯uji no Shakaitekimibun ni kansuru Ichi K¯osatsu. [A Study of Social Class of Dutch Interpreters in Nagasaki].’ Nagasaki Junshin Hikaku Bunka Kaih¯o, 6, 35–40. Katagiri, K. (1995) Oranda-ts¯uji Imamura Gen’emon Hideo [Dutch Interpreter Imamura Gen’emon Hideo]. Tokyo: Maruzen. Katagiri, K. (2000) Edo no Ramp¯o Igaku Kotohajime Oranda-ts¯uji Yoshio K¯ozaemon K¯ogy¯u [The beginning of Dutch Medicine in Edo Oranda-ts¯uji Yoshio K¯ozaemon K¯ogy¯u]. Tokyo: Maruzen. Katagiri, K. (2016) Edo Jidai no Ts¯uyakukan Oranda-ts¯uji no Gogaku to Jitsumu [Interpreting Officers in Edo period Oranda-ts¯uji’s Language Skills and the Practice]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K¯obunkan. Katagiri, K. (2021) Sugita Genpaku to Edo no Rangaku Juku: Tenshinr¯o Juku to sono Monry¯u [Sugita Genpaku and the Dutch Study Academy: Tenshinr¯o Academy and the Branch]. Tokyo: Benseisha. Keene, D. (1969) The Japanese Discovery of Europe, 1720–1830 (Revised Edition). Stanford: Stanford University Press. Kimura, N. (2009) Bakuhansei Kokka to Higashi Ajia Sekai [The Shogunate System and East Asian World]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K¯obunkan. Kimura, N. (2012) Ts¯uyaku tachi no Bakumatsu Ishin [Interpreters at the End of Edo Period and Meiji Restoration]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K¯obunkan. Kornicki, P. (2017) ‘Speaking foreign language in pre-modern Japan.’ Asia Japan Journal , 12, 1–15 Lung, R. (2011) Interpreters in Early Imperial China. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Matsudaira, S. (1793/1942) Uge no Hitokoto Shugy¯oroku [An Autobiography of Matsudaira Sadanobu]. Revised by S. Matsudaira. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Matsukata, F. (2007) Oranda F¯usetsugaki to Kinsei Nihon [Dutch Reporting of World News during the Tokugawa Period: 1641–1859]. Tokyo: Tokyo University Press. Matsukata, F. (2010) ‘Ts¯uyaku to “Yottsu no Kuchi” [Interpreters and Four Gateways].’ In Y. Arano, M. Ishii and S. Murai (eds.) Kinseiteki Sekai no Seijuku [The Mature Early Modern World]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K¯obunkan. 235–250. Matsukata, F. (ed.) (2012) Betsudan F¯usetsugaki ga Kataru 19 Seiki Hon’yaku to Kenky¯u [The Dutch Special News Reports to Japan: A Depiction of the 19th Century]. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. Matsuo, R. (2007) Nagasaki Rangaku no Kyojin: Shizuki Tadao to sono Jidai [The Giant of Nagasaki Dutch Studies: Shizuki Tadao and the Generation]. Fukuoka: Gen Shob¯o.

48

M. Tanaka

Nadamitsu, Y. (2007) ‘Oranda-ts¯uji no Rekishiteki K¯oken to M¯ajinarusei ni tsuite: Ibunka Komyunik¯eshon no Ch¯ukainin toshiteno Ichizuke o Ch¯ushin toshite [Dutch–Japanese Translators in Edo Era: Historical Contributions and Their Marginality as Cultural Mediators].’ Human Communications Studies, 35, 77–91. ¯ Otsuki, G. (1788/2000) Rangakukaitei [Guide to Dutch Learning] (Reprint). Tokyo: Yumani Shob¯o. Saldanha, G. and O’Brien, S. (2013) Research Methodologies in Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge. Sasayama, H., Sato, M., Gomi, F., Takamoku, T., Oikawa, Y., Kato, Y., Sakaue, Y., Sakurai, E. Shiraishi, T., Suzuki, J., Yoshida, N. and Kabushiki Gaisha Yamakawa Shuppansha (2019) Sh¯osetsu Nihonshi (Kaiteiban) [Detailed Japanese History (Revised Edition)]. Tokyo: Yamakawa Shuppansha. Sugimoto, T. (1990) Nagasaki Monogatari Kotoba to Bunka no Hon’yakusha [Nagasaki Story, the Translators of Languages and Cultures]. Tokyo: S¯otakusha. Takeda, K. (2015) ‘Japan.’ In F. Pöchhacker (ed.) Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies. London and New York: Routledge. 215–217. Tanaka, K. (1971) ‘Oranda-ts¯uji no Gogaku Gakush¯u nitsuite (ge): Y¯ogakushi Kenky¯u no tameni [On learning of Western languages by Oranda-ts¯uji: Japanese official interpreters of western language in the Tokugawa period (III)].’ Studies in Sociology, Psychology and Education, 11, 51–69. Tanaka, M. (2015) ‘Nagasaki ni okeru Oranda-ts¯uji ni kansuru K¯osatsu: Jiyakunin toshiteno Tachiichi to sono Hy¯oka o Megutte [Dutch–Japanese Interpreters as Local Officials of Nagasaki: Their Position and their Contributions].’ Interpreting and Translation Studies, 15, 55–74. Tanaka, M. (2019) ‘Kinsei no Oranda-ts¯uji no “Kihan” to “Rinrikan” nitsuite: Ts¯uyaku, Hon’yaku Kenky¯u kara no K¯osatsu [On the “Norms” and “Ethics” of Dutch–Japanese Interpreters in the Early Modern Period in Japan: A Study from the Perspective of Interpreting and Translation Research].’ Journal of College of Literature, Aoyama Gakuin University, 60, 49–61. Tanaka-Van Daalen, I. (2010) ‘Communicating with the Japanese under Sakoku: Dutch Letters of Complaint and Attempts to Learn Japanese.’ In Y. Nagazumi (ed.) Large and Broad: The Dutch Impact on Early Modern Asia, Essays in Honor of Leonard Blussé. Tokyo: T¯oy¯o Bunko. 100–123. Tanaka-Van Daalen, I. (2013) ‘The Privileges of Working with the VOC: Supplementary Incomes of the Interpreters in Nagasaki and Canton.’ Itinerario, 37, 116–138.

2 Oranda-tsuji ¯ (Japanese–Dutch Interpreters) …

49

Tanaka-Van Daalen, I. (2015) ‘Oranda-ts¯uji to “Goyaku Jiken”: Kansei no “Hangen Sh¯obairei” o Megutte [About the Dutch Interpreters and “Mistranslation Incident”: “Orders to Cut the Trade by Halves” in Kansei period].’ In F. Matsukata (ed.) Nichiran Kankeishi o Yomitoku [Read and Understand the History of Japan and the Dutch Relations]. Kyoto: Rinsen Shoten. 181–213. Torii, Y. (1998) ‘1800 Nen Zengo no Nichiran K¯osh¯o: “Motoki Ranbun” o Ch¯ushin ni [Japan and the Dutch Negotiations around 1800: Focusing on “Motoki Dutch Papers”]’. In Kobe City Museum (ed.) Tokubetsuten: Nichiran K¯ory¯u no Kakehashi [Special Exhibition: Bridge between Japan and the Netherlands]. Kobe: Kobe-shi Sp¯otsu Ky¯oiku K¯osha. 166-–170. Torikai, K. (2001) Rekishi o Kaeta Goyaku [The Mistranslation that Changed the History]. Tokyo: Shinchosha. Torikai, K. (2016) ‘Nagasaki Ts¯uji in Historical Novels by Yoshimura Akira: An Alternative Way of Studying the History of Interpreters.’ In K. Takeda and J. Baigorri-Jalón (eds.) New Insights in the History of Interpreting. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 75–97. Torikai, K. & Hiratsuka, Y. (2013) ‘Nagasaki Ts¯uji [Interpreters in Nagasaki].’ In K. Torikai (ed.) Yoku Wakaru Hon’yaku Ts¯uyaku Gaku [Understandable Translation and Interpreting Studies]. Kyoto: Minerva Shob¯o. 16–17. Yokoyama, Y. (2013) Kaikoku Zen’ya no Sekai [The World Before the Opening of the Country]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K¯obunkan.

3 To-ts ¯ uji ¯ (Japanese–Chinese Interpreters) in Nagasaki: The Case of Tei Einei Yukari Hiratsuka, Mikako Naganuma, Mino Saito, and Miki Sato

1

Introduction

This chapter focuses on the T¯o-ts¯uji (唐通事), the Japanese–Chinese interpreters, in Nagasaki, located in the southwestern part of Japan. In Japanese, T¯o (唐) originally referred to T¯o-ch¯o (唐朝 the Tang Dynasty, 618–907); however, in Early Modern Japan, it was often referred to as This chapter was originally written in Japanese by the first author, Hiratsuka. Sections 1–4.1 were elaborated and translated into English by Sato, 4.2 by Saito, and 5 by Naganuma; the three translators finalized the entire translation together with Hiratsuka. Various primary and secondary sources were added to Hiratsuka’s original manuscript by the other three. The sole responsibility for the paper rests on the first author. The other three authors are listed in alphabetical order.

Y. Hiratsuka (B) Beijing Language and Culture University, Beijing, China Juntendo University, Tokyo, Japan e-mail: [email protected] M. Naganuma Kobe City University of Foreign Studies, Kobe, Japan © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Saito and M. Sato (eds.), Ts¯uji, Interpreters in and Around Early Modern Japan, Translation History, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37652-8_3

51

52

Y. Hiratsuka et al.

China.1 The latter part of the term, ts¯uji (通事), means interpreter, as explained in Chapter 1. Even under the so-called isolation policy (see Chapter 1), the Edo shogunate allowed trade with the Netherlands and China in Nagasaki, and the Oranda-ts¯uji (Japanese–Dutch interpreters, see Chapter 2) and T¯o-ts¯uji served as local officials under the Nagasaki bugy¯o (長崎奉行 Nagasaki magistrate). This chapter will first provide an overview of the T¯o-ts¯uji in Nagasaki and their responsibilities, which included multi-layered tasks from language mediators to negotiators. The rest of this chapter presents a case study of Tei Einei (鄭永寧, 1829– 1897), who was an active T¯o-ts¯uji in the Edo era (1603–1868) and hired by the Foreign Ministry as well as the Justice Ministry of the new Meiji government (the Meiji period began in 1868). We will describe the two turning points in Tei’s career in relation to the social and diplomatic contexts that enabled him to be active as a T¯o-ts¯uji. The first turning point for Tei came in 1850 when together with his adoptive father, Tei began to compile a Manchu dictionary and adopted a new role as a T¯o-ts¯uji. Tei and his father worked on the dictionary because of the decrease in the number of Chinese ships coming to Nagasaki, which made it necessary for a T¯o-ts¯uji to perform a different role. In the meantime, Tei’s proficiency in Manchu and editing the dictionary were recognized by the shogunate, and he was able to rise in the ranks of the ts¯uji. The second turning point came in 1868 when the T¯o-ts¯uji system ended along with the Edo period. In the succeeding period, called the Meiji era (1868–1912), he went to China as a ts¯uyakukan (通訳官 interpreter), the new job title he adopted instead of ts¯uji. “Kan” (官) translates as “government official,” and Tei was later appointed as a deputy minister in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. e-mail: [email protected] M. Saito Juntendo University, Tokyo, Japan e-mail: [email protected] M. Sato Sapporo University, Sapporo, Japan e-mail: [email protected]

3 To-ts ¯ uji ¯ (Japanese–Chinese Interpreters) in Nagasaki …

2

Outline of the To-ts ¯ uji ¯ in Nagasaki

2.1

Tsuji ¯ and Tongshi

53

The origin of the Japanese word ts¯uji (通事, see Chapter 1) is the Chinese term tongshi (通事) (Li 2002, 2021; Li and Chen 2007). In Zhou li (周礼 Rites of Zhou),2 a Confucian scripture written during the Han dynasty (漢朝, B.C.E. 202–A.D. 220), there is a text called Qiu Guan (秋官 Office of Autumn), which refers to the Ministry of Justice, describing ancient Chinese official titles and their tasks. The Chinese expression tongshi appears in it with the following description: “掌邦国之通事而结其交好” (中国历史大辞典, 下卷 Zhongguo Lishi Dacidian,3 Vol. 3, emphasis added by authors) which means, “[They are] in charge of the communication and friendship with other countries” [English translation based on the account by Xin (2010: 53)]. This sentence contains no description of translating one language into another.4 Rather, the expression tongshi is associated with diplomacy and friendly relationships with other countries. According to Xin (2010: 53), this implication was later extended to communication between ordinary people. It appears that the extended meaning came to include the connotation of communication between different languages. As the Chinese term tongshi is regarded as the etymology of the Japanese ts¯uji (通事) as mentioned above, it can be inferred that the term originally meant “to engage in diplomatic negotiations and building appropriate relationships between states.”

2.2

Literature Review on the To-ts ¯ uji ¯ in Nagasaki

Research on the T¯o-ts¯uji in Nagasaki has been conducted by a number of scholars. Drawing on such studies, this section explains the hereditary system, duties, and vocational system of the T¯o-ts¯uji, and trade between China and Japan will be addressed in Sects. 2.3 and 3. Miyata (1979) has revealed the genealogy of the T¯o-ts¯uji in Nagasaki based on a primary document called Yakushi T¯ofu (譯詞統譜, 1897), other historical sources, tombstones, and biographies of the T¯o-ts¯uji.

54

Y. Hiratsuka et al.

Miyata discovered details about the names, families, and adoptive relationships from the first generation of the T¯o-ts¯uji to their descendants. Li (1991) has investigated the Chinese who resided in Nagasaki and described how the system of the T¯o-ts¯uji developed, what the duties of the profession were, and how they were appointed and paid. Liu (2013), Wakaki (2013), and Yabuta (2013) have discussed the trade in Nagasaki in Early Modern Japan and the relationship between Chinese ships, shipowners, and the T¯o-ts¯uji in Nagasaki. Hirai (1997), Rokkaku (1999), and Hayashi (2000) have discussed the lineages of individual T¯o-ts¯uji. Hirai and Hayashi themselves are descendants of the T¯o-ts¯uji. Hayashi presented a biography of the family and also provided a detailed overview of the T¯o-ts¯uji in Nagasaki in general, as well as their hereditary system and Sino–Japanese trade. Recent research on Tei Einei, on whom this article focuses, is described in Sect. 4.

2.3

Context and System of the To-ts ¯ uji ¯ in Nagasaki

In Early Modern times (1568–1868), Nagasaki was an important location for trade between Japan and China. In 1588, Toyotomi Hideyoshi (豊臣秀吉, 1536–1598), who ruled Japan at the time, placed Nagasaki under his direct control. Many people from mainland China moved to the city in search of work. Among them were numerous traders, and by the 1620s, trade exchanges between Kyushu Island, where Nagasaki is located, and the Chinese province of Fujian were frequent. The province is in the southeastern part of mainland China; moreover, it is a natural harbor with convenient topography and is geographically close to Japan, especially to the Kyushu region. Accordingly, many merchants traveled between Kyushu and Fujian province. Even after the Edo shogunate banned foreign ships from entering Japanese ports in 1626, Nagasaki was preserved as a gateway to China and the Netherlands (see Sect. 3.1 of Chapter 1). Many Chinese people who were engaged in trade did not return to China but settled in Nagasaki. The Edo shogunate stationed officials called Nagasaki bugy¯o

3 To-ts ¯ uji ¯ (Japanese–Chinese Interpreters) in Nagasaki …

55

(長崎奉行 Nagasaki magistrate) in Nagasaki to promote trade operations with the Netherlands and China at its port. Under the magistrate’s office, interpreters were designated as officials; Oranda-ts¯uji were for the diplomatic and trade relations with the Netherlands (see Chapter 2), and T¯o-ts¯uji were for those with mainland China. According to Yakushi T¯ofu, published by Egawa Kunpei (穎川君平, 1843–1919), who was a T¯o-ts¯uji at the end of the Edo shogunate, the first T¯o-ts¯uji in Nagasaki was appointed in 1603. This document records the names of the T¯o-ts¯uji in Nagasaki, their lineage, and their job responsibilities in chronological order from 1603–1861. The first part of Yakushi T¯ofu, titled “T¯o-ts¯uji Hajime no Yuisho” (唐通事始之 由緒 History of the Beginning of T¯o-ts¯uji), states that the first Nagasaki magistrate, Ogasawara Ichian (小笠原一庵, ?–?), appointed Hy¯o Roku (馮六, ?–1624), a Chinese resident of Nagasaki born in Shanxi province in China, as his official T¯o-ts¯uji in 1603. After Hy¯o began to work as a ts¯uji, he married and took the Japanese surname of his wife Hirano (平 野) (Wakaki 2013: 64). Unlike the Oranda-ts¯uji whose positions were filled by the Japanese (see Chapter 2), the early T¯o-ts¯uji positions were held by Chinese residents of Nagasaki who had relocated from China. What was the job structure of the T¯o-ts¯uji as a local official? According to “T¯o-ts¯uji Hajime no Yuisho,” the T¯o-ts¯uji were divided into two ranks, o¯ts¯uji (大通事 senior interpreter) and kots¯uji (小通事 junior interpreter), in 1640, with the latter being served by younger people. The position of keiko-ts¯uji (稽古通事 apprentice interpreter) was added to the rank in 1653. This position was established to train the children of the o¯ts¯uji and kots¯uji by assigning supplementary works to them (Matsumoto 1957: 112). In 1658, there were four o¯ts¯uji and four kots¯uji; in 1672, one more kots¯uji was appointed, bringing the total to nine. The three-tier system of o¯ts¯uji, kots¯uji, and keiko-ts¯uji became the basic system (Hayashi 2000: 3). Yakushi T¯ofu reveals that many of the T¯o-ts¯uji positions were passed down from generation to generation from 1642. Initially, in principle, when a vacancy arose in the post of o¯ts¯uji, a kots¯uji would be promoted (Xu 2012b; Liu 2013; Matsuoka 2019). The system of hereditary succession was not adopted from the outset; however, it became the convention where one or two children of the retiring o¯ts¯uji were hired as keiko-ts¯uji.

56

Y. Hiratsuka et al.

There were varieties of cases of promotions or appointments based on family background. As the number of T¯o-ts¯uji was fixed, there was a limit to the number of posts available to the children of retired o¯ts¯uji. Therefore, new positions were added so that children could succeed their parents’ jobs. According to the record on the names of T¯o-ts¯uji appointed between 1603 and 1861 documented in Yakushi T¯ofu, the job ranks of T¯o-ts¯uji were subdivided and increased over time; by 1861, the number of T¯o-ts¯uji ranks reached 24.

3

Role of the To-ts ¯ uji ¯

What was the actual role of the T¯o-ts¯uji? This section refers to T¯ots¯uji Kaisho Nichiroku (唐通事会所日録 Daily Records of T¯o-ts¯uji’s Office), a vocational logbook by T¯o-ts¯uji from 1663–1715. Concerning the duties of T¯o-ts¯uji, Li (1991) argues: The T¯o-ts¯uji’s duties varied in different periods, but in short, […] they were not merely interpreters and were also in charge of the enforcement of all administrative matters, including the control of visiting Chinese ships, to regulate violations of the Shogunate’s foreign policy, and also managed the internal affairs of the T¯o-ts¯uji and Chinese residents. (Li 1991: 316–317, translation by authors)

It can be inferred that even after 1715, the basic role of the T¯o-ts¯uji did not deviate considerably from what was written in the document. According to T¯o-ts¯uji Kaisho Nichiroku, the T¯o-ts¯uji served the Edo shogunate not only as language mediators. Their main roles were as follows: negotiators and managers in trade operations with China, mediators between Chinese people and administrators (magistrate’s office) in Nagasaki, supervisors who addressed the needs of Chinese people visiting and living in Nagasaki, and messengers of overseas information. First, the T¯o-ts¯uji played the roles of negotiators and managers, as well as language mediators, at the site of trade operations. They conducted interpreting jobs between Nagasaki bugy¯o or magistrates and the owners of T¯o-sen (Chinese trading ships). While general notifications to Chinese

3 To-ts ¯ uji ¯ (Japanese–Chinese Interpreters) in Nagasaki …

57

shipowners were given verbally, the T¯o-ts¯uji gave the shipowners written translations whenever the Nagasaki magistrate’s office communicated the contents of laws and regulations and the amount of trade. They also provided the magistrate’s office with written translations when there was a petition from the Chinese. In both cases, T¯o-ts¯uji submitted both the original and translated texts to the magistrate’s office (Liu 2013: 84). According to T¯o-ts¯uji Kaisho Nichiroku, the jobs of the T¯o-ts¯uji were under the supervision of the Nagasaki magistrate’s office; however, this was not always the case. Two Nagasaki magistrates were appointed for a term of one year working in Edo and another year in Nagasaki, on a rotating basis. Unlike the magistrates, the T¯o-ts¯uji always resided in Nagasaki and were more familiar with the situation in both Nagasaki and mainland China than were the magistrates. Furthermore, when the magistrate was not present at the actual site of trading, the T¯ots¯uji communicated directly with the Chinese shipowners regarding required procedures and negotiations. They were proactively involved in trade. Specifically, when a Chinese ship arrived in Nagasaki, the T¯o-ts¯uji compiled a list of the ship’s departure ports, crew members’ names, and cargo. It was also the T¯o-ts¯uji who prepared the account books for trades. Thus, they were de facto negotiators and managers of the Sino–Japanese trade in Nagasaki, and therefore much more than language mediators. In addition, according to T¯o-ts¯uji Kaisho Nichiroku, the T¯o-ts¯uji also had the authority to issue trade permits called shinpai (信碑). The T¯o-ts¯uji could use this authority to gain large trading concessions and sometimes received illegal souvenirs and kickbacks, known as wakini (脇荷). For this reason, it is believed that the T¯o-ts¯uji were able to accumulate significant wealth (Wakaki 2013: 57). This was also largely due to their role as negotiators and managers in the trade. The second role was escorting and attending to the visiting and local Chinese people. The visiting Chinese merchants stayed in Nagasaki for three or four months at a time. During this period, the T¯o-ts¯uji were in charge of daily communication with these merchants (Shao 2008: 62–63). Chinese merchants who came to Nagasaki were not allowed to land without permission from the Nagasaki magistrate. T¯o-ts¯uji Kaisho Nichiroku records that it was the T¯o-ts¯uji who negotiated with the magistrate to obtain such permission. For instance, a journal entry from April

58

Y. Hiratsuka et al.

7, 1711, describes an incident in which the crew of a Chinese ship violently attacked a bansen (番船 a watch and guard ship of the Nagasaki magistrate’s office). The journal entry from the following day states that the T¯o-ts¯uji urged the shipowner to apologize to the Nagasaki magistrate’s office, which resulted in the crew being pardoned. The T¯o-ts¯uji were also responsible for checking on crews and delivering provisions to ships. When Chinese merchants wished to visit temples, the T¯o-ts¯uji obtained permission from the Nagasaki magistrate and accompanied their visits. They also provided security at the merchants’ accommodations to prevent disputes between Chinese merchants and Chinese residents in Nagasaki. Thus, the T¯o-ts¯uji managed the daily lives and needs of the Chinese in Nagasaki. It can be argued that the Nagasaki magistrates relied heavily on the T¯o-ts¯uji as mediators between the Chinese and the magistrate’s office, not only for official business but also for the daily needs of the Chinese community. Many local T¯o-ts¯uji had Chinese ancestors who had amassed wealth from trade with Japan (Li 2019: 44). In contrast to the Oranda-ts¯uji in Nagasaki (see Chapter 2), they were not of Japanese descent, as previously mentioned in Sect. 2.3. The T¯o-ts¯uji, who inherited their wealth, built temples for the Chinese living in Nagasaki (Li 2019: 46). The Chinese had a relatively high sense of belonging to their homeland, and the temples might have functioned as essential places for the Chinese community. The T¯o-ts¯uji also used their private funds for bridges. The intention might have been to repay the town so that people would not blame the T¯o-ts¯uji for their private wealth accumulated through trade (Wakaki 2013: 80). Their role as messengers of overseas affairs should not be forgotten. One of the T¯o-ts¯uji’s tasks was to submit overseas reports called T¯o F¯usetsugaki (唐風説書 the Chinese book of rumors). The T¯o-ts¯uji were responsible for obtaining information regarding overseas affairs from Chinese merchants who came to Nagasaki and compiling them into T¯o F¯usetsugaki . This was submitted to the Edo shogunate via the Nagasaki magistrates. Ura (1947: 70) has argued that the shogunate ordered Nagasaki magistrates to submit the reports because they needed to gain overseas information focusing on China for administrative purposes. T¯o-ts¯uji Kaisho Nichiroku, after 1688, regularly mentions hearing from

3 To-ts ¯ uji ¯ (Japanese–Chinese Interpreters) in Nagasaki …

59

the Chinese. Yakushi T¯ofu stated that the new post was introduced to compile T¯o F¯usetsugaki in 1699. Until then, the o¯ts¯uji had been in charge of the duty (Ura 1947: 73). T¯o F¯usetsugaki contained various types of information: from the names of the visitors on board to the economic and trade situations in mainland China and foreign affairs.

4

Tei Einei (鄭 鄭永寧, 1829–1897)

In recent years, several studies on Tei Einei have been published. Xu (2012a) has examined the T¯o-ts¯uji system based on previous research and clarified the historical transition of the T¯o-ts¯uji up to the Meiji period. She focused on Tei and another T¯o-ts¯uji, Ga Noriyuki (何礼之, 1840– 1923), and discussed their achievements (Xu 2012b). Matsuoka (2019) has described the T¯o-ts¯uji after 1850 and focused on the compilation of a dictionary of the Manchu language, the newly assumed task of the T¯ots¯uji, including Tei and his father. Based on these previous studies, this section focuses on Tei and discusses his role as a T¯o-ts¯uji in relation to the social context. Tei Einei was born into the Go (呉) family, whose ancestors emigrated from the Fujian province of China to Nagasaki. Einei’s biological father, Go Y¯oz¯o (呉用蔵, 1794–1831), was the eighth T¯o-ts¯uji of the Go family and was appointed kots¯uji-matsuseki (小通事末席 the lowest rank of kots¯uji) in 1820. This position was the tenth in rank, counting from the o¯ts¯uji. The Go family did not produce any o¯ts¯uji and was not a prestigious T¯o-ts¯uji family (Li 2019: 253). Go Y¯oz¯o had six sons. The eldest son took over the family, whereas the other five sons, including Einei, were adopted by other families. It was the conventional practice for the eldest son to take over the family and his father’s business, which meant that there was no guarantee that any son, other than the eldest, would be employed as a ts¯uji. Younger sons who were proficient in Chinese could be adopted into other ts¯uji families without sons if both families agreed to the adoption and it was authorized by the magistrate’s office (Hayashi 2000: 93–105). Einei was adopted by Tei Mikisuke (鄭幹輔, 1811–1860), the eighth generation T¯o-ts¯uji of the Tei family, who had no children (Li 2019:

60

Y. Hiratsuka et al.

208). Mikisuke was in the post of a kots¯uji-suke (小通事助 the fourth rank among kots¯uji) in 1836 but left Nagasaki the following year to teach Chinese at the Sh¯oheizaka Gakumonjo (昌平坂学問所) in Edo, an academy established by the shogunate. He returned to Nagasaki in 1840 and was promoted to the position of kots¯uji in 1844. The exact date of Einei’s adoption is unknown, but it likely occurred before or in 1849 because Einei was appointed as a keiko-ts¯uji under Tei’s surname in 1849 when he was 19 years old.

4.1

Tei’s Role as a To-ts ¯ uji ¯ in the Late Edo Era

The position of T¯o-ts¯uji was not necessarily secure when Einei became a ts¯uji. One of the reasons for this is the decline in the number of Chinese ships entering Nagasaki. The number of incoming Chinese vessels per year peaked at 177 in 1688 (Shao 2008: 61). However, in 1715, the Edo shogunate issued a new decree, Sh¯otoku Shinrei (正徳新令),5 to reduce the number of trade vessels entering the port and prevent a massive outflow of domestic silver overseas. This policy limited the number of Chinese ships to 30 or less per year (Soeda 2008: 77). However, there were still 10 or more ships entering Nagasaki annually. Although the decree expired in 1830, there were no more double-digit numbers of incoming ships after 1835 (Matsuoka 2019: 222). This decline in the number of incoming ships was followed by a falloff of other works that accompanied their trade-related jobs, which resulted in unsustainable income. The social change affected the lives of the T¯o-ts¯uji and they had to work on new tasks. At the order of the shogunate, the T¯o-ts¯uji were newly engaged in learning Manchu6 and compiling a Manchu–Japanese dictionary from 1850 (Li 2019: 49). This learning of the language created an opportunity for a non-famous T¯o-ts¯uji to come forward. One of them was the Tei family. This is considered to be the first turning point for Tei Einei as a T¯o-ts¯uji. Matsuoka (2019) has discussed the compilation of the Manchu dictionary by Tei and its surrounding context in detail. Much of the following description comes from his research. In mainland China, the Ming dynasty was replaced by the Qing dynasty in 1644. The Qing dynasty

3 To-ts ¯ uji ¯ (Japanese–Chinese Interpreters) in Nagasaki …

61

was ruled by the Manchu people whose native language was Manchu. Therefore, in Beijing, the capital of the Qing dynasty at that time, Manchu was used in everyday life in addition to Chinese. When Russian envoy Nikolai Rezanov (HikolaN Petpoviq Pezanov, 1764–1807) arrived in Nagasaki in September 1804, he brought letters translated into Japanese and Manchu, along with a letter in Russian. However, there were no personnel in the shogunate at the time who could understand Manchu. Foreign ships continued to arrive in Japan, and negotiations with foreign countries were increasingly accompanied by letters written in Manchu. For this reason, in 1808, the shogunate ordered the T¯ots¯uji in Nagasaki to learn Manchu and instructed Oranda-ts¯uji to learn Russian and English (Matsuoka 2019: 16; see also Chapters 2 and 7). This order from the shogunate reflected the diplomatic situation surrounding Japan at that time. However, it appears that the T¯o-ts¯uji, whose ancestors had come to Japan during the Ming dynasty, could not easily accept the Manchu language as it was the language of the people who had conquered the country of their ancestors. It was not until 1850, 42 years later, that the T¯o-ts¯uji actually started learning Manchu and compiling a Manchu dictionary (Li 2019: 49). The Manchu dictionary, Hon’yaku Mango Sanhen (翻訳満語纂編), was compiled from 1850 to 1855. Einei’s father, Mikisuke, assumed the role of a supervisory translator (Matsuoka 2019: 24–25). The actual translation work was conducted mainly by 22 selected young T¯o-ts¯uji. Einei, as one of them, seemingly played a central role in translating the Manchu dictionary (Matsuoka 2019: 26–32). At the same time as compiling this dictionary, some T¯o-ts¯uji were also involved in the translation of the trilingual (Manchu, Mongolian, and Chinese) version of Ch‘ing wen chien (清文鑑 Polyglot Manchu Dictionaries) and used it as a reference for the compilation of Hon’yaku Mango Sanhen (Matsuoka 2019: 40–41).7 However, the compiling of the Hon’yaku Mango Sanhen was suspended in 1855 by the order of the Nagasaki magistrates. The reason for the suspension is argued to be that the Nagasaki magistrate gave priority to the learning of Western languages (Koga 1947). Later, in 1859, Tei Mikisuke, together with Einei and several other T¯o-ts¯uji, visited an American ship in Nagasaki and learned English from Daniel Jerome

62

Y. Hiratsuka et al.

Macgowan for two weeks (Li 2019: 210). Although they did not become proficient in English after the two weeks of study, they obediently studied the language recommended by the magistrate. Remarkably, while it took the T¯o-ts¯uji 42 years to start learning Manchu, they accepted learning English immediately. Due to the substantial decline in the number of Chinese trade ships coming to Japan around 1850, Mikisuke, Einei, and other colleagues responded immediately to such changes in the context surrounding the T¯o-ts¯uji. In 1851, Mikisuke was promoted from kots¯uji to o¯ts¯uji-suke (大通 事助 assistant o¯tsuji), as was Einei from keiko-ts¯uji to kots¯uji-matsuseki. The reason for these promotions, as Xu (2012a: 273) has identified, was probably the end of the previous monopoly of the upper posts by the prestigious T¯o-ts¯uji families. Another reason for their promotions could be the completion of the Manchu dictionary’s first volume in the same year. In 1860, Mikisuke died and Einei inherited the responsibility of the Tei family at the age of 32 and was promoted to the position of kots¯ujikanin (小通事過人 the third rank among kots¯uji, or the sixth rank from the top) (Yakushi T¯ofu 1897: 33). In addition to being engaged in T¯ots¯uji’s traditional roles such as negotiator/manager in trade operations and mediator/supervisor of the Chinese community (see Sect. 3), Einei also built a school to teach Chinese in a vacant lot in the precincts of a Chinese temple in the following year (Matsuoka 2019: 234). From this time onward, Einei also accepted another role as a language educator. In 1867, the last year of the Edo shogunate, he was promoted to kots¯uji, the fourth rank from the top, and was in charge of external affairs with the Nagasaki magistrates (Xu 2012b: 79). Thus, after the first turning point when he had been involved in the new duty of compiling the dictionary, Einei played several more roles than his predecessors.

4.2

Tei’s Role After the Edo Era

The T¯o-ts¯uji system, which had been in place since 1603, faded with the end of the Tokugawa shogunate in 1868. This was the second turning point for Tei Einei. Therefore, what role did Tei play in the Meiji period

3 To-ts ¯ uji ¯ (Japanese–Chinese Interpreters) in Nagasaki …

63

(1868–1912) and beyond? In 1868, he became a teacher at the K¯ounkan (広運館) language institute in Nagasaki. From 1869–1881, he worked for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, first as an interpreter, then as a secretary, and finally as a temporary deputy minister. In 1871, he served as an interpreter between Date Munenari (伊達宗城, 1818–1892), the Japanese delegate, and Li Hongzhang (李鴻章, 1823–1901), the Qing delegate, for the conclusion of the Sino–Japanese Amity Treaty. He was in charge of all commercial regulations, tariff negotiations, and other business between Japan and China from conclusion to ratification, as well as all tasks necessary for diplomatic negotiations, including advancing groundwork (Xu 2019). He played the role of a negotiator. Even before the negotiation of the Sino–Japanese Amity Treaty, the Qing Dynasty had been training multilingual interpreters in anticipation of negotiations with other countries (Li 2002; Li and Chen 2007). However, when the Qing Dynasty sent its first envoy to Japan, it did not dispatch interpreters because the Qing government mistakenly believed that, although Japanese and Chinese were different languages, both would be able to understand each other without interpreters because they used the same Chinese characters. However, it was impossible for Japanese and Chinese speakers to communicate without an interpreter. Therefore, Tei, who was dispatched as an interpreter for the Japanese government, interpreted in both directions between Japanese and Chinese. This led to Tei’s name becoming well-known to Qing dynasty officials (Morita 2004; Xu 2012b; Li and Wang 2018; Matsuoka 2019). According to Xu (2012b: 86), Tei served at the legation in Beijing as a first secretary in 1874. Subsequently, Tei took over the affairs of the legation as acting minister pro tempore for five years from 1875–1879; he was at the forefront of negotiations between the Meiji government and the Qing dynasty, serving as a negotiator. In 1879, Tei returned to Tokyo to accept an appointment as a senior secretary at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; in 1881, he submitted his resignation to the ministry to leave that position. Afterward, Tei took a position at the Ministry of Justice, where he was involved in translating the Qing dynasty legal documents into Japanese. Furthermore, in 1885, again as an interpreter for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, he accompanied Japan’s first prime minister, It¯o Hirobumi (伊藤博文, 1841–1909),

64

Y. Hiratsuka et al.

to China, where he was in charge of the arrangement of the Treaty of Tianjin (Li 2019: 211). Thus, Tei was involved in diplomatic negotiations throughout the Meiji era. At the end of the Edo era, in 1865, there were 73 T¯o-ts¯uji (Hayashi 2000: 254). Of these, only five, including Tei, were appointed to a vice-consul position, such as minister (or deputy minister), in the Meiji period (Li 2019: 55). Tei made full use of his experience as a T¯o-ts¯uji and diplomat to teach languages and interpretation to his students, including his sons.8 As mentioned above, he worked as a teacher at the K¯ounkan language institute in 1868 while living in Nagasaki. He then moved to Tokyo, and in May 1870, while working for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, he was appointed principal of the Chinese language institute9 established by the Ministry. In 1882, Tei accepted the Chinese government’s request to teach Japanese language and interpretation between Japanese and Chinese to Chinese officials at T¯obungakud¯o (東文学堂),10 which was an educational institution established on the premise of the Chinese Embassy in Tokyo (Li 2002; Xu 2012a, 2012b; Wang 2014; Li 2019; Matsuoka 2019). It is likely that his contribution to the development of human resources for the Chinese government triggered the following incident. On March 8, 1891, an article about “a certain Mr. Tei” appeared on the front page of the Nippon newspaper.11 The article reported that “a Mr. Tei” sent letters to Qing Minister Li Hongzhang and passed on information about Japan. The article was published at a time of tension between Japan and China before the start of the Sino–Japanese War in 1894. The studies by Wang (2014) and Xu (2019) have regarded “a Mr. Tei” as Tei Einei, but it is not clear from the original article whether this really refers to him.12 In response to this article, an advertisement claiming a false accusation (dated March 10) jointly signed by Tei Einei’s second son, Eikei, and third son, Eih¯o, appeared in several major newspapers, including Nippon on March 11 (p. 4).13 The advertisement stated that the Tei family had sued Nippon for libel. After the publication of these articles, major newspapers paid attention to the case. For example, on March 17, 1891, the Yomiuri Shinbun newspaper reported that an editor of Nippon appeared at the Tokyo District Court as part of an “inquiry into the traitor case” and that an attorney representing Tei Eikei

3 To-ts ¯ uji ¯ (Japanese–Chinese Interpreters) in Nagasaki …

65

also appeared at the inquiry.14 The article further mentioned that the case caused a commotion in which the Tei family was admonished to leave their residential area. This indicates that the social impact of the case was not small. According to the Osaka Mainichi Shinbun newspaper on April 25 and 27, 1918, the trial ended in a settlement.15 This case can be seen as one example of the vulnerability of interpreters’ positions. Tei Einei not only translated languages but also served in multiple roles, including as a diplomat and teacher. These roles led him to teach at the institution located in the Chinese legation, which resulted in the “incident” newspapers featured. If he had not provided language training at the Chinese legation, he might not have been portrayed as a “traitor” to his country, Japan. However, even after the “incident,” he continued to teach at T¯obungakud¯o until 1894 when the Sino–Japanese War broke out and the institution was closed. This shows that Tei considered his role in developing human resources vital.

5

Conclusion

Similar to the other ts¯uji discussed in this book, the T¯o-ts¯uji in Nagasaki assumed various roles, not only as bridges for verbal communication but also as negotiators and managers in trade operations, mediators between Chinese people and magistrates in Nagasaki, supervisors of the local Chinese community, and messengers of overseas news. In addition to these roles, this chapter also referred to a new role that Tei Einei played as an interpreter; his role of editing a Manchu dictionary. This resulted in his promotion to a higher rank of the T¯o-ts¯uji, giving him an official position even after the end of the T¯o-ts¯uji system. During the early Meiji period, he remained active as an official interpreter and diplomat working for the Japanese government. He also engaged in language education for Chinese and Japanese people. Not all the T¯o-ts¯uji succeeded as official interpreters under the new Meiji government scheme. As explained in Sect. 2.1, the primary role of the Chinese word “tongshi” was not to convey words but to assume a job position “in charge of the communication and friendship with other countries” (Rites of Zhou). The T¯o-ts¯uji in Nagasaki were responsible

66

Y. Hiratsuka et al.

for the tasks described in the Rites of Zhou, including negotiating trade affairs, supervising Chinese communities in Nagasaki, and providing information from China to Japan (see Sect. 3). As part of his duties, Tei committed himself to compiling the Manchu dictionary, which led to his promotion. Thanks to his achievements as a T¯o-ts¯uji, he was able to continue to be active in diplomacy and language education after the end of the Edo period and contributed to “the communication and friendship” between Japan and China. This was made possible by his efforts to seize opportunities brought about by the changing times. Although translation and interpreting studies have begun to focus on individual translators and interpreters (cf. Snell-Hornby 2006: 172–173; Wolf and Fukari 2007: 14–15; Saldanha and O’Brien 2013: 150; see also Sect. 1 of Chapter 1), few studies, including those mentioned in Sect. 4, have explored individual Japanese–Chinese interpreters. This study has focused on a single To-ts¯uji and his changing roles as a ts¯uji according to the surrounding circumstances. We believe that this chapter has provided a new point of discussion for future research regarding the role of Japanese–Chinese interpreters.

Notes 1. The Edo period in Japan (1603–1868) partially overlaps the Ming (1368–1644) and Qing (1644–1912) dynasties. However, the Japanese used the term T¯o (唐) to refer to China, such as T¯o-go (唐語 Chinese language) and T¯o-jin (唐人 Chinese people) (Hayashi 2000). This term also meant “foreign countries.” We can find this meaning in terms such as karamono (唐物 items from foreign countries) that use the same Chinese character of 唐 (T¯o and kara in karamono). 2. This is a list describing works of bureaucracy and the organizational theory of the Zhou dynasty (周朝, c. 1050–256 B.C.E.). 3. This is an encyclopedic dictionary of Chinese history, published by Shanghai Lexicographic Publishing House in 2007. 4. The duty of language interpreters, Xiang-xu (象胥), is mentioned in a different part of Zhou li. 5. Sh¯otoku Shinrei is also known as Kaihaku Goshi Shinrei (海舶互市新 令).

3 To-ts ¯ uji ¯ (Japanese–Chinese Interpreters) in Nagasaki …

67

6. Manchu was the language used during the Qing dynasty (1644–1912), whereas the T¯o-ts¯uji used guanhua (官話), a Chinese language that was commonly used during the Ming and Qing dynasties, and the Fujian dialect spoken by sailors on Chinese vessels. The T¯o-ts¯uji’s ancestors emigrated to Japan during the Ming dynasty (1368–1644), and Manchu was regarded as the language of their enemy. 7. Ch‘ing wen chien, a series of multilingual dictionaries, has several versions, including bilingual (Manchu and Chinese), trilingual (Manchu, Mongolian, and Chinese), quarter-lingual (Manchu, Mongolian, Chinese, and Tibetan), and penta-lingual (Manchu, Mongolian, Chinese, Tibetan, and Uighur) dictionaries (Kuribayashi 2008: 1). The T¯o-ts¯uji translated the trilingual version, and although they did not understand Mongolian, it is believed that they relied on Chinese notations when compiling the Manchu dictionary by themselves. According to Matsuoka (2019: 44–45), there are 32 volumes of the Ch‘ing wen chien, but Tei and his colleagues translated only four volumes. 8. Tei Einei’s sons, like their father, were active in the diplomatic field. Tei Eish¯o (鄭永昌, 1855–1931), the eldest son, entered a Chinese language school of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1872 and studied in the U.S. from 1874–1877. After completing his studies, he served as a secretary at the consulate in New York for seven years; from 1889, he served as an interpreter at the legation in Beijing; furthermore, he was appointed the second secretary in 1892, the second consul at the consulate in Tianjin in 1896, and the first consul from 1897–1901; in 1902, he was appointed an advisor to Yuan Shikai (袁世凱, 1859–1916) (Li 2019: 211). Tei Eikei (鄭永慶, 1859–1895), the second son, also studied in the U.S. but left school and returned home due to illness. He joined the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but later worked for a short period as a French interpreter for the Ministry of Finance before becoming a businessperson (Li 2019: 213). His third son, Tei Eih¯o (鄭永邦, 1863– 1916), graduated from the Tokyo School of Foreign Languages (today’s Tokyo University of Foreign Studies) and joined the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; he served as an interpreter for Ito Hirobumi and Li Hongzhang at the Shimonoseki Treaty of 1895; from 1896, he was a secretary at the legation in Beijing; from 1906, he was a secretary at the British Embassy, transferred to the Beijing legation in 1911, and left two years later (Li 2019: 211–212). Note that Miyata (1979) lists Eikei as the first son and Eish¯o as the second son, but Li (2019) points out that this is a mistake. This paper is based on Li (2019)’s argument.

68

Y. Hiratsuka et al.

9. It was a school established by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs in February 1871 to train personnel to engage in translation and interpretation between Japanese and Chinese. In addition to Tei Einei, former T¯o-ts¯uji were also appointed as teachers. Students were mainly the children of former T¯o-ts¯uji (Rokkaku 1999: 3–5). 10. Established as a Japanese language school, its purpose was to train interpreters (Wang 2014: 80). 11. “Zapp¯o: Ts¯ugen, Haik¯o (雑報: 痛言、悖行) [General news: Severe comments on unreasonable acts].” Page 1, Nippon newspaper on March 8, 1891. 12. When this article was published, Tei Einei’s eldest son, Eish¯o, was also working for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and was stationed at the legation in Beijing. His third son Eih¯o too worked for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The “a Mr. Tei” in the article is presumed to refer to Tei Einei, as the character description in the March 11, 1891 Yomiuri Shinbun article states that he “worked as a consul in various places in China.” However, it is not certain if “a Mr. Tei” was really Tei Einei. 13. For instance, page 7, Tokyo Nichi Nichi Shinbun newspaper on March 11, 1891. 14. “Baikoku Jiken no Torishirabe (賣國事件の取調) [Inquiry into the traitor case].” Page 1, Yomiuri Shinbun newspaper on March 17, 1891. 15. “H¯os¯o Kanwa: ‘Kokuzoku’ Bengo (1) Tei Einei Jiken (法曹閑話: 國賊 辯護 (1) 鄭永寧事件) [Legal Talk: Defense of ‘The person who harmed the nation’ (1) Incident of Tei Einei].” Page 3, Osaka Mainichi Shinbun newspaper on April 25, 1918. And “H¯os¯o Kanwa: ‘Kokuzoku’ Bengo (2) Tei Einei Jiken (法曹閑話: 國賊辯護 (2) 鄭永寧事件) [Legal Talk: Defense of ‘The person who harmed the nation’ (2) Incident of Tei Einei].” Page 3, Osaka Mainichi Shinbun newspaper on April 27, 1918.

3 To-ts ¯ uji ¯ (Japanese–Chinese Interpreters) in Nagasaki …

69

References Egawa, K. (1897) Yakushi T¯ofu [Record of Appointments of Chinese Interpreters]. Nagasaki Museum of History & Culture Collection. ¯ uji Hayashi D¯oei to Sono Sh¯uhen Hayashi, R. (2000) Nagasaki T¯o-ts¯uji: Ots¯ [Nagasaki T¯o-ts¯uji: Senior Interpreter Hayashi D¯oei and His Circumstance]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K¯obunkan. Hirai, H. (1997) Ishin eno Miotsukushi: Ts¯uji Hirai Kish¯o no Sh¯ogai [Channel Marker to the Meiji Restoration: A Life of a Ts¯uji, Hirai Kish¯o]. Tokyo: ¯ Shin Jinbutsu Oraisha. Koga, J. (1947) Tokugawa Jidai ni okeru Nagasaki no Eigo Kenky¯u [Study of English in Nagasaki during the Era of Tokugawa Shogunate]. Fukuoka: Ky¯ush¯u Shob¯o. Kuribayashi, H. (2008) ‘Mongorugo Shiry¯o toshite no Shinbunkan [Characteristics of Written Mongolian in Polyglot Manchu Dictionaries of the Qing Dynasty, 18th Century].’ T¯ohoku Ajia Kenky¯u, 12, 1–34. Li, D. (2019) Minji Tang tongshi yanjiu [A Study on the T¯o-ts¯uji with a Family Background of Fujian, China]. Beijing: Social Science Academic Press. Li, D. and Wang, H. (2018) ‘Mumo zhi Mingzhichu Tang tongshi dui Riben waijiao fanyi de gongxian [The Contributions of the Tang Dynasty Chinese Translators to Japanese Foreign Affairs Translation in the Late Shogunate Period and the Early Meiji Period].’ Journal of Jimei University (Philosophy and Social Sciences), 21(1), 108–114. Li, N. (2002) Zhongguo kouyi shi [A Chinese History of Interpreting]. Qingdao: Qingdao Publishing House. Li, W. (2021) Mingqing shiqi dongya Huaren Tongshi yanjiu [A Study on Chinese Interpreters in East Asia During the Ming and Qing Dynasties]. Beijing: People’s Literature Press. Li, X. (1991) Nagasaki T¯o-jin no Kenky¯u [Study of Chinese Residents in Nagasaki]. Sasebo: Shinwa Gink¯o. Li, Y. and Chen, W. (2007) Zhongguo jindai tongshi [China’s Modern Interpreters]. Beijing: Xueyuan Press. Liu, S. (2013) ‘Kinsei Nagasaki B¯oeki ni okeru T¯o-ts¯uji to T¯osenshu [T¯ots¯uji and Chinese Shipowners in the Context of Trade in Early Modern Nagasaki].’ In T. Wakaki (ed.) Nagasaki, T¯ozai Bunka K¯osh¯oshi no Sut¯eji [Nagasaki, the Arena of Cultural Negotiations Between the East and the West]. Tokyo: Bensei Shuppan. 83–90.

70

Y. Hiratsuka et al.

Matsumoto, K. (1957) ‘T¯o-ts¯uji no Kenky¯u: Tokuni Yakushi T¯ofu to T¯o-ts¯uji Kaisho Nichiroku o Ch¯ushin toshite [The Study of the Japanese Interpreter of Chinese in the Edo Era].’ Journal of H¯osei Historical Society, 10, 110–118. Matsuoka, Y. (2019) Nagasaki T¯o-ts¯uji no Mansh¯u Gogaku [Manchu Language Learning of Nagasaki T¯o-ts¯uji]. Tokyo: Akashi Shoten. Miyata, Y. (1979) T¯o-ts¯uji Kakei Ronk¯o [Investigations into the Lineage of Chinese Interpreters]. Nagasaki: Nagasaki Bunkensha. Morita, Y. (2004) ‘Bakumatsu Ishinki no Tai Shin Seisaku to Nisshin Sh¯uk¯o J¯oki: Nihon, Ch¯uka Teikoku, Seiy¯o Kokusai Shakai no Sankaku Kankei to Higashi Ajia Chitsujo no Nij¯usei, 1862-1871 [Sino–Japanese Amity Treaty and the East Asian World Order: The Triangle Relationship and Dual Visions, 1862–1871].’ Japan Association of International Relations, 139, 29–44. Rokkaku, T. (1999) Kango Shi Kaden: Ch¯ugokugo Ky¯oiku no Senjintachi [Chinese Teachers’ Biography: Forerunners of Chinese Language Education]. Tokyo: T¯oh¯o Shoten. Saldanha, G. and O’Brien, S. (2013) Research Methodologies in Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge. Shao, J. (2008) ‘Changqi maoyizhongde Tang tongshi [Interpreter of Tang in Nagasaki Commerce].’ Journal of Jiangnan University (Humanities & Social Sciences), 7(5), 60–65. Snell-Hornby, M. (2006) Turns of Translation Studies: New Paradigms or Shifting Viewpoints? Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Soeda, H. (2008) ‘18 Seiki K¯oki no Nagasaki ni okeru Nukenikan: T¯o B¯oeki o Ch¯ushin ni [Views on Smuggling under the Chinese Trade in the LateEighteenth Century Nagasaki].’ K¯owan Toshi Kenky¯u, 3, 75–88. T¯o-ts¯uji Kaisho Nichiroku [Daily Records of the T¯o-ts¯uji’s Office]. Nagasaki Museum of History & Culture Collection. T¯o-ts¯uji Yuraisho [Records of T¯o-ts¯uji]. Nagasaki Museum of History & Culture Collection. Ura, R. (1947) ‘T¯o-sen F¯usetsugaki no Kenky¯u [Research on the T¯o-sen F¯usetsugaki].’ Teikoku Gakushiin Kiji, 5(1), 54–84. Wakaki, T. (2013) ‘Kinsei Toraijin no Keifu: Yakushi T¯ofu kara [Genealogy of Immigrants with Chinese Origin in the Early Modern Era: From the Records in Yakushi T¯ofu].’ In T. Wakaki (ed.) Nagasaki, T¯ozai Bunka K¯osh¯oshi no Sut¯eji [Nagasaki, the Arena of Cultural Negotiations between the East and the West]. Tokyo: Bensei Shuppan. 49–82. Wang, B. (2014) ‘Jindai Zhongguo Riyu fanyi zhi Lanshang: Dongwenxuetang kao [The Beginning of Modern Chinese–Japanese Translation: A Study of

3 To-ts ¯ uji ¯ (Japanese–Chinese Interpreters) in Nagasaki …

71

Dongwen School].’ Journal of Japanese Language Study and Research, 2, 79– 90. Wolf, M. and Fukari, A. (eds.) (2007) Constructing Sociology of Translation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Xin, Q. (2010) ‘Tongshi de qianshi yu jinsheng [Interpreter’s Past and Present Lives].’ Lantai shijie, 13, 53–54. Xu, H. (2012a) ‘Bakumatsu ni okeru Nagasaki T¯o-ts¯uji no Taisei [The Structure of the Nagasaki T¯o-ts¯uji Bureau During the Bakumatsu Period].’ Journal of East Asian Cultural Interaction Studies, 5, 267–280. Xu, H. (2012b) ‘Bakumatsu Meijiki ni okeru Nagasaki T¯o-ts¯uji no Shiteki Kenky¯u [A Historical Study of Nagasaki T¯o-ts¯uji in the Bakumatsu and Meiji Period].’ Doctoral Dissertation, Kansai University. Xu, H. (2019) ‘Lun Zheng Yongning yu Jindai Zhongri guanxi [Studying the Image of Tei Einei in the Modern History of Sino–Japan Relations].’ Journal of Japanese Language Study and Research, 2, 33–41. Yabuta, Y. (2013) ‘Hy¯ochaku T¯o-sen to Nagasaki [Chinese Drift Boats and Nagasaki].’ In T. Wakaki (ed.) Nagasaki, T¯ozai Bunka K¯osh¯oshi no Sut¯eji [Nagasaki, the Arena of Cultural Negotiations Between the East and the West]. Tokyo: Bensei Shuppan. 294–311.

4 Amenomori Hosh ¯ u¯ and Chosen-ts ¯ uji ¯ (Japanese–Korean Interpreters) in the Eighteenth Century Hiroko Furukawa

1

Introduction

Amenomori H¯osh¯u (雨森芳洲, 1668–1755) was a Japanese Confucian scholar in Early Modern Japan, during the Edo period (1603– 1868), who played a key role in Japan’s good-neighbour diplomacy and commercial relations with Korea (Tashiro 2007: 179). During this period, Korea was the only country with which Japan had an equal diplomatic relationship (Sakai 2021: 9), and this conspicuously contrasted with China and the Netherlands, with which Japan only maintained ¯ 2007: 38). Thus, in this trade relations (Nakao 2007/2017: iii; Onishi period, Ch¯osen-ts¯uji (朝鮮通詞 Japanese–Korean interpreters) must have been of importance, especially because the relationship between the two countries deteriorated after Japan’s invasions of Korea in 1592 and 1597,1 after which Japan was compelled to rebuild relations with Korea. H. Furukawa (B) Tohoku Gakuin University, Sendai, Japan e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Saito and M. Sato (eds.), Ts¯uji, Interpreters in and Around Early Modern Japan, Translation History, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37652-8_4

73

74

H. Furukawa

Amenomori is one of the best Japanese Confucian scholars in the Edo period, and he was fluent in both Chinese and Korean, unlike other scholars of the time. Following an invitation, he worked for the Tsushima domain from 1689 to 1755, from the age of 22 to his death at the age of 88. Amenomori and his employer, the Lord of the Tsushima domain, made great efforts to improve the relationship between Japan and Korea. This was because the Tsushima domain depended on trade with Korea, and the Lord of Tsushima was put in charge of the practical aspect of diplomacy with Korea by the Tokugawa bakufu government. Therefore, a vital question for the domain was how to improve the relationship between the two countries (Toby 2008: 14; Sakai 2021: 133, 210–211). Tsushima is an island of 708 square kilometres, which is located between the Japanese mainland and the Korean Peninsula. The island is closer to Korea than it is to any other Japanese lands—the distance between Tsushima and the Korean Peninsula is only 49.5 kilometres, whereas the distance from the centre of Tsushima to the closest Japanese island, called Iki, is 73 kilometres. In fact, in some antique maps created in the Middle Ages, Tsushima is depicted as being outside the borders of Japan (Saeki 2008/2015: 4). Tsushima is indeed on the periphery of Japan, and yet the domain was a crucial gateway for negotiations with Korea (Tashiro 2007: 263; Saeki 2008/2015: 1, 4). As a result of his experience of working on diplomatic issues, Amenomori realised that there was a lack of qualified ts¯uji, and therefore he established the first educational system for their instruction. Consequently, in 1720 he directly negotiated with the Lord of Tsushima about the proposal, and highlighted the importance of an educational institute. It took him seven years to achieve his ambition because of the domain’s ¯ 2007: 47). However, at the age of 60, he finally financial crisis (Onishi established the institute for ts¯uji called Kangoshi (韓語司), in the capital of Tsushima, Izugara. This was the first public institute for ts¯uji in Japan, and it was based on examples in China and Korea (Kornicki 2018: 90). The institute made a considerable contribution to progress in Japanese– Korean diplomatic and commercial relations through its unique ts¯uji ¯ training (Onishi 2007: 46; Tashiro 2007: 179–181, 2008: 18, 2014: 386).

4 Amenomori Hosh ¯ u¯ and Chosen-ts ¯ uji ¯ …

75

Education requires a lot of money, time, and patience. Thus, the establishment of the institute at a time of financial crisis indicates that in the Tsushima domain ts¯uji were considered to be human resources who were deeply involved in top diplomatic secrets, and as mediators capable of improving the quality of communication with Korea (Tashiro 2007: 261). Interpreters are often regarded as ‘intermediaries’ (Pöchhacker 2016: 62) not only of languages, but also of their institutional and sociocultural positions; they are intermediaries of communication between two parties, whether these are people, institutions, or countries. Thus, interpreters are expected to understand the intentions and expectations of both sides, and to perform as active participants for mutual interest (Pöchhacker 2016: 62). In Early Modern Japan, Ch¯osen-ts¯uji functioned precisely as intermediaries. However, research concerning them is still a largely unexplored area. Hence, this chapter examines a case study of Ch¯osen-ts¯uji as intermediaries between Japan and Korea in the Early Modern period. In addition, it is noteworthy that Amenomori took a relative point of view regarding people, such as the Chinese and Korean and their cultures, and advocated for a concept of multiculturalism that is not dissimilar to the way it is understood today. Multiculturalism is defined as the notion that all people from any background have equal rights to social participation, and to be respected for their cultures, an entitlement that the majority of society enjoys (Matsuda 2013: 112). Amenomori can be regarded as a multiculturalist—a person who attributes much value to this notion. These beliefs resulted from his broad experience of living outside Japan and mingling with Korean people. In fact, he was the only intellectual in Japan during the Edo period who was fluent in foreign languages, including Chinese and Korean, and who had such substantial experience of intercultural communication, as it was strictly forbidden for the people of Japan to go abroad (Kamigaito 1989/1994: 4–9; Kornicki 2018: 91, 98). Amenomori stressed the importance of talking with one another on the basis of equality, and proposed that ts¯uji should deal with matters in all sincerity to develop a good bilateral relationship; this was regarded as ‘seishin no majiwari ’ (誠信の交わり to have a relationship with others in all sincerity) in Japanese. Nevertheless,

76

H. Furukawa

his achievement has not been discussed in the context of translation and interpreting studies. This research will investigate Ch¯osen-ts¯uji in the eighteenth century, focussing on the following three points: (1) the details of Amenomori’s educational system for ts¯uji; (2) Amenomori as a multiculturalist in Early Modern Japan; and (3) Amenomori’s concept of ‘seishin no majiwari’. Amenomori’s advanced way of thinking will be explored through his works, such as K¯orinteisei (交隣提醒) (1728/2014) and Tawaregusa (たはれ草) (1789/2000).

2

Amenomori and the Japanese–Korean Relationship During the Edo Period

Japan established diplomatic relations with Korea around the beginning of the fifteenth century, and the first two ports were opened to the Japanese delegates in 1423 (Kim 2015: 227, 2016: 25). However, Japan’s invasions of Korea disrupted these relations, and official connections were re-established in 1607 (Toby 2008: 15; Kim 2015: 227). During the Edo period, the two countries were able to maintain the best diplomatic relations for over 260 years, until the Meiji restoration (Tashiro 2011/2013: 6; Kim 2015: 227). This honeymoon period is called ‘zenrin y¯uk¯o no jidai’ (善隣友好の時代 a time of good-neighbour and friendship) (Tashiro 2011, 2013: 6). During this time, trade with Korea was also brisk, and many Korean medical texts and pharmaceuticals were imported to Japan. Ginseng plants were also popular import items, and were even smuggled by Korean envoys who visited Tsushima (Kornicki 2018: 91; Sakai 2021: 10, 62). As intermediaries, ts¯uji must have rendered great service in support of this good relationship. The centre of diplomacy and trade between Japan and Korea was situated in a Japanese town called Wakan (倭館 waegwan in Korean) in Korea, which the Korean dynasty established for Japanese delegations, envoys, ts¯uji, and traders in order to accommodate them and their trade. In comparison to the Chinese delegations, the Japanese made less frequent visits to Korea, and the town demonstrated that Japan was given

4 Amenomori Hosh ¯ u¯ and Chosen-ts ¯ uji ¯ …

77

a special right by the Korean dynasty (Kim 2015: 228). Initially, there were three ports: Pusanp’o, Jep’o, and Y˘omp’o (now called Busan, Jinhae, and Ulsan). The first two were founded in 1423, and the latter was established in 1426. After Japan’s invasions, the two ports of Jep’o and Y˘omp’o were closed, and only Pusanp’o was kept open to Japan (Kim 2016: 25– 26). In this period, Japan’s commercial affairs with the Dutch and the Chinese were handled in Nagasaki inside Japan. However, unlike these two countries, Japan’s diplomatic and commercial affairs with Korea took place in Korea. Busan was Japan’s only diplomatic outpost abroad at that time (Kamigaito 1989/1994: 4; Tashiro 2011/2013: 3; see also Chapters 2 and 3). The difference between these measures is striking even considering that Korea was the only country that had diplomatic relations with Japan at that time. This may imply the following two points: first, there were more frequent missions from Korea than from China and the Netherlands; and second, Korea wanted to manage affairs in Wakan to prevent Japan’s possible invasions. In 1678, the location of Wakan was moved from the central area to the larger southern area of Busan. The size of this area was about 330,000 square metres, and was 22 times larger than the port in Nagasaki, Dejima (出島), which is approximately 15,000 square metres. It is assumed that there were about 400–500 residents in, and usually 500–1,000 visitors to Wakan, including short-term visitors (Tsuruta 2006/2014: 60–62; ¯ Tashiro 2011/2013: 177; Ohira 2014: 22). Most of the residents came from the Tsushima domain. Given that the population of the domain at the time was around 300,000, 1.5% of the population was living in Wakan according to calculations (Tashiro 2011/2013: 177). The town not only had offices and accommodation for envoys and traders, but it also had a court and a house for Ch¯osen-ts¯uji. A record from 1726 states that 14 Ch¯osen-ts¯uji and one Ch¯osen-ts¯uji trainee were given residence permits in Wakan, as well as four doctors and 12 to 13 judges (Tashiro 2011/2013: 174–175). Amenomori’s linguistic ability in Chinese and Korean helped to improve the Japanese–Korean diplomatic relations (Kamigaito 1989/ 1994: 4–5). After he started working for the Tsushima domain in 1689, Amenomori was still in Edo, learning Chinese, and in particular a

78

H. Furukawa

spoken language called t¯oon (唐音) because he was going to work as a diplomatic negotiator. These negotiations involved writing diplomatic documents and reading letters and documents from Korea in Chinese; Chinese writing and reading skills would suffice, as a Chinese text could be given its Japanese reading. However, he gave priority to spoken Chinese over written Chinese despite the fact that there were few scholars who aimed to master t¯oon. With financial support from the Tsushima domain, he went and stayed in Nagasaki in 1692 to learn t¯oon from T¯o-ts¯uji (Japanese–Chinese interpreters) (Kamigaito 1989/1994: 60–61; Matsubara 2011: 10; Tashiro 2014: 310; Nobuhara 2015: 22, 50). In 1693, Amenomori moved to Tsushima, where he lived for the rest of his life. As soon as he moved to Tsushima and commenced negotiations with Korea, he realised the importance of communicating verbally in Korean to promote a better understanding of Korean people, even though there was a convention that official documents had to be written in Chinese, as indicated above. Amenomori twice stayed in Wakan in Busan to study Korean: from 1703 to 1704, and for eight months in 1705. The Tsushima domain was wealthy enough to support his stays in Busan. After about three years of hard work, he became fluent enough to interpret Korean, and accompanied the Korean diplomatic mission2 to visit the Tokugawa shogunate twice—in 1711 and 1719. He worked as a diplomat of the Tokugawa bakufu government (Kamigaito 1989/1994: ¯ 2007: 39–40; Matsubara 2011: 10–11; 60–62, 90–91, 211–213; Onishi Tashiro 2014: 310).

3

Amenomori’s Chosen-ts ¯ uji ¯ Institution Kangoshi

Amenomori made two important contributions to the education of ts¯uji. First, while he was learning Korean, he wrote 16 textbooks on Korean for Japanese learners. One of his textbooks is a collection of the actual use of words in Hangul, called K¯orinsuchi (交隣須知).3 This book was revised several times, and was used for about 200 years for the teaching of Korean (Kamigaito 1989/1994: 4–5, 94, 96–100). Second,

4 Amenomori Hosh ¯ u¯ and Chosen-ts ¯ uji ¯ …

79

as mentioned in the Introduction, in 1727 he established the first public ts¯uji institution in Japan, called Kangoshi (Kornicki 2017: 5). Amenomori expected competent ts¯uji to have three capabilities: intelligence, sincerity, and a dedication to the pursuit of learning. For him, intelligence was an ability to understand the fine points of diplomacy, to take proper steps to meet the situation, and to deal with affairs appropriately. Sincerity is exactly what Amenomori proposed with phrase ‘seishin no majiwari’. Finally, for him the pursuit of learning did not simply mean language acquisition, but also involved being well-versed in historical events, traditions, and precedents (Tashiro 2007: 160). Thus, the institute aimed to develop Ch¯osen-ts¯uji who were well-educated, familiar with the Korean situation, able to uphold morality, and who could give devoted service to the Lord (Kamigaito 1989/1994: 4–5). The institute was established because of a shortage of Ch¯osen-ts¯uji. When the Tokugawa shogunate welcomed a diplomatic mission from Korea in 1719, there was a need for about 50 competent Ch¯osen-ts¯uji. However, many of the ts¯uji were merchants who had been temporarily employed, and they were unable to read and write in Hangul, even though they were able to converse with Korean people (Tashiro 2014: 335; Kornicki 2018: 91–92). The record of a Korean interpreting official who accompanied the 1719 mission (Shin 1974/2015) contains a description of Amenomori becoming angry with the ts¯uji over their inadequate abilities when performing their interpreting jobs. Another anecdote reveals that no one could translate from Japanese into Korean ¯ 2007: when Amenomori became ill (Shin 1974/2015: 47, 196; Onishi 40). Furthermore, there was another reason for the lack of proficient ts¯uji—the merchants’ eagerness to learn Korean had decreased in the eighteenth century in parallel with the decline of trade with Korea. There had been high prosperity in the 1690s, but this time was soon over (Tashiro 2017: 158). Welcoming the diplomatic mission was a grand and important project for the representatives and officials of the Tsushima domain because they took the leading role of taking care of the delegation and interpreting their discourse. The diplomatic mission travelled about 3,000 kilometres from Korea to Japan, by ship and on foot, which usually took them 6–9 months for the round trip. Although the mission was composed

80

H. Furukawa

of 300–500 people, more than 4,000 were involved, including men who carried the mission’s luggage (Toby 2008: 49; Tashiro 2014: 349; Nagahamashi Nagahamaj¯o Rekishi Hakubutsukan & Takatsuki Kannonnosato Minzoku Shiry¯okan 2015: 12–13). For the 1719 mission, 47 Ch¯osen-ts¯uji were chosen from the Tsushima domain. However, only seven of them were professional ts¯uji, and the others were only engaged to render temporary services (Tashiro 2007: 151–153). The ts¯uji institute was set up with another intention. There was a huge gap in the social status and education between Ch¯osen-ts¯uji and the Korean interpretation officers (Tashiro 2014: 330; Kim 2015: 226). The Korean officers had to pass the state civil service examination, y˘okkwa, which ‘tested candidates’ skills in reading, reciting, commenting, and translating canonical classical Chinese texts, practical conversation, and familiarity with the Code of Governance’ (Kim 2015: 226). They were required to learn written and oral skills in languages such as Chinese, Mongolian, Jurchen, and Japanese, as well as acquiring a good knowledge of canonical texts and politics (Tashiro 2007: 154, 2014: 330; Kim 2015: 226; Nobuhara 2015: 99). Most of the officers were from the class that was just below the gentry, called yangban (両班) (Tashiro 2014: 330). In contrast, ts¯uji were merchants who acquired their language abilities through their family businesses. They were not officials, and only provided their skills when the domain needed them (Tashiro 2007: 153– 154, 2014: 335). Consequently, the institute also aimed to improve the social status of the ts¯uji, and to better understand Korea and its customs (Tashiro 2014: 385–386). Amenomori submitted a proposal to urge the Lord of Tsushima to meet the needs for qualified ts¯uji to ensure progress in Japanese–Korean diplomatic and commercial relations. His plan was to set up an educational system based on the institution. Initially, 10 boys, aged between 13 and 15, drawn from the sons of the privileged class of the Tsushima domain, were to be chosen and sent to Korea to study until they were 23 years old (Ueda 2011: 150). The privileged class was called Rokuj¯unin Sh¯onin (‘六十人’商人 the sixty merchants), which consisted of 60 merchant families who were allowed by the domain to engage in foreign trade. The families were in positions as elevated as samurai (also called bushi, the warrior class during

4 Amenomori Hosh ¯ u¯ and Chosen-ts ¯ uji ¯ …

81

the Edo period) in other domains. During this period, and in other domains, samurai accrued profits from farmers’ labour. However, there was not enough cultivated area on Tsushima Island. In fact, only 3% of the land was suitable for farming, 0.8% was used for housing, and 88% of the island was covered by mountains and forests (Nobuhara 2015: 33). Therefore, the domain’s people had to make a living by trading, and only the privileged class was granted permission to monopolise the profit from foreign trade (Tashiro 2011/2013: 3; Nobuhara 2015: 33). To be eligible to apply to the institution, there were two conditions: first, the applicant had to be a son of Rokuj¯unin Sh¯onin; and second, they had to be aged between 13 and 15. The first students to enter the institute were 39 boys who were aged from 9 to 17. The institute accepted younger and older boys than those that Amenomori initially expected, but the main age bracket was between 12 and 15 years old. Classes were taught from around 8 am for about three hours, as the students helped their family business after schooling. They had to attend classes every day except for Bon holidays—the Japanese traditional summer holidays— and the year-end and New Year holidays. The students took three years to finish the course (Tashiro 2007: 163–165, 2008: 17–18). The course aimed to qualify ts¯uji not only in oral communication but also in reading and writing in Hangul. Although most ts¯uji were competent in spoken Korean from their daily practice as merchants, many of them were unable to read the written language. Therefore, nine days in every month were used for discussions on given topics and translations from Japanese into Korean, and the reading of Korean texts, including novels. These nine days were regarded as ‘days for thinking together’, and if a student was absent for one of these days, then points were deducted at a rate that was triple that of other days. Thus, the ability to discuss, translate, and read was considered to be highly important in order to become a proficient ts¯uji. An evaluation was made based on the student’s attendance and regular exams. In the institute, there were three types of teachers. First, there was one full-time lecturer who taught regular classes. Then, all ts¯uji in active service in Tsushima had to attend the discussions, the reading classes, and regular examinations. This was meant to improve the skills of ts¯uji in reading and writing, as well as to train students.

82

H. Furukawa

One assistant lecturer helped the full-time lecturer in class (Tashiro 2007: 166–171, 178–179, 2008: 17–18; Kornicki 2017: 5, 2018: 91). As for the graduates, not all of them became professional ts¯uji; some became experts in trade. Among the 39 students of the first intake, 20 finished the whole course, 51% of the entire cohort. Meanwhile, 14 students—35%—hoped to continue their studies, including studying in Wakan. Only seven students became ts¯uji—which is 18%. Except for the seven ts¯uji, the other students chose to engage in foreign trade. They achieved good results as official traders from the domain because of their proficiency in Korean and business ability (Tashiro 2007: 171– 172, 2008: 18). There may have been financial reasons for their chosen career paths given that ts¯uji were not well paid. Amenomori tried to improve their income, and in 1729, the income of the highest rank of ts¯uji became about the same as that of the town bailiffs (Tashiro 2007: 172–175). There were six conditions to become a ts¯uji, which were as follows ¯ (Onishi 2007: 43): (1) good marks for class participation, (2) good marks in the final examination, (3) good health, (4) they were not the eldest sons of their family because eldest sons are supposed to take over the family business, (5) they needed to be good-natured, and (6) they hoped to become a ts¯uji. From these conditions, it can be seen that Amenomori prioritised honesty and dedication to the job of interpreting, as well as taking into account their language ability. Ch¯osen-ts¯uji dealt with a wide range of tasks, and performed the role of diplomats of the Tokugawa bakufu government in order to solve various problems that occurred between Japan and Korea. Some ts¯uji were sent to Wakan in Busan, or to Nagasaki and stayed for one or two years, mainly in order to carry out these four tasks: (1) to take part in seasonal events and celebrations, (2) to perform diplomatic protocol when welcoming Korean envoys (this was eight times a year in Wakan), as well as dealing with other visits from Koreans for events such as trials, arising from trade and diplomacy, (3) to repatriate Korean castaways, and (4) to solve troubles and crimes involving Japanese and Korean people (Sakai 2021: 132, 151–155). As Amenomori writes in K¯orinteisei , ‘通

4 Amenomori Hosh ¯ u¯ and Chosen-ts ¯ uji ¯ …

83

詞より切要成役人ハ無之候’ (there are no government officials more important than ts¯uji) (Amenomori 1728/2014: 205, my translation), thus ts¯uji did indeed function as important intermediaries between the two countries.

4

Amenomori as a Multiculturalist in the Eighteenth Century

It is worth emphasising that Amenomori developed a highly advanced idea for the time, which could be regarded as multiculturalism by today’s standard (Nakao 2007/2017: 187–188). He claimed not to look at other cultures with preconceived notions, and was determined to respect other cultures. His awareness and respect for other cultures is noteworthy in translation and interpreting studies, and we should not overlook the fact that the way that he saw things was very different from other scholars of the same period. For example, one of the most influential Japanese Confucian scholars, Ogy¯u Sorai (荻生徂徠, 1666–1728), believed in China’s supreme power, and regarded China as superior to Japan, asserting the absolute power of the Chinese empire over all other Asian countries. Motoori Norinaga (本居宣長, 1730–1801), one of the most famous and influential Japanese scholars who studied Japanese classics including Murasaki Shikibu’s The Tale of Genji, was a striking contrast to Ogy¯u in his understanding the world—Motoori respected ancient Japanese culture too much to get rid of his prejudice towards other cultures (Kamigaito 1989/1994: 8). Unlike these scholars, Amenomori was deeply involved in diplomatic negotiations with Korea and Korean people, and realised the importance of respecting the differences in customs, laws, and cultures. These experiences gave him a very different perspective on other people and cultures, and engendered in him the belief that all people and their cultures had equal value, including their language (Kamigaito 1989/1994: 4–5). Hence, Amenomori advocated the importance of viewing things relatively without holding onto any preconceived notions. From the way that he perceived the world, it can be proposed that Amenomori was a kind of eighteenth-century multiculturalist. This section will explore his

84

H. Furukawa

advanced way of thinking through his books, such as K¯orinteisei (1728/ 2014) and Tawaregusa (1789/2000). In the early 1970s in Canada and Australia, multiculturalism was proposed as a government policy to meet the needs of people with various ethnic and cultural backgrounds (Kawai 2010/2016: 168). This is based on the idea that all people and cultures are of equal value, thus contradicting the notion of ethnocentrism. There are two essential points inherent in this idea that could lead to social reform, and they are as follows (Kawai 2010/2016: 169). First, multiculturalism aims to encourage various people to live together. To achieve this goal, reforms of the legal and social systems and political and economic structure are required. Second, multiculturalism questions whether the values or ideas of the majority are always right. Even in Early Modern Japan, Amenomori had a profound awareness which started growing, and which finally came to be considered multiculturalism in the 1970s. In order to promote the first point of multiculturalism, and to reform the legal and social systems and political and economic structure, Amenomori made the following two contributions: (1) he instituted the training of ts¯uji, and established an education system intended to achieve a better understanding of the Korean people, their culture and language; and (2) to ensure fairness and good-neighbour diplomacy, he persuaded the Lord of Tsushima to make detailed diplomatic records. Diplomatic negotiations at that time were conducted based on memory rather than official records. This lack of records sometimes put Japan in a disadvantageous position (Tashiro 2014: 320). After Amenomori’s reforms, details of any issues, even trivial matters, such as frequent quarrels in Wakan, had to be inscribed in the official records (Tashiro 2011/2013: 179). As a result, a massive amount of material was created by the Tsushima domain. The Korean office of the domain collected copies of letters, correspondence, journals, records, and notes which were made during diplomatic and trade negotiations. This resulted in 157 compilations being made as a record of the period between 1634 and 1838, which covers most of the Edo period. Today,

4 Amenomori Hosh ¯ u¯ and Chosen-ts ¯ uji ¯ …

85

149 compilations still exist (Tashiro 2007: 237–258, 262, 2014: 387– 388). This period of rich records was later called ‘kiroku no jidai’ (記録 の時代 a time of records) (Ch¯o 1968). With regard to the second issue—namely that the values or ideas of either the minority or the majority have an equal value and right— Amenomori emphasised two important points in his works. First, he advocated that no country was better than any other. In his conception, if a country holds itself to be superior to another country, then the people have an inflated sense of morality. Second, he claimed that every culture had to be respected. He took the example of alcohol, observing that Japanese people consider Japanese sake (alcohol) to be the best, while Korean people think that theirs is the best. In his opinion, people tend to be biased towards the customs and culture of their kin. Next, Amenomori’s works will be quoted to explore the way that he saw other people and cultures. The first extract is from his writing Tawaregusa (1789/2000): (1) 世の中はあひもちなりといやしき諺にいへるまことに道にか なへる言葉なるべし都ありても鄙なければその国立ちがたきが ごとく中国ありても夷狄なければ生育の道あまねからず薬材器 用をはじめ大事小事ともにたがひにたすくる事多し国のたふと きいやしきとは君子小人の多きと少なきと風俗のよしあしとに こそよるべき中国に生れたりとて誇るべきにもあらずまた夷狄 に生れたりとて恥づべきにしもあらず (Amenomori 1789/2000: 47)4 It is proverbial that the world is a community of mutual aid, which indeed makes sense. A country cannot exist only with the capital, and it needs the provinces to develop as a country. Like this, China cannot develop itself as a great country without neighbour barbarians. Many things, whether they are big or small, need mutual aid, such as procurement of ingredients and utensils for natural drugs. To judge whether a country is superior or not, we must see if the people are respectable, and they have a better sense of morality. Even if you were born in China, it does not mean that you can be proud of it. Also, if you were born in a minor country, you do not have to put yourself down. (My translation)

86

H. Furukawa

Here, Amenomori mentions that there is no superiority or inferiority between countries, even though there may be differences in political, economic, or cultural power. People are equal in all respects, and what makes them different is only people’s sense of morality. If many people from a nation behave with dignity, then the country should be considered superior. At that time, in many respects, China had absolute power in Asia, including in politics, trading, culture, and philosophy, and it was common for China to consider people in other countries as backward and inferior. In fact, China called its neighbouring countries disparaging names. As Amenomori writes ‘夷狄’ in the extraction above, these countries are written as T¯oi (東夷 east barbarians), Seij¯u (西戎 west barbarians), Nanban (南蛮 south barbarians), and Hokuteki (北狄 north barbarians). All of these names signify barbarous backward nations that are outside the enlightenment of Confucian influence, and Japan was called T¯oi (Nagahamashi Nagahamaj¯o Rekishi Hakubutsukan & Takatsuki Kannonnosato Minzoku Shiry¯okan 2015: 69). In terms of the state of affairs of this period, we can see how remarkable it was for Amenomori to have laid great emphasis on multicultural coexistence. Amenomori also wrote about the importance of being conscious of the risks of our preconceived notions and preferences. He saw other cultures relatively, which enabled him to respect different ones. The following passages are excerpted from his book K¯orinteisei (1728/2014), which was submitted to the Lord of Tsushima as advice (Tashiro 2014: 311–312). The Lord of Tsushima looked up to Amenomori as his mentor (Tashiro 2014: 311), and his words must have influenced the Lord. In extracts (2) and (3), Amenomori writes that it is natural for people to have different cultures and preferences. If we ignore the differences and judge things from a one-sided perspective, then we will not be able to understand each other. In extract (4), Amenomori shows a sense of humour, and uses people’s preference for alcohol to describe our tendency to think that our own culture is better than others: (2) 日本与朝鮮とハ諸事風儀違ひ嗜好も夫ニ應し違ひ候故左様之 所ニ勘弁無之日本之風儀を以朝鮮人へ交候而ハ事ニより喰違候 事多ク有之候 (Amenomori 1728/2014: 210)5

4 Amenomori Hosh ¯ u¯ and Chosen-ts ¯ uji ¯ …

87

There are differences in many things, such as customs between Japanese and Korean people. Our preferences are also different. Therefore, if we mingle with Korean people without any consideration for their differences, and judge them by Japanese conventions, then misunderstanding and inconsistencies will often happen. (My translation) (3) 日本朝鮮嗜好風儀之違候所ニ日本之嗜好風儀を以朝鮮人之事 を察し候而ハ必ハ了簡違ニ成可申候 (Amenomori 1728/2014: 213–214)6 Because Japanese and Korean people have different preferences and customs, we will surely misunderstand Korean people if we perceive them by our preferences and customs. (My translation) (4) 朝鮮人之口合ニハ朝鮮酒よ路しく唐人之口合ニハ唐酒よ路し く紅毛夷之口合ニハ阿刺吉ちんたよ路しく候段自然之道理ニ而 候 (Amenomori 1728/2014: 215)7 It is reasonable that Korean people prefer Korean alcohol, Chinese people prefer Chinese alcohol, and Dutch people prefer Dutch alcohol, arak, or wine from Portugal, tinta. (My translation)

Amenomori illustrates some other examples to explain that Japanese customs, such as behaviours and appearances, can seem to be barbaric to Korean people, and vice versa. For example, he picks up on male workers’ clothes—Japanese people who are naked except for their loincloths look uncivilised to Korean people who are influenced by Confucianism (Amenomori 1728/2014: 52; Shiba 2008/2012: 139–140; Tashiro 2014: 388–389). It should be noted that both people in Korea and Japan did not regard each other as equals despite the fact that these countries officially had an equal diplomatic relationship (Toby 2008: 50). The Korean people considered the Japanese to be barbarians (Toby 2008: 51; Kim 2016: 17); while the Japanese tended to use intimidation to make demands

88

H. Furukawa

in diplomatic or trading negotiations, and Korean people despised this behaviour (Tsuruta 2006/2014: 95–96). The Korean people’s perception of the Japanese as barbarians can be seen in the name Wakan. Wakan means ‘Japanese house’ in both Korean and Japanese, and there were two expressions in writing: 倭館 and 和館. The word 倭 from the former expression stands for the Japanese in Korean and Chinese. It is a derogatory expression that means a shorty race (Shiba 2008/2012: 22). The Japanese avoided this expression and preferred to use 和館 instead because the word 和 does not have any negative connotations (Tsuruta 2006/2014: 41). Even though the equal diplomatic relationship between the two countries during the Edo period is demonstrated in the manner of address in the diplomatic letters (Tashiro 2011/2013: 92), the way in which Wakan was written shows that the Korean and Chinese people did not see the Japanese people as equal. Taking this notion of individuals in the two countries into consideration, it is admirable that Amenomori wrote these passages at that time. His remarkably fair attitude is symbolically represented in the title of his book K¯orinteisei , which means ‘to clarify what is a goodneighbour relationship’ (Tsuruta 2006/2014: 94) or ‘to excite attention to communication with Korea’ (Tashiro 2014: 312).

5

Amenomori’s Belief in ‘seishin no majiwari’

Based on the multicultural perspective that was explored earlier, Amenomori proposed a new attitude in diplomatic and merchant relationships between Japan and Korea, which is well expressed in the phrase ‘seishin no majiwari ’ (誠信の交わり). ‘Seishin’ (誠信) means ‘sincerity’ in English, while ‘no’ (の) is a postpositional word that functions as an auxiliary to a main word, meaning ‘of ’, and ‘majiwari ’ (交わり) means ‘relationship with others’. In other words, ‘seishin no majiwari’ literally means ‘to have a relationship with others in all sincerity’. An extract from Amenomori’s book K¯orinteisei (1728/2014) follows:

4 Amenomori Hosh ¯ u¯ and Chosen-ts ¯ uji ¯ …

89

(5) 誠信と申候ハ実意と申事ニて互ニ不レ 欺カ 不レ 争ハ 真実を以 交り候を誠信と盤申候 (Amenomori 1728/2014: 304) Seishin means sincerity. We have to avoid deceiving and disputing, and try to have a relationship with others in all sincerity. (My translation)

The expression ‘seishin’ was often used in official documents between the two countries during the Edo period (Tashiro 2014: 312). However, the word was only used habitually rather than sincerely, and the spirit of ‘seishin no majiwari’ was not found in the Japanese–Korean relationship. The people in Tsushima knew the meaning of ‘seishin’, and yet they still deceived and argued when negotiating with Korean government officials and traders (Nakao 2007/2017: 188–189). Therefore, by redefining the phrase, Amenomori advocated for people to understand the true meaning of this expression, and to deny the diplomatic policy of negotiation by intimidation (Kamigaito 1989/1994: 8). For Amenomori, ‘seishin’ is primarily to know the situation between the two countries. It is important to thoroughly understand the issues in diplomacy and trading, to analyse these issues, and then to try and prepare the best scheme (Tashiro 2014: 313). Amenomori actually writes in K¯orinteisei as follows: (6) 人ニ寄候而ハ言語さへよく通候へハ相済候と存候へとも聊以 左様ニてハ無之候人柄もよ路しく才角有之義理を弁へ上之事を 大切ニ存候者ニて無之候而ハ誠の御用ニ立候通詞と盤難申 (Amenomori 1728/2014: 205)8 Some people think that interpreting only needs language skills, however this is not true at all. It requires a person of great personality, resource, courtesy, and a respect for their lord. Without meeting these requirements, they will never be called a ts¯uji. (My translation)

Here, Amenomori argues that moral qualities, such as great personality, resource, courtesy, and respect for their lord comes before language skills.

90

H. Furukawa

He expected ts¯uji to work as intermediaries between Japan and Korea, or between the Tsushima domain and Korea, and thus ts¯uji had to be individuals of great personality. The importance of moral qualities for interpreters has been discussed for a long time—since the 1930s—in interpreting studies. In these discussions, professional interpreters are required to have moral qualities as well as linguistic and cognitive abilities, including high morality, honesty, a conscience, and trustworthiness (Pöchhacker 2016: 164). Hence, Amenomori had a highly advanced belief in educating ts¯uji. This belief resonates with that of Tei Junsoku (程順則, 1663–1734), a contemporary Ryukyuan–Chinese ts¯uji and an educator in Ryukyu. He introduced a Chinese moral education book called Rikuyu Engi (六諭衍義 Six Morals Explained) to Ryukyu, and eventually to all of Japan (see Chapter 5 for details). This belief of ‘seishin no majiwari ’ influenced ts¯uji at that time. This can be seen in the writing of Oda Isogor¯o (小田磯五郎, 1755–1832). One of Oda’s books is about conversations with three close Korean interpreting officers, and it includes some matters that were confidential to Korea. Oda made a note with regard to this book to confirm that it could never be made public. This note shows that Oda tried to keep safe the most valuable secrets that the Korean interpreters had confided in him. Even the book had been kept a secret (Tashiro 2017: 473–474). In addition, letters from Oda to these three interpreting officers have been found; they show that Oda worked with them sincerely, as Amenomori had advocated (Tashiro 2014: 490–491).

6

Conclusion

This chapter has explored a historical case study of Ch¯osen-ts¯uji in the eighteenth century, focussing on the contributions of Amenomori H¯osh¯u to the education of ts¯uji and to Japan’s relationship with Korea. The institute for Ch¯osen-ts¯uji, Kangoshi, was the first public educational system and followed the model established by China and Korea. Based on Amenomori’s experiences of the problems caused by the lack of proficient ts¯uji to serve in diplomatic and merchant affairs, the institute provided education not only for language learning, but also for the acquisition of

4 Amenomori Hosh ¯ u¯ and Chosen-ts ¯ uji ¯ …

91

intelligence, sincerity, and the pursuit of learning, which were essential factors that Amenomori expected of ts¯uji. To Amenomori, ts¯uji should be professionals who could understand the finer points of diplomacy including historical events, traditions, and precedents; who could take proper steps to address the situation and deal with affairs in all sincerity. As mentioned in Sect. 5, the fact that Amenomori emphasised personality more than language ability should not be underrated. He attached a great deal of importance to moral qualities in the education of ts¯uji, as the training of interpreters does today. This institute served a crucial function to provide ts¯uji. It also played a key role in the improvement of the social status of ts¯uji, which was lower than that of Korean interpreting officers. Moreover, the establishment of this institute shows that the Tsushima domain understood the value of ts¯uji and their role as ‘intermediaries’ for the domain, and thus for Japan and Korea. Amenomori’s multicultural point of view is another issue worthy of mention. Unlike other scholars in Early Modern Japan, Amenomori had a much wider perspective on the world, and perceived different nations to be on the same footing. He also claimed that understanding the differences of culture and tradition is the start of a better relationship, although people tend to prefer their own culture and tradition. This means that Amenomori insisted on the role of ts¯uji as cultural mediators, who ‘smooth over cultural differences’ (Pöchhacker 2016: 170), by understanding and respecting these differences. In any field of interpreting, it is considered ideal that interpreters serve as cultural mediators as well as linguistic mediators (Pöchhacker 2016: 170). Thus, Amenomori’s claim was indeed revolutionary. Based on these completely new ways of thinking, he achieved a reform of the circumstances of ts¯uji, and urged the domain of Tsushima, which he worked for, to make detailed diplomatic and commercial records. These efforts created the time of records. As a result, Japan and Korea had a time of good-neighbour and friendship for 260 years. It is hoped that this research has shed light on Amenomori H¯osh¯u and Ch¯osen-ts¯uji in Early Modern Japan so that their distinguished contributions will be properly appreciated.

92

H. Furukawa

Notes 1. The military commander Toyotomi Hideyoshi (豊臣秀吉, 1537–1598), who had conquered Japan, and who had an ambition to conquer China, invaded Korea in order to subjugate it. Although he sent 160,000 soldiers in 1592 and 140,000 soldiers in 1597, Japan was defeated after Toyotomi died from a disease in 1598 (Toby 2008: 34–37). 2. The diplomatic missions from Korea are called Ch¯osen ts¯ushinshi (朝鮮 通信使). From 1607 to 1811, 12 missions each ranging from 328 to 504 people came to Edo, Japan. The purpose of these journeys was to reestablish diplomatic relations, by exchanging official letters between the Korean Empire and a Japanese shogun to celebrate Japan’s new shogun or the birth of a future shogun. For the first three missions, the aim was also to return Korean captives, and these were called Kait¯okensatsukanshi (回答兼刷還使 missions to respond and recapture) (Nakao 2007/2017: 46–53; Nagahamashi Nagahamaj¯o Rekishi Hakubutsukan & Takatsuki Kannonnosato Minzoku Shiry¯okan 2015: 10–11). Domestically, the missions were used to impress the Imperial Court, feudal lords, and the people, as well as to display the power of the shogun (Toby 2008: 34). For the Koreans, the missions were a good opportunity to gather information, including on confidential matters (Kim 2016: 25–26). In fact, the Korean delegation were instructed to ‘collect geographical, climatic and military information, observe and record the four ceremonial occasions, namely coming of age, weddings, funerals, and ancestral rites in Japan and in Ryukyu’ (Kim 2016: 26), and also to ‘collect information regarding the genealogy of the Japanese royal family, their customs and the rules of the court’ (Kim 2016: 26). Despite the frequent visits of the mission from Korea, no Japanese diplomatic delegation was allowed to visit the capital of Korea, Hanseongbu (Toby 2008: 134), or even to venture out of Wakan (Yoshida 2004: 20). 3. There are dissenting views as to whether Amenomori compiled the textbook K¯orinsuchi himself (Kim 2010: 113; Nobuhara 2015: 120). 4. In this quotation, the old forms of Chinese characters are replaced with modern alternatives (Mizuta 2000: vi). 5. The Chinese character 違 is the modern equivalent expression of the word used in the original text. 6. As above, the Chinese character 違 is used in this quotation. 7. There were kana syllables written alongside the Chinese characters 紅毛 夷 and 阿刺吉: オランダ (oranda) and アラキ (araki).

4 Amenomori Hosh ¯ u¯ and Chosen-ts ¯ uji ¯ …

93

8. The Chinese characters 済 and 弁 are the modern equivalent expressions of the words used in the original text.

References Amenomori, H. (1728/2014) K¯orinteisei [To Excite Attention to Communication with Korea]. Annotated by K. Tashiro. Tokyo: Heibonsha. Amenomori, H. (1789/2000) ‘Tawaregusa [A Memoir for Fun].’ In Jinsai Nissatsu, Tawaregusa, Fujingen, Fudenoshusabi, Mukauky¯o [Jinsai’s Journal, A Memoir for Fun, Impossible to Express Fully, My Pen Got Rusty, An Empty and Vast Land]. Annotated by U. Hajime, N. Mizuta and T. Hino. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. 37–134. Ch¯o, M. (1968) ‘Nitch¯okankei ni okeru Kiroku no Jidai [A Time of Records in the Japan–Korea Relationship].’ T¯oy¯ogakuh¯o, 50(4), 70–124. Kamigaito, K. (1989/1994) Amenomori H¯osh¯u: Genroku Ky¯oho no Kokusaijin [Amenomori H¯osh¯u: An Internationally-Minded Person in Genroku Ky¯oho]. Tokyo: Chu¯ok¯oron. Kawai, Y. (2010/2016) ‘Tabunkashugi [Multiculturalism].’ In R. Ikeda (ed.) Yokuwakaru Komyunik¯eshongaku [Introducing Communication Studies]. Kyoto: Minerva Shob¯o. 168–169. Kim, N. H. (2015) ‘Korea.’ In F. Pöchhacker (ed.) Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies. London and New York: Routledge. 224–228. Kim, N. H. (2016) ‘Official Interpreters and the Foreign Policy of the Ch˘oson Dynasty (14th–16th Centuries).’ In L. D’hulst, C. O’Sullivan and M. Schreiber (eds.) Politics, Policy and Power in Translation History. Berlin: Frank & Timme. 15–31. Kim, W. (2010) ‘Amenomori H¯osh¯u’s Chos˘on Language School in Tsushima.’ Sungkyun Journal of East Asian Studies, 10(1), 113–135. Kornicki, P. F. (2017) ‘Speaking Foreign Languages in Pre-modern Japan.’ Asia Japan Journal , 12, 1–15. Kornicki, P. F. (2018) Languages, Scripts, and Chinese Texts in East Asia. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Matsubara, I. (2011) Tsushima de Katsuyaku Shita Edojidai no Kokusaijin: Amenomori H¯osh¯u no Sh¯ogai [An Internationally-minded Person in

94

H. Furukawa

Tsushima in the Edo Period: The Life of Amenomori H¯osh¯u]. Nagasaki: K¯orinsha Shuppan Kikaku. Matsuda, Y. (2013) ‘Tabunkashugi [Multiculturalism].’ In S. Ishii and T. Kume (representative eds.) Ibunka Komyunik¯eshon Jiten [Encyclopedia of Intercultural Communication]. Yokohama: Shunp¯usha. 112–113. Mizuta, N. (2000) ‘A User’s Guide.’ In Jinsai Nissatsu, Tawaregusa, Fujingen, Fudenoshusabi, Mukauky¯o [Jinsai’s Journal, A Memoir for Fun, Impossible to Express Fully, My Pen Got Rusty, An Empty and Vast Land]. Annotated by U. Hajime, N. Mizuta and T. Hino. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. v–vii. Nagahamashi Nagahamaj¯o Rekishi Hakubutsukan & Takatsuki Kannonnosato Minzoku Shiry¯okan (eds.) (2015) Amenomori H¯osh¯u to Ch¯osen Ts¯ushinshi: Mirai o Terasu Kory¯u no Isan [Amenomori H¯osh¯u and Joseon Missions to Japan: The Legacy of Interchange to Light the Future]. Shiga: Sanraizu Shuppan. Nakao, H. (2007/2017) Ch¯osen Ts¯ushinshi: Edo Nihon no Seishin Gaik¯o [Joseon Missions to Japan: Sincere Diplomacy in the Edo Period]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Nobuhara, O. (2015) Amenomori H¯osh¯u: Ch¯osengaku no Tenkai to Zen Shis¯o [Amenomori H¯osh¯u: The Development of Korean Studies and Zen Philosophy]. Tokyo: Akashi Shuppan. ¯ Ohira, T. (2014) ‘Nagasaki Dejima ni okeru Fukugenseihi no Keii to Mondaiten [The Process and Problems in the Restoration Project of Dejima Historic Site, Nagasaki City].’ The Historical Geography, 56(1), 21–31. ¯ Onishi, H. (2007) ‘Edo Jidai no Ts¯uyakusha Ky¯oikuron [A Theory of Interpreter Education in the Edo Period].’ Collection of Papers of K¯obe Jogakuin, 54(1), 37–50. Pöchhacker, F. (2016) Introducing Interpreting Studies (Second Edition). London and New York: Routledge. Saeki, K. (2008/2015) Tsushima to Kaiky¯o no Ch¯useishi [The History of the Middle Ages of the Tsushima Strait]. Tokyo: Yamakawa Shuppansha. Sakai, M. (2021) Kinsei Nitch¯o Kankei to Tsushima Han [Early Modern Japanese–Korean Relationship and the Tsushima Domain]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K¯obunkan. Shiba, R. (2008/2012) Kaid¯o o Yuku 2: Kan no Kuni Kik¯o [Going Along the Highway: A Trip to Korea]. Tokyo: Asahi Shuppansha. Shin, Y. (1974/2015) Kaiy¯uroku: Ch¯osen Ts¯ushinshi no Nihonkik¯o [A Travelogue to Japan of a Joseon Mission]. Translated and annotated by J. O. Kan. Tokyo: Heibonsha.

4 Amenomori Hosh ¯ u¯ and Chosen-ts ¯ uji ¯ …

95

Tashiro, K. (2007) Nitch¯o B¯oeki to Tsushima Han [Japan’s Trade with Korea and the Tsushima Domain]. Tokyo: S¯obunsha. Tashiro, K. (2008) ‘Tsushima Han no Chosen-ts¯uji Y¯oseijo [The Institute for Japanese–Korean Interpreters in the Tsushima Domain].’ S¯okan, 506, 15– 18. Tashiro, K. (2011/2013) Shin Wakan: Sakoku Jidai no Nihonjingai [New Wakan: The Japanese Town in the Period of National Isolation]. Tokyo: Yumani Shob¯o. Tashiro, K. (2014) ‘Kaisetsu: K¯orinteisei ga Kataru Nitch¯ok¯ory¯u no Jittai [A Commentary: The Actual State of the Japan–Korea Relations K¯orinteisei Tells Us].’ In H. Amenomori, K¯orinteisei. Annotated by K. Tashiro. Tokyo: Heibonsha. 307–401. Tashiro, K. (2017) Kinsei Nitch¯o K¯ory¯ushi S¯osho 1 Ts¯uyaku Sh¯usaku [Historical Records on Japan–Korea Relations in Early Modern Times Vol. 1 Interpreters’ Conversations]. Tokyo: Yumani Shob¯o. Toby, R. (2008) Zensh¯u Nihon no Rekishi Dai 9 Kan: “Sakoku” to iu Gaik¯o [A Collection of Japanese History, Vol. 9: Diplomacy as “Isolation Policy”]. Tokyo: Shogakukan. Tsuruta, K. (2006/2014) Tsushima kara Mita Nitch¯okankei [The Japan–Korea Relationship Through the Tsushima Domain]. Tokyo: Yamakawa Shuppansha. Ueda, M. (2011) Amenomori H¯osh¯u. Kyoto: Minerva Shob¯o. Yoshida, M. (2004) ‘Ch¯osenhant¯o ni Shiten o Oitemiru [Seeing from the Korean Perspective]’ In M. Yoshida (ed.) Nikkanch¯u no K¯ory¯u [The Interchange Between Japan, Korea and China]. Tokyo: Yamakawa Shuppansha. 5–26.

5 The Roles of Ryukyuan–Chinese tsuji ¯ in Early Eighteenth-Century Ryukyu Mino Saito

1

Introduction

This chapter and Chapter 6 are on ts¯uji in the Ryukyu Kingdom, one of the four gateways or trade and communication channels (see Chapter 1), which had functioned as a significant intersection between Japan and other Asian countries, including China, in the Early Modern era, and between Japan and the Western countries after the end of the eighteenth century. Chapter 6 focuses on ts¯uji in the latter context, and this chapter concentrates on the former context. This chapter presents a historical case study on Tei Junsoku (程順則, 1663–1734), a Ryukyuan–Chinese ts¯uji (通事 interpreter) who introduced Chinese moral education in the Ryukyu Kingdom and Japan. People in the kingdom who served as ts¯uji generally performed other duties, too, such as negotiations with Chinese officials and pursuing Chinese studies rather than working only on oral M. Saito (B) Juntendo University, Tokyo, Japan e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Saito and M. Sato (eds.), Ts¯uji, Interpreters in and Around Early Modern Japan, Translation History, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37652-8_5

97

98

M. Saito

translation. Tei also played multiple roles, including those of an interpreter, diplomat, educator, and scholar, connecting Chinese culture to those of Ryukyu and Japan. His legacy is based on his contributions to the field of education, in particular. He is remembered as “the great person in education” (Iha and Majikina 1916/2015), and this chapter will focus on Tei as an educator, in addition to his role as a ts¯uji. His work greatly affected Ryukyu, and even Japan, particularly in the context of moral education. He contributed to moral education in Ryukyu and Japan by introducing a Chinese moral education book titled Rikuyu Engi (六諭衍義 Six Morals Explained, Liuyu Yanyi [Chinese]) in those regions. As this historical case study focuses on Tei, who served in Ryukyu and China, Ryukyu’s economic and diplomatic contexts in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries need to be considered. Specifically, we need to focus on the tributary relationships between the Ming and Qing dynasties and the Ryukyu Kingdom, as well as the superior–subordinate relationship between Japan and the Ryukyu Kingdom, which lasted until the Meiji government annexed it to Japan in 1879. After 1609, the Ryukyu Kingdom became subordinate to the Satsuma han (domain) governed by the Shimazu house, which was under the control of the Tokugawa shogunate. Since there were advantages in trading with the Ming and Qing dynasties for both the domain and the kingdom, they jointly managed trade with these dynasties. Tei served as a language and cultural mediator in the tributary relationship with the Qing dynasty in these complex economic and diplomatic contexts. As a language mediator, he was a Chinese ts¯uji serving in Ryukyu, while as a cultural mediator, he established the first public school in the kingdom, a base for education of Chinese Confucian classics. He contributed greatly to Confucianism, the Chinese language, and moral education, due to which he was later called “Nago saint” (Nago is the name of a district where he had served as an administrator) and is still popular in Okinawa Prefecture today. As a proficient Chinese ts¯uji and an educator of Confucianism and Mandarin Chinese (官話 Classical Chinese or kanwa [Japanese] or guanhua [Chinese]), he was able to find

5 The Roles of Ryukyuan–Chinese tsuji ¯ in Early …

99

significance in Rikuyu Engi, which he then introduced in Ryukyu and Japan. In that way, he mediated between China and Ryukyu linguistically and culturally.

2

The Contexts of Tei Junsoku’s Work

2.1

Ryukyu and China

Ryukyu is a kingdom that consists of islands located between Japan and China. Smits (2019: 22) explained the geographical boundary of Ryukyu as follows: “Between approximately 1500 and 1609, the political entity ¯ ‘Ryukyu’ consisted of the islands of Amami-Oshima and Kikai in the north through Yonaguni in the southwest, with Shuri in Okinawa as the clear center.” Okinawa Hont¯o or Okinawa Island is the main island of Ryukyu, where Tei lived. “In terms of physical geography or geology, Ryukyu refers to an arc of islands to the west of the Ryukyu Trench (Ry¯uky¯u kaik¯o ), spanning the space between the southern tip of Kyushu to Yonaguni near Taiwan” (Smits 2019: 19). In this geographical context, the Ryukyu Kingdom’s tributary relationships with China, and later with Japan, were significant. The kingdom was established in 1429 when Sh¯o Hashi (尚巴志, 1372–1439) unified Sanhoku and Sannan with his principality of Ch¯uzan, which were the three conflicting spheres on the main island (Takara 1993: 51–52). Even before the unification, Ch¯uzan had a tributary relationship with the Ming dynasty, since 1372, when Satto (察度, 1321–1395) was the king of Ch¯uzan. This relationship was formed because the first emperor of the Ming dynasty, Zhu Yuanzhang (朱元璋, Hongwu Emperor, 1328– 1398), promoted the tributary (Kishaba 1993: 648). For Ch¯uzan, having a tributary relationship with China was a diplomatic act to show its dependency on China. At the same time, this relation was an attractive offer for Satto, as his principality would gain a tremendous amount of profit through trade with the dynasty (Takara 1993: 46). It was a tribute trade; in other words, Ch¯uzan and later the Ryukyu Kingdom captured the opportunity to have commercial relations with China based on the tributary relationship.

100

M. Saito

Investiture envoys from the Ming dynasty came to Ryukyu once, while those from the Qing dynasty visited eight times (Fukazawa 2011: 8). This continued until 1875, when the Japanese Meiji government banned Ryukyu from continuing its friendly relations with China (Fukazawa 2011: 8). Before that, Ryukyuan envoys visited China about once in two years until the Satsuma invasion of Ryukyu in 1609 (Kishaba 1993: 648). Then, between 1612–1622, they would visit China only once in 10 years; later, they visited the Qing dynasty once every two years again (Akamine 2004/2017: 100). Besides the regular mission mentioned above, envoys were also dispatched for a few other special purposes, such as “congratulating a new emperor upon his assumption of the throne or carrying thanks for the bestowal of a patent of investiture upon a Ryukyuan king” (Akamine 2004/2017: 99–100). Envoys deployed for such purposes functioned in compliance with diplomatic protocols; at the same time, they worked for trading. To conduct their tributary relationship with China, initially, Ryukyu envoys would enter the territory through a port in Quanzhou. After 1472, they entered China through a port in Fuzhou, the capital city of the Fujian Province. The Ryukyu House (琉球館) or Rouyuan Station (柔遠驛 Rouyuan yi, the official name in Chinese) in Fuzhou was a gateway for Ryukyuan envoys into the Chinese territory to fulfill their tributary mission. Therefore, it functioned as an official residence and a workplace for these envoys. The Ryukyu House was established by the Ming and Qing dynasties for their tributaries, but it was in effect only for Ryukyu (Fukazawa 2011: 16).

2.2

Ryukyu and Japan

The Ryukyu Kingdom, which had enjoyed the status of an independent kingdom, even in its tributary relationship with China, was forced to become subordinate to Japan in 1609. Tokugawa Ieyasu (徳川家康, 1542–1616) became the first shogun, or general, of the Edo Bakufu (shogunate) in 1603, and even after his retirement in 1605, he held political power as o¯gosho (大御所 retired shogun). He gave Shimazu Iehisa (島津家久, 1576–1638), who was a daimy¯o (feudal lord) of the

5 The Roles of Ryukyuan–Chinese tsuji ¯ in Early …

101

Satsuma domain, the authorization to beat Ryukyu into submission. Subsequently, Shimazu dispatched an army of more than 3,000 soldiers and invaded Ryukyu in 1609. As a result, the domain made the northern Ryukyu islands its territory. Satsuma assumed power; however, at the same time, the Ryukyu Kingdom remained a foreign country in Japan. Missions were regularly dispatched from Ryukyu to Edo, and “the missions from Naha [of Ryukyu] were consistently treated as diplomatic missions” (Toby 1984/1991: 46). For enthronement in Ryukyu, the royal government was required to acquire permission from Satsuma, and Satsuma gave a report to the bakufu (Tomiyama 2004: 268). The bakufu then approved authority to Satsuma, and Satsuma notified Ryukyu of the approval (Tomiyama 2004: 268). After the investiture, Ryukyu dispatched a shaonshi (謝恩使 gratitude envoy) to Edo to show their gratitude for the grant of investiture. The first shaonshi envoy was dispatched in 1644 after Sh¯o Ken (尚賢, 1625–1647) succeeded to the throne in 1641 (Akamine 2004/2017: 70). A keigashi (慶賀使 congratulatory envoy) was dispatched to Edo for the first time in 1634 when Tokugawa Iemitsu (徳川家光, 1604–1651) became the third shogun. From then onward, every time a new shogun inherited power, a keigashi envoy was sent to Edo. Even after the Satsuma’s invasion of Ryukyu in 1609, the kingdom’s tributary relationship with the Ming dynasty and later with the Qing dynasty continued. To avoid conflict with China and continue lucrative indirect trade with China through Ryukyu, the shogunate needed to maintain a good relationship with China. To that end, Japan kept Ryukyu as an independent country and concealed Satsuma’s control over it. In the early seventeenth century, Japan had fewer relationships with foreign countries (see Chapter 1). The bakufu banished the Portuguese preemptively against Christianity after the Shimabara rebellion of 1637– 1638, which was a peasant uprising against the feudal lords of Shimabara and Amakusa (in today’s Nagasaki Prefecture located in the western part of Japan) for the suppression of Christianity and tyranny. Besides, the shogunate restricted the Dutch traders’ access to Japan to a small synthetic island called Dejima in Nagasaki in 1641 (see Sect. 2.1 of Chapter 2). In this context, the bakufu needed to maintain Ryukyu, as well as Tsushima (see Chapter 4), as a gateway into Japan for importing

102

M. Saito

silk and ingredients for Chinese medicines from China (Uehara 2001: 342–343). “The shogun did not maintain a monopoly on foreign trade, and the Satsuma-Ryukyu trade was not a breach in a seclusion policy, but a part of foreign policy” (Toby 1984/1991: 52, italics in original). On the one hand, for Ryukyu, the tributary relationships with the Ming and Qing dynasties were desirable, as they allowed for profitable trade (Tomiyama 2004: 264). On the other hand, the kingdom was forced to forge a tributary relationship with Satsuma after its defeat in 1609, which restricted the sovereign power of the kingdom (Tomiyama 2004: 264). Tomiyama (2004: 262) characterized Ryukyu of that time as a “dual tributary subordinate to the two countries,” based on its subordinate relationships with both China and Satsuma in Japan.

3

Tei Junsoku’s Five-Time Visits to China

In the context of the continued tributary relationship between Ryukyu and China, Tei worked as a diplomat, educator, scholar, poet, and ts¯uji. He was born in 1663 as a member of the Tei family, which belonged to a group of technical experts, with a lineage leading to “Binjin sanj¯uroku sei” (36 families of people from Fujian Province) (Uezato 2006: 130). Here, “36” means “many,” and they were people of Fujian Province who first came to Ryukyu in 1392. Many of the Binjin sanj¯uroku sei were naturalized in Ryukyu and resided in Kumemura or Kume village, located in today’s capital city of Naha. Thus, they are also known as “Kume sanj¯uroku sei.” Around the year 1600, the population of Kumemura had decreased, and to deal with this, Ryukyuan and Japanese people started to move to Kumemura (Maehira 1992: 253). Junsoku’s father Taiso (泰祚, 1634–1675), whose family was originally Ryukyuan, was among these individuals and succeeded the Tei family (Uezato 2006: 130). The people of Kumemura played significant roles in the kingdom’s administration and were also active in tribute and international trade with the Ming and Qing dynasties, making the best use of their Chinese language skills. They used their language and communication skills to perform multiple tasks, including preparing diplomatic

5 The Roles of Ryukyuan–Chinese tsuji ¯ in Early …

103

documents and engaging in shipbuilding, ship maintenance, sailing, commercial transactions, and language interpretation. In his lifetime, Tei Junsoku visited China five times. He arrived on the Chinese mainland for the first time in 1683. He went to Beijing as an attendant of the shaonshi envoy and then moved to Fuzhou by himself to study as a kingaku (勤学 working student). The kingaku education system began in the latter half of the seventeenth century (Fukazawa 2011: 170). Kingaku “students were sent to China as part of the crews of the envoy ships and, once there, were expected to absorb as much Chinese knowledge as possible” (Akamine 2004/2017: 94). Tei studied at his own expense with the permission of the Ryukyu royal government. The Chinese government permitted only kansh¯o (官生 government students) to study in their territory. “In effect, the working students were illegal, royal government-sponsored exchange students” (Akamine 2004/2017: 94). The Ryukyu royal government had adopted the Sinicization policy, kingaku being a part of it: “The system established to send working students was another result of the royal government’s drive to adopt Chinese mores” (Akamine 2004/2017: 94). Fukazawa (2011: 180) also supposed that the dispatch of kingaku was related to this policy. As mentioned above, the bakufu allowed Ryukyu to enjoy the status of a foreign country, even though Satsuma, a Japanese domain, had control over it. It was more favorable for Japan that Ryukyu became more foreign through Sinicization. The Ryukyu royal government established the kingaku system in order to provide individuals with the education and training necessary to work as government officials (Fukazawa 2011: 166). After he came back to Ryukyu in 1687, Tei became a k¯okaishi (講 解師 teacher of recitation) in Kumemura, thus beginning his career as an educator. His second visit to Fuzhou was in 1689. During this visit, he joined a tribute embassy as a zonry¯u ts¯uji (存留通事 resident interpreter) (Fukazawa 2011: 74). The Ryukyu royal government appointed people from Kumemura who were around the age of 30 until the middle of the eighteenth century and, later, those aged 40 or older as zonry¯u ts¯uji (Fukazawa 2011: 195, 201). Those people had had experiences in other posts, which had required Chinese writing skills, before assuming the

104

M. Saito

zonry¯u ts¯uji post, which also needed the skill (Fukazawa 2011: 202). Tei was 27 years old when he was appointed as zonry¯u ts¯uji in 1689. Zonry¯u ts¯uji carried out other responsibilities apart from interpretation work. “Their work was central to the trade transactions conducted out of the Ryukyu House, handling the requests for permission to begin the open house trade period” (Akamine 2004/2017: 115). In addition to trade-related tasks, they “engaged in negotiations and business formalities with the public authorities, taking on considerable responsibilities” (Akamine 2004/2017: 115–116). While working as a zonry¯u ts¯uji, Tei studied Zhu Xi’s (朱熹, 1130–1200) neo-Confucianism and the composition of Chinese poetry and prose. He bought J¯ushichishi (十七史 seventeen Chinese history books, Shih-ch’i shih [Chinese]) and donated it to a Confucian temple (孔子廟) in Kumemura after returning home in 1691. In his third visit to China lasting from 1695 to 1698, he went to Beijing to serve as a ts¯uji for a tributary mission. He went to China as a vice envoy in his fourth and fifth visits in 1706 (returned to Ryukyu in 1708) and 1720 (returned in 1721), respectively. In 1727, he was appointed as s¯ojit¯o (総地頭 administrator) of the Nago magiri (間切 administrative district). As an educator, he contributed to the development of education in Ryukyu, making optimal use of his visits to China. This was because “Tei Junsoku’s ideal Ryukyu looked much like China. [Therefore,] Tei Junsoku […] devoted much of his career and personal wealth to promoting Chinese studies in Ryukyu” (Smits 1999: 62). Accordingly, in his fourth visit, Tei printed two books at his own expense and brought them back to Ryukyu. One of them was Rikuyu Engi, which was a reprint with an afterword written by him. The other one was Shinan K¯ogi (指南 広義 Zhinan Guangyi [Chinese]), which he had authored to teach the art of sailing between Ryukyu and Fuzhou. Rikuyu Engi would go on to be disseminated across Japan; this topic will be discussed in detail in the next section. In 1718, Tei established the first public school in Ryukyu called Meirind¯o (明倫堂). It functioned as a center for the education of Confucianism. It was established with the intention of teaching Kumemura villagers Mandarin Chinese and the creation of diplomatic documents, in addition to Confucianism (Kishaba 1993: 658). In the

5 The Roles of Ryukyuan–Chinese tsuji ¯ in Early …

105

school, the k¯okaishi and kunkoshi (訓詁師 teacher of readings) taught Confucian classics (Akamine 2004/2017: 94; Nakamura 2010: 65). By studying Mandarin Chinese and interpreting Confucian classics, Ryukyuan intellectuals acquired and cultivated knowledge (Nakamura 2010: 70). “As the Meirind¯o also turned out great numbers of graduates trained in Confucian ideas, the people of Kumemura developed an ever more pronounced character as Confucian disciples” (Akamine 2004/ 2017: 94).

4

Introducing Rikuyu Engi

As mentioned above, Tei brought Rikuyu Engi to Ryukyu from China when he returned from his fourth visit. It is a moral education book written in colloquial Chinese by Fan Hong (范鋐) in the late sixteenth century (the exact year of publication is unknown). Rikuyu Engi, which literally translates to “six morals explained,” explains six moral lessons in detail with related legends and poems (Sumida 1984: 89). The six moral lessons were proclaimed by the first emperor of the Ming dynasty, Zhu, in 1388 for the education of ordinary people. Rikuyu or the “six moral lessons” are as follows: (1) be dutiful and obedient to your parents (孝順 父母); (2) respect your seniors (尊敬長上); (3) have good relationships with people in your hometown (和睦郷里); (4) educate your children ( 教訓子孫); 5) be content with your job (各安生理); and 6) do not go against reason (毋作非為) (Fan n.d./1708). It was during his first visit to China that Tei discovered this book at his teacher Jiku Tenshoku’s (竺天植) house. After reading it several times, he realized its significance as a moral education book as well as a textbook for learning Mandarin Chinese. Although he wanted to print a second copy of the textbook in order to bring it back to Ryukyu, he could not afford it at that time (Nakamura 1972: 221). As mentioned in the previous section, during his fourth visit to China in 1708, more than 20 years after his first visit, Tei was able to finally procure reprints of Rikuyu Engi through woodblock printing at the Rouyuan Station1 (Higashionna 1980a: 15). He then introduced this reprinted book in Ryukyu. This version contained an afterword from Tei, and a preface

106

M. Saito

from his teacher Jiku, along with the original preface and afterword by Fan. In his afterword, Tei explained his belief that this work could “serve two purposes” (一挙両得) (Fan n.d./1721). First, the textbook was the most suitable for learning the Chinese vernacular (Higashionna 1980a: 15). In his afterword, he expressed his intention to use this book for educational purposes: “教者省力學者易曉導之之術莫有善於此 者”—“Educators can reduce their labor, and learners can understand easily. This is the best book for educating people” (My translation). He believed that the book would make it easy for teachers to teach and for students to learn, as the content was written in a colloquial language. As Kizu (2010: 267) pointed out, Rikuyu Engi was for the education of the Ryukyuan, who might go on to join tributary missions. This book would prepare future envoys from Ryukyu for visits to China, as, according to Higashionna (1980b: 103), they would face difficulties there due to a lack of skills in the Chinese language. Therefore, Tei perceived this textbook as indispensable. The second intended purpose of introducing Rikuyu Engi was that it would provide learners with the six meaningful teachings mentioned above. Moreover, it can be understood from his afterword that Tei believed that a book containing meaningful content would be a highly effective language textbook. He did not think that works that are easy to read, such as novels and plays, would be suitable for learning a language. Hsu (2007: 42) asserted that Tei’s purpose in publishing Rikuyu Engi in Ryukyu was to teach people the meaning of duty as well as Mandarin Chinese. As a Confucian, Tei opined that moral lessons and the meaning of duty should be taught to people in the kingdom. As a ts¯uji as well as an educator of the Chinese language, he found the book’s usefulness in teaching morals and virtue and the Chinese language simultaneously. As today’s translation studies scholar and educator Floros (2021: 338) states, a “relatively recent question around ethical issues in translation and interpreting concerns how to teach ethics to future translators and interpreters,” moral education is a significant issue in translation and interpreting studies even today. Tei’s contemporary educator of Ch¯osents¯uji (朝鮮通詞 Japanese–Korean interpreters) named Amenomori H¯osh¯u (雨森芳洲, 1668–1755), who is the object of the historical

5 The Roles of Ryukyuan–Chinese tsuji ¯ in Early …

107

case study in Chapter 4 of this book, also attached great importance to morality in his educational activities. He taught his students that ts¯uji should perform their tasks with great sincerity toward foreigners (see Chapter 4 for a more detailed explanation on Amenomori). With these examples of Tei and Amenomori, it is easily understandable that “[e]thical questions and contemplations have almost always – and by the vast majority of researchers and trainers – been recognised as lying at the core of translational thought and practice, and as intrinsic to translation and interpreting activities” (Floros 2021: 338, italics in original). Tei was one of the trainers in history who recognized ethical issues as essential to work on and introduced the moral textbook to the kingdom. After its introduction, Rikuyu Engi was not only read in the Ryukyu Kingdom but eventually introduced to Japan. In 1714, when he was 51 years old, Tei went to Edo as part of a shaonshi envoy after Sh¯o Kei ( 尚敬, 1700–1751) succeeded to the throne in 1713. The envoy stopped at Satsuma on the way to Edo. He presented Rikuyu Engi to daimy¯o Shimazu Yoshitaka (島津吉貴, 1675–1747) (Hsu 2007: 42; Sumida 1984: 90). Later, in 1719, Yoshitaka presented the book to the eighth shogun Tokugawa Yoshimune (徳川吉宗, 1684–1751) following the bakufu’s order, which, according to Ts¯uk¯o Ichiran vol. 238 (通航一覧 Survey of Diplomatic Relations),2 was to report on the Qing dynasty (Hayashi 1913: 161). Believing the book to be suitable for his territory’s curriculum, Yoshimune decided to use it to educate the Japanese people. Nakamura (1972: 224) suggested that, in the context of frequently occurring peasant uprisings, Yoshimune might have strongly sensed the necessity of educating the ordinary people in society. During this time, the bakufu was suffering from financial collapse, which resulted in many negative social consequences, such as corrupt samurai and increases in crimes and peasant uprisings. In response, Yoshimune took measures, such as establishing a system in which daimy¯os had to provide a certain amount of rice to the government as tax every year, depending on the scale of a domain, starting from 1722. However, because of disasters and famines, Yoshimune’s reform did not work well (Nakamura 1972: 224). The shogun Yoshimune found the significance of Rikuyu Engi in this context and disseminated it across Japan. In one of the history books in the series titled Tokugawa Jikki (徳川実紀 Record of Tokugawa)

108

M. Saito

compiled by the bakufu, it is stated that Yoshimune thought that in order to encourage the ordinary people to cultivate virtue through this text, Rikuyu Engi needed to be translated into Japanese. By translating its contents into Japanese (not Chinese with kunten [訓点], the guiding marks for reading Chinese writing in the Japanese way), it could be ensured that ordinary people in Japan, including children, could easily understand the text. Yoshimune ordered a leading Confucianist Ogy¯u Sorai (荻生徂徠, 1666–1728) to apply kunten to the writing of Rikuyu Engi and another Confucianist Muro Ky¯us¯o (室鳩巣, 1658–1734), one of the teachers of Yoshimune, to translate it into Japanese (Higashionna 1980a: 19). Due to a lack of knowledge of colloquial Chinese, Muro could not translate Rikuyu Engi from the original. Thus, the version containing Ogy¯u’s guiding marks was first published in 1721, and the Japanese translation with Muro’s amplification, Rikuyu Engi Taii (六諭衍義大 意 Outline of Rikuyu Engi), was published later, in 1722. In his preface to Rikuyu Engi Taii, Muro explained that he was ordered by the bakufu to provide an outline in Japanese (Muro 1722 in Nakamura 1975: 366). He further added that, due to the differences between the laws of China and Japan, he had needed to exclude some parts that were old and not very significant to his version. Hsu (2007: 42) claimed that there is a significant difference between the contents of Rikuyu Engi and Rikuyu Engi Taii because Muro shifted emphasis based on the differences in the social structures of the Qing dynasty and Tokugawa Japan. Rikuyu Engi’s emphasis was on keeping hierarchical relationships and encouraging mutual help among ordinary people (Hsu 2007: 46). Conversely, Rikuyu Engi Taii’s emphasis was on keeping the hereditary system of family businesses and a status-based society (Hsu 2007: 46). According to Hsu (2007: 48), Muro’s Rikuyu Engi Taii is a moral textbook that is meant to strengthen the values of ordinary people on the basis of the hereditary system, rather than a commentary on Rikuyu Engi. Before publishing Rikuyu Engi Taii, the shogun Yoshimune ordered Muro to revise the draft twice in order to make it shorter and easier for the ordinary people to understand and afford (Higashionna 1980a: 20). This revision order clearly shows that Yoshimune wanted to publish this book for the common people who did not possess much knowledge or

5 The Roles of Ryukyuan–Chinese tsuji ¯ in Early …

109

money. Hsu (2007: 44) stated that Yoshimune believed that this publication, by means of Confucianism, would make the common people recognize their own statuses and roles in society and convince them to follow the government, rather than enlighten them. The publication of Rikuyu Engi Taii was a success, as, according to Higashionna (1980a: 63), each family in several domains bought a copy, and eventually, the work spread even to remote villages. Hsu (2007: 50) reports that during the Edo period, in addition to reprints of Muro’s translation, 40 versions (reprints or different Japanese translations) of Rikuyu Engi Taii were published between 1722 and 1911. It must be noted that one version of the work was published in Ryukyu, to which Tei had first brought Rikuyu Engi. Further, even in the Meiji era (1868–1912), nine versions of the text were published (Higashionna 1980a: 72–78). This means that the text’s reprints or different versions were intermittently published for about 200 years. Higashionna (1980a: 69) highlighted that Yoshimune’s order to shorten the text was beneficial, as its reprinting could be done easily and inexpensively. Higashionna (1980a: 70–71) also suggested that there was a specific relationship between the spread of the book and the increase in education among ordinary people. As Kornicki (2014: 221) pointed out, research on how the readers received Rikuyu Engi Taii, the translated version of Rikuyu Engi , at the time of its publication is not easy, as due to “the lack of commonplace books or detailed personal diaries, it is rare that we can obtain any evidence of reader response in Edo-period Japan …” Nonetheless, the number of reprints and other versions of Rikuyu Engi Taii disseminated in Japan shows that it was accepted by a considerable number of people around Ryukyu and Japan.

5

Conclusion

This chapter highlighted Tei Junsoku’s contribution to education in Ryukyu and Japan by focusing on his multiple roles as a ts¯uji. He introduced the moral education book Rikuyu Engi into Ryukyu and Japan to educate ordinary people about moral values and the Chinese language.

110

M. Saito

The economic and diplomatic contexts of the Ryukyu Kingdom in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries enabled Tei to contribute to education in Ryukyu and Japan. Since the Ryukyu Kingdom had tributary relationships with both the Qing dynasty and Satsuma, he was able to visit China and travel to Satsuma. Moving as an envoy made it possible for Tei to bring Rikuyu Engi from Fuzhou to Ryukyu, which was then disseminated across Japan. Tei’s intention to introduce the book was closely connected to his perception of China. He believed that the “ideal” Ryukyu looked much like China and he was eager to learn from it. As Smits (1999: 64) explains: “Tei Junsoku tended to see China as a literary and aesthetic ideal that Ryukyuans and others should strive to emulate in the realm of culture. For him, the Chinese emperor and his capital were the center and source of culture and civilization.” The Sinicization policy of the kingdom, in addition to Tei’s admiration for the Chinese culture, were two factors in the introduction of Rikuyu Engi. Tei, also known as the ts¯uji of the Ryukyu Kingdom, performed other roles in addition to being an interpreter. As a scholar in China working as an interpreter, he got the opportunity to read Rikuyu Engi at his teacher’s residence, and with the spirit of an educator, he reprinted the book with the intention of using it to educate younger Ryukyuans. This case study on Tei demonstrates an example of the multiple roles of a ts¯uji and how ts¯uji functions as a mediator of both language and culture.

Notes 1. This version, which is missing some pages, is accessible at “Okinawa Prefectural Library’s digital archive” (https://www.library.pref.okinawa. jp/item/index-1104050638_1002005625.html). The missing pages that include Tei Junsoku’s afterword can be read in Kankoku Rikuyu Engi (官 刻六諭衍義, Government Issued Rikuyu Engi), which was completed in 1721. This version, in two volumes, contains reading aids by Ogy¯u Sorai. It is accessible at the University of the Ryukyus’ “Ryukyu/ Okinawarelated Materials Digital Special Collections” (Volume 1: https://shi muchi.lib.u-ryukyu.ac.jp/collection/sakamaki/hw62101/1 and Volume 2: https://shimuchi.lib.u-ryukyu.ac.jp/collection/sakamaki/hw62102).

5 The Roles of Ryukyuan–Chinese tsuji ¯ in Early …

111

2. It is a survey edited by Hayashi Akira (林韑) and others on the order of the bakufu.

References Akamine, M. (2004/2017) The Ryukyu Kingdom: Cornerstone of East Asia. Translated by L. Terrell. (R. Huey, Edited). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i ¯ Press. [Kindle] (Japanese original: Akamine, M. (2004/2015) Ryukyu Okoku: Higashi Ajia no K¯on¯asut¯on [The Ryukyu Kingdom: Cornerstone of East Asia]. Tokyo: K¯odansha. [Kindle]) Fan, H. (n.d./1708) Rikuyu Engi (Jy¯ueneki Ban) [Rikuyu Engi (Rouyuan Station version)]. Fan, H. (n.d./1721) Kankoku Rikuyu Engi [Government Issued Rikuyu Engi] (with reading guides by Ogy¯u Sorai). Buk¯o Shorin. Floros, G. (2021) ‘Ethics in Translator and Interpreter Education.’ In K. Koskinen and N. K. Pokorn (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Ethics. London and New York: Routledge. 338–350. Fukazawa, A. (2011) Kinsei Ryukyu Chugoku K¯ory¯u-shi no Kenky¯u: Kyory¯uchi, Soshikitai, Kaiiki [Study on History of Relations Between Ryukyu and China: Settlements, Organizations, Sea Areas]. Ginowan: Gajumaru Shob¯o. Hayashi, A. (1913) Ts¯uk¯o Ichiran 6 [Survey of Diplomatic Relations]. Tokyo: Kokusho Kank¯okai. Higashionna, K. (1980a) ‘Rikuyu Engi Den [The Study of Rikuyu Engi].’ In Ryukyu Shinp¯osha (ed.) Higashionna Kanjun Zensh¯u 8. [The Complete Works of Higashionna Kanjun 8]. Tokyo: Daiichi Shob¯o. 1–92. Higashionna, K. (1980b) ‘Bunka Ronk¯o [The Study on Cultures].’ In Ryukyu Shinp¯osha (ed.) Higashionna Kanjun Zensh¯u 8. [The Complete Works of Higashionna Kanjun 8]. Tokyo: Daiichi Shob¯o. 93–506. Hsu, T. (2007) ‘Tokugawa Nihon ni Okeru “Rikuyu” D¯otoku Gensetsu no Heny¯o to Tenkai: Rikuyu Engi to Rikuyu Engi Taii no Hikaku o Ch¯ushin ni [The Moral Discourse of “Rikuyu” in the Early Modern Japan: Comparing Rikuyu Engi with Rikuyu Engi Taii ].’ Tokyo Daigaku Daigakuin Ky¯oikugaku Kenky¯uka Kiy¯o, 47, 41–50. Iha, F. and Majikina, A. (1916/2015) Ryukyu no Go Ijin [Five Great Persons in Ryukyu]. Yamatouta E Bukkusu. [Kindle]

112

M. Saito

Kishaba, K. (1993) Kinsei Satsuryu Kankei-shi no Kenky¯u [Study on the Relationship Between Satsuma and Ryukyu in the Early Modern Period]. Tokyo: Kokusho Kank¯okai. Kizu, Y. (2010) ‘T¯o-ts¯uji no “Kanwa” Juy¯o: M¯o Hitotsu no “Kundoku” [T¯ots¯uji’s Reception of Chinese: Another “Kundoku”].’ S. Nakamura, T. Ichiki, Y. Tajiri and T. Maeda (eds.) Zoku Kundoku Ron: Higashi Ajia Kanbun Sekai no Keisei [A Sequel to Essays on Kundoku: The Formation of Classical Chinese Writing World in East Asia]. Tokyo: Bensei Shuppan. 260–291. Kornicki, P. (2014) ‘From Liuyu Yanyi to Rikuyu Engi Taii: Turning a Vernacular Chinese Text into a Moral Textbook in Edo-period Japan.’ In M. Hayek and A. Horiuchi (eds.) Listen, Copy, Read: Popular Learning in Early Modern Japan. Leiden and Boston: Brill. 205–225. Maehira, F. (1992) ‘Taigai Kankei ni Okeru Kaky¯o to Kokka: Ryukyu no Binjin Sanj¯uroku Sei o Megutte [Resident Chinese and the Nation in Relation with International Relationships: Thirty-six Families of People from Fujian Province in Ryukyu].’ In Y. Arano, M. Ishii and S. Murai (eds.) Ajia no Naka no Nihonshi III: Kaij¯o no Michi [Japanese History in Asia III: Road on the Sea]. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. 245–264. Muro, K. (1722) Rikuyu Engi Taii [Outline of Rikuyu Engi]. In Y. Nakamura (revision and annotation) (1975). Nihon Shis¯o Taikei 59: Kinsei Ch¯onin Shis¯o [A Series on Japanese Thoughts 59: Townspeople’s Thought in the Early Modern Period]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. 365–376. Nakamura, S. (2010) ‘Ryukyu ni Okeru “Kanbun” Yomi: Shis¯o-shi Teki Dokkai no Kokoromi [Reading “Classical Chinese”: An Attempt at an Analysis from the Perspective of History of Thoughts].’ In S. Nakamura, T. Ichiki, Y. Tajiri and T. Maeda (eds.) Zoku Kundoku Ron: Higashi Ajia Kanbun Sekai no Keisei [A Sequel to Essays on Kundoku: The Formation of the Classical Chinese Writing World in East Asia]. Tokyo: Bensei Shuppan. 47–81. Nakamura, T. (1972) ‘Jusha no Shisei: Rikuyu Engi o Meguru Sorai, Ky¯us¯o no Tairitsu [The Attitude of Confucianists: The Antagonism between Sorai and Kyuso around Rikuyu-Engi].’ Bulletin for Cultural Science, 23 (5), 219–251. Smits, G. (1999) Visions of Ryukyu: Identity and Ideology in Early-Modern Thought and Politics. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press. Smits, G. (2019) Maritime Ryukyu, 1050 –1650. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press. [Kindle] Sumida, T. (1984) ‘Rikuyu Engi Taii Zenshi: Rikuyu Engi no Seiritsu to, Sono Nihon Denrai ni Tsuite [Prehistory of Rikuyu-Engi-Taii: The Formation of

5 The Roles of Ryukyuan–Chinese tsuji ¯ in Early …

113

Rikuyu-Engi and Its Introduction into Japan].’ Studies in Sociology, Psychology and Education, 24, 87–92. ¯ Takara, K. (1993) Ryukyu Okoku [The Ryukyu Kingdom]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Toby, R.P. (1984/1991) State and Diplomacy in Early Modern Japan: Asia in the Development of the Tokugawa Bakufu. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Tokugawa Jikki [Record of Tokugawa]. In Keizai Zasshisha (ed.) (1904) Tokugawa Jikki 6 [Record of Tokugawa 6]. Tokyo: Keizai Zasshisha. ¯ ¯ Tomiyama, K. (2004) Ryukyu Okoku no Gaik¯o to Oken [Diplomacy and Sovereignty of the Ryukyu Kingdom]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K¯obunkan. Uehara, K. (2001) Bakuhan-sei Keisei-ki no Ryukyu Shihai [Ryukyu Controlled by Bakufu in the Formative Years of the Bakuhan Political System]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K¯obunkan. Uezato, K. (2006) ‘Tei Junsoku no Chichi to Ko: Tei Junsoku no J¯oai to Kun¯o [Tei Junsoku’s Father and Children: His Affection and Agony].’ Nihon T¯oy¯o Bunka Ronsh¯u, 12, 129–154.

6 Arrival of Western Ships and Ikoku-tsuji ¯ in Ryukyu in the Nineteenth Century: The Case of Itarashiki (Makishi) Choch ¯ u¯ Mutsuko Tsuboi

1

Introduction

During the Edo period (1603–1868), the Ryukyu Kingdom remained a dual tributary subordinate to the Tokugawa shogunate (under the direct control of the Satsuma domain) and the Ming (1368–1644) and Qing (1644–1912) dynasties of China. However, during the first half of the nineteenth century, an increasing number of ships1 from Western powers, including Great Britain, France, the US, and Russia, seeking to take advantage of Ryukyu’s geopolitical location, began to affect the stability of the region. They consecutively called at ports such as Naha on the main island of Ryukyu for surveys and negotiations, also seeking permission for Christian missionary work. Thus, Ryukyu officials had to make difficult political decisions to deal with these foreign powers and to adapt the established order of diplomatic policy to the new environment. M. Tsuboi (B) Rikkyo University, Tokyo, Japan e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Saito and M. Sato (eds.), Ts¯uji, Interpreters in and Around Early Modern Japan, Translation History, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37652-8_6

115

116

M. Tsuboi

Ryukyu’s official interpreters, called ikoku-ts¯uji (異国通事 Western language interpreters)2 or Shuri-ts¯uji (首里通事 interpreters of Shuri),3 played a crucial role in the negotiations with Western powers. Itarashiki Ch¯och¯u (板良敷朝忠, 1818–1862)4 was one of the most competent ikoku-ts¯uji. Although he came from a low-ranking shi (士), or samur¯e (samurai in Japanese, warrior) class, Itarashiki was held in high esteem as ts¯uji both within Ryukyu and by Shimazu Nariakira (島津斉彬, 1809–1858), the lord of the Satsuma domain, and rose through the ranks of the kingdom’s officials to an unprecedented level. However, after Nariakira’s sudden death, Itarashiki perished in a power struggle at fortyfive. His name and activities are mentioned in official Ryukyu documents such as Ky¯uy¯o (球陽),5 Rekidaih¯oan (歴代宝案),6 and Ryukyu ¯ Okoku Hy¯oj¯oshomonjo (琉球王国評定所文書).7 Westerners who stayed in Ryukyu also mentioned their direct communication with him in their diaries and journals (cf. Hawks 1856; Forcade 1885; Williams 1910/ 2018; Jenkins 2005a, 2005b). Owing to his extraordinary ability as an interpreter and the misfortune that consequently fell upon him, his life has become the subject of many novels (e.g., Shima 1997; Ikegami 2008; Nagad¯o 2011; Kurouchi 2016). Various research has dealt with individual ikoku-ts¯uji in Ryukyu from the perspective of the advancement of English studies in Ryukyu and Okinawa (e.g., Toyoda 1939; Kamekawa 1972; Yamashita 1996, 1997, 1999a, 1999b) and the system of interpreters in the late Ryukyu Kingdom from a historical perspective (e.g., Zhang 2019). However, the role of ikoku-ts¯uji in Ryukyu and their complex function as intermediaries is still under-explored. Based on historical documents and previous research, this chapter attempts to position Itarashiki’s case in Ryukyu’s domestic system of interpreters and its external relations, as well as to revisit the roles, linguistic and communicative competence, and challenges of ikoku-ts¯uji.

6 Arrival of Western Ships and Ikoku-tsuji ¯ in Ryukyu …

2

The Ryukyu Kingdom in the Nineteenth Century

2.1

Ryukyu as a Dual Tributary

117

The Early Modern period of the Ryukyu Kingdom generally refers to the period from the invasion of Satsuma in 1609 to the Ryukyu annexation8 by the Meiji government in 1879. After 1609, the kingdom was incorporated into the feudal Baku-han system while continuing to have a tributary relationship with the Ming and Qing dynasties. For security and survival, it was of the utmost importance for the kingdom to maintain peace with both China and Japan. Therefore, diplomacy with these two countries was carefully conducted by royal officials who were well-versed in these circumstances (Watanabe 2002: 5). During the first half of the nineteenth century, the regional stability fluctuated drastically. Western countries regarded the Qing dynasty as the largest market in East Asia, dispatching many ships and conducting surveys and expeditions to neighboring countries to collect information. In the chronicle of the Ryukyu royal government, Ky¯uy¯o , incidents of arrivals of ikoku-sen 9 was frequently mentioned (Ky¯uy¯o Kenky¯u-kai 1974). However, until around the mid-1840s, most foreign ships came to Ryukyu for investigation and exploration or owing to accidental distress.10 These ships had no colonial ambitions for Ryukyu because their primary goal was to win the Chinese market; Ryukyu was simply a frontier with no real utility (Shimajiri 1987: 133).11 This changed after the Opium War (1840–1842). When the 1842 Treaty of Nanjing was signed between the Qing and the UK, Western powers competed to enter the Chinese market. In the process, they began focusing on Japan, which stubbornly continued its so-called seclusion policy. They wanted to use Ryukyu as a steppingstone to Japan (Shimajiri 1987: 134). Starting with the French ship Alcmene in 1844, Western vessels came to Ryukyu in waves: the British ship Samarang (1845), French ship Sabine (1846), British ship Stirling (1846), the American Perry fleet (1853), and the Russian Putyatin fleet (1854). They sought diplomatic and trade relations, and permission for missionary work with a high-handed attitude.

118

2.2

M. Tsuboi

Measures Against Foreign Ships by the Shogunate

In this situation, the shogunate tried to obtain information on the movements of Western countries and China from multiple routes, including Nagasaki, Tsushima, and Satsuma–Ryukyu gateways. Particularly from Satsuma–Ryukyu gateway, the shogunate aimed to acquire information on China’s military conflicts, such as the Opium War and Taiping Rebellion (1851–1864). The shogunate felt threatened by the Western powers’ “gunboat diplomacy” in East Asia (Maehira 1997: 96–97). In 1825, the shogunate issued the Edict to Repel Foreign Vessels. However, in response to the Qing dynasty’s defeat in the Opium War, foreign policy became more flexible; the edict was amended to allow the provision of water and fuel to foreign ships. In 1844, the French warship Alcmene called at Ryukyu, seeking trade, and the shogunate left the decision to Satsuma (Yamashita 2000: 148–149). Shimazu Narioki ( 島津斉興, 1791–1859), the lord of Satsuma, left it to Nariakira, the son and successor of Narioki. Modern and enlightened Nariakira became the lord of Shimazu in 1851. He attempted to expand Satsuma’s trade and military power by using Ryukyu, keeping it a secret from the shogunate. He made grand plans, such as purchasing warships and weapons from France via Ryukyu and dispatching international students from Satsuma and Ryukyu to France, Great Britain, and the US (Yamashita 2000: 149–150).12

2.3

Measures Against Foreign Ships in Ryukyu

Ryukyu was directly under Shimazu and had no choice but to follow their instructions. Simultaneously, the Ryukyu royal government was concerned that China would learn about the relationship between Ryukyu and Satsuma (Japan), which could lead to the collapse of Ryukyu’s dual tributary system and threaten the kingdom’s wellbeing. When Western ships arrived in Ryukyu, the kingdom officials politely entertained them and waited patiently for their departure, using every diplomatic means and pretext possible to ensure that the Westerners

6 Arrival of Western Ships and Ikoku-tsuji ¯ in Ryukyu …

119

did not find out about their relationship with Satsuma. Originally, the Ryukyu government had one sessei (royal adviser) under the king, sanshikan (the council of three),13 and under that were senior officials called omotej¯ugonin (the council of fifteen).14 However, faced with an increase in Western vessels, the Ryukyu government devised a new system for negotiations with them; every time a foreign ship arrived, temporary posts such as s¯orikan (corresponding to sessei) and fuseikan (corresponding to sanshikan) were appointed. When Westerners asked for meeting high-ranking officials of Ryukyu, s¯orikan or fuseikan responded (Dana 1998; Zhang 2019). These positions were in name only to conceal the kingdom’s relationship with Satsuma (Kamiya 2013: 299). Around the time, descriptions of ikoku-ts¯uji began to appear frequently in official kingdom documents.

3

Ikoku-tsuji ¯ in the Ryukyu Kingdom and Its Pioneers

In the Tokugawa period, a feudal class system called shi (士 warriors)– n¯o (農 farmers)–k¯o (工 artisans)–sh¯o (商 tradesmen) was established. Shi was the highest rank, followed by n¯o, k¯o, and sh¯o in order. This social division was also gradually established in Ryukyu following the Satsuma invasion. However, there were only two statuses in Early Modern Ryukyu: shi and n¯o (Dana 2003: 177). Most shi in Ryukyu were from Shuri (where the palace of the kingdom was located) and usually lived near Shuri Castle. In contrast, the shi from Kumemura or Kume village in Naha, whose ancestors were naturalized people from the Ming dynasty,15 were expected by the royal government to produce specialists such as Ryukyuan–Chinese ts¯uji or Kumemura-ts¯uji (Takei 2018: 24– 25). However, around the end of the eighteenth century, the center of education gradually shifted from Kumemura to Shuri. In 1798 (formally in 1801), the National Academy, called Kokugaku,16 was established in Shuri by Ryukyu’s royal government. Most enrolled students were sons of Shuri shi. The contents of the study at Kokugaku were Classics of Confucianism, Chinese poetry, and Mandarin Chinese.17 They also learned English and French by the order of the

120

M. Tsuboi

Satsuma and the Ryukyu government. According to Kishaba (1993: 321), even Satsuma’s interpreters came to learn English and French with the Ryukyu people.18 For the kingdom’s shi, Japanese and Chinese proficiency was indispensable to their administrative duties. Therefore, officials working for the kingdom were, in principle, trilingual (Matsukata 2010: 241), and knew Ryukyuan, Chinese, and Japanese. In addition, ikoku-ts¯uji were familiar with Western languages including English and French. Even if one was born into a family of shi, his income was not guaranteed in Ryukyu unless he received a government post. Compared to the population of shi, there were few official posts (Asano 1991: 61– 62), and competition was intense. Therefore, particularly for low-ranking shi, being recognized as a competent ts¯uji might have improved the possibility of getting a government job. Captain Hall (1818: 132) of the Lyra described Ryukyu officials who worked as interpreters of the kingdom as follows: Two of the natives have been studying English with great assiduity, and with considerable success. One is called Mádera, the other Anya. They carry note books [sic] in imitation of Mr. Clifford, in which they record in their own characters every word they learn.

“Mádera and Anya” mentioned here were Maehira B¯osh¯o (真栄平 房昭, 1787–1829) and Aniya Seiho (安仁屋政輔, 1792–?), respectively. Maehira was twenty-nine years old and Aniya twenty-four then. Maehira died relatively young. Later, when the British ship Blossom in 1825, British merchant ship Lord Amherst in 1832, and American merchant ship Morrison in 1837 arrived in Ryukyu, Aniya worked as ts¯uji. Aniya was often mentioned in the descriptions of these ships’ voyages, including by Captain Beechey (1831/2017) of the Blossom. Maehira and Aniya served as ts¯uji at the order of the royal government when Western ships arrived. They were regarded as the pioneering ikokuts¯uji. Zhang (2019: 116–117) points out three characteristics of ikokuts¯uji at that time: (1) they were chosen from Shuri, not Kumemura, and in charge of learning English and serving as ts¯uji; (2) they were offered a temporary job as ts¯uji while holding the main job as an official;

6 Arrival of Western Ships and Ikoku-tsuji ¯ in Ryukyu …

121

and (3) they were appointed to communicate with Westerners when a Chinese interpreter was not on board Western ships, or a Chinese interpreter on board could not understand the Mandarin Chinese spoken by Kumemura-ts¯uji. However, as mentioned in the previous section, the political situation around Ryukyu changed considerably after the Opium War. Itarashiki emerged as ikoku-ts¯uji during this critical period.19

4

Ikoku-tsuji ¯ Itarashiki (Makishi) Choch ¯ u¯

4.1

Brief Profile

Itarashiki was born into a low-ranking shi in Shuri. His childhood name was Ch¯oten (朝展) and later took the name Ch¯och¯u. As an adult, he became an official of the kingdom, and his surname changed ¯ from Itarashiki to Owan and finally to Makishi.20 His career was described as a personal history of Makishi Ch¯och¯u (牧志朝忠) in T¯otei Zuihitsu Zokuhen (東汀随筆続編 The Sequel to Miscellaneous Writing of T¯otei) (1912) by Kishaba Ch¯oken (喜舎場朝賢, 1840–1916), an official serving Sh¯o Tai (尚泰, 1843–1901), the last Ryukyu King, as follows: 牧志親雲上朝忠ハ琉球国首里ノ人ナリ初メ板良敷朝展ト言フ後 チ改名ス文政元年戊寅ニ生ル幼ニシテ国学ニ入テ修業ス年二十 一清国ヘ冊封謝恩使法司兼城親方ニ隨テ支那ニ扺リ仍テ支那語 ヲ練習ス [中略] 帰国シテ与世山親方ニ就テ英語ヲ学ヒ (与世山 ハ異国通事ヨリ平等所大屋子ニ進ミ大屋子主取ト為リ遂ニ親方 ニ至ル) 異国通事ト為ル21 Makishi p¯echin 22 Ch¯och¯u was a person from Shuri of the Ryukyu Kingdom. He initially called himself Itarashiki Ch¯oten. He then renamed himself. He was born in 1818. He entered the Kokugaku at an early age, and was trained. When he was twenty-one, he accompanied the envoy to the Qing dynasty, Kanegusuku u¯ekata,23 to China. Thereby he practiced Chinese. [...] He returned to Ryukyu and learned English under Yoseyama u¯ekata (he was ikoku-ts¯uji, and later became a judge of the court. He was then promoted to senior judge and finally became u¯ekata). (Page number: unknown, my translation)

122

M. Tsuboi

“Yoseyama u¯ekata” in the text was Aniya (Kamekawa 1972: 115– 117; Yamashita 1996: 50–51), from whom, after returning from China, Itarashiki learned the basics of English. When he was twenty-six, he was appointed ikoku-ts¯uji for the arrival of the French ship Alcmene in 1844. Subsequently, his achievements in handling Western ships were outstanding. In 1853, he received a large reward from Satsuma and the Ryukyu royal government for his challenging work as an ikoku-ts¯uji on the repeated visits of foreign ships from 1844 (Kishaba 1912). He showed excellence as ikoku-ts¯uji in negotiations with the American fleet led by Commodore Perry in 1853. Perry had a mission to submit a message from US President Fillmore to the shogun demanding the opening of Japan. On his way to Japan, Perry’s fleet stopped in Ryukyu to secure food supplies and build a coal supply base. Itarashiki also interrogated Nakahama Manjir¯o (中浜万次郎, 1827–1898),24 who landed on Ryukyu in 1851. Itarashiki also interviewed crew members in English when the Russian Putyatin fleet arrived at Naha in 1854.

4.2

Itarashiki (Makishi)’s Practices as Ikoku-tsuji ¯

The Alcmene arrived at Naha on April 28, 1844. Captain Duplan informed the Ryukyu government that France hoped for a peace and trade treaty and to train interpreters for future negotiations. Despite strong opposition from Ryukyu, Duplan left behind a missionary, Théodore Forcade, and a Chinese Catholic. His aim was to train them as interpreters in Ryukyu (Higaonna 1924/1971: 242; Zhang 2019: 119). Forcade’s stay in Ryukyu lasted two years. In his diary, Forcade (1885) described in detail the conversation between Duplan and Ryukyu officials for the first three days. According to Forcade (1885: 3–15), six Ryukyu officials first boarded the ship and met with Duplan. Two appeared to be high-ranking officials, and one of them was Aniya. Four junior officials followed them, of which two were interpreters. All spoke Mandarin Chinese well. Among the Ryukyuan officials, the highest local officer sat across the room. The exchange between Duplan and the local officer was conducted in Chinese through their respective interpreters. Duplan stated that his purpose was to convey the friendship of

6 Arrival of Western Ships and Ikoku-tsuji ¯ in Ryukyu …

123

the French emperor to the Ryukyu king. Then, the interpreter on the Ryukyu side answered without waiting for the local officer’s utterance (Forcade 1885: 8): Nous sommes déjà les amis de votre Empereur; vous voyez que nous vous recevons bien, et nous ne demandons pas mieux que de vous fournir tout ce dont vous avez besoin. Quant au commerce, notre pays est petit; il est pauvre, il n’a rien à échanger contre vos objets européens qui sont lous comme autant de pierres précieuses. We are already your Emperor’s friends; as you see, we receive you well, and we do not want better than to provide you with everything you need. As for trade, our country is small; it is poor, and it has nothing to exchange for your European objects like so many precious stones. (My translation)

Forcade (1885: 8) continued as follows: Cette réponse est donnée par un interprète du pays. Cet homme paraît fort intelligent, nous l’avons déjà vu deux fois à bord; [...] Il répond comme de lui- même, sans dire mot au gouverneur … This answer was provided by an interpreter from this country. This man seems highly intelligent, and we have already seen him twice on board; ... He answers himself, without saying a word to the governor … (My translation)

The description immediately after this is striking. The conversation occurred only between Duplan and the Ryukyu interpreter. Duplan asked the interpreter to translate what he said to the Ryukyu local officer, but the interpreter replied that the local officer could only understand written Chinese, but not spoken. That is, the interpreter did not interpret any words spoken by both Duplan and the Ryukyu local officer. The next day’s diary introduced the interpreter as “Ikaradziki (sic)” (Itarashiki). Forcade described Ikaradziki as an interpreter, “qu’on rencontre toujours et partout et qui décide seul toutes les questions [who

124

M. Tsuboi

one met anytime and anywhere, and who alone decides all questions]” (1885: 14, my translation). According to reports from the Ryukyu government to Satsuma, the former had serious troubles because of this unexpected arrival of the ¯ French vessel and were worried about the Western threat (Ryukyu Okoku Hy¯oj¯oshomonjo vol. 1 no. 1327: 378–419. See Note 7). The Ryukyu government put Forcade in a temple, strictly isolating him from the locals. Officials and ts¯uji from both Kumemura and Shuri were mobilized to jointly monitor Forcade and report to the royal government and ¯ Satsuma (Ryukyu Okoku Hy¯oj¯oshomonjo vol. 18 no. 1934: 152–155. See Note 7). This was not the case with Bernard Jean Bettelheim, a British missionary and doctor, who came to Ryukyu in 1846, the year the British warship Stirling arrived at Naha. The following day, the Bettelheim family landed. Despite the government’s refusal, the warship left several days later, leaving the family behind. Bettelheim stayed at a temple in Naha until 1854, despite many conflicts with the kingdom and locals concerned about their stay. “Ichirazichi (sic)” (Itarashiki) was often mentioned in Bettelheim’s diary as one of two officials (the other was named Nagad¯o) who entertained and monitored him25 (Jenkins 2005a: 217). Kumemura-ts¯uji were also sent to Bettelheim. Interestingly, only Shuri-ts¯uji, including Itarashiki and Nagad¯o, were given the task of mutual language training with Bettelheim. Zhang (2019: 123) points out that one of the distinguishing factors between Shuri-ts¯uji and Kumemura-ts¯uji was that the former worked with missionaries and learned English or French from them in exchange for teaching them Ryukyuan. In a diary entry dated June 10, 1846, Bettelheim described how Itarashiki enthusiastically wanted to learn English: ... I have now obtained some regular occupation among the natives. Besides our reading & spelling lessons, the chief mandarin himself for the last three days came into my room, at a settled time appointed between us, for his English lesson & earnestly expressed his desire daily to come & learn. He is also for the most part my teacher in the Loo-chooan, though sometimes in his absence I am obliged to call in another. (Jenkins 2005a: 101)

6 Arrival of Western Ships and Ikoku-tsuji ¯ in Ryukyu …

125

Bettelheim later discovered that “the chief mandarin” was Itarashiki (Jenkins 2005a: 101). This story shows Itarashiki’s strong motivation to learn English. On May 26, 1853, five US warships led by Commodore Perry entered Naha Port. Perry, who visited Ryukyu five times between 1853 and 1854, was the first Westerner to visit Shuri Castle. Perry’s visits to Ryukyu were detailed in journals written by Hawks (1856) and Williams (1910/ 2018).26 As soon as Perry arrived at Naha, he surveyed the island, and sent ashore two officers and an interpreter to procure a house.27 They found and occupied a building on the beach. Soon after, local officials came and protested their occupation. The principal official promptly declared that it would not be admitted. Hawks (1856: 159) reported about this official on the Ryukyu side as follows: (“Doo Choo” in the text refers to Ryukyu.) Upon being pressed further, he seemed to become somewhat impatient, and rising from his seat, he crossed over to where the officers sat, and dispensing with the aid of an interpreter (through whom all communications had thus far been made) to the surprise of our gentlemen, said: ‘Gentlemen, Doo Choo man very small, American man not very small. I have read of America in books of Washington—very good man, very good. Doo Choo good friend American. Doo Choo man give American all provision he wants. American no can have house on shore.’

This Ryukyuan official was Itarashiki.28 Perry aspired to visit Shuri Castle and subsequently headed for the castle gate with over 200 troops and two field guns (Yamashita 1999: 23). Many in the kingdom’s leadership were opposed to Perry’s request. Because of the danger of Perry’s use of force, Itarashiki insisted on allowing his visit (Kishaba 1912). Williams (1910/2018: 24) described the latter as follows: “In all these proceedings, Idjirashi (sic) acts a most important and conspicuous part and shows a deal of cleverness.” On another occasion, Williams (1910/2018: 73) made the following comment after Itarashiki asked several questions:

126

M. Tsuboi

From these questions I saw that he had been reading the History of the United States given him, and then I asked him some more names and told him that he must go to America next year and see for himself. He demurred on account of the length of the voyage, etc., but perhaps the idea is not unpleasant to him.

As mentioned in Sect. 2.3, the Ryukyu government placed tentative officials to conceal its relationship with Satsuma. Although they were in place for negotiations, ikoku-ts¯uji were responsible for the actual communication,29 and Chinese was their working language used for this purpose. However, the English proficiency of ikoku-ts¯uji was useful for gathering information and daily communication with Westerners. Itarashiki consistently participated as ts¯uji from negotiations to signing a draft treaty between Ryukyu and the US,30 as well as in the practical procedures related to the operation after signing the treaty and the prepa¯ rations before the fleet’s final departure (Ryukyu Okoku Hy¯oj¯oshomonjo vol. 7 no. 1505. See Note 7). Itarashiki’s language proficiency in Chinese and English was valuable when the Ryukyu government was at the mercy of the US’ hardline policies. Higaonna (1924/1971: 274) noted that Itarashiki played a central role in this critical moment. His achievements were highly evaluated by Satsuma and the royal government. With the strong support of Nariakira, he was selected as one of the omotej¯ugonin, the council of fifteen in 1857, not normally possible for low-ranking shi, and in 1858, he became Makishi p¯echin.31 This unusual promotion contributed to his involvement in the power struggle.

4.3

Makishi-Onga Incident

In 1854, the Treaty of Peace and Amity was signed between Japan and the US. Nariakira, who was promoting reforms in Satsuma and strengthening his armament, planned to purchase and trade warships and weapons from France via Ryukyu. However, Nariakira’s radical policies invited opposition and concern not only within Satsuma but also from conservatives in the kingdom. To carry out his plan, Nariakira needed to expel the anti-Nariakira faction such as Zakimi u¯ekata 32 from the Ryukyu government. He intervened in the royal government’s

6 Arrival of Western Ships and Ikoku-tsuji ¯ in Ryukyu …

127

personnel affairs, trying to dismiss opposing forces, and selected the Satsuma faction within the royal government such as Onga u¯ekata, Oroku u¯ekata,33 and Makishi (Itarashiki) p¯echin for their replacement. However, Nariakira suddenly died in 1858, and conservatives took control of Satsuma. Nariakira’s death caused great turmoil in the Ryukyu Islands. The so-called Makishi-Onga jiken (the Makishi-Onga incident) occurred at this time. The most important primary source about this incident is Ryukyu San’en-roku (琉球三冤録 Record of Three Ryukyuan Grievances) attached to Ryukyu Kenbun-roku (琉球見聞録 Ryukyuan Records from Personal Knowledge), written in 1914 by Kishaba Ch¯oken, the author of T¯otei Zuihitsu Zokuhen (see Sect. 4.1). Kishaba described what he saw and heard about the incident, which occurred when he was twenty: This book discusses the stigma of these three names by revealing the truth of the incident. The background and sequence of the incident were as follows. In 1857, Nariakira secretly ordered his confidant Ichiki Shir¯o (市来四 郎, 1928–1903) to go to Ryukyu and demand the kingdom to support Satsuma for foreign trade and dismiss one of the three sanshikan, Zakimi u¯ekata. The Ryukyu government was extremely perplexed by this order and tried to avoid complying with it. However, Ichiki told them that this was a strict order from the Satsuma lord, and had Onga and Makishi persuade the government to comply with this order. Meanwhile, Makishi became one of omotej¯ugonin. Until then, the appointment of officials in Ryukyu had been the kingdom’s internal matter. Moreover, because the status system was strict, a low-ranking shi could not easily be appointed to a high position. The fact that Makishi was promoted to such a high rank aroused the suspicions of the people of Ryukyu (Kishaba 1914: 156). In 1858, Nariakira ordered Ichiki to purchase warships and guns from France through Ryukyu. Negotiations were conducted in secret, directly by Iichiki and Makishi, and only a few people in the royal government, including Onga and Oroku, knew this. Thanks to their efforts, the negotiations progressed, and a contract for the purchase of warships was signed. However, Nariakira died unexpectedly, which changed the situation. In Satsuma, the conservatives regained power and adopted a

128

M. Tsuboi

policy to overthrow Nariakira’s decisions. The cancelation of the contract for the purchase of warships was resolved by paying a penalty to France. Meanwhile, the political upheaval in Satsuma spilled over to Ryukyu in another form. In February 1859, Onga u¯ekata was suddenly forced out of his position and thrown in jail charged with conspiring against Zakimi u¯ekata and asking Satsuma to impeach him. In May, Oroku u¯ekata was dismissed from his post and thrown in jail charged with trying to influence Satsuma to interfere in the election of the sanshikan of Ryukyu. In September, Makishi p¯echin was dismissed and imprisoned charged with attempting to solicit Satsuma to ask the royal government for setting Oroku free. Although these charges were based on rumors, trials against these three dignitaries were persistent. They were forced to confess and subjected to severe torture. Onga, however, never admitted his guilt despite the severity of torture he was subjected to. In the same year, he was sentenced to six years of exile on Kumejima Island.34 He died of a serious illness in prison while awaiting shipping (Kishaba 1914: 165– 167). The torture against Oroku was also harsh, but he refused to admit his guilt. Makishi’s case lay in contrast to that of these two dignitaries. He was unable to bear the torture, made a false confession, and was allowed to return home for a while. While at home, he left notes stating that his confession was false and that he was innocent. Serious conflicts arose within the royal government over the trials, and ended with the king’s decision. Makishi was sentenced to 10 years of exile on Kumejima Island, which was later modified to life imprisonment because he might have escaped to Satsuma (Kishaba 1914: 165–167).35 In 1862, the Satsuma government abruptly summoned Makishi, who had already been in prison for four years at that time, to Satsuma because the domain wanted Makishi to work as ts¯uji to communicate with Western countries. The royal government requested that the order be canceled, but this was not accepted. Makishi was released from prison and sent to Satsuma by ship, accompanied by Ichiki. However, on the way, he threw himself into the sea (Kishaba 1914: 168). Most believe it was a suicide, but to this day, it remains unclear whether it was suicide, accidental death, or murder.

6 Arrival of Western Ships and Ikoku-tsuji ¯ in Ryukyu …

5

129

Discussion

For Ryukyu, which had managed to survive in its precarious position between China and Satsuma (Japan), the first half of the nineteenth century was particularly difficult. While the Western powers’ colonial ambitions spread to China and other East Asian countries, including Japan, Ryukyu faced difficulties because of the arrival of a series of Western vessels. Thus, the Ryukyu royal government needed to take new measures. The harsh environment inside and outside Ryukyu led to the birth of ikoku-ts¯uji. Most ikoku-ts¯uji were from Shuri and studied in the Kokugaku. However, it remains unclear whether it was initially planned to train ikoku-ts¯uji. The Kokugaku was founded to develop excellent human resources and train Ryukyu officials. For the Ryukyu Kingdom, relations with China were critical. Thus, Kumemura-ts¯uji, identifying themselves as descendants of the Chinese, continued to play a key role in the kingdom’s diplomacy (Matsukata 2010: 242, and see Chapter 5). The Shuri royal government might have wanted officials with a sense of belonging and loyalty to the Ryukyu Kingdom to maintain its security. Therefore, when the government decided to train ikoku-ts¯uji, it ordered officials mainly from Shuri, not from Kumemura, to learn Western languages. The reason may be that the government wanted to train ikoku-ts¯uji loyal to the kingdom in this critical diplomatic environment. The decision by the kingdom may represent a choice between what Cronin (2002: 55) called the “heteronomous system and autonomous system of interpreting.” Discussing the problem of controlling interpreters in the colonial context, Cronin refers to the difficulty of the imperial agent in dealing with the doubleness of interpreters and introduces two types of interpreting systems. A heteronomous system involves recruiting native interpreters and training them in the imperial language, whereas an autonomous system involves training its subjects in the language(s) of the colonized (Cronin 2002: 55). This cannot be applied directly to ts¯uji in the Ryukyu Kingdom. However, it is helpful to consider what measures can be taken by the ruler to control the duality of ts¯uji. The kingdom might have relied more on Shuri-ts¯uji as autonomous

130

M. Tsuboi

interpreters than Kumemura-ts¯uji, who had a strong Chinese identity in a sense of heteronomous interpreters. Shuri-ts¯uji came to play an even more critical role in dealing with Western ships after the arrival of the Alcmene in 1844. Most Kumemurats¯uji were professional ts¯uji; although their roles were broader, they were promoted according to their achievements as ts¯uji. For Shuri-ts¯uji, interpreting was one of the duties as an official, and particularly for the lower-ranking shi, such as Itarashiki (later Makishi), it was useful for career advancement. They initially performed their duties as Ryukyuan– Chinese ts¯uji, same as Kumemura-ts¯uji. The roles of ikoku-ts¯uji ranged from diplomatic negotiations to interpreting; questioning, watching, and attending to foreigners; taking care of their surroundings; and collecting information. One of the most specific duties of ikoku-ts¯uji was the mutual teaching of languages. For ikoku-ts¯uji, language ability in Chinese and Western languages was certainly important but was only one element of various tasks (Zhang 2019: 128). There were other names as ikoku-ts¯uji in the official documents of Ryukyu. Nevertheless, the achievements of Itarashiki showed what could be required for ikoku-ts¯uji, how they were valued, and why Itarashiki succeeded and failed. Itarashiki could speak Mandarin Chinese very well and he worked as a Ryukyuan–Chinese ts¯uji in the negotiations with Duplan and Perry. Furthermore, he often answered on behalf of a high-ranking official on the Ryukyu side, without translating the speech of his counterpart or his superior. Moreover, during negotiations with the American officers, listening to the US’ high-handed demands, he suddenly spoke in English and expressed his opinion, abandoning his role as ts¯uji. Interestingly, even though he came from a low-ranking shi, such behavior was accepted to some extent. It suggests that the work and role of ikoku-ts¯uji were relatively highly valued in Ryukyu. He showed by his proactive speech that the Ryukyu was on equal footing with Western nations. This made Itarashiki stand out from the other interpreters as a diplomat. Itarashiki’s English was not proficient enough as ikoku-ts¯uji from today’s perspective; however, he used technical terms such as “provision” rather than “food” or “water.” Yamazato (2015: 200) points out that one can identify his strategy as a diplomat in choosing these words.

6 Arrival of Western Ships and Ikoku-tsuji ¯ in Ryukyu …

131

He told the American officers that he learned from books that Washington was a great man, and ultimately refused the American request politely but firmly. His words and attitude showed his pride in understanding domestic and world affairs, and his confidence in negotiating at the forefront of diplomacy. Itarashiki also learned French; however, his proficiency remains unclear. He quickly acquired a certain level of English-speaking ability and obtained information from English books. However, more important than linguistic competence was the fact that he had acquired communicative competence and the ability to resolutely negotiate with people of distinct cultures. From the current perspective of ethics and norms, in which interpreters should be impartial, Itarashiki seemed to deviate from his role. Yamazato (2015: 206) described the ts¯uji in the nineteenth century, such as Maehira, Aniya, and Itarashiki, as intellectuals who received the world’s most advanced knowledge, and therefore suffered great anguish. Ikoku-ts¯uji had to work as the kingdom’s diplomats negotiating with Satsuma (Japan) and Western countries. As mentioned above, it was likely that the kingdom highly valued the importance of ikoku-ts¯uji, which might have been why it gave them the authority to play a role in negotiations and diplomacy with Westerners. Any translation activities including interpreting “is necessarily embedded within social contexts” (Wolf 2007: 1). Their roles and practices are interrelated with various agencies and agents, regardless of their past or present. Simeoni (1995: 452) defined the agent as “the subject, but socialized ” (Emphasis in original). Interpreters are social agents inextricably linked to other social agents (Simeoni 1995: 452). So was ikoku-ts¯uji. Itarashiki was ts¯uji on behalf of Ryukyu and in charge of diplomatic negotiations. Under pressure from Satsuma (Japan), China, and Western countries, he demonstrated the ability to intermediate. He was responsible for communication among various social agents. It was probably safest for him to interpret, as dictated by the higher authorities. However, the times and environment surrounding Ryukyu forced him to exercise judgment and decision making. A wrong action or word could pose a danger to the kingdom or to himself. Therefore, the fact that Itarashiki as an ikoku-ts¯uji succeeded and failed in his career symbolizes interpreters as social agents at that time.

132

M. Tsuboi

Itarashiki was supposed to be an autonomous interpreter, and faithful to the kingdom. However, he soon began to behave like a vassal of Satsuma. While acknowledging his competence, the kingdom might have begun to doubt his royalty. On the other hand, for Satsuma, Itarashiki was a heteronomous interpreter from the beginning. This meant that he was caught in a dilemma between Satsuma and Ryukyu and was in danger of being suspected by both sides. Then, was Itarashiki a victim at the mercy of those in power? Born as a low-ranking shi in Ryukyu, what was the identity of Itarashiki, who studied Chinese and learned Japanese, English, and French to become an official in the kingdom? He enthusiastically learned about both Chinese culture and modern Western thoughts (see Sect. 4.1). Realizing the dead end of the kingdom as a dual tributary and feudal society, he may have longed for a modern nation. This might be why, at Nariakira’s behest, he spared no effort to intermediate between Western countries, Japan, and Ryukyu. According to Williams (1910/2018: 73), Itarashiki enjoyed learning, not just for gathering information, but with endless interest and admiration for unknown nations and cultures. It may be possible to portray him as a subject who, while struggling with various social forces, dreamed of a new era, and tried to carve out his path. If Nariakira’s plan had been realized, international students would have been dispatched from Ryukyu and Satsuma to France, Great Britain, and the US, and Itarashiki might have been one of them. Itarashiki’s short life symbolizes the complex situation and roles of interpreters in the turbulent nineteenth century. However, can his life be considered as a thing of the past? In this ever-globalizing world, the roles, norms, ethics, and quality standards of interpreters are changing (cf. Biagini et al. 2017). His life overlaps with that of today’s interpreters in conflict zones, who carry out various tasks between powers for their own mission, survival, or career building, sometimes regarded as useful intermediaries, and sometimes as traitors (cf. Takeda and BaigorriJalón 2016; Todorova and Rosendo 2021). What might be the extent of their social roles and responsibilities as interpreters, what social factors might put them at risk, and what social system could protect their lives and security when they face troubles? The complex historical and social

6 Arrival of Western Ships and Ikoku-tsuji ¯ in Ryukyu …

133

contexts in which ikoku-ts¯uji in the nineteenth century survived and died provides an opportunity for us to reflect on today’s even more complicated interpreters’ practices and their roles. Many issues remain to be addressed regarding ikoku-ts¯uji. The first is to compare them with interpreters of the same period who also negotiated with Westerners in China, Korea, as well as Satsuma and Nagasaki (Japan). Analyzing the differences and similarities among them will lead to a deeper understanding of the status, roles, and practices of interpreters during this period. This issue needs to be explored in future.

Notes 1. Uehara (2020: 9–15), relying mainly on Ky¯uy¯o (Ky¯uy¯o Kenky¯u-kai 1974. See Note 5), states that Western ships arrived in the waters around Ryukyu approximately 100 times from 1797 to 1866. This figure may include multiple visits by the same ships. 2. The word “ikoku” literally means foreign countries. However, in Ryukyu at that time, it generally referred to Western countries. Similarly, “ikokusen” (異国船) literally means ships of foreign countries but was used as a generic term for ships registered in Europe and the US, and “ikoku-jin” (異国人) referred to Westerners. The word “Urand¯a ” (literally Holland) also referred to Western countries and Westerners (Toyohira 2001: 6). This paper uses the term “ikoku-ts¯uji” for Western language interpreters. 3. The word Shuri-ts¯uji was also used for ikoku-ts¯uji because most of them were from Shuri. 4. He was renamed Makishi Ch¯och¯u (牧志朝忠) in 1858. For details, see Sect. 4. 5. Official history of the Ryukyu Kingdom, which was reprinted and edited by Ky¯uy¯o Kenky¯u-kai in 1974 (Ky¯uy¯o Kenky¯u-kai 1974). 6. Diplomatic documents of the Ryukyu Kingdom, which were reprinted and edited by Okinawa Kenritsu Toshokan Shiry¯o Hensh¯u-shitsu in 1997 (Okinawa Kenritsu Toshokan Shiry¯o Hensh¯u-shitsu 1997). 7. Official documents of hy¯oj¯osho (highest lawmaking body of the ¯ Ryukyu Kingdom), which were reprinted by Ryukyu Okoku Hy¯oj¯oshomonjo Hensh¯u Iinkai between 1988 and 2003 (Ryukyu ¯ Okoku Hy¯oj¯oshomonjo Hensh¯u Iinkai 1988–2003). See also Notes for References.

134

M. Tsuboi

8. This refers to the process in which the Meiji government after the collapse of the Tokugawa shogunate (1868) called on the Ryukyu Kingdom to abolish the tribute to the Qing dynasty, and forcibly integrated it into Japan. As a result, Okinawa Prefecture was created. Sh¯o Tai (尚泰, 1843–1901), the last Ryukyu king, was forced to abdicate and leave Shuri Castle, whereby the Ryukyu Kingdom disappeared. See Akamine (2004/2017: 142–165). 9. For ikoku-sen, see Notes 1 and 2. 10. Among them was the American merchant ship Morrison (1837). It allegedly came to Japan to open trade with it using the pretext of repatriating seven Japanese castaways. Among these castaways was Otokichi, discussed in detail in Chapter 8. Aboard the Morrison was S. Wells Williams as a missionary interpreter, who later visited Japan as an interpreter for Perry’s fleet. 11. See also Hall (1818: 222). 12. For Nariakira’s grand plans, see Ichiki (1884/1944). 13. Ryukyu’s highest governing council. It comprised the hy¯oj¯osho with the sessei (Smits 1999: 165). 14. It comprised the heads of major government divisions (Smits 1999: 165). 15. See Chapter 5. 16. This term is distinguished from kokugaku which refers to the study of Japanese classical literature. 17. For Mandarin Chinese, see Chapter 5. 18. However, French was not learned as much as English (Kishaba 1993: 321). For the ts¯uji system in Satsuma, see Tokunaga (2005: 371–485). 19. Maehira, Aniya, and Itarashiki are known not only as ikoku-ts¯uji but also as characters who contributed to the development of English studies in Okinawa (Toyoda 1939; Kamekawa 1972; Yamashita 1996, 1997, 1999a, 1999b). 20. In the Ryukyu Kingdom, shi took as his surname the name of the region over which he was given a control over as its head. Therefore, when one was promoted, his surname also changed as well. 21. The original text by Kishaba contains both new and old forms of Chinese characters. Here, the text is unified in the new forms. 22. P¯echin (親雲上) was the status rank in the yukatchu (良人 members of Ryukyu’s aristocratic class) of the kingdom. It was below the rank of u¯ekata. See Smits (1999: 166–167). The name of the status rank of shi usually followed his surname.

6 Arrival of Western Ships and Ikoku-tsuji ¯ in Ryukyu …

135

23. U¯ekata (親方) was the highest rank in the yukatchu, although it was below the aji (按司 local warlords). See Smits (1999: 165–167). 24. Nakahama was one of the first Japanese to visit the US and receive education there. After returning to Japan, he was called by the shogunate for information about America. See Chapter 8. 25. The name Nagad¯o referred to Nagad¯o satonushi p¯echin. Only his surname (Nagad¯o) and title (satonushi p¯echin) were known, and the details of his background and activities have not been revealed so far. 26. For Williams, see Note 10. See also Kerr (1958/2000: 307). 27. The interpreter’s name was Samuel Wells Williams, who had 20 years of experience in China and was an excellent Chinese scholar. He also had in-depth knowledge of the Ryukyu Kingdom (Kerr 2000: 306–307). 28. Williams (1910/2018: 12–13) noted that his name was Adjirashi, and that it was “spelt Ichirazichi (sic) in the Narrative of the Expedition.” 29. During this period, the roles of ikoku-ts¯uji became extremely multifaceted. Zhang (2019: 131–133) listed the following: (1) board American ships and verify the registration, religion, number of personnel, size, and place of departure; (2) keep track of trends on the American side, monitor the situation, and report to the royal government; (3) protest against illegal acts on the American side; and 4) work as an interpreter in negotiations with the US, in some cases as a negotiator. 30. Zhang (2019: 136) notes that it was certain that Itarashiki was always present at the negotiations and signing a draft treaty with Perry. However, no documentation has been found to prove it. 31. For p¯echin, see Note 22. 32. For u¯ekata, see Note 23. Zakimi referred to his surname. 33. Oroku and Onga referred to their surnames respectively and u¯ekata was their status rank. 34. It is located approximately 100 km west of the main island of Ryukyu. 35. Oroku received a sentence to be kept at a temple on Iejima Island located approximately nine km northwest of the main island of Ryukyu for 500 days.

136

M. Tsuboi

References Akamine, M. (2004/2017) The Ryukyu Kingdom: Cornerstone of East Asia. Translated by L. Terrell. (R. Huey, Edited). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press. Asano, M. (1991) Okinawa Ken no Ky¯oiku-shi [History of Education in Okinawa Prefecture]. Kyoto: Shibunkaku Shuppan. Beechey, F. W. (1831/2017) Narrative of a Voyage to the Pacific and Beering’s Strait, Vol. 2. London: Henry Colburn and Richard Bentley. [Kindle] Biagini, M., Boyd, M. S. and Monacelli, C. (eds.) (2017) The Changing Role of the Interpreter: Contextualising Norms, Ethics and Quality Standards. London: Routledge. Cronin, M. (2002) ‘The Empire Talks Back: Orality, Heteronomy, and the Cultural Turn in Interpreting Studies.’ In M. Tymoczko and E. Gentzler (eds.) Translation and Power. Boston: University of Massachusetts Press. 45– 62. ¯ no Ikoku-sen Geisetsu Taisei—S¯orikan Dana, M. (1998) ‘Kant¯o Ronk¯o: Ofu o Ch¯ushin ni [Opening Article: The Foreign Ships Reception System of ¯ the Ryukyu Royal Government—Focusing on S¯orikan].’ In Ryukyu Okoku ¯ Hy¯oj¯oshomonjo Hensh¯u Iinkai (ed.), Ryukyu Okoku Hy¯oj¯oshomonjo Vol. 14. Urasoe: Urasoeshi Ky¯oiku Iinkai. 5–43. Dana, M. (2003) ‘III Jiritsu e no Mosaku [III The Search for Independence].’ In K. Tomiyama (ed.) Nihon no Jidai-shi 18: Ryukyu-Okinawa-shi no Sekai [History of Each Period in Japan 18: The World of Ryukyu and Okinawan History]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K¯obunkan. 167–195. Forcade, T. A. (1885) Le Premier Missionnaire Catholique du Japon au XIXe Siècle. Lyon: Bureaux des Missions Catholiques. Hall, B. (1818) Account of a Voyage of Discovery to the West Coast of Corea and the Great Loo-Choo Island . London: John Murray. Hawks, F. L. (1856) Narrative of the Expedition of an American Squadron to the China Seas and Japan, Performed in the Years 1852, 1853, and 1854, Under the Command of Commodore M. C. Perry, United States Navy by Order of the Government of the United States, Vol.1. Washington: A.O.P. Nicholson. Higaonna K. (1924/1971) Sh¯o Tai K¯o Jitsuroku [Authentic Records of Marquis Sh¯o Tai]. Tokyo: Hara Shob¯o. Ichiki, S. (1884/1944) Shimazu Nariakira Genko-roku [Record of the Sayings and Acts of Shimazu Nariakira]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Ikegami, E. (2008) Tenpesuto [Tempest]. Tokyo: Kadokawa Shoten.

6 Arrival of Western Ships and Ikoku-tsuji ¯ in Ryukyu …

137

Jenkins, A. P. (ed.) (2005a) The Journal and Official Correspondence of Bernard ¯ Jean Bettelheim 1845–54, pt. 1 (1845–1851). Ozatoson: Okinawaken Ky¯oiku Iinkai. Jenkins, A. P. (ed.) (2005b) The Journal and Official Correspondence of Bernard ¯ Jean Bettelheim 1845–54, pt. 2 (1852–54). Ozatoson: Okinawaken Ky¯oiku Iinkai. Kamekawa, S. (1972) Okinawa no Eigaku [English Studies in Okinawa]. Tokyo: Kenky¯usha. Kamiya, A. (2013) Higashi Ajia no naka no Ryukyu to Satsuma-han [Ryukyu and the Satsuma Domain in the East Asia]. Tokyo: Azekura Shob¯o. Kerr, G. H. (1958/2000) Okinawa: The History of an Island People. Tokyo: Tuttle Publishing. Kishaba, C. (1912) T¯otei Zuihitsu Zokuhen [The Sequel to Miscellaneous Writing of T¯otei]. University of the Ryukyus Repository. Accessed November 10, 2021. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12000/10216. Kishaba, C. (1914) Ryukyu Kenbun-roku [Ryukyuan Records from Personal Knowledge]. National Diet Library Digital Collection. Accessed November 10, 2021. https://dl.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/950754. Kishaba, K. (1993) ‘Ryukyu ni okeru T¯o-ts¯uji [Japanese–Chinese interpreters in Ryukyu].’ In Fujino Tamotsu Sensei Kanreki Kinen-kai (ed.) Kinsei Nihon no Seiji to Gaik¯o [Politics and Diplomacy in Early Modern Japan]. Tokyo: Y¯uzankaku Shuppan. 311–331. Kurouchi, H. (2016) Gen’ei no Kariyushi—Makishi Ch¯och¯u to Chiru [Illusionary Kariyushi—Makishi Ch¯och¯u and Chiru]. Tokyo: Shinzansha. Ky¯uy¯o Kenky¯u-kai (ed.) (1974) Okinawa Bunka Shiry¯o Sh¯usei 5: Ky¯uy¯o [Collection of Okinawan Cultural Archives 5: Ky¯uy¯o] (Reprint). Tokyo: Kadokawa Shoten. Maehira, F. (1997) ‘Ryukyu no Kaigai J¯oh¯o to Higashi Ajia [Overseas Information in Ryukyu and East Asia].’ In T. Iwashita and F. Maehira (eds.) Kinsei Nihon no Kaigai J¯oh¯o [Overseas Information in Modern Japan]. Tokyo: Iwata Shoin. 94–127. Matsukata, F. (2010) ‘Ts¯uyaku to “Yottsu no Kuchi” [Interpreters and Four Gateways].’ In Y. Arano, M. Ishii and S. Murai (eds.) Kinseiteki Sekai no Seijuku [The Mature Early Modern World]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K¯obunkan. 235–250. Nagad¯o, E. (2011) Ts¯uji Makishi Ch¯och¯u no Sh¯ogai [The Life of an Interpreter Makishi Ch¯och¯u]. Naha: Niraisha. Okinawa Kenritsu Toshokan Shiry¯o Hensh¯u-shitsu (ed.) (1997) Rekidaih¯oan (Reprint). Naha: Okinawaken Ky¯oiku Iinkai.

138

M. Tsuboi

¯ Ryukyu Okoku Hy¯oj¯oshomonjo Hensh¯u Iinkai (ed.) (1988–2003) Ry¯uky¯u ¯ Okoku Hy¯oj¯oshomonjo [Written Record of Conference Chamber Proceedings of the Ryukyu Kingdom] (Reprint). Vol. 1, Vol.7, and Vol. 18. Urasoe: Urasoeshi Ky¯oiku Iinkai.* ¯ Shima, T. (1997) Ryukyu Okoku Suib¯o-shi [History of the Decline and Fall of the Ryukyu Kingdom]. Tokyo: Heibonsha. ¯ no Ikokusen Taisaku: Shimajiri, K. (1987) ‘Bakumatsu-ki ni okeru Ryukyu Ofu Futsu Kansen Rairy¯u o Ch¯ushin ni [Countermeasures against Foreign Vessels by the Ryukyu Royal Government at the End of the Edo Period: Focusing on the Incident of the Arrival of French Vessels to Ryukyu].’ In Chih¯o-shi Kenky¯u Ky¯ogikai (ed.) Ryuku/Okinawa: Sono Rekishi to Nihon-shi Z¯o [Ryukyu/Okinawa: Its History and Image of Japanese History]. Tokyo: Yuzankaku Shuppan. 133–155. Simeoni, D. (1995) ‘Translating and Studying Translation: The View from the Agent.’ Meta, 40(3), 445–460. Smits, G. (1999) Visions of Ryukyu: Identity and Ideology in Early-Modern Thought and Politics. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press. Takeda, K. and Baigorri-Jalón, J. (eds.) (2016). New Insights in the History of Interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ¯ no Gaik¯okan to Ikokusen [Diplomats of the Takei, M. (2018) ‘Ryukyu Ofu Ryukyu Kingdom and Western Ships].’ Bessatsu Kan, 23, 24–35. Todorova, M. and Rosendo, L. R. (eds.) (2021) Interpreting Conflict: A Comparative Framework. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Tokunaga, K. (2005) Satsuma Han Taigai K¯osh¯o-shi no Kenky¯u [Study on the Satsuma Domain’s History of External Relations]. Fukuoka: Kyushu University Press. Toyoda, M. (1939) Nihon Eigaku-shi no Kenky¯u [Research on the History of English Studies in Japan]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Toyohira, T. (2001) ‘Bunken Sh¯okai: Bakumatsu no Ikoku-sen Rairy¯u-ki to T¯oji no Ryukyu no J¯oky¯o 2—Ryukyu Daigaku Fuzoku Toshokan Shoz¯o Okinawa-kankei Shiry¯o kara [Literature Introduction: Records of the Arrival of Foreign Ships in Ryukyu at the End of the Edo Period and the Situation of Ryukyu at That Time 2—From Okinawa-related Materials of University of the Ryukyus Library].’ Biblio, 34(4), 6–7. ¯ Uehara, K. (2020) Kurofune Raik¯o to Ryukyu Okoku [Arrival of “Black Ships” and the Ryukyu Kingdom]. Nagoya: University of Nagoya Press. Watanabe, M. (2002) ‘Kant¯o Ronk¯o: Kinsei Ryukyu ni okeru Tai “Ikoku-sen Hy¯ochaku” Taisei—Ch¯ugoku-jin, Ch¯osen-jin, Shussho Fumei no Ikoku-jin no Hy¯ochaku ni Sonaete [Opening Article: The System of Measures against

6 Arrival of Western Ships and Ikoku-tsuji ¯ in Ryukyu …

139

“Drifting Foreign Ships” in Ryukyu During the Early Modern Period— Preparing for the Drifting of Chinese, Koreans, and Foreigners of Unknown ¯ Origin].’ In Ryukyu Okoku Hy¯oj¯oshomonjo Hensh¯u Iinkai (ed.) Ryukyu ¯ Okoku Hy¯oj¯oshomonjo Vol. 1 (supplementary volume). Urasoe: Urasoeshi Ky¯oiku Iinkai. 5–47. Williams, S. W. (1910/2018) A Journal of the Perry Expedition to Japan (1853– 1854). London: Forgotten Books. Wolf, M. (2007) ‘Introduction: The Emergence of a Sociology of Translation.’ In M. Wolf and A. Furaki (eds.) Constructing a Sociology of Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1–36. Yamashita, S. (1996) ‘Ryukyu Ts¯uji Makishi Ch¯och¯u [Makishi Ch¯och¯u, an Interpreter for Ryukyu Kingdom].’ Kokugakuin H¯ogaku, 34(1), 47–88. Yamashita, S. (1999a) ‘Ryukyu Eigo Ts¯uji no Keifu [The Genealogy of English Interpreters for Ryukyu Kingdom].’ Nant¯o Shigaku, 53, 4–31. Yamashita, S. (1999b) ‘Ryukyu Eigo Ts¯uji Aniya Masasuke** [Masasuke Aniya, an English Interpreter for Ryukyu Kingdom].’ Eigaku-shi Kenky¯u, 32, 25– 37. ¯ ¯ Jidai no Ikokusen no Torai [The Yamashita, S. (2000) ‘Sh¯o K¯o O/Sh¯ o Iku O arrival of Foreign Ships during the Reigns of Kings Sh¯o K¯o and Sh¯o Iku].’ In K. Kishaba (ed.) Ryukyu Sh¯o-shi no Subete [All about the Sh¯o Clan of ¯ Ryukyu]. Tokyo: Shin Jinbutsu Oraisha. 135–152. Yamazato, K. (2015) ‘Yowasa to Seigi, Chikara to Fuseigi: Ryukyu, Okinawa, Nihon, Amerika o Meguru “Gens¯o” Shiron [Weakness and Justice, Power, and Injustice: An Essay on the Visions of Ryukyu, Okinawa, Japan, and the United States].’ In K. Noda (ed.) Nihon Gens¯o: Hy¯osh¯o to Han-hy¯osh¯o no Hikaku Bunka-ron [Visionary Japan: Comparative Approaches to the Representation and Counter-representation of Culture]. Kyoto: Minerva Shob¯o. 187–216. Zhang, Z. (2019) ‘19 Seiki Ryukyu Koku no Seiy¯o Go Ts¯uji [The Role of Western Interpreters in Relation Between Ryukyu and the West in the 19th Century].’ Shirin, 102(3), 108–143.

Notes for References ¯ collection of Ry¯uky¯u Okoku Hy¯oj¯oshomonjo (1988–2003) consists of 20 volumes, including a supplementary and a general index volume, which were reprinted and edited from all the administrative documents (between 1623 and 1879) of the Ryukyu Kingdom that are known to exist.

*The

140 ** Aniya

M. Tsuboi

Masasuke was the same person as Aniya Seiho mentioned in Section 3. Masasuke is the Japanese reading of Seiho. Here, we followed the author’s notation.

7 Ezo-tsuji ¯ (Japanese–Ainu Interpreters) in the Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries: The Case of Uehara Kumajiro¯ Miki Sato

1

Introduction

This chapter explores the Ezo-ts¯uji (蝦夷通辞1 ), Japanese–Ainu interpreters during the Early Modern era. The Ainu are an indigenous people of the Ezo region, which stretches from the northern island of the Japanese archipelago (present-day Hokkaido) to Sakhalin (present-day Far Eastern Russia) and the Kuril Islands (Fukazawa 2019: 21). This study focuses on Uehara Kumajir¯o (上原熊次郎, ?–1827), who worked as an Ezo-ts¯uji from the end of the eighteenth century to the early nineteenth century. Although there is no clear evidence regarding the number of Ezo-ts¯uji who were working contemporaneously with Uehara, This chapter is partly based on a conference paper titled ‘A Practice of Translation by Ezo-Ts¯uji , Japanese–Ainu Interpreter in the Pre-modern Japan’, which the author read at the Third East Asian Translation Studies Conference at Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, 30 June 2019.

M. Sato (B) Sapporo University, Sapporo, Japan e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Saito and M. Sato (eds.), Ts¯uji, Interpreters in and Around Early Modern Japan, Translation History, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37652-8_7

141

142

M. Sato

a rough estimate can be made based on the number of basho or akinaiba (locations of trade where merchants employed ts¯uji, see Sect. 2.1). The records of basho suggest that there were approximately 60 Ezo-ts¯uji contemporary with Uehara.2 Among them, Uehara’s accomplishments, including his written translations and his involvement in diplomatic interpretations, were extraordinary achievements for a single Ezo-ts¯uji. This chapter begins with a brief historical background of Ezo and the Ainu people, followed by Uehara’s biography and a discussion regarding his work as an Ezo-ts¯uji, including his translations in the first Japanese– Ainu dictionary he created and published in 1792 and his commitment as ts¯uji in an incident involving V. M. Golovnin, a Russian captain captured by the Japanese government in Ezo in 1811. Floros (2021: 348) conveys the significance of studying translation history, and although his observations focus on ethics education in translation and interpreting, the merit of historical studies can be applied to translation and interpreting studies in general: …translation history […] becomes increasingly significant for ethical training, since the comparison of canonical and less canonical understandings of the discipline and the professional practice may prove beneficial in shaping ethical considerations, and guiding principles, as well as, ultimately, the “ethical leeway” practitioners have at their disposal. (Emphasis in original)

Some may consider Uehara an exceptional case that does not contribute to an understanding of the roles or attitudes of either Ezo-ts¯uji or present-day interpreters in general. However, this chapter maintains that even though he was an atypical interpreter among Ezo-ts¯uji, his case can provide additional insights and ‘leeway’ to explore the pragmatic conceptions of current translation and interpreting practices, as asserted by Floros above.

7 Ezo-tsuji ¯ (Japanese–Ainu Interpreters) in the Late …

2

Historical Background

2.1

A Brief History of Ezo and the Ainu

143

An official history of Japan compiled in 720, Nihon Shoki (日本書紀 Chronicles of Japan), describes indigenous people called Emishi, who resided in the northern regions of Japan.3 The following is a record of year 110, which depicts that they were not under the rule of Japan’s emperor. 擊則隱草、追則入山、故往古以來、未染王化 When they [i.e. Emishi] are attacked, they hide in the bushes; when they are chased, they flee into the mountains. So, they have not been subjected to the rule of our emperors yet. (Nihon Shoki, vol. 7, my translation)4

Segawa (2015: 53–54) argues that the Emishi, who emigrated from the present-day T¯ohoku area to the island of Ezo (although it was not known by that name) in the late seventh century, and the Ainu people, who already resided there, developed a hybrid culture, now known as the ancient Ainu culture. In the records for the years 598 and 660, the chronicle also mentions ‘Watarinoshima (渡嶋)’ and ‘Watarinoshima no Emishi (渡嶋蝦夷)’, which are now widely considered as present-day Hokkaido (i.e. the island of Ezo in the Early Modern era) and the Ainu people, respectively (Segawa 2015: 118). During the medieval period (end of the twelfth century to the midsixteenth century), the indigenous people, then called Ezo,5 were under the control of the Kamakura shogunate; it was not until the fifteenth century that the indigenous people on the island of Ezo were referred to as the Ainu (Kuwabara and Kawakami 2018: 49–51). In the midfifteenth century, the southernmost part of Ezo was inhabited by both indigenous peoples and the Japanese. This is evidenced by the records describing a series of battles that lasted for nearly 100 years, starting with the ‘Battle of Koshamain’6 in 1457, which was fought between the indigenous Ainu and Japanese warriors residing in the area. These

144

M. Sato

battles appear to have stemmed from a rivalry over the control of trade in the region. One leader of the Japanese warriors, Kakizaki Suehiro (蠣 崎季広, 1507–1595), eventually made peace with the Ainu in 1550, and effectively ruled the territory and local trade (Segawa 2015: 62; Kuwabara and Kawakami 2018: 60–65). The Kakizaki family declared its loyalty to two rulers of Japan: Toyotomi Hideyoshi (豊臣秀吉, 1536–1598), followed by Tokugawa Ieyasu (徳川家康, 1542–1616). This allowed the family to be direct vassals of the national leaders and authorised them as the rulers of Ezo; furthermore, Ieyasu granted them an official monopoly on trade with the Ainu (Siddle 1996: 32). The Kakizakis changed their surname to Matsumae after the location where they were based in the southern part of Ezo in 1599, establishing their feudal domain in Ezo. During this period, most of the Ezo region, excluding the Matsumae family’s base, was outside what had been considered Japan’s territory, and the Ainu had not been subject to political control under Japanese regimes (Siddle 1996: 43). However, the Matsumaes regarded the entire island as their territory and began to exert power over the Ainu people (Siddle 1996: 43; Kuwabara and Kawakami 2018: 74–79). The first definitive mention of the interpreter(s) between Japanese and the indigenous language appears in the record of the year 1593 in Matsumaekaki (松前家記 History of the Matsumae family) (Nitta 1881/1974: 11).7 It mentions that Hideyoshi authorised the first Matsumae lord, Yoshihiro (松前慶広, 1548–1616), to govern territory in Ezo, and that an interpreter or interpreters addressed this assertion to the Ainu. Nagasaki and the Satsuma domain employed their own official ts¯uji (see Chapters 1, 2, 3 and 6), and Matsumae records contain several references to ts¯uji as officials (Sasaki 1989: 49–52). However, another unique system of ts¯uji recruitment was practised in Ezo, where the Matsumae controlled Ainu–Japanese trade by adopting what was known as the basho system. The domain allowed Japanese merchants to station at each trading location (basho), where the Ainu subsisted on fishery, to manage trade with the Ainu. The merchants at each basho hired Japanese locals to supervise the Ainu’s labour and serve as ts¯uji between the Japanese and Ainu languages. In many cases, the recruited ts¯uji doubled as administrators (shihai ) or supervisors (ban’nin) at each basho,8 while the Ainu

7 Ezo-tsuji ¯ (Japanese–Ainu Interpreters) in the Late …

145

were never hired as ts¯uji. The Ainu regarded the Japanese as exploitative (Sasaki 1989: 53), with the Ezo-ts¯uji at the forefront of the exploitation (Matsukata 2010: 242–243). The Japanese in each basho, including ts¯uji, did not want the Ainu to learn the Japanese language because the Ainu’s ignorance of the language could provide the Japanese with an advantage when supervising (or exploiting) the Ainu. The Matsumae domain authorities and the merchants likely shared a mutually beneficial relationship and adopted policies and attitudes towards the Ainu based on the Japanese-centred ka-i (華夷, a strict distinction between 華 ka, civilised, and 夷 i, barbarian) ideology (see Notes 4 and 5 of Chapter 1). Siddle (1996: 43–44) states that the local Japanese discriminated against the Ainu, perceiving them as barbarians who possessed animalistic qualities; while they considered the Japanese as humans, they denied the Ainu’s humanity. The positions of the Japanese ts¯uji in Ezo were guaranteed and acknowledged by officials and merchants; thus, they were often aligned with the Japanese and facilitated the severe exploitation of the Ainu. Japanese exploitation and invasion of the Ainu’s territory, which reflected the prejudice they held towards the Ainu, only served to aggravate the Ainu’s grievances against the Matsumae domain and Japanese traders. In 1669, this mounting discontent exploded in a rebellion called the ‘Shakushain War’, which ended with the death of the Ainu leader Shakushain seemingly plotted by the Matsumae domain. Subsequently, the Matsumae and Japanese merchants strengthened their control over Ezo and the Ainu. By contrast, when the Tokugawa shogunate directly governed Ezo from 1799 to 1821, it adopted a different policy towards the Ainu. This direct rule by the shogunate was triggered by their concern over the increasing threat posed by Russia (Kawakami 2011: 58–59). From the late eighteenth century to early nineteenth century, Russian vessels repeatedly visited Ezo with the intention of building a connection to the Japanese shogunate via Ezo; the Western powers encouraged this Russian endeavour with the aim of expanding trade routes with Asia (Inoue 1942/2016: 4–5). Adam Laxman arrived in Nemoro (located in eastern Ezo, present-day Nemuro) in 1792, carrying a petition that asked Japan to enter a trade relationship with Russia; the shogunate kept him waiting for nearly a year before finally rejecting his request

146

M. Sato

and instructing him to carry out negotiations in Nagasaki. Laxman’s unwelcome visit prompted the shogunate to place Matsumae territory under its direct control in 1799 and station additional military forces there. Russian captain Nikolai Rezanov (HikolaN Petpoviq Pezanov) visited Nagasaki in 1804 with the same purpose as Laxman, only to be told that his petition was refused. In 1806 and 1807, Russian ships headed by younger lieutenants responded to this refusal by raiding the islands next to Ezo. Consequently, in 1807, the shogunate expanded its control to encompass all of Ezo. The shogunate found it necessary to govern Ezo and the Ainu people as part of a united Japan to defend itself against threats in the area (Kawakami 2011: 59). The shogunate regarded the Ainu as ‘childish and backward barbarians’ and attempted to bring them into ‘the fold of civilisation under the benevolent guidance’ of the government (Siddle 1996: 40). This enlightening or civilising policy directed at the Ainu was also based on the ideology of the ka-i distinction; nevertheless, rather than disdainfully viewing the indigenous people as barbarian, the shogunate attempted to civilise and educate them by disseminating Japanese culture and customs to make them submissive to Japan’s central government (Nishizato 1992). However, this assimilation policy was not implemented effectively in Ezo. It was opposed by the Matsumae and the merchants, who virtually governed each basho, and by the majority of the Ainu people who did not adopt Japanese culture and customs. Subsequently, when the Matsumae domain was again authorised to govern the island in 1821, the relationship between the Ainu and the Japanese remained unchanged.

2.2

Ezo as an Open Gateway to the Foreign

When the Edo government commenced its direct rule over Ezo, it already recognised the importance of the Ainu people geopolitically, as they had already begun trading with the Kuril Ainu and the Santan who inhabited the Amur River region of northern China. In addition, the Santan traded with the Qing dynasty and procured Chinese trade goods via Manchuria and Sakhalin for sale to the Ainu.9 This commercial route

7 Ezo-tsuji ¯ (Japanese–Ainu Interpreters) in the Late …

147

also helped establish a tributary relationship between the Ainu and the Qing (Kojima 1989, 1996; Sasaki 1997). The shogunate intervened in the trade relationship between the Ainu and the Santan, regulating unfair trade practices, mostly those conducted by the Santan. Consequently, the shogunate allowed trade and communication between the Ainu and foreign people while proactively committing to the trade. Thus, despite the implementation of the so-called ‘seclusion policy’, the Ainu were connected to the Qing dynasty via trade with the Santan (see Sect. 3.2 of Chapter 1), and the Ainu eventually became incorporated into Japan’s political system by the shogunate, who also attempted to monitor the connection. Ezo, as a part of Japan opening to foreign countries (Matsumae gateway; see Sect. 3 of Chapter 1), was a significant component of the commercial and political landscape of Asia.

2.3

Study on Ezo-tsuji ¯

Research on the Ezo-ts¯uji has primarily been conducted in the field of the local history of Hokkaido (history of northern Japan) and Ainu studies. These studies have examined the Ezo-ts¯uji from various geopolitical, linguistic and ethnological perspectives (e.g. Kindaichi 1913/ 1993; Asari 1984a, 1984b; Sasaki 1989). Individual Ezo-ts¯uji have also been explored by academics. For example, detailed research has been conducted on Kaga Denz¯o (加賀伝蔵, 1804–1874), who was born into a family that supervised the Ainu’s labour and worked as Ezo-ts¯uji. He left historical documents, Kagake Monjo (加賀家文書 Kaga Family’s Archives), in which he recorded details of his family’s business (Akiba 1989; Fukazawa 2013, 2014a, 2014b, 2014c, 2016, 2017, 2020; Kitadai 2018). Research has also discussed another historical document produced by a ban’nin (supervisor), Notoya Enkichi (能登屋円吉, 1811–?), which describes the Ainu vocabularies and phrases and records of interactions between the Japanese and the Ainu (Kindaichi 1938/1993; Takahashi et al. 2014, 2015). Uehara Kumajir¯o, the focus of this chapter, has also drawn academic attention in northern Japanese history and Ainu studies, including detailed research by Kindaichi (1913/1993) and Tanimoto (2017). Sasaki’s (1989) overview of the Ezo-ts¯uji’s work also includes that

148

M. Sato

of Uehara, and several studies have examined the dictionary written by Uehara (Tanaka and Sasaki 1985; Narita 2008). Though these studies have explored the Ezo-ts¯uji profession, only Kitadai (2018) discusses it from the perspective of translation and interpreting studies (TIS). This chapter seeks to uncover Uehara’s strategy and the intention of his translation by examining actual translated texts and linking it to the context to explore his work as an Ezo-ts¯uji. It is the context-oriented research of TIS that could contribute new insights into existing research on Ezo-ts¯uji.

3

Uehara Kumajiro¯ (上 上原熊次郎, ?–1827)

Uehara Kumajir¯o worked as a ts¯uji from the end of the eighteenth century to the early nineteenth century. Detailed biographies have already been published by Kindaichi (1913/1993) and Tanimoto (2017), and what is described here owes much to those previous contributions. Uehara was a native of Matsumae and was initially employed by Japanese merchants to supervise Ainu labour during trade; he subsequently became a ts¯uji. It is unknown when he began his profession but he was stationed as a ts¯uji at Kusuri basho (present-day Kushiro area, located in eastern Hokkaido) before 1791 (Kindaichi 1913/1993; Tanimoto 2017: 3). In 1792, Uehara completed the first Japanese– Ainu dictionary, Moshiogusa (藻汐草). Since the Ainu language does not have its own writing system, he transcribed the Ainu pronunciations in Japanese characters. The details of this dictionary are further examined in Sect. 4. In 1807, Uehara was recruited as a low-rank officer (松前奉行組同 心 Matsumae bugy¯o kumi d¯oshin) of the local magistrate’s office (Tanimoto 2017: 5–7). The position was to serve the central government because the Matsumae magistrate’s office was established during the time when Ezo was under the shogunate’s direct control, instead of the Matsumae domain’s governance. Consequently, he was promoted from an ordinary citizen to the samurai class, which was a significant social success during a period typified by limited social mobility.10 As mentioned in Sect. 2.1, Japan in the early nineteenth century repeatedly

7 Ezo-tsuji ¯ (Japanese–Ainu Interpreters) in the Late …

149

faced the threat of Russian vessels. Since Uehara was appointed as an official government ts¯uji amidst this crisis in the Ezo region, the geopolitical situation required him to interpret not only the Ainu language but also Russian, which he was forced to learn during the Golovnin incident (1811–1813). Sect. 5 discusses Uehara’s experience with Russian interpreting. Uehara was transferred to the de facto capital, Edo, in 1822 to serve the Tenmongata (天文方 Bureau of Astronomy), a central government agency that engaged language specialists to translate European books from various fields (Clements 2015: 182). While he may have engaged in translating Russian, he continued his work with the Ainu language (Tanimoto 2017: 24–33). During his tenure in Edo, Uehara completed two Ainu glossaries, Ezo Chimei K¯o narabini Riteiki (蝦夷地名考並里程記 Place Names of Ezo and the Record of Mileage) and Ezogosh¯u (蝦夷語 集 A Glossary of Ainu Language), in 1824. Furthermore, he prepared a Russo–Japanese glossary, which was published in 1854 together with Ezogosen (蝦夷語箋), a posthumously revised edition of Moshiogusa. He ¯ fell ill while on duty on Izu Oshima and died in Uraga in 1827.

4

Japanese–Ainu Dictionary, Moshiogusa

4.1

Afterword

Uehara singlehandedly compiled the first Japanese–Ainu dictionary, Moshiogusa (1792), a 12-by-17-centimetre book with 206 pages.11 The dictionary contains an afterword written by Uehara. An afterword accompanying a book or text is considered as its paratext. According to Genette, paratexts include ‘peritexts’, such as chapter headings, notes, illustrations and title pages ‘inserted into the interstices of the text’ and ‘epitexts’, such as ‘letters, diaries’ that ‘are located outside the book’ but relate to it (1987/1997: 5). Therefore, the afterword is categorised as a peritext. Genette defines paratext as follows:

150

M. Sato

… what enables a text to become a book and to be offered as such to its readers and, more generally, to the public. […] the paratext is rather, a threshold , or […] a “vestibule” that offers the world at large the possibility of either stepping inside or turning back. (Genette 1987/1997: 1–2, emphases in original)

Some researchers have warned that analysing the paratexts attached to a translation is risky because the paratexts do not necessarily reflect the truth of the translator’s actions or thoughts, and are consequently dubious as evidence (Toury 1995: 65; Tahir-Gürça˘glar 2002: 59, 2011: 115). However, paratexts are useful sources for understanding what the translator or publisher wanted to convey, and what readers might receive from the paratexts when the translation is published. Uehara wrote in his afterword: 蝦夷地東西の諸島を廻るのあいだ旁午の遑を忍んで方言を書あ つめたれども里人の音韻を聞得ざることも少なからず且記すに 倭字を用ゆる軌に当らざることも多し極めて誤あるべし訂さん と欲すれども東西千里再問すること甚難し後来同志の友是を正 さんことを願うのみ12 (Uehara 1792: 10313 ) I spent my time collecting and writing down the Ainu language while spending hectic days moving around Ezo. However, quite a few times, I was unable to catch the exact pronunciation of villagers’ words. Furthermore, in many cases, Japanese letters cannot fit the original sound, therefore, there must be many errors in this book. I would like to revise them, but it is very difficult to travel afar again all across Ezo. All I want is for my colleagues and friends to correct these mistakes in the future. (My translation)

The afterword was followed by two names with their titles: ‘Ts¯uji, Uehara Kumajir¯o’ and ‘Shihai (administrator), Abe Ch¯ozabur¯o’. Although Uehara was not yet appointed as an official ts¯uji when he published the dictionary, his profession as a privately hired ts¯uji was accredited by the Matsumae domain. Furthermore, the inclusion of the administrator’s name and title, in addition to those of Uehara, could

7 Ezo-tsuji ¯ (Japanese–Ainu Interpreters) in the Late …

151

have reinforced the impression that this dictionary was an authoritative publication. On the contrary, in its afterword, the authority of the dictionary was undermined by Uehara’s disclosure that he was unable to distinguish between the sounds of the target language. Uehara transcribed the Ainu language in katakana,14 but he confessed he could not find Japanese characters that corresponded to the Ainu sounds. Meanwhile, he even invented a new phonetic symbol by using katakana.15 He may have attempted to represent the Ainu language as accurately as possible within the limited number of Japanese katakana. In addition, he admitted that there were ‘errors’ in the dictionary. Thus, the afterword reflects Uehara’s sincere attitude towards the Ainu language.

4.2

Dictionary Entries

The dictionary entries included words categorised by type, such as nature, people and body parts (146 pages), colloquial phrases (six pages), passages from official orders issued by the local government (translated from Japanese to Ainu, five pages), three waka poems (from Japanese to Ainu, two pages), a part of charanke (from Ainu to Japanese, nine pages) and a piece from yukar (from Ainu to Japanese, 26 pages). In contrast to the first three categories, the latter three—charanke, waka and yukar — are cultural-specific entries. Charanke is an Ainu-specific use of language; a long, antiquated formula stated or chanted in the case of accusations or a type of lawsuit (Kindaichi 1913/1993: 10, 1936/1993: 193–194). Yukar refers to Ainu oral epics,16 comprising multiple stories and legends that have been orally passed down through the generations. Waka is one of the classical Japanese literary genres that has existed since around the eighth century and consists of a verse in five-seven-five-seven-seven syllables (metre). Charanke can be considered an entry of pragmatic use. It was used in daily life, just as the words, phrases and official documents in the dictionary were of vocational use for ts¯uji. Meanwhile, the translations of waka and yukar demonstrate Uehara’s more culture-oriented motivations. Although these literary texts were likely no use to a ts¯uji, Uehara

152

M. Sato

still translated them, which illustrates that he did not publish Moshiogusa for only the ts¯uji’s vocational use, but also as an attempt to realise a mutual cultural understanding between the Ainu and Japanese.

4.3

Translations of waka Poems into Ainu

Three waka poems are included in Moshiogusa (84–85). As Fig. 1 demonstrates, the Japanese source text (ST) of each waka is vertically written in two lines,17 with its target text (TT) on the left in katakana, also in two lines vertically. The rhythmical five-seven-five-seven-seven syllables of the original, the most outstanding attribute of waka poetry’s form, were retained in the Ainu TT. Given that his dictionary was intended for the use of Ezo-ts¯uji, Uehara may have attempted to encourage other ts¯uji to inform the Ainu people

Fig. 1 Translation of waka poems into Ainu in Moshiogusa (1792: 84) (Source texts [ST] and target texts [TT] are shown enclosed in squares and rounded squares, respectively [the squares were added by Sato]. The image was provided by the Hakodate City Central Library Digital Archives.)

7 Ezo-tsuji ¯ (Japanese–Ainu Interpreters) in the Late …

153

about Japanese waka poetry so the Ainu could appreciate the lyricism of the Japanese verses. This also may be why he retained the original number of syllables, the most striking feature of waka. However, it is also conceivable that his translation of waka poetry was a tool meant for Ainu enlightenment and assimilation. When Uehara published the dictionary, Ezo was controlled by the Matsumae domain and Japanese merchants. The shogunate’s direct rule of Ezo, during which there would be intentions to assimilate the Ainu into Japanese culture, would commence seven years later. Therefore, he may have aimed to enlighten the Ainu about Japanese culture earlier than the implementation of the shogunate’s policy. Uehara might have had some disdain towards the Ainu. The Russian captain Golovnin, who became acquainted with Uehara nearly two decades after the publication of Moshiogusa, recalled in his memoir that Uehara had mentioned ‘the Ku riles [sic] are an uncultivated people, whose language has no manuscript character’ (Golovnin 1824, Volume I in Kindle). Here, ‘Ku riles’ refers to the Ainu people living on the Kuril Islands. It is not certain whether this account in Golovnin’s memoirs is credible or whether Uehara’s views on the Ainu changed over the course of 20 years. We can only speculate on the purpose of translating the waka poems, but as there is no record of Uehara’s thoughts on the compilation of the dictionary other than the afterword, we must be cautious in judging whether he was a facilitator of mutual cultural understanding between the Japanese and the Ainu or he was trying to assimilate the Ainu.

4.4

Translations of yukar into Japanese

The text of a yukar was transcribed in katakana in the dictionary on pages 90–102 in double-page binding format (26 pages total in singlepage count). According to Tangiku (2021: 2), Uehara included the full text of a yukar without any omissions. On the first page, Uehara wrote ‘ユーガリ [sic] 浄瑠理 [sic] の事’: ‘Yukar is an equivalent of j¯oruri’ (Uehara 1792: 90, my translation). Yukar , a heroic epic with some entertaining features, is a genre of Ainu oral literature, and when performed,

154

M. Sato

it is chanted in rhythm with wooden clappers called repni. Conversely, j¯oruri is storytelling in the form of chanting that involves melodramatic stories, and has been performed in more entertaining media, such as in kabuki and puppet plays (ningy¯o j¯oruri or bunraku). J¯oruri also uses wooden clappers called hy¯oshigi in particular parts of the performance, but their use and effect differ from that in yukar . Hence, Uehara equated yukar and j¯oruri solely because of the common features that they are both a form of chanting that features dramatic stories and both use wooden clappers. In his translation, Uehara added Chinese characters that seemingly correspond to the ST (see Fig. 2). Tangiku translated this entire piece of the yukar that was included in Moshiogusa into Japanese in 2021. As an example, Table 1 illustrates how the first line of the ST was rendered. Roman transcriptions to the original Japanised Ainu ST, and English literal renderings to the Chinese characters by Uehara and to the Japanese translation by Tangiku were added by the author. This additional information is shown in square brackets. Uehara’s translation appears to be a draft of kanbun kundoku style writing, without Japanese kana for particles and other function words. In

Fig. 2 The first page of the translation of yukar in Moshiogusa (1792: 90) (The picture was provided by the Hakodate City Central Library Digital Archives.)

7 Ezo-tsuji ¯ (Japanese–Ainu Interpreters) in the Late …

155

Table 1 The STs and TTs of the opening passage of the yukar in Moshiogusa Japanese transcription of Ainu ST in Moshiogusa

TT of Chinese characters added by Uehara in Moshiogusa,

タ子シ子ニ [Ta ne shi ne ni]

此 [this], 独 [alone]

ハテキヲカイ [ha te ki o ka i]

而巳 [only], 居 [live]

子ータウエベケレ カ [ne¯ ta u e be ke re ka] イラムシカレ [i ra mu shi ka re]

Japanese translation by Tangiku (2021: 34)

Romanised ST by Tangiku (2021: 34) Tane sinen ne

何 [any], 説 [story]

そのとき一人 [then, by himself] だけで暮らしてい た [lived alone] どこの話も [any story]

不 [not], 知 [know]

知らずにいた [didn’t know]

Eramuskare

patek okay

neyta uwepeker ka

Early Modern Japan, intellectuals were able to read Chinese texts using kanbun kundoku, a Japanese method of reading Sinitic (see Note 10 in Chapter 1), and to write official or formal documents in Sinitic. J¯oruri, however, was a form of entertainment, neither narrated nor written in the formal Sinitic style. Uehara adopted Sinitic to translate yukar , which he considered the ‘equivalent of j¯oruri’, though this was an awkward match of the two styles. Uehara may have chosen the Sinitic style because his targeted readers were educated Japanese who were literate in Japanese and Sinitic. He might have wanted this translation to be read by other ts¯uji and possibly officials in Ezo. Uehara likely included the yukar in his dictionary because he understood the epic’s significance to the Ainu and wanted the Japanese who governed Ezo to better understand Ainu culture. Nevertheless, his translation stops on the third page, and, according to my research thus far, there is no record or evidence to reveal why he did not finish it. Even though the translation was incomplete and its method was inappropriate, the full text of the yukar was presented to readers (probably other Ezo-ts¯uji and officials or traders). This translation could not have functioned as a tool of assimilation; rather, it illustrated Uehara’s eagerness to convey the Ainu’s specific cultural texts

156

M. Sato

to the Japanese readers. Therefore, it is conceivable that he used the bi-directional translations of the waka and the yukar to promote understanding between the Ainu and the Japanese based on their mutual culture. If so, Uehara’s translation portrays a different image of the ts¯uji as harsh exploiters (Sasaki 1989: 53; see also Sect. 2.1). If Uehara had been such an exploiter, he would have included only practical language for other ts¯uji and would have ignored such culturally relevant texts as the waka and the yukar . However, it remains possible that Uehara maintained an ambivalent attitude towards the Ainu. The translation of the waka poetry could have been a tool for enlightening the Ainu, and Uehara later stated that the Ainu were uncultivated, as mentioned in Sect. 4.3. If so, the inclusion of the yukar in the dictionary would seem to contradict his intention of enlightening them, but this intention might have come out of his pure conscience without any derogatory thoughts. While his actual intentions remain unclear, it is evident that he was aware of the significance of culturally specific text.

5

Uehara and the Golovnin Incident (1811)

Another of Uehara’s notable accomplishments was learning the Russian language as a part of his ts¯uji duties. In 1811, Russian captain Vasily Mikhailovich Golovnin (BaciliN MixaNloviq Golovnin, 1776– 1831) was captured by the Japanese military while he was exploring Kunashiri Island. Uehara, who had been hired as an official ts¯uji in 1807, was dispatched as an interpreter during Golovnin’s interrogation, which was conducted through relayed interpreting: Uehara interpreted from Japanese to Ainu, and a Kuril Ainu named Alexei then interpreted from Ainu to Russian (Golovnin 1824, Volume I; Tanimoto 2017: 1–2). Golovnin was sent to Matsumae and imprisoned until 1813; during this period, Uehara spent considerable time taking care of and learning Russian from Golovnin. In Matsumae, Murakami Teisuke (村 上貞助, 1780–1846) joined Uehara as a ts¯uji and learned Russian. In his memoir, Golovnin states that these two ts¯uji studied Russian enthusiastically (Golovnin 1824, Volume I). Golovnin details how Uehara was

7 Ezo-tsuji ¯ (Japanese–Ainu Interpreters) in the Late …

157

troubled by the differences between the Japanese and Russian languages and strove to understand Russian grammar, vocabulary and sentence structure (Golovnin 1824, Volume I). As part of his duty, Uehara managed to acquire sufficient proficiency in Russian during this time, as Tanimoto discusses (2017: 11–12). The following year, during the negotiations concerning Golovnin’s release, Uehara worked as an interpreter between Petr Rikord (Petp Ivanoviq Pikopd), commander of Golovnin’s vessel, and the Japanese authorities. He also translated a letter from Rikord directly from Russian into Japanese. The original letter in Russian, which contained a petition for Golovnin’s release, was subsequently sent to the shogunate authorities in Edo. Thus, an official translation of this letter was also completed by an Oranda-ts¯uji (Japanese–Dutch interpreter), Baba Saj¯ur¯o (馬場佐 十郎, 1787–1822), who had already been transferred from Nagasaki to the official translation bureau, Tenmongata, in Edo in 1808. Baba had learned English, French and Russian in addition to Dutch, which was his specialisation. He rendered the letter by means of an anomalistic relayed translation: he translated it from Russian into Dutch, French and English, respectively, and then he referred to those versions to complete a Japanese translation. Almost simultaneously in Ezo, Uehara translated the letter by himself directly from Russian. When Baba received Uehara’s translation after he finished his own relayed rendition (Ariizumi 2002: 55, 2003: 55), he acknowledged that Uehara’s translation was of good quality with few mistakes (Tanimoto 2017: 13–14). While Golovnin was in Matsumae in 1813, the shogunate dispatched Baba and another Oranda-ts¯uji working for the Tenmongata, Adachi Sanai (足立左内, 1769–1845), to Matsumae to learn Russian from Golovnin. Dutch was the only language that the Japanese used to communicate with the West (see Chapter 2); however, it was insufficient to meet the increasing demand from Western powers. That forced the shogunate to train interpreters of other European languages, such as English, French and Russian. Uehara worked with Baba and Adachi while they learned Russian over a period of six months, during which they became acquainted and started a cooperative working relationship. After Adachi and Baba returned to Edo, they wrote Rogo Bunp¯o Kihan (魯語文法規範 Rules of Russian

158

M. Sato

Grammar, 1813). When Uehara was ordered to visit Edo the following year, he likely worked with them to help elaborate the book (Tanimoto 2017: 16). Following the Golovnin incident, Uehara returned to his regular duties as an Ezo-ts¯uji for nearly a decade, but his experience using the Russian language led to his transfer to Edo. The Tenmongata acknowledged his proficiency in Russian and his long experience as an Ezo-ts¯uji. He was first promoted to the position of 御書物同心 (goshomotsu d¯oshin), working for the library in Edo Castle in September 1822, and was then recruited to work at Tenmongata the following year. According to Tanimoto (2017: 22–24), after Baba’s death in 1822, Uehara was expected to work on Russia. This brief was partly fulfilled by his eightpage Russian–Japanese glossary included in Ezogosen (Uehara 1854/ 1972; see Sect. 3). Meanwhile, his duties at Tenmongata included more diplomatic missions. As Tanimoto (2017: 36) states, Uehara was engaged in missions ¯ related to national security, such as an inspection off Izu Oshima island to prepare for foreign threats, during which time he died of illness. He was an expert on the Ainu language and an official on duty during a situation critical for Japanese diplomacy. Uehara was at the mercy of the diplomatic context surrounding him, but managed to adapt himself to it.

6

Conclusion

This chapter discussed the achievements of Uehara Kumajir¯o and the context surrounding him. Particularly, Sect. 4 focused on Uehara’s translations of waka and yukar in his Japanese–Ainu dictionary, Moshiogusa, concluding that he recognised the significance of these culturally specific texts, whether for enlightening the Ainu or facilitating a mutual understanding between the Japanese and the Ainu. Although the literary texts often lack attention in the practical or vocational setting, Uehara’s perspective demonstrates that these texts can provide important background knowledge for intermediaries between two cultures. However, we should also observe that literary texts can function as ideological devices,

7 Ezo-tsuji ¯ (Japanese–Ainu Interpreters) in the Late …

159

such as those that produce unilateral enlightenment, as can be inferred from the case of the translation of waka. Uehara’s other achievement was becoming a Russian language interpreter when Ezo faced a diplomatic threat from Russia. He was ordered to serve as an interpreter during the Golovnin incident, which was a turning point in his career and led him to eventually become an official for the central government. Sect. 5 concludes that his trilingual skills enabled him to commit to the missions there and that his career was heavily affected by the social and diplomatic contexts. Uehara had initially been promoted from a local citizen to an official ts¯uji for the local magistrate’s office due to his proficiency in the Ainu language. He was then assigned to learn Russian as part of his duties as Ezo-ts¯uji under diplomatic demand, resulting in him becoming a language expert hired directly by the shogunate, due to his tremendous efforts to master Russian. No other Ezo-ts¯uji compiled dictionaries or was engaged as a trilingual professional. Uehara was influenced by and adapted to the contexts of the Ezo region in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Although exceptional as an Ezo-ts¯uji, Uehara’s extraordinary translation and interpreting achievements provide an insight into and a ‘leeway’ (Floros 2021: 348) to conceive what the role of a translator and interpreter entails. Together with several other examples of early modern ts¯uji in Japan discussed in the present publication, Uehara’s case may be helpful in understanding the roles and attitudes of contemporary interpreters and translators as intermediaries of different cultures. Acknowledgements I would like to express my deepest gratitude to the Hakodate City Central Library for permission to use the digital data of some pages of Moshiogusa.

Notes 1. As discussed in Sect. 2 of Chapter 1, three types of Chinese character sets are used for ts¯uji: 通詞, 通事 and 通辞. The character sets used for Ezo-ts¯uji vary across historical sources and research papers, with 通辞 or

160

2.

3.

4.

5.

6. 7.

8. 9.

M. Sato

通詞 often being used. The spelling of 通辞 is applied here because the first Japanese–Ainu dictionary Uehara produced used 通辞 as his job title. The number of basho varied across time periods. According to Nishino (1991: 30 note 51, 127–129 table 2), there were 63 in the Kansei period (1789–1801) and 64 in the Bunsei period (1818–1830). Sasaki (1989: 54–55) provides a list of 40 basho in western Ezo in 1805, explaining that all basho had their own ts¯uji. Thus, there appears to be a correlation between the number of basho and that of ts¯uji. Here, ‘northern’ does not refer to the northern island (present-day Hokkaido). In Nihon Shoki, the Emishi people were said to reside in ‘the eastern areas’, which represents the northern part of present-day Honsh¯u, the main island of Japan. This area is now known as the T¯ohoku region. This study refers to two versions of Nihon Shoki: the first is the edition written in the original Sinitic text and published in 1610, which was obtained from the Digital Collections of the National Diet Library (https://dl.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/2544343). This excerpt is from page 15, image 33/46 of Book 4, retrieved from the Collection. The second is the transcribed version with modern translation included in the anthology Shinpen Nihon Koten Bungaku Zensh¯u (新編 日本古典文学全集), published by Shogakukan. The citation is from pages 371–372 of volume 2 of the anthology, 1994. The Emishi and Ezo as a people and Ezo as a region are denoted using the same Chinese characters 蝦夷. In this section, italics are used for the Ezo people to differentiate them from the location of Ezo. Koshamain was an Ainu tribal leader. Matsumaekaki was published in the Meiji era by Nitta Chisato (新 田千里, dates of birth and death unknown), a former samurai who served the Matsumae domain; this document describes the history of the Kakizaki-Matsumae family from the medieval era to the Meiji Restoration (Shind¯o 2008, 2009). Sasaki (1989: 54–55) illustrates those cases by citing the name-list of administrators, supervisors and ts¯uji in some basho in West Ezo. As early as 1593, the first Matsumae lord, Yoshihiro, presented Ieyasu with a Chinese costume that the Ainu had received through trade with the Santan (Sasaki 1997: 709).

7 Ezo-tsuji ¯ (Japanese–Ainu Interpreters) in the Late …

161

10. The class system in the Edo era was defined from the top as: ‘Shi (warriors or samurai)–N¯o (farmers)–K¯o (craftsmen)–Sh¯o (merchants)’. Sh¯o stood for a wide range of townspeople. 11. The pages of the original dictionary were numbered from 1 to 103 in the old page-binding style. In traditional Japanese bookbinding methods, a sheet of paper was folded and both sides were used as pages of a book, with the same page numbers written at the folds. 12. The original Japanese was written in the old orthography used in those days. Here it is rewritten in the current orthography. 13. The page numbers for Moshiogusa are from a digital database provided by the Hakodate City Central Library Digital Archives (http:// archives.c.fun.ac.jp/fronts/thumbnailChild/reservoir/1810451581). The same page number was provided for the front and back of one folded paper, as explained in Note 11. 14. The Japanese language uses three sets of characters: hiragana, katakana and Chinese characters. (Today, it also frequently uses the English alphabet in addition to these three sets.) Katakana is generally used for transcribing words with foreign origins or words borrowed from foreign languages. 15. For example, Uehara used an unfamiliar katakana sign ツ◯ . The symbol ゜ is ordinarily used to represent the [p] sound by attaching it to kana letters that have [h] and [f ] sounds (such as, パ, ピ, プ, ぺ and ポ). ツ is pronounced [tsu] and is never used with ゜ in standard Japanese; however, Uehara devised the sign ツ◯ to represent the specific Ainu pronunciation similar to [tu], which did not exist in Japanese. 16. The Ainu have a rich oral literary tradition, including that of yukar (Nakagawa et al. 1997). Strictly speaking, yukar refers to epics depicting tales of heroic adventures and battles, and is differentiated from the epic verses known as kamuy yukar , relating legends or stories of the gods (kamuy refers to gods in Ainu language). The yukar Uehara included in his Moshiogusa is a heroic epic. 17. Japanese classical texts are written vertically from right to left, while current Japanese is written both vertically from right to left and horizontally from left to right, depending on the genre and purpose.

162

M. Sato

References Akiba, M. (ed.) (1989) Hopp¯o Shiry¯o Sh¯usei 2 Kagake Monjo [Collected Documents of Northern Japan Studies, 2: Kaga Family’s Archives]. Sapporo: Hokkaido Shuppan Kikaku Sent¯a. Ariizumi, K. (2002) ‘Gorovunin Jiken no Nihon Gawa no Ichi Kiroku (5) Kunashiriki Honkoku, No. 4 [Japan’s Documents of the Incident of VM Golovnin, (5), Transcription of Kunashiriki, No. 4].’ Mado, 123, 54–59. Ariizumi, K. (2003) ‘Gorovunin Jiken no Nihon Gawa no Ichi Kiroku (7) Kunashiriki Honkoku, No. 6 [Japan’s Documents of the Incident of VM Golovnin, (7), Transcription of Kunashiriki, No. 6].’ Mado, 125, 52–58. Asari, M. (1984a) ‘Kinsei Hokkaido ni okeru Roshiago Ts¯uji, Roshiago Sh¯utoku ni Kansuru Ky¯oikushiteki K¯osatsu, J¯o [A Study on JapaneseRussian Interpreters and Their Russian Learning in Early Modern Hokkaido: From the Perspective of History of Education, 1].’ Matsumae Han to Matsumae, 21, 57–87. Asari, M. (1984b) ‘Kinsei Hokkaido ni okeru Roshiago Ts¯uji, Roshiago Sh¯utoku ni Kansuru Ky¯oikushiteki K¯osatsu, Ge [A Study on JapaneseRussian Interpreters and Their Russian Learning in Early Modern Hokkaido: From the Perspective of History of Education, 2].’ Matsumae Han to Matsumae, 22, 49–69. Clements, R. (2015) A Cultural History of Translation in Early Modern Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Floros, G. (2021) ‘Ethics in Translator and Interpreter Education.’ In K. Koskinen and N. K. Pokorn (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Ethics. London and New York: Routledge. 338–350. Fukazawa, M. (2013) ‘Kagake Monjo Honkoku Gendaigoyaku (1) “Kiku no Kanzashi Midare Gami”: Ezo-ts¯uji ni yoru Ainugoban Okichi Seiza K¯osetsu [The Kaga Family’s Archives–Reprint 1 “Kiku-no Kanzashi Midare Gami” (Chrysanthemum Pin in Her Messy Hair)].’ Journal of Chiba University Eurasian Society, 15, 295–321. Fukazawa, M. (2014a) ‘Kagake Monjo Honkoku/Gendaigoyaku (2) Gakk¯o ¯ Orai Kaisho: Ezo-ts¯uji ni yoru Ainugoban Terako Ky¯okunsho [The Kaga Family’s Archives-Reprint 2 The Interpretation of “Gakko Orai (Terako Orai)” in the Ainu Language].’ Journal of Chiba University Eurasian Society, 16, 353–391. Fukazawa, M. (2014b) ‘Kagake Monjo no Ainugo Shiry¯o to Kaga Denz¯o [Ainu Language Data and Kaga Denz¯o in Kaga Family’s Archives].’ In Y. Nakagawa

7 Ezo-tsuji ¯ (Japanese–Ainu Interpreters) in the Late …

163

(ed.) Philological Studies of the Ainu Language, 1, Chiba University Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences Research Project Reports, No. 274, 21–48. Fukazawa, M. (2014c) ‘Kagake Monjo ni okeru Hy¯oki no Tokuch¯o to Keik¯o: R¯omaji Hy¯oki e no Kokoromi [Aspects and Tendencies of Writing in Kaga Family’s Archives: An Attempt of Romanisation].’ In Y. Nakagawa (ed.) Philological Studies of the Ainu Language, 1, Chiba University Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences Research Project Reports, No. 274, 49–72. Fukazawa, M. (2016) ‘Kagake Monjo Honkoku/Gendaigoyaku (3) Chakorube: Ezo-ts¯uji ga Kiroku shita Ainu no Ky¯ukon Nandai Setsuwa [The Kaga Family’s Archives-Reprint 3: The Ainu Heroic Epic “Cakorpe (Sakorpe)”].’ Journal of Chiba University Eurasian Society, 18, 151–183. Fukazawa, M. (2017) ‘Kagake Monjo ni okeru Ainugo no Bunkengakuteki Kenky¯u [A Philological Study on the Ainu Language in the Kaga Family’s Archives].’ Doctoral dissertation. Chiba University. Fukazawa, M. (2019) ‘Ainu Language and Ainu Speakers.’ In P. Heinrich and Y. Ohara (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Japanese Sociolinguistics. London and New York: Routledge. 3–24. Fukazawa, M. (2020) ‘Kagake Monjo Honkoku/Gendaigoyaku (4) Ainugokai no Uta: Ezo-ts¯uji ni yoru Ainugo Gakush¯uka [The Kaga Family’s ArchivesReprint 4: Ainu-Japanese Mnemonic Rhymes].’ Journal of Chiba University Eurasian Society, 22, 429–457. Genette, G. (1987/1997) Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation. Translated from French into English by Jane E. Lewin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Golovnin, V. M. (1824) Memoirs of a Captivity in Japan, During the Years 1811, 1812, and 1813: With Observations on the Country and the People (Second Edition), Volume I, II, III . The name of the translator from Russian to English not shown. London: H. Colburn and Company. [Kindle] Inoue, M. (1942/2016) ‘Kaisetsu [Commentaries].’ In V. M. Golovnin, Nihon Y¯ush¯uki, J¯o (Fukkokuban) [Memoirs of a Captivity in Japan, Vol. 1 (Reprinted Edition)]. Tokyo: Ky¯orinsha. 3–25. [Kindle] Kawakami, J. (2011) Kinsei K¯oki no Oku Ezochishi to Nichiro Kankei [The History of Far East Ezo in Late Early Modern Era and Japan–Russo Relationship]. Sapporo: Hokkaido Shuppan Kikaku Sent¯a. Kindaichi, K. (1913/1993) ‘Ezo Gogaku no Biso Uehara Kumajir¯o to Sono Chojutsu [Uehara Kumajir¯o, Forerunner of Ainu Linguistics, and His Writings].’ In Kindaichi Ky¯osuke Zensh¯u, Vol. 6, Ainugo II [Complete Works of Kindaichi Ky¯osuke, Vol. 6, Ainu Language, II]. Tokyo: Sanseid¯o. 9–39.

164

M. Sato

Kindaichi, K. (1936/1993) ‘Uta no Shinpan—Ainu no Charanke no Hanashi— [Judgement with Chants—Ainu’s Charanke—].’ In Kindaichi Ky¯osuke Zensh¯u, Vol. 12, Ainu Bunka, Minzokugaku [Complete Works of Kindaichi Ky¯osuke, Vol. 12, Ainu Cultures and Ethnology]. Tokyo: Sanseid¯o. 193–197. Kindaichi, K. (1938/1993) ‘Ainugo no Kakuretaru Sendatsu: Kameda Jir¯o Shi Hakken no Ban’nin Enkichi Ezoki ni tsuite [A Hidden Precursor of the Ainu Language Study: Ban’nin Enkichi Ezoki Discovered by Mr. Kameda Jir¯o].’ In Kindaichi Ky¯osuke Zensh¯u, Vol. 6, Ainugo II [Complete Works of Kindaichi Ky¯osuke, Vol. 6, Ainu Language, II]. Tokyo: Sanseid¯o. 100–106. Kitadai, M. (2018) ‘Kagake Monjo: Ezo-Ts¯uji no Kiroku [Kaga Family’s Archives: Records about Ezo-Ts¯uji].’ Invitation to Translation and Interpreting Studies, 19, 268–278. Kojima, K. (1989) ‘18, 19 Seiki ni okeru Karafuto no J¯unin: Santan o Megutte [Inhabitants in Sakhalin in 18–19 Centuries: Regarding to Santan].’ In Hopp¯o Gengo Bunka Kenky¯ukai (ed.) Minzoku Sesshoku: Kita no Shiten kara [Ethnic Contacts: From the Perspective of the North]. Tokyo: Rokk¯o Shuppan. 31–47. Kojima, K. (1996) ‘Santan K¯oeki to Karafuto Shominzoku no J¯oky¯o [Some Aspects of Peoples of Sakhalin under the Influence of Santan Trade].’ Bulletin of Showa Women’s University Kokusai Bunka Kenky¯ujo, 2, 11–17. Kojima, N., Naoki, K., Nishimiya, K., Kuranaka, S. and M¯ori, M. (annotation and translation). (1994–1998) Nihon Shoki [Chronicles of Japan], vol. 1– 3. In Shinpen Nihon Koten Bungaku Zenshü [Newly Edited Anthology of Japanese Classical Literature]. Shogakukan. Kuwabara, M. and Kawakami, J. (2018) Hokkaido no Rekishi ga Wakaru Hon [A Book to Understand the History of Hokkaido]. Sapporo: Arisusha. Matsukata, F. (2010) ‘Ts¯uyaku to “Yottsu no Kuchi” [Interpreters and Four Gateways].’ In Y. Arano, M. Ishii and S. Murai (eds.) Kinseiteki Sekai no Seijuku [Mature World in the Early Modern Era]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K¯obunkan. 235–250. Nakagawa, H., Shiga, S. and Okuda, O. (1997) ‘Ainu Bungaku [Ainu Literature].’ In Iwanami K¯oza Nihon Bungakushi, 17 [Iwanami Lecture Series: History of Japanese Literature, 17]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. 181–264. Narita, S. (2008) ‘Ezo Gosen no Kenky¯u [A Study on Ezo Gosen].’ Nish¯ogakusha University Journal of East Asian Studies, 38, 155–172. Nihon Shoki [Chronicles of Japan]. (720/1610) (National Diet Library Digital Collection).

7 Ezo-tsuji ¯ (Japanese–Ainu Interpreters) in the Late …

165

Nishino, H. (1991) ‘Hokkaido Suisanzeishi-Hokkaido Sozeishi, 1- [The History of Marin Product Tax in Hokkaido—The Taxation History of Hokkaido, No. 1].’ The Journal of National Tax College, 21, 1–214. Nishizato, K. (1992) ‘Ryukyu Shobun to Karafuto Chishima K¯okan J¯oyaku [Ryukyu Annexation and Treaty of Saint Petersburg].’ In Y. Arano, M. Ishii and S. Murai (eds.) Ajia no Naka no Nihonshi, IV: Chiiki to Etonosu [Japanese History in Asia, IV: Regions and Ethnos]. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. 167–208. Nitta, C. (1881/1974) Matsumaekaki [History of the Matsumae Family]. In Matsumae-ch¯o-shi Hensh¯ushitsu (ed.) Matsumae-ch¯o-shi, Shiry¯o Hen, Vol. 1 [The History of Matsumae Town, Historical Materials, Vol. 1]. Matsumae: Matsumae Town. 1–50. Sasaki, S. (1997) ‘18–19 Seiki ni okeru Am¯urugawa Kary¯uiki no J¯umin no K¯oeki Katsud¯o [The Trade Activity of the Peoples of the Lower Amur Basin in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries].’ Bulletin of the National Museum of Ethnology, 22(4), 683–763. Sasaki, T. (1989) ‘Ezo-ts¯uji ni tsuite [On Ezo-ts¯uji].’ In Hopp¯o Gengo Bunka Kenky¯ukai (ed.) Minzoku Sesshoku: Kita no Shiten kara [Ethnic Contacts: From the Perspective of the North]. Tokyo: Rokk¯o Shuppan. 48–60. Segawa, T. (2015) Ainugaku Ny¯umon [Introduction to Studying Ainu]. Tokyo: Kodansha. Shind¯o, T. (2008) ‘Ky¯u Matsumae Han Sh¯ogishi Nitta Chisato Cho Matsumaekaki no Shoshiteki Kent¯o—Meijiki Hopp¯oshigakushi no Bunkengakuteki Kenky¯u [Bibliography Examination of Matsumaekaki Written by an Old Matsumae Domain Sh¯ogishi, Nitta Chisato: Bibliographical Research on History of the Japanese North History at the Meiji Period].’ Bulletin of Yonezawa Women’s Junior College, 44, 15–26. Shind¯o, T. (2009) Matsumae Kagehiro Shinra no Kiroku no Shiry¯oteki Kenky¯u [A Historiographical Study on Shinra no Kiroku by Matsumae Kagehiro]. Kyoto: Shibunkaku Shuppan. Siddle, R. (1996) Race, Resistance and the Ainu of Japan. London and New York: Routledge. Tahir-Gürça˘glar, S¸ . (2002) ‘What Texts Don’t Tell: The Uses of Paratexts in Translation Research.’ In T. Hermans (ed.) Crosscultural Transgressions. Manchester: St. Jerome. 44–60. Tahir-Gürça˘glar, S¸ . (2011) ‘Paratexts.’ In Y. Gambier and L. van Doorslaer (eds.) Handbook of Translation Studies, Vol. 2. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 113–115.

166

M. Sato

Takahashi, Y., Hanawa, Y. and Fujimura, H. (2014) ‘Ban’nin Enkichi Ezoki Zen: Honkoku to Kaisetsu, 1 [Ban’nin Enkichi Ezo-ki: An Annotated Transcription, No. 1].’ Bulletin of Kokugakuin Daigaku Hokkaido Tanki Daigakubu, 31, 47–48. Takahashi, Y., Hanawa, Y. and Fujimura, H. (2015) ‘Ban’nin Enkichi Ezoki Zen: Honkoku to Kaisetsu, 2 [Ban’nin Enkichi Ezo-ki: An Annotated Transcription, No. 2].’ Bulletin of Kokugakuin Daigaku Hokkaido Tanki Daigakubu, 32, 55–96. Tanaka, S. and Sasaki, T. (1985) ‘Kinsei Ainugo Shiry¯o: Tokuni Moshiogusa o Megutte [Documents of the Early Modern Ainu Language: With a Focus on Moshiogusa].’ Matsumae Han to Matsumae, 24, 17–32. ¯ Tangiku, I. (2021) 18 Seiki Ainu Oinbun: Ruwesaniuncur Jojishi Sono T¯okyakuin to Fukanzen’in [Eighteenth-Century Ainu Verse: Alliteration and Rhyming in the Epic Story of Ruwesaniuncur ]. Sapporo: Center for Ainu and Indigenous Studies, Hokkaido University. Tanimoto, A. (2017) ‘Ezo-Ts¯uji Uehara Kumajir¯o no Edo: Goshomotsu D¯oshin e no Id¯o to Tenmongata Shutsuyaku o Megutte [Kumajir¯o UEHARA, the Ainu and Russian Interpreter of Academy in Tokugawa Shogunate].’ Bulletin of the Graduate School of Letters, Hokkaido University, 151, 1–52. Toury, G. (1995) Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond . Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Uehara, K. (1854/1972) Ezogosen (Reprint). Tokyo: Kokusho Kank¯okai. Uehara, K. and Abe, C. (1792/1972) Moshiogusa (Reprint). Tokyo: Kokusho Kank¯okai. Uehara, K. and Abe, C. (1792) Moshiogusa. Hakodate City Central Library Digital Archives. Accessed August 12, 2022. http://archives.c.fun.ac.jp/fro nts/thumbnailChild/reservoir/1810451581.

8 Otokichi as a Castaway-turned-tsuji ¯ Mikako Naganuma

1

Introduction

This chapter explores the marginality and vulnerability of Otokichi (音 吉/乙吉, c. 1818–1867), also known later as John Mathew Ottoson, in the context of his role as a castaway-turned-ts¯uji. Its Japanese equivalent is hy¯ory¯umin ts¯uji (漂流民通詞 literally ‘castaway interpreter’)—a term coined by the author to categorise such ts¯uji in Early Modern Japan when the country was largely closed to Western contact. As his life story has been described favourably in several biographical works, Otokichi is probably best remembered for his contribution to assisting the partial translation of the Bible into Japanese. However, Otokichi as ts¯uji has yet to attract the scholarly attention of translation and interpreting researchers at home and abroad. Drawing on the historical record, this M. Naganuma (B) Kobe City University of Foreign Studies, Kobe, Japan e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Saito and M. Sato (eds.), Ts¯uji, Interpreters in and Around Early Modern Japan, Translation History, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37652-8_8

167

168

M. Naganuma

chapter adds another case study of one of Japan’s ts¯uji; the focus is on Otokichi’s role in Anglo–Japanese diplomacy. Otokichi was a teenage survivor of a severe typhoon that changed his destiny in 1832 when the damaged ship on which he was a sailor drifted across the Pacific Ocean to North America. Given how he encountered foreigners overseas in his youth and later served as an ad hoc interpreter employed by the British government, the case of Otokichi goes beyond the conventional ts¯uji systems taken up in other chapters of this book. I emphasise his distinctively marginal and vulnerable positioning as a castaway-turned-ts¯uji from the vantage point of translation and interpreting studies.

2

Castaways in Early Modern Japan

Japan is an island nation situated between the Eurasian continent and the Pacific Ocean. Its geography and climate—combined with other factors, such as the structural limitations of low-tech ships and the political constraints of ‘isolation’ that did not allow such ships to be designed for sailing far out to sea in Early Modern Japan (Kawai 1967; Sudo 1968)— inevitably contributed to countless unfortunate maritime accidents in the surrounding waters.1 As the market for domestic goods flourished in the Early Modern era, local specialties were carried predominantly in sengokubune (千 石船 Japanese-style junk ships) that frequently sailed to the de facto capital of Edo (present-day Tokyo). Because they were used for voyages consistent with the government’s foreign policy guidelines, these ships were unreliable when hit by fierce storms, damaged, and set adrift. Similar to smaller fishing boats, they were not capable of travelling on the ocean. Crewmembers from these ships and boats were occasionally rescued; their lives were saved by foreign ships—especially by American whalers in the nineteenth century (Kawasumi 2004; Hirakawa 2008)— or they drifted to distant lands.2 Some of the survivors left fascinating records that have been handed down through generations (e.g., Ishii 1927; Aikawa 1963; Kawai 1967; Arakawa 1969; Haruna 1981/1988; Murakami 1988; Adachi 1990; Kobayashi 2000; Iwao 2006/2009).

8 Otokichi as a Castaway-turned-tsuji ¯

169

Japan’s diplomatic isolation policy, the so-called sakoku (鎖国 a closed country) or kaikin (海禁 maritime ban),3 was virtually powerless in preventing castaway survivors on drifting storm-damaged ships from contacting foreign peoples and cultures. Tanaka (1991: 418–421) points out five characteristics of castaways in Early Modern Japan. First, they drifted great distances to lands within or on the outer edges of the Pan-Pacific Ocean. Second, most of them actively observed the exotic lifestyles they encountered while living under harsh circumstances. Third, although the new information brought by repatriated castaways was supposed to be strictly controlled by central and local governments, it was somehow disseminated to a broad range of people—and in some cases, possibly led the public to doubt their status quo. Fourth, the impact of the castaways’ experiences gained while living in overseas countries was gradually welcomed by local rulers over time. Fifth, their adventitious and unsystematic knowledge was clearly in contrast to the intellectually institutionalised teachings of rangaku (蘭学 Dutch studies) scholars at that time (see Chapter 2). Overall, the awareness of the outside world imparted by these castaways helped prepare for the opening up of Japan. Meanwhile, global geopolitics outside Japan also underwent drastic changes from the late eighteenth to the early nineteenth centuries when Western powers such as Britain, France, Russia, and the US steadily approached various East Asian regions (see Chapters 6 and 7). They made full use of the opportunities that repatriating castaways would afford them and tried to ascertain the best way to start a trading relationship with Japan. In 1792, for example, a Russian officer, Adam Laxman (1766–1806?), landed on Nemoro (located in Japan’s northern island of present-day Hokkaido). To seek trade relations, Laxman used the return of Japanese castaways as a pretext, among whom was the renowned Daikokuya K¯oday¯u (大黒屋光太夫, 1751–1828).4 Otokichi was one of the outstanding castaway survivors, the most heroic being Nakahama Manjir¯o (中浜万次郎, 1827–1898),5 who is probably better known in the English-speaking world by his American nickname, John Mung (cf. Kawada 2003; Kawasumi 2004; Iwao 2010; see also Chapter 6). The two castaways, Otokichi and Manjir¯o, who suffered maritime accidents in 1832 and 1841, respectively, had similar

170

M. Naganuma

experiences as teenagers when they encountered foreign cultures. There was, however, one crucial difference between them: Manjir¯o was eventually allowed to return to his hometown and work for the Japanese government, while Otokichi never had such good fortune due to a drastic shift in Japan’s foreign policy. In the end, Otokichi was never able to achieve his modest dream of reuniting with his family in Japan. Incidentally, another noted castaway survivor, Hamada Hikoz¯o (浜田 彦蔵, 1837–1897),6 whose Christian name is Joseph Heco, also experienced a shipwreck in his teens—in 1851, nearly two decades after Otokichi. Hikoz¯o and his shipmates on the Eirikimaru (栄力丸) were adrift in the Pacific Ocean when they were rescued by an American freighter. Some of the shipwrecked sailors could return to Japan thanks to Otokichi’s support from where he lived at the time in Shanghai (cf. Heco 1895; Haruna 1979/1988; Murakami 1988; Adachi 1990; Miyanaga 1994). Hikoz¯o became naturalised as a US citizen and later worked as a translator and interpreter for the American consulate in Japan. He travelled back and forth between the two countries before eventually being employed by the Japanese Ministry of Finance. Historians have devoted more attention to Manjir¯o and Hikoz¯o than to Otokichi, presumably because the former two successfully returned to their homeland and contributed to Japanese governments and society.

3

Who Is Otokichi?

Otokichi was born into the Yamamoto (山本) family around 1818 in Onoura, a small local coastal village, which is part of present-day Mihama Town in Aichi Prefecture, Central Japan. He was the second son of a poor seafaring family. In the literature, Otokichi’s oto is written as 音 (sound) or 乙 (second), and his kichi as 吉 (luck). As a castaway survivor, Otokichi used two other names throughout his life: a Chinese name, Lin A-tao (林阿多), and a British name, John Matthew Ottoson. He adopted the Chinese name in an attempt to disguise himself as a Japanese-speaking Chinese national serving as an interpreter aboard a British ship when visiting Japan in 1849. He chose the British surname Ottoson as an Anglicised version of Oto-san

8 Otokichi as a Castaway-turned-tsuji ¯

171

(-san being an honorific suffix in Japanese); thus, the expressed sound of ‘Ottoson’ meant ‘Mr. Oto’ to those who were familiar with the Japanese language. He lived the last several years of his life in Singapore after being naturalised as a British citizen.7 After overcoming countless hardships, Otokichi succeeded in becoming a prosperous businessperson and enjoyed an affluent lifestyle in Shanghai. In Singapore, where he lived out the final years of his life, Otokichi is now honoured as the first Japanese resident to inhabit the local Japanese community (cf. Leong 2005, 2012).

3.1

Otokichi Before 1849: The Making of a Castaway

In 1832 a teenage boy named Otokichi boarded a single-masted cargo ship, the H¯ojunmaru (宝順丸), as an apprentice sailor (along with thirteen other crew members, including his elder brother). In the Ensh¯unada Sea,8 on its voyage from Toba (located near Osaka in western Japan) to Edo, the ship was struck by an extremely powerful typhoon and was driven off course into the vastness of the Pacific Ocean for fourteen months. Miraculously, three lucky men (coincidentally all with -kichi ( 吉) at the end of their names—Iwakichi (岩吉), Ky¯ukichi (久吉), and Otokichi) managed to land near Cape Flattery on the northwest coast of North America in 1834. They were immediately enslaved by the indigenous tribe of Makah and later handed over to a British fur trading firm, the Hudson’s Bay Company.9 They were taken nearly around the globe to finally settle in Macao. Otokichi and his two comrades stopped in London for a day of sightseeing in 1835 on the way to Macao. They were reportedly the very first Japanese to visit London (Okudaira 1934; Haruna 1979/ 1988; Miyanaga 2004). After departing from London, they were taken to Macao to await the opportunity to return to Japan. During their stay there, they assisted a Prussian missionary, Karl Friedrich Augustus Gützlaff (1803–1851), in translating two books of the Bible into Japanese. His completed work is considered the oldest extant Japanese translation of the Bible (published in Singapore in 1837). The British

172

M. Naganuma

government wrote several letters to Gützlaff inquiring about the condition of the three Japanese castaways, and in response, he once reported them in a letter with their own signatures.10 These documents are now archived in the Public Relations Office in London (F.O. 17/13, 14, 21, 22 in 1836 and 1837) (Fig. 1). In 1837, seven Japanese castaways held in Macao, including Otokichi, boarded an American commercial ship, the Morrison, to attempt to return to Japan.11 However, under the seclusion policy, which had been further tightened by the 1825 Edict to Repel Foreign Vessels, the Japanese government ordered the firing of cannonballs to discourage the ship from docking (the Morrison incident). Consequently, Otokichi could not achieve his goal of returning to his hometown and reuniting with his family. After being forced to return to Macao, Otokichi did not try again to fulfil his dream of returning to Japan for the next decade. Instead, as a businessperson in China, he helped other surviving castaways— who happened to arrive in the country—to return to Japan. Hired by Dent & Company, a British trading house in Shanghai, Otokichi gradually became successful and wealthy. Owing to his overseas business activities and related circumstances, he was fortunate enough to get the opportunity to learn foreign languages such as Chinese and English in a practical way, most likely including their dialects.

3.2

Otokichi from 1849 Onwards: The Making of a Castaway-turned-tsuji ¯

Otokichi visited Japan at least twice as an interpreter after the Morrison incident. On both occasions, he was employed by the British government (Beasley 1951/1995: 76–129; Haruna 1979/1988: 208–228, 253–281). In 1849, he was assigned to the HMS Mariner, which planned to enter the Port of Uraga near Edo to conduct a topographical survey (Ts¯uk¯o Ichiran Zokush¯u vol. 65–68). At this time, Otokichi disguised himself as a Chinese national named Lin A-tao because he feared the harsh punishments administered to those returning to Japan under the stricter foreign policy. Alfred Laurence Halloran, a British sailor who kept a journal

8 Otokichi as a Castaway-turned-tsuji ¯

173

Fig. 1 A 1836 letter expressing their wish to return to Japan with signatures [F.O. 17/14]

174

M. Naganuma

during his service in the Royal Navy, wrote of Otokichi in May 1849 as follows: On the 14th of May we took in provisions for four months, and received on board a Japanese lad named Ottokitchi (or the Happy Sound). He had been wrecked in a junk in the year 1832, and was afterwards taken to Jeddo [Edo] in a vessel called the “Morison;” but being refused admittance into his own country, he had returned to China, and became a servant to one of the English merchants resident at Shanghae. Our commander, having received orders to proceed to Japan, engaged him as an interpreter. (Halloran 1856: 74)

In addition, according to a periodical titled Chinese Repository, which summarises a letter from Commander Matheson of the Mariner, ‘Otosan, the interpreter, was in great dread; saying that in case we landed, the Japanese would murder us all, and as for himself, he would be reserved for a lingering death by torture’ (September 1850: 510). When he arrived in Japan in 1854, Otokichi was often addressed by his Britishlike name, ‘Otto’ (Tronson 1859: 15–16; Haruna 1979/1988: 253–281), indicating his status as one among other British officials. James Stirling (1791–1865), the Commander in Chief of China and the East Indies Station, arrived in Nagasaki on the HMS Winchester to request ‘benevolent neutrality’ from the Japanese government (meaning that both Russian and British ships must be forbidden to use all places within the Japanese territory) to prevent the Russians from entering Japanese ports during the Crimean War (1853–1856). However, due to communication problems, Stirling unintentionally and ironically succeeded in opening the two ports of Nagasaki and Hakodate to British ships by concluding the Anglo–Japanese Friendship Treaty (also known as the Anglo–Japanese Convention of 1854) (Tokyo Teikokudaigaku Shiry¯ohensanjo 1915; Fox 1941; Beasley 1950, 1951/1995, 2000). Rear Admiral Sir James Stirling, commanding Britain’s naval forces in the China Sea at the outbreak of the war, went to Nagasaki in September 1854 in an attempt to secure an undertaking that Japan would observe an equally ‘neutral’ stance towards British and Russian warships that

8 Otokichi as a Castaway-turned-tsuji ¯

175

entered Japanese ports in the course of their hostilities. Because of the inadequacies of his interpreter—the same Otokichi who had accompanied the Mariner in 1849—he found it quite impossible to explain to Japanese officials the concepts of international law regarding this subject, as understood in the West. As a consequence, after a frustrating series of misunderstandings, he came away with what the Japanese thought he had come to get, a treaty opening certain ports to British ships (but not to trade) on the lines of that which had been signed with Perry earlier in the year. (Beasley 2000: 94)

Similar remarks such as ‘the inadequacies of his [Stirling’s] interpreter’ have been frequently repeated in the historiography (Beasley 1950, 1951/1995, 1991, 2000), blaming Otokichi for this failure—although the nature of the communication process and the resulting misunderstanding was not that simple. After the negotiations in 1854, Otokichi did not accept the considerate offer of the Japanese officials to re-settle in his home country, as his new family was waiting for him back in Shanghai. When a Japanese officer asked Otokichi to come ashore, ‘he said he had a wife and children at Shanghae, and preferred remaining under the protection of the English flag’ (The Illustrated London News, 13 January 1855). Even though times had changed so much since the Morrison incident that he was advised to stay, he decided not to remain in Japan. In his later years, Otokichi moved to Singapore, where he was naturalised as a British citizen, and he died in 1867 as John Matthew Ottoson. His son, John William Ottoson, went to Japan after his father’s death and worked in Yokohama and Kobe for several years (Tanaka 2003).

176

4

M. Naganuma

Otokichi as tsuji ¯ in Anglo–Japanese Diplomacy

This section examines in depth the situation in which Otokichi was inevitably involved as an interpreter for Rear Admiral Sir James Stirling in Nagasaki. Otokichi’s work in a series of diplomatic communications for the treaty could be categorised as an example of the type of ‘natural translation’ that Harris defines as ‘the translating done by bilinguals in everyday circumstances by people who have had no special training for it’ (Harris 1977: 99). Otokichi had ‘naturally’ acquired practical linguistic skills because he spent more than two decades of his early life outside Japan. However, he never had any special training in translation and interpreting,12 as hereditary ts¯uji did in their youth (see Chapters 2 and 3). The experience in his case occurred in a diplomatic setting rather than in ordinary, everyday circumstances. Otokichi served as an untrained interpreter for the British government that sought information about the Russian fleet to prevent it from calling at Japanese ports. However, the two countries signed the Anglo–Japanese Friendship Treaty in 1854. How was this series of miscommunications generated, and who was primarily to blame for it? The misunderstandings were triggered by a complex set of communication channels that engaged the involvement of the English, Dutch, and Japanese and their languages. The miscommunications happened despite the fact that the contents might have been correctly comprehended by the thoughtful, well-intentioned bakufu (幕府 shogunate government) officials in the process of negotiating the treaty (Inoue 2009). Nevertheless, ‘an uneducated Japanese castaway’, who was considered ‘clearly inadequate for diplomatic negotiations’ (Beasley 1950: 748–749), was unfairly blamed for the failure. Why were Otokichi’s ‘inadequacies’ as an interpreter highlighted, thus laying the entire blame on him for ‘a frustrating series of misunderstandings’ (Beasley 2000: 94)? It is certainly true that ‘the problem […] was not merely the political and diplomatic one of how to persuade the bakufu to open Japanese ports, but also a linguistic one’ (Beasley 1991: 91). Let us pay closer attention to the translators and interpreters in this specific diplomatic context.

8 Otokichi as a Castaway-turned-tsuji ¯

177

None of the official ts¯uji was fully prepared to communicate in English at Stirling’s arrival.13 Therefore, during the negotiations, the English letters were first translated into Dutch by Jan Hendrik Donker Curtius (1813–1979), the Opperhoofd (supreme headman) of the Dutch trading post established on a small artificial island called Dejima in Nagasaki Bay (cf. Vos 1992). Subsequently, the letters were translated from Dutch into Japanese by Oranda-ts¯uji, whose vocabulary was not adequate for diplomatic negotiations with Europeans. Likewise, following a reverse pattern, the letters written in response in Japanese by the Japanese officials were translated into Dutch by the Oranda-ts¯uji— and then, finally, into English by Curtius before being sent to Stirling. Unsurprisingly, this multi-step, sequenced communication style entailed the risk of serious misunderstandings. The ‘mistakes made were important enough to alter the whole course of the negotiations, and they began with Stirling’s first communication to the bugy¯o [magistrate]’ (Beasley 1951/1995: 117). However, there were opportunities to correct the mistakes because Otokichi accompanied Stirling as his interpreter. Whenever the bugy¯o and Stirling wanted to ‘have them [the documents] read aloud aboard the flagship’, Otokichi was asked to translate them on the spot (Beasley 1950: 749). Present there between the two parties, Otokichi, as an interpreter hired by the British government, was expected to orally rectify any potential miscommunication on an impromptu basis, but that was not the case. He was not satisfactorily educated in Japanese, let alone in English. The English vocabulary he knew was what he had learned in the context of his day-to-day business practice. Unfortunately, Otokichi was not well qualified for his task. He could read and write kana, the phonetic script of Japanese, but not the more difficult kanji used by officials. Thus although copies in kana were sometimes provided for his benefit, he was of little help in translating the letters and other papers exchanged between Stirling and the bugy¯o . (Beasley 1951/1995: 116)

Otokichi was regarded as an interpreter who was not well-skilled for the task he was expected to perform for Stirling. He was also considered

178

M. Naganuma

‘an uneducated peasant, [who] could hardly be expected to interpret’ (Beasley 1950: 754). This statement is noteworthy because the negotiations were not simple verbal exchanges but higher-level diplomatic ones occurring against the backdrop of global power relations at that time. Taking into consideration Commodore Matthew Calbraith Perry’s arrival in 1853, followed by the Japan–US Treaty of Peace and Amity in March 1854 (also known as the Kanagawa Treaty, which stipulated that the two Japanese ports of Shimoda and Hakodate be opened to American vessels—given that this treaty had been concluded with the US only a few months earlier), the result of the negotiations between Britain and Japan can be considered inevitable. The situation suggests that the consequences would have been the same regardless of Otokichi’s translation and interpreting skills; however, it was the untrained interpreter who incurred much of the blame for the major miscommunications purportedly taking place ‘as the result of faulty interpreting’ (Beasley 1951/1995: 121) in the negotiations between the two countries.

5

A Newly Introduced ‘Student Interpreter’ System

It may sound ironic to suggest that his role as an interpreter has unexpectedly impacted history. After all, Otokichi’s inadequate performance as a castaway-turned-ts¯uji highlighted serious challenges related to how communication problems can sometimes remain unresolved in the context of diplomatic negotiations. His role as an untrained interpreter appears to have paved the way for a new interpreter system by signalling to the British government that it should, on an official basis, start preparing its own trained interpreters. It would not be a coincidence that the British government inaugurated its new system of ‘student interpreters’ in the 1860s. The term ‘student interpreter’ in English does not seem to imply any special status; however, it was not translated into Japanese as something akin to gakusei ts¯uyakusha (学生通訳者 literally meaning ‘student interpreter’) but as a new term, ts¯uyakusei (通訳生 junior clerk for interpreting duties). This Japanese term was used from the late nineteenth to the

8 Otokichi as a Castaway-turned-tsuji ¯

179

middle of the twentieth century—almost exclusively in the context of administrative documents—to refer to novice official interpreters in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (e.g., Hara 1899; Tokizane 1978). It is no longer commonly used in Japan, which demonstrates its distinctiveness in relation to the Japanese administrative system under certain historical circumstances. Although very few documents are available on this British interpreter training system, Hansard’s views in relation to the parliamentary debates on the subject of student interpreters are noteworthy: The Foreign Office sends out its student interpreters to China or Japan, men who have passed the ordinary examination of the Civil Service Commission. They spend two years at Pekin or at Tokio under the Chinese or Japanese Secretary, and their time is devoted entirely to learning the language. Their case, though I do not think it is economical or wise, is different from that of the military officer, because the student interpreter on concluding his time at Pekin or Tokio goes off to one of the Consulates, where he is continually practising the language he has learnt, […]. (Hansard HL Deb 27 September 1909)

In 1860, the British government started recruiting candidates for the role of student interpreter as it decided to increase the number of language specialists in some Asian countries, including Japan and China. Accordingly, promising youth were dispatched to study abroad to learn local languages after passing an examination. Under this scheme were the following famous figures, just to name a few, who stayed and worked in Japan: Ernest Mason Satow (1843–1929), William George Aston (1841– 1911), Joseph Henry Longford (1849–1925), John Harington Gubbins (1852–1929), George Bailey Sansom (1883–1965), and Hiram Shaw Wilkinson (1840–1926), among others. One of the most notable personnel was Satow, the first Japanesespeaking student interpreter who came to Japan in 1862 at the age of 19 and later became an eminent diplomat and Japanologist, playing a key role in Anglo–Japanese relations (Roland 1999). He stayed in Japan for a quarter of a century altogether—from 1862 to 1883 and then later from 1895 to 1900. Satow’s diary, preserved in the Public Record Office,

180

M. Naganuma

and his autobiography (Satow 1921) are valuable historical records for understanding Japan’s turbulent days in the late nineteenth century from the perspective of this particular British diplomat.

6

Otokichi’s Marginality and Vulnerability

Arano (1993: 243–263) argues for the understanding of an interpreter’s marginality in the historical context of Early Modern Japan by asserting that when different groups of people interacted with one another, a special type of person functioning as an interpreter would appear on the outer fringes or edges of these groups. This individual was categorised as the so-called ‘marginal man’ (Murai 1990: 2), with his mode of behaviour and identity situated on the boundary of the different groups. This border location represents a place of mediation; thus, interpreters were mediators who spoke a kind of ‘hybrid language’ or ‘illegitimate language’ commonly used among diverse ethnic groups (Arano 1993: 245) in the mediation process. In his examination of the origin of the hereditary ts¯uji system in Nagasaki, Arano focuses primarily on various interpreters working in the trading houses in Hirado from the sixteenth to the seventeenth centuries (Arano 1993: 246–254; see also Chapters 2 and 3). When considering the context of Otokichi as a castaway-turned-ts¯uji working for the British government, we see how marginal and vulnerable his positioning was as an interpreter. It is evident when we compare him with those who were part of the institutionalised ts¯uji system engaged in training local officials to provide interpreting and translation services for the Japanese government. Otokichi was extraordinarily marginal and distinctive in every possible way, including his identity and employer. Among those described in earlier chapters, the generally best-known ts¯uji were those working between the Japanese and the Dutch (Orandats¯uji) and those working between the Japanese and the Chinese (T¯o-ts¯uji) in Nagasaki—a gateway to the Netherlands and China (see Chapters 2 and 3). In the nineteenth century, some of these official ts¯uji were ordered by the shogunate to learn languages other than Dutch and Chinese—including French, Russian, English, or Manchu—so Japan

8 Otokichi as a Castaway-turned-tsuji ¯

181

could communicate with what were then considered contemporary superpowers (Kimura 2012: 36–39). Though the official ts¯uji played a role indispensable to Japan’s diplomacy, we should not forget those who ended up playing the role of interpreter purely by accident—for instance, castaway survivors who happened to be exposed to foreign languages, thanks to the unexpected context of maritime disasters. Two famous castaways, Nakahama Manjir¯o and Hamada Hikoz¯o, received their education in schools in the US and finally returned to Japan after experiencing life overseas for a certain length of time. They climbed the ladder of success in their home country by exploiting the Japanese government’s need for their communication skills. In a different manner, Otokichi was employed by the British government as an ad hoc Japanese–English interpreter; he mediated communications between British and Japanese officials on two essential occasions: first in 1849 and then in 1854. Although Japan was not colonised at that time, the discrepancy in terms of power relations between the two countries was obvious. Cronin’s (2002) argument concerning interpreters in the colonial context would be useful here. He explains two separate approaches to recruiting interpreters: The choice for the architects of empire was between what might be termed autonomous and heteronomous systems of interpreting. An autonomous system is one where colonizers train their own subjects in the language or languages of the colonized. A heteronomous system involves the recruitment of local interpreters and teaching them the imperial language. The interpreters may be recruited either by force or through inducements. (Cronin 2002: 393, italics in original)

Otokichi, as a castaway-turned-ts¯uji, shared the two key elements of heteronomous interpreters: nationality and recruitment. He was a bornin-Japan castaway hired by the British Empire as an interpreter. Fearing possible punishment from Japanese foreign policy, he helped British officials survey a Japanese port in 1849 disguised as a Chinese citizen. In 1854, the British government employed a British official named

182

M. Naganuma

‘Otto’. This ts¯uji assisted the British government in negotiating the Anglo–Japanese Friendship Treaty with the Japanese government. Otokichi’s marginal and vulnerable status is due to his heteronomy located outside the two autonomous interpreter systems established by the Japanese and British governments. It is a relevant way to think of him not only because he was a castaway-turned-ts¯uji but also because he was employed by a foreign government.

7

Conclusion

Intercultural communication is vital to diplomacy everywhere and at any time. This was especially true in Japan around the middle of the nineteenth century when the country was undergoing turbulent changes and struggling against Western powers in the course of restructuring its foreign policy to end more than two centuries of ‘isolation’. During this era, the Tokugawa shogunate kept the four gateways to some parts of the world open for foreign trade and diplomacy under limited circumstances: Nagasaki for the Netherlands and China; Tsushima for Korea; Satsuma for Ryukyu; and Matsumae for Ainu (Toby 1984, 2008; Arano 1988, 2019; Matsukata 2010; see also Chapter 1). In these areas—as shown in other chapters of this book that detail certain representative cases—local ts¯uji were stationed to engage in various tasks, including interpreting and translation. Japan had its own established ts¯uji system in the Early Modern period, especially in Nagasaki, and the British government began dispatching its officials to Japan as student interpreters in the 1860s. They enjoyed institutionalised official positions, falling into the autonomous interpreter category for their respective governments, as opposed to the concept of heteronomous interpreters defined by Cronin (2002). In locating Otokichi in the marginal and vulnerable space outside of the official interpreter systems, this chapter highlights another aspect of the history of ts¯uji in the diplomatic setting at the dawn of Japan’s new era in the middle of the nineteenth century.

8 Otokichi as a Castaway-turned-tsuji ¯

183

Notes 1. Although there are no nationwide records to investigate the exact number of maritime accidents during the Edo period, local records and other historical materials indicate that it is estimated that at least over several hundreds of merchant ships, excluding fishing boats, were involved in maritime accidents each year (Sudo 1968: 239). 2. From 1611 to 1868, at least 341 cases of drifting were recorded, although the actual number would have to be multiplied by many dozens more (Hirakawa 2008: 17). Accordingly, repatriation systems were well established between China, Korea, Ryukyu, and Japan regardless of their respective diplomatic policies (Arano 1988: 117–157). 3. The term ‘sakoku’ is used here solely for convenience. See Matsukata (2016) as well as Chapter 1 for the ongoing controversy over its updated definition and paradigm. 4. Having stayed in Russia for nine years, Daikokuya K¯oday¯u is known, after coming back to Japan, for his contribution to the advancement of Dutch studies through interactions with several notable rangaku scholars during the Edo period (cf. Murakami 1988; Iwao 2006/2009; Hirakawa 2008). 5. Since it was not customary for ordinary people to use their surnames in the Edo period, he will be referred to as Manjir¯o hereafter in this chapter. 6. For the same reason as in the case of Manjir¯o, he will be referred to as Hikoz¯o hereafter in this chapter. 7. Otokichi’s extraordinary life has been vividly portrayed by various writers not only in fictional and non-fictional narratives (e.g., Kawai 1967; Haruna 1979/1988; Tanaka 2003; Yanagi 2009; Miura 2012; Shinoda 2020), but also in a commercial movie entitled Kairei (海嶺 Ocean Ridge), based on the novel of the same name. 8. Due to frequent shipwrecks, this area was known as one of the ‘waters of monsters’ and was feared by sailors in the Edo period (Dangi 2015: 4). 9. It stimulates our imagination to think it could be a possibility that Ronald MacDonald (1824–1894), a son of a fur trader who worked for the Hudson’s Bay Company, might have been inspired in his youth by the three castaways to take an interest in Japan. Knowing Japan’s foreign policy, he dared to visit the country and became the first native

184

10. 11.

12.

13.

M. Naganuma

English-speaker to teach Oranda-ts¯uji in Nagasaki (Haruna 1979/1988: 50–52). The letters were addressed to Gützlaff and another missionary, Robert Morrison (1782–1834). The Morrison headed for Japan via Ryukyu to repatriate the seven Japanese who comprised Otokichi’s group of three and another group of four from Kyushu. The latter group had been sent from Manila to Macao on a Spanish ship. It was Rikimatsu (力松), one of the group of four, who later visited Hakodate and Nagasaki as an interpreter for a British squadron in 1855 (Beasley 1950: 748; Haruna 1981/1988: 305–353). Otokichi was an ad hoc interpreter probably because Stirling’s visit had not been officially authorised by the British government. It was not Otokichi but Ky¯ukichi, one of the three Japanese castaways of H¯ojunmaru, whom Gützlaff primarily trained as an official interpreter for the government (Haruna 1979/1988: 253). Although the shogunate ordered Oranda-ts¯uji to compile English dictionaries in the wake of the Phaeton incident (1808), they were yet not fully capable to communicate in English by the mid-nineteenth century.

References Adachi, Y. (1990) Per¯ı Kantai Kurofune ni Notteita Nipponjin: “Eirikimaru” Jy¯ushichimei no Hy¯ory¯u Jinsei [Japanese on Board Perry’s Fleet of Black Ships: Life Stories of 17 Castaways of Eirikimaru]. Tokyo: Tokuma Shoten. Aikawa, H. (1963) Nippon Hy¯ory¯ushi [Castaway Records in Japan]. Tokyo: Self-published. Arakawa, H. (1969) Kinsei Hy¯ory¯ukish¯u [Anthology of Castaway Stories in Early Modern Japan]. Tokyo: Hosei University Press. Arano, Y. (1988) Kinsei Nihon to Higashi Ajia [Early Modern Japan and East Asia]. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. Arano, Y. (1993) ‘Ts¯uyaku Ron: Josetsu [Introduction to Interpreting Research].’ In Y. Arano, M. Ishii and S. Murai (eds.) Ajia no Naka

8 Otokichi as a Castaway-turned-tsuji ¯

185

no Nihonshi V: Jiishiki to S¯ogo Rikai [Japanese History in Asia V: SelfConsciousness and Mutual Understanding]. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. 243–263. Arano, Y. (2019) “Sakoku” o Minaosu [Review “Isolation Policy”]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Beasley, W. G. (1950) ‘The Language Problem in the Anglo–Japanese Negotiations of 1854.’ Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 13(3), 746–758. Beasley, W. G. (1951/1995) Great Britain and the Opening of Japan 1834 – 1858. London and New York: Routledge. Beasley, W. G. (1991) ‘Japanese Castaways and British Interpreters.’ Monumenta Nipponica, 46(1), 91–103. Beasley, W. G. (2000) ‘From Conflict to Co-operation: British Naval Surveying in Japanese Waters, 1845–82.’ In I. Nish and Y. Kibata (eds.) The History of Anglo–Japanese Relations 1: The Political-Diplomatic Dimension, 1600–1930. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 87–106. Chinese Repository (September 1850) XIX No. 9. 509–510. Cronin, M. (2002) ‘The Empire Talks Back: Orality, Heteronomy and the Cultural Turn in Interpreting Studies.’ In F. Pöchhacker and M. Shlesinger (eds.) The Interpreting Studies Reader. London and New York: Routledge. 387–397. Dangi, K. (2015) Kinsei Kainanshi no Kenky¯u [Study on Maritime Accidents in Early Modern Japan]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K¯obunkan. Fox, G. (1941) ‘The Anglo–Japanese Convention of 1854.’ Pacific Historical Review, 10(4), 411–434. Halloran, A. L. (1856) Wae Yang Jin: Eight Months’ Journal Kept on Board One of Her Majesty’s Sloops of War During Visits to Loochoo, Japan and Pootoo. London: Longman. Hansard (1909) ‘Oriental Languages, Volume 3: Debated on Monday 27 September 1909.’ https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/1909-09-27/deb ates/cf811d9e-4742-41e5-8924-231b39558329/OrientalLanguages. Hara, T. (1899) Gaik¯okan Ry¯ojikan Seido [Diplomat and Consul Systems]. Tokyo: Keiseisha. Harris, B. (1977) ‘The Importance of Natural Translation.’ Working Papers in Bilingualism, 12, 96–114. Haruna, A. (1979/1988) Nippon Otokichi Hy¯ory¯uki [Nippon Otokichi’s Castaway Story]. Tokyo: Ch¯uo¯ k¯oronsha.

186

M. Naganuma

Haruna, A. (1981/1988) Sekai o Mite Shimatta Otokotachi: Edo no Iky¯o Taiken [Men Who Have Seen the World: Experiencing Foreign Lands in the Edo Period]. Tokyo: Chikuma Shob¯o. Heco, J. (1895) The Narrative of a Japanese: What He Has Seen and the People He Has Met in the Course of the Last Forty Years. Tokyo: Maruzen. Hirakawa, A. (2008) Kaikoku eno Michi [A Way to the Country Opening]. Tokyo: Shogakukan. Illustrated London News (January 1855) 43–46. Inoue, K. (2009) Kaikoku to Bakumatsu Henkaku [The Opening of Country and Changes at the End of the Edo Period]. Tokyo: Kodansha. Ishii, K. (ed.) (1927) Ikoku Hy¯ory¯u Kitansh¯u [Rare Stories of Drifting to Foreign Countries]. Tokyo: Fukunaga Shoten. Iwao, R. (2006/2009) Edo Jidai no Robinson: Nanatsu no Hy¯ory¯utan [Robinson Crusoes in the Edo Period: Seven Castaway Stories]. Tokyo: Shinchosha. Iwao, R. (2010) Bakumatsu no Robinson: Kaikoku Zengo no Taiheiy¯o Hy¯ory¯u [Robinson Crusoes at the End of the Edo Period: Robinson Crusoe Game around the Opening of Country]. Fukuoka: Gen Shob¯o. Kawada, S. (2003) Drifting Toward the Southeast: The Story of Five Japanese Castaways: A Complete Translation of Hyoson Kiryaku, as Told to the Court of Lord Yamauchi of Tosa in 1852 by John Manjiro. Translated by J. Nagakumi and J. Kitadai. New Bedford, MA: Spinner Publications. Kawai, H. (1967) Nipponjin Hy¯ory¯uki [Japanese Castaway Stories]. Tokyo: Shakaishis¯osha. Kawasumi, T. (2004) Kurofune Ibun: Nippon o Kaikokushita nowa Hogeisen da [The Different Tale of the Black Ships: It was a Whaling Ship That Opened Japan]. Tokyo: Y¯urind¯o. Kimura, N. (2012) Ts¯uyaku-tachi no Bakumatsu Ishin [Interpreters from the Late Edo to the Early Meiji]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K¯obunkan. Kobayashi, S. (2000) Nipponjin Ikoku Hy¯ory¯uki [Stories of Japanese Drifting to Foreign Countries]. Tokyo: Shogakukan. Leong, F. (2005) The Career of Otokichi: The Story of First Japanese Resident in Singapore. Singapore: The Japanese Association. Leong, F. (2012) Later Career of Otokichi: Private Life of Otokichi and His Family. Singapore: The Japanese Association. Matsukata, F. (2010) ‘Ts¯uyaku to “Yottsu no Kuchi” [Interpreters and “Four Gateways”].’ In Y. Arano, M. Ishii and S. Murai (eds.) Kinseiteki Sekai no Seijuku [The Mature Early Modern World]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K¯obunkan. 235–250.

8 Otokichi as a Castaway-turned-tsuji ¯

187

Matsukata, F. (2016) ‘Futatsu no “Sakoku”: “Kaikin, Kaichitsujo” Ron o Norikoeru [Kan’ei Sakoku and Bakumatsu Sakoku].’ Y¯ogaku: Y¯ogakushi Gakkai Kenky¯u Nenp¯o, 24, 33–52. Miura, A. (2012) Kairei [Ocean Ridge]. Tokyo: Kadokawa Shoten. Miyanaga, T. (1994) ‘Eikoku K¯oshikan Ts¯uben Denkichi Ansatsu Ikken [The Assassination of Denkichi Alias Dan-Kutci, a Japanese Linguist to the British Legation in Yeddo].’ Shakai R¯od¯o Kenky¯u, 40(3/4), 234–270. Miyanaga, T. (2004) ‘“Ottoson” to Yobareta Nippon Hy¯ory¯umin [A Japanese Castaway Called “Ottoson”].’ Hosei Journal of Sociology and Social Sciences, 51(1), 171–244. Murai, S. (1990) ‘J¯ugo, J¯uroku-seiki no Chiikikan K¯ory¯u to Miura no Ran [Regional Exchanges from the Fifteenth to Sixteenth Centuries and Miura Rebellion].’ Rekishi Kagaku, 122, 1–25. Murakami, M. (1988) Bakumatsu Hy¯ory¯uden: Shomintachi no Hayasugita ‘Kaigai Taiken’ no Kiroku [Castaway Stories in the Late Edo Period: Records of Commoners’ Premature ‘Overseas Experiences’]. Tokyo: PHP Institute. Okudaira, T. (1934) ‘Eikoku Seifu to Nihon Hy¯ory¯umin [British Government and Japanese Castaways].’ In Meijibunka Kenky¯ukai (ed.) Meijibunka Kenky¯u Rons¯o 9 [Essay Collection on Meiji Culture 9]. Tokyo: Ichigensha. 219–226. Roland, R. A. (1999) Interpreters as Diplomats: A Diplomatic History of the Role of Interpreters in World Politics. Ottawa, ON: University of Ottawa Press. Satow, E. M. (1921) A Diplomat in Japan. London: Seeley, Service & Co. Shinoda, Y. (2020) Otokichi Den: Shirarezaru Bakumatsu no Ky¯useishu [Otokichi Biography: Unknown Savior at the End of the Edo Period]. Osaka: Shinyokan. Sudo, T. (ed.) (1968) Mono to Ningen no Bunkashi 1: Fune [Cultural History of Things and Humans 1: Ship]. Tokyo: Hosei University Press. Tanaka, A. (1991) ‘“Kurofune” Raik¯o kara Iwakura Shisetsudan e [From “the Black Ships” Arrival to the Iwakura Mission].’ In A. Tanaka (ed.) Kaikoku [The Opening of Country]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. 416–470. Tanaka, K. (2003) Kidan, Otokichi Tsuiseki [Marvellous Story of Chasing Otokichi]. Tokyo: Nikkihan. Toby, R. P. (1984) State and Diplomacy in Early Modern Japan: Asia in the Development of the Tokugawa Bakufu. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Toby, R. P. (2008) Zensh¯u Nihon no Rekishi Dai 9 Kan: “Sakoku” to iu Gaik¯o [A Collection of Japanese History, Vol. 9: Diplomacy as “Isolation Policy”]. Tokyo: Shogakukan.

188

M. Naganuma

Tokizane, H. (1978) Gen’ei no Dairen: Kanto Kyoku Ch¯ugoku Go Ts¯uyakusei no Kiroku [Dalian of Illusions: Records of Chinese Language Ts¯uyakusei in ¯ Kanto Bureau]. Sakai: Ominato Shob¯o. Tokyo Teikokudaigaku Shiry¯ohensanjo (ed.) (1915) Dai Nihon Komonjo: Bakumatsu Gaikoku Kankei Monjo vii [Old Japanese Documents: Records of Late-Tokugawa Foreign Relations vii]. Tokyo: Historiographical Institute of the University of Tokyo. Tronson, J. M. (1859) Personal Narrative of a Voyage to Japan: Kamtschatka, Siberia, Tartary, and Various Parts of Coast of China; in H.M.S. Barracouta. London: Smith, Elder & Co. Ts¯uk¯o Ichiran Zokush¯u, 65–68 [Survey of Diplomatic Relations, part II, 65–68]. Vos, M. (ed., trans.) (1992) Bakumatsu Dejima Mik¯okai Monjo: Donkeru=Kuruchiusu Oboegaki [Unpublished Documents in Midnineteenth Century Dejima: Notes of Donker Curtius]. Tokyo: Shinjinbutsu ¯ Oraisha. Yanagi, S. (2009) Kaish¯o : Ih¯o no Hito John M. Ottoson [Maritime Trader: A Foreigner, John M. Ottoson]. Tokyo: Tokuma Shoten.

9 Concluding Remarks Miki Sato

The previous chapters examined ts¯uji who worked at the four gateways and a castaway-turned-ts¯uji during the Edo period. As explained in Chapter 1, this book adopts a perspective that considers interpreters/ translators as social actors in the practice of interlingual and intercultural communication and the social context surrounding their practice. Thus, the historical case studies in this book focus on the contextualisation of interpreters and aim to illustrate the complex practices of individual interpreters. Chapter 1 mentioned Footitt’s (2022: 31) statement on the significance of contextualising individual interpreters/translators in a particular time and space. The exact excerpt is as follows: As far as the history of interpreting is concerned, […] by contextualizing in this way [i.e. temporal and spatial contextualisation], we may be able M. Sato (B) Sapporo University, Sapporo, Japan e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Saito and M. Sato (eds.), Ts¯uji, Interpreters in and Around Early Modern Japan, Translation History, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37652-8_9

189

190

M. Sato

to get considerably closer to the lived experiences of interpreters, and thus may find ourselves discerning a greater level of complexity and variety in their lives and activities, in effect avoiding easy generalisations.

This is exactly what the authors of this publication have had in mind—that historical case studies of ts¯uji would provide an alternative perspective about interpreters and interpreting to the existing, modern views on them. By presenting unexplored cases of the ‘complexity and variety’ of interpreting, we intend to contribute to the further development of translation and interpreting studies, which will encapsulate the reality of intercultural practice in a more diverse way and simultaneously avoid ‘easy generalisations’.

1

Wrapping Up (1): The So-Called ‘Isolation Policy’ and Tsuji ¯

During the Edo period, the ts¯uji vocational system was established in four gateways: Nagasaki, Tsushima, Satsuma–Ryukyu and Matsumae. Nagasaki was under the direct control of the shogunate and the magistrate’s office administered the occupational hierarchy and hereditary systems of Oranda-ts¯uji and T¯o-ts¯uji. In reality, ts¯uji were deeply involved in governing trade there, with T¯o-ts¯uji particularly managing some commercial deals instead of magistrates (see Chapter 3), therefore playing influential and multiple roles in relation to the Dutch and Chinese. Meanwhile, the shogunate policy had a strong effect on shogunate officials. Because of their geopolitical circumstances, Tsushima and Ryukyu were willing to communicate with Korea and China, and Japan and Korea engaged in official diplomatic relations between 1607 and 1868. Many merchants and ts¯uji from Tsushima stayed in Busan in Korea and Tsushima hosted a diplomatic mission from Korea (Ch¯osen ts¯ushinshi) that involved a journey to Edo accompanied by ts¯uji. The Ryukyu Kingdom conducted tribute diplomacy with the Ming and Qing dynasties and sent envoys to China, and in the nineteenth century, Ryukyu also became an important staging post for Western powers that intended

9 Concluding Remarks

191

to contact the shogunate. The intercultural exchange in these two regions was so essential that ts¯uji were inevitably necessary to manage and govern these exchanges. In Ezo, the Matsumae domain implemented a system of commissioning Japanese merchants to employ ts¯uji for trade with the Ainu. Meanwhile, the shogunate directly governed Ezo from 1799 to 1821, during which ts¯uji were governed by the Matsumae magistrate’s office and involved in the shogunate’s foreign policy measures. The castaways-turned-ts¯uji were different from the institutionalised ts¯uji but nevertheless played an important role in Japan’s diplomatic relations, especially when it faced challenges in its relations with Western powers. Thus, even under the so-called ‘isolation policy’, ts¯uji were actively involved in cross-cultural communication in and around Japan.

2

Wrapping Up (2): Common Aspects in Discussed Cases

The Edo period discussed in this publication lasted for nearly 270 years (1603–1868). The cases of ts¯uji analysed in our chapters can be categorised by segments within the Edo period as follows: • The first half of the eighteenth century: Amenomori H¯osh¯u (Ch¯osents¯uji in Tsushima, discussed in Chapter 4) and Tei Junsoku (Ryukyuan–Chinese ts¯uji in Ryukyu, Chapter 5). • The latter half of the eighteenth century: Yoshio K¯ozaemon (Orandats¯uji in Nagasaki, Chapter 2). • Late eighteenth to early nineteenth century: Uehara Kumajir¯o (Ezots¯uji, Chapter 7) • Mid-nineteenth century: Tei Einei (T¯o-ts¯uji in Nagasaki, Chapter 3), Itarashiki Ch¯och¯u (ikoku-ts¯uji in Ryukyu, Chapter 6) and Otokichi (castaway-turned-ts¯uji, Chapter 8).

192

M. Sato

These case studies demonstrate several common features, such as the emphasis on the ts¯uji’s moral and human nature, the vulnerability of ts¯uji and their involvement in political and diplomatic situations. In the two eighteenth-century cases presented in Chapters 4 and 5, before the increasing threat of Western powers, Amenomori and Tei Junsoku, who were educators as well as ts¯uji, shed light on the importance of an ethical and humanistic approach to training of ts¯uji as intermediaries between Japan or the Ryukyu Kingdom and other cultures. These two ts¯uji respected the interpreters’ moralistic aspects. While the Confucian moral education book introduced by Tei might have been used as a tool for officials or elites to maintain the social hierarchy, Amenomori emphasised sincere relations among different cultures. Similarly, Chapter 7 suggests that the translation of Uehara, an Ezots¯uji, may have intended to promote mutual understanding between two parties by shedding light on culture-specific texts on both sides. Although it is now often predicted that AI and machine translation will replace jobs that specialise in languages, interpreting and translation remain human activities based on human relationships. An example of Early Modern Japan may serve as a reminder of the intrinsic values of human interpreters and translators. Idealistic as it may be, we believe that human relationships must be based on mutual respect, without which human communication shall never work harmoniously. Chapters 2, 3, 6 and 8 reveal the vulnerable state of ts¯uji. Yoshio, an Oranda-ts¯uji, was accused of ‘mistranslations’ and punished by the shogunate; Tei Einei, who continued as an interpreter of Chinese after the Edo period, was labelled a ‘traitor’ by the public; Itarashiki was placed under house arrest for his involvement in a political power struggle in Ryukyu and Otokichi would later be criticised for his poor interpreting skills during diplomatic negotiations. As the above cases indicated, ts¯uji were aware of the complicated political circumstances and the power relations between the parties involved as well as their interests. Ts¯uji had to accomplish their interpreting tasks while considering the balance of power between these parties and protecting their own lives. However, what the interpreters were doing was unclear for those who were not involved in occasions that required interpreting. Thus, it was not surprising that ts¯uji could be easily accused

9 Concluding Remarks

193

of being responsible for the situation in which they performed their work if the authorities or the public became suspicious of it. This is generally the case for present-day interpreters and translators. Those in conflict zones experience particularly tremendous pressure as they are ‘often considered traitors and find themselves outside framework of labour law and persecuted by members of their own community’ (Moser-Mercer 2015: 83). The vulnerable position of ts¯uji was associated with the diplomatic challenges that Japan faced during the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries with the successive arrival of vessels from Western powers. As discussed in Chapters 3, 6, 7 and 8, ts¯uji were heavily influenced by the diplomacy and politics surrounding Japan. Tossed about by the tide of the times, every ts¯uji discussed in this book engaged in tasks that were important but considerably demanding, which even included learning foreign languages outside their specialisation. For example, Tei Einei and his colleagues learned Manchu in addition to Chinese in an attempt to maintain their jobs as T¯o-ts¯uji. Itarashiki commanded multiple languages to confront the visiting Western powers in Ryukyu. Uehara learned Russian from scratch during his duties and acquired sufficient proficiency to use it in his official duties. Otokichi is the most striking case of ts¯uji in this book as he was involved in diplomatic negotiations at a historic event between Britain and Japan despite never having been trained for interpreting work. While ts¯uji had to perform demanding duties as officials, Otokichi, as well as other castaway-turned-ts¯uji, probably engaged in such work to survive in the new life they were forced to lead. Chapter 3 discusses the ts¯uji who would continue to work as a ts¯uyakukan (通訳官 official interpreter) for the ministries, which was the new job title he adopted instead of ts¯uji, in the following Meiji era (1868–1912). Chapter 8 also mentions the term ts¯uyakusei (通訳生 junior clerk for interpreting duties) in that era. The term ts¯uji was not commonly used anymore in the Meiji period and was instead replaced by ts¯uyaku (as in ts¯uyakukan and ts¯uyakusei) (see Sect. 2 of Chapter 1). Although ts¯uji and ts¯uyaku can generally be translated as ‘interpreter’ in English, the change in the job title during the modern era suggests the

194

M. Sato

possibility of a modified connotation accompanying the interpreting job. Further research will be required on this issue.

3

Avoiding Overgeneralisations and Expanding Research Horizons

Although all the ts¯uji discussed in this publication are notable examples, they are not necessarily typical ones from the group of ts¯uji who used their respective languages but are rather more unusual cases. Therefore, we should neither deduce the definitive features of ts¯uji nor easily draw general conclusions about their profession. Moreover, each ts¯uji in Early Modern Japan was painstakingly engaged in his interpreting duties under different circumstances, and given the diversity of such contexts, generalising the characteristics of ts¯uji would be inappropriate. As mentioned in Chapter 1, this is consistent with the microhistory approach, which avoids overgeneralisation and highlights the agency of interpreting/translation (Wakabayashi 2016, 2018). Some ts¯uji worked in languages other than those considered in this book, including Vietnamese and Siamese (Thai), as briefly introduced in Chapter 1. By the end of the Edo period, some official ts¯uji became capable of speaking English. Because this volume did not explore these ts¯uji, we do not suppose that this book portrays the general image of the early modern ts¯uji. However, we remain hopeful that our research provides a more comprehensive picture of ts¯uji in Japan and the Ryukyu during the Edo period than other studies, which in many cases have focused on each language’s interpreters. We hope this publication strengthens translation and interpreting studies, which has been predominantly based on Western perspectives and case studies, by providing a different perspective from non-Western examples of interpreters. Non-Western viewpoints and practices, which have not been often introduced to English-speaking readers, must genuinely enhance one’s understanding of interpreters’ and translators’ multilingual and multicultural activities and apply them to the practice of various language pairs.

9 Concluding Remarks

195

Moreover, scholars have not sufficiently explored the history of interactions between Asian countries through interpreters, with the exception of some interesting studies such as Lung (2011). While studying ts¯uji, the authors of this book realised that intercultural communication in the East Asian sphere, mediated by ts¯uji, can provide substantial insights into interpreting and translation. Considering that previous studies have focused on the differences and difficulties in communication between Western countries or between Western and non-Western cultures, understanding and portraying the interactions between Japan, Ryukyu and other Asian cultures would be highly significant. By publishing this book in English, we intended to make the history of Japanese, Ryukyuan and East Asian interpreting more accessible to a broader readership than would be the case if it were in Japanese. We recognise the deep-rooted problems associated with the hegemony of the English language and face the contradiction that without the use of English, the ts¯uji history of Japan and Ryukyu could not be disseminated to a global audience. Nevertheless, we dare to take advantage of the dominance of English as a lingua franca in academic fields, thereby facilitating a wider understanding of translation and interpreting history. We hope this book will encourage readers interested in communication between various language pairs to pay more attention to the history of translation and interpreting in East Asia.

References Footitt, H. (2022) ‘Methodological Issues Related to the History of Interpreting.’ In C. Rundle (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Translation History. London and New York: Routledge. 23–37. Lung, R. (2011) Interpreters in Early Imperial China. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Moser-Mercer, B. (2015) ‘Conflict Zones.’ In F. Pöchhacker (ed.) Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies. London and New York: Routledge. 82– 83. Wakabayashi, J. (2016) ‘Applying the “Pushing-Hands” Approach to a Dialogue Among Microhistory, Macrohistory and histoire croisée.’ In D.

196

M. Sato

Robinson (ed.) The Pushing-Hands of Translation and Its Theory. London and New York: Routledge. 153–166. Wakabayashi, J. (2018) ‘Microhistory.’ In L. D’hulst and Y. Gambier (eds.) A History of Modern Translation Knowledge: Sources, Concepts, Effects. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 251–254.

Index of Names

A

F

Adachi Sanai 157 Aniya Seiho 120

Forcade, Théodore-Augustin 116, 122–124

B

G

Baba Saj¯ur¯o 157 Bettelheim, Bernard Jean 124, 125

Golovnin, Vasily Mikhailovich 142, 149, 153, 156–159 Gützlaff, Karl Friedrich Augustus 171, 172, 184

C

Curtius, Jan Hendrik Donker 177 H D

Date Munenari 63 Duplan, Fornier 122, 123, 130

Hamada Hikoz¯o 170, 181 Hongzhang, Li 63, 64, 67 H¯osh¯u, Amenomori 13, 18, 73, 90, 91, 106, 191 Hy¯o Roku 55

E

Egawa Kunpei 55 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Saito and M. Sato (eds.), Ts¯uji, Interpreters in and Around Early Modern Japan, Translation History, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37652-8

197

198

Index of Names

I

R

Ichiki Shir¯o 127 Itarashiki Ch¯och¯u 19, 116, 191

Rezanov, Nikolai 61, 146 Rodrigues, Joan 12, 20

K

S

Kaempfer, Engelbert 6, 7 Kaga Denz¯o 147 Kishaba, Ch¯oken 121, 122, 125, 127, 128 K¯oday¯u, Daikokuya 169, 183

Satow, Ernest Mason 179, 180 Shimazu Iehisa 100 Shimazu Nariakira 116 Shimazu Narioki 118 Shimazu Yoshitaka 107 Shizuki Tadao 6, 37 Sh¯o Tai 121, 134 Stirling, James 174–177, 184

L

Laxman, Adam 145, 146, 169 Lin A-tao 170, 172

T M

Maehira B¯osh¯o 120 Muro Ky¯us¯o 108, 109

N

Nakahama, Manjir¯o 122, 169, 181 Norinaga, Motoori 83

Tei Eih¯o 67 Tei Eikei 64 Tei Einei 17, 19, 52, 54, 59, 60, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 191–193 Tei Eish¯o 67 Tei Junsoku 14, 18, 90, 97, 99, 102–104, 109, 110, 191, 192 Tei Mikisuke 59, 61 Tokugawa Ieyasu 12, 100, 144 Toyotomi Hideyoshi 12, 54, 92, 144

O

Oda Isogor¯o 90 Ogy¯u, Sorai 83, 108, 110 Otokichi 19, 134, 167–172, 174–178, 180–184, 191–193 Ottoson, John Mathew 167, 170, 175

U

Uehara Kumajir¯o 19, 141, 142, 147–161, 191–193

W P

Perry, Matthew Calbraith 122, 125, 130, 134, 175, 178

Williams, Samuel Wells 116, 125, 132, 134, 135

Index of Names

Y

Z

Yoshimune, Tokugawa 107–109 Yoshio K¯ozaemon 17, 19, 27, 34, 191

Zhu Xi 38, 104

199

Index of Subjects

A

Ainu (language) 2, 11, 144, 148–151, 158, 159, 161 Ainu (people) 10, 11, 141–144, 146, 147, 152, 153 Anglo–Japanese Friendship Treaty 174, 176, 182 anti-Christian edicts 29 the Amur River 11, 146

B

Baku-han system 117 Beijing 61, 63, 67, 68, 103, 104 bugy¯o (magistrate) 9, 56, 177 Busan 77, 78, 82, 190

C

Cape Flattery 171

castaway 2, 19, 82, 134, 167–170, 172, 176, 180–184, 189, 191, 193 castaway-turned-ts¯uji 2, 167, 168, 178, 180–182, 189, 191 charanke 151 China 5, 7–15, 19, 21, 45, 52–60, 63, 64, 66, 68, 73, 74, 77, 83, 85, 86, 90, 92, 97–106, 108, 110, 115, 117, 118, 121, 122, 129, 131, 133, 135, 146, 172, 174, 179, 180, 182, 183, 190 Chinese (language) 2, 11, 18, 64, 65, 106, 109, 126, 130, 132, 172, 180 Chinese–Ryukyuan ts¯uji 18 Ch‘ing wen chien 67 Ch¯osen-ts¯uji 9, 18, 73, 75–77, 79, 80, 82, 90, 91, 106, 191 Ch¯osen ts¯ushinshi 190

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Saito and M. Sato (eds.), Ts¯uji, Interpreters in and Around Early Modern Japan, Translation History, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37652-8

201

202

Index of Subjects

Confucianism 87, 98, 104, 109 Confucian scholar 73, 74, 83 context 1–3, 6, 10–17, 19, 20, 28, 42, 44, 52, 59, 60, 62, 76, 97–99, 101, 102, 107, 110, 129, 131, 133, 148, 158, 159, 167, 176–181, 189, 194 context-oriented research 17, 148 Crimean War 174 Cruyde-boeck 36 cultural mediator 37, 91, 98

D

Dejima 8, 30, 34, 35, 37, 45, 77, 101, 177 Dent & Company 172 diplomacy 19, 21, 53, 66, 73, 74, 76, 79, 82, 84, 89, 91, 117, 118, 129, 131, 158, 168, 181, 182, 190, 193 diplomat 18, 64, 65, 78, 98, 102, 130, 179, 180 dual tributary 102, 115, 117, 118, 132 Dutch (language) 2, 6, 14, 29, 30, 33, 35, 36, 45, 157, 176, 180

E

Edict to Repel Foreign Vessels 118, 172 Edo 3, 7–11, 17, 18, 28–32, 34, 35, 37, 41, 43–45, 52, 54–58, 60, 62, 64, 66, 73, 74, 76, 77, 81, 84, 88, 89, 92, 101, 107, 109, 115, 146, 149, 157, 158, 161, 168, 171, 172, 174, 183, 189–192, 194

Edoban-ts¯uji 35 educator 18, 62, 90, 98, 102–104, 106, 110, 192 Emishi 143, 160 English (language) 2, 14, 20, 21, 41, 51, 61, 62, 119–122, 124–126, 130, 132, 134, 154, 157, 169, 172, 174–176, 180, 193, 195 Ensh¯u-nada Sea 171 envoy 61, 63, 76, 77, 82, 100, 101, 103, 104, 106, 107, 110, 121, 190 ethics 18, 106, 131, 132, 142 etymology 3–5, 53 Ezo 2, 10, 19, 21, 41, 142–150, 153, 155, 157, 159, 160, 191 Ezo (people) 2, 11, 141–143, 160 Ezo Chimei K¯o narabini Riteiki 149 Ezogosen 149, 158 Ezogosh¯u 149 Ezo-ts¯uji 11, 19, 141, 142, 145, 147, 148, 152, 155, 158, 159, 191, 192

F

four gateways (yottsu no kuchi) 21 French (language) 2, 41, 120, 124, 131, 132, 134, 157, 180 Fujian 19, 54, 59, 67, 100, 102 Fuzhou 100, 103, 104, 110

G

Golovnin incident 156 guanhua (language) 67, 98

Index of Subjects

H

Hakodate 152, 154, 159, 161, 174, 178, 184 Hangen Sh¯obairei 28, 39, 45 Hangul 78, 79, 81 Hankacho 28, 40, 45 Hirado 13, 30, 34, 37, 45, 180 The History of Japan 6, 37 Hokkaido 10, 141, 143, 147, 148, 160, 169 hon-ts¯uji 28 Hon’yaku Mango Sanhen 61 Hudson’s Bay Company 171, 183

I

ikoku-sen 117, 133, 134 ikoku-ts¯uji 6, 10, 19, 116, 119–122, 126, 129–131, 133–135, 191 In’ekihappi 36 intermediary 9 Izugara 74

203

keiko-ts¯uji 32, 34, 55, 60, 62 kiroku no jidai 85 Korea 8, 9, 13, 18, 73–80, 82, 83, 87, 88, 90–92, 133, 182, 183, 190 Korean (language) 2, 9, 11, 13, 73, 75, 77–79, 81, 82 K¯orinsuchi 78, 92 K¯orinteisei 76, 82, 84, 86, 88, 89 kots¯uji 32, 35, 55, 59, 60, 62 kots¯uji-kanin 62 kots¯uji-matsuseki 59, 62 kots¯uji-suke 60 Kumemura 102–105, 119, 120, 124, 129 Kumemura-ts¯uji 119, 121, 124, 129, 130 kundoku 14, 22 the Kurils 2, 10 Kyushu 9, 29, 54, 99, 184 Ky¯uy¯o 116, 117, 133

M J

Japan–US Treaty of Peace and Amity 178 Japanese (language) 1–3, 13, 64, 144, 145, 171, 176 Jinhae 77 j¯oruri 153–155

K

Kagake Monjo 147 Ka-i chitsujo 21 ka-i ideology 146 Kait¯okensatsukanshi 92 Kangoshi 74, 79, 90

Macao 12, 29, 171, 172, 184 Manchu (language) 59, 61, 67, 180 marginality 167, 180 maritime ban (kaikin) 8, 20, 21, 169 Matsumae 8–11, 144–148, 150, 153, 156, 157, 160, 182, 190, 191 Matsumae domain 10, 21, 145, 146, 148, 150, 153, 160, 191 Matsumaekaki 144, 160 mediator 2, 11, 18, 19, 42, 52, 56–58, 62, 65, 75, 91, 98, 110, 180 Meiji government 7, 52, 63, 65, 98, 100, 117, 134

204

Index of Subjects

mercury hydrotherapy 35, 36 microhistory 16, 194 Ming dynasty 60, 61, 67, 99–101, 105, 119 mistranslation incident 17, 37, 39, 41–44 moral education 18, 19, 90, 97, 98, 105, 106, 109, 192 Morrison incident 172, 175 Moshiogusa 148, 149, 152–155, 158, 159, 161 multiculturalism 75, 83, 84 multiculturalist 18, 75, 76, 83

N

Nagasaki 2, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 28, 30, 31, 33–42, 44, 45, 51–66, 77, 78, 82, 101, 118, 133, 144, 146, 157, 174, 176, 180, 182, 184, 190, 191 Naha 101, 102, 115, 119, 122, 124, 125 nai-ts¯uji 28 nenban-ts¯uji 35 Nihon Shoki 5, 143, 160

O

Onoura 170 Opium War 117, 118, 121 Oranda F¯usetsugaki 31 Oranda-ts¯uji 6, 9, 14, 17, 27–39, 41–45, 52, 55, 58, 61, 157, 177, 180, 184, 190–192 Oranda-ts¯uji Kish¯omon 27, 31 o¯ts¯uji 32, 34, 35, 39, 55, 56, 59, 62 o¯ts¯uji-suke 62

P

paratext 149, 150 Portugal 9, 12, 29, 45, 87 Portuguese (language) 30

Q

Qing dynasty 60, 61, 63, 67, 98, 100, 101, 107, 108, 110, 117, 118, 121, 134, 146, 147

R

Rangaku 14, 169, 183 Rangakukaitei 28, 33 Rekidaih¯oan 116 Rikuyu Engi 90, 98, 99, 104–110 Rogo Bunp¯o Kihan 157 Rokuj¯unin Sh¯onin 80, 81 role 1–3, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 31, 43, 44, 52, 56–59, 61–63, 65, 66, 73, 79, 82, 91, 98, 102, 109, 110, 116, 126, 129–133, 135, 142, 159, 167, 168, 178, 179, 181, 190, 191 Rouyuan Station 100, 105 Russian (language) 2, 156–159 Ryukyu 1, 2, 6, 8–10, 14, 15, 18, 90, 92, 98–106, 109, 110, 115–135, 182–184, 190–195 Ryukyuan (language) 1, 2, 6, 10, 97, 119, 120, 124, 130, 195 Ryukyu Kenbun-roku 127 Ryukyu Kingdom 1, 2, 9, 10, 15, 18, 19, 97–101, 107, 110, 115–117, 121, 129, 133–135, 190, 192 ¯ Ryukyu Okoku Hy¯oj¯oshomonjo 116, 124, 126

Index of Subjects

Ryukyu San’en-roku 127

S

Sakhalin 2, 10, 141, 146 sakoku/isolation policy/seclusion policy 6–9, 13, 20, 37, 52, 102, 117, 147, 169, 172, 183, 191 Sakoku-ron 6 Santan 11, 146, 147, 160 Satsuma 8–10, 98, 100–103, 107, 110, 115–120, 122, 124, 126–129, 131–134, 144, 182, 190 seishin no majiwari 75, 76, 79, 88–90 Seish¯ukan 36 Shanghai 66, 170–172, 175 Shimabara 101 Shimabara rebellion 30, 101 Shuri 99, 116, 119–121, 124, 125, 129 Shuri-ts¯uji 116, 124, 129, 130, 133 Singapore 171, 175 social position 18, 19, 42

T

Taiping Rebellion 118 Tawaregusa 76, 84, 85 Tenmongata 149, 157, 158 Tianjin 64, 67 Toba 171 T¯o F¯usetsugaki 58, 59 Tokugawa shogunate/bakufu 7, 21, 62, 78, 79, 82, 98, 108, 115, 134, 145, 182 Tokyo 44, 63, 64, 67, 168

205

tongshi 53, 65 t¯oon (language) 78 T¯otei Zuihitsu Zokuhen 121, 127 T¯o-ts¯uji 9, 11, 17, 41, 51–62, 64–68, 78, 180, 190, 191, 193 T¯o-ts¯uji Kaisho Nichiroku 56–58 translation and interpreting studies (TIS) 1, 3, 13, 16, 17, 20, 66, 76, 83, 106, 142, 148, 168, 190, 194 tributary relationship 10, 21, 98–102, 110, 117, 147 ts¯uji metsuke 32 Ts¯uk¯o Ichiran 11, 107 Tsushima 2, 8, 9, 13, 18, 74, 76–81, 84, 86, 89–91, 101, 118, 182, 190, 191 Tsushima domain 9, 13, 74, 75, 77–80, 84, 90, 91 Tsushima Lord (Lord of the Tsushima domain) 74 ts¯uyakusei 178, 193 U

Ulsan 77 Uraga 149, 172 W

waka 19, 151–153, 156, 158, 159 Wakan 76–78, 82, 84, 88, 92 Y

Yakushi T¯ofu 11, 53, 55, 56, 59, 62 yangban 80 yukar 151, 153–156, 158, 161

206

Index of Subjects

Z

zenrin y¯uk¯o no jidai 76

Zhou li 53, 66 zonry¯u ts¯uji 103, 104