The power of translated literature in Japan: The introduction of new expressions through translation in the Meiji Era (1868–1912)

ABSTRACT

This article clarifies the role of translated literature and argues that it held great power in Japan during the Meiji period (1868–1912). Based on polysystem theory, the article explores translated literature's power in the contemporary social context during rapid modernization. Possibly, translated literature in the Meiji period occupied the literary polysystem's center, having the power to introduce foreign aspects. Indeed, translated literature introduced new elements to the Japanese language and produced ōbun-myaku (European-influenced style) based on usages and constructions in Western works. Two popular translations, Fūsei Chōzoku Keishidan (Kenelm Chillingly: His Adventures and Opinions, 1885) and ‘Kan-Ippatsu’ (‘The Pit and the Pendulum,’ 1896/1897) illustrate the uses of ōbun-myaku. As proof of translated literature's powerful influence on the Japanese language, new elements in authentic Japanese novels of the Meiji period are quoted. Finally, this case study indicates that translated literature played an important role in Japanese modernization by connecting Western and Japanese cultures.

KEYWORDS:

• Translated literature
• polysystem theory
• ōbun-myaku (European-influenced style)
• the Meiji period (1868–1912)

Notes on contributor

Mino Saito is currently a part-time instructor at Tsuda College, Tokai University and Reitaku University in Japan teaching translation theories, Japanese-English translation and other courses related to languages and intercultural communication. She has a Ph.D. in intercultural communication studies from Rikkyo University (Tokyo, Japan). Her research interest in Translation Studies includes literary translations and roles of translations through history. Currently, she is exploring translations of the Meiji era (1868–1912) Japan. One of her recent publications in Japanese is a book entitled Kindai Nihon no hon-yaku bunka to Nihongo: Hon-yaku ō, Morita Shiken no kōseki [The relationship between the culture of translation and the language in modern Japan: The translation king, Shiken Morita's contribution] published by Minerva Shobō in 2012.

Notes

1. This is the latest statistics as of 7 August 2014.

2. This number does not include literature for children. 725 children's books independently comprise one category in the statistics, and a part of them are likely to be literature.

3. This translation is considered as ‘probably the first translation of a Western work apart from proselytizing materials’ (Kondo & Wakabayashi, 1998, p. 486).

4. For people in the Meiji period, ‘Western countries’ meant technologically developed countries, mainly the UK, France, Russia, and Germany.

5. Mokichi is his given name and Fujita is his family name. In this paper, all the Japanese names are written in the English order (i.e., a given name comes before a family name).

6. The work's cover and imprint state that Fujita and Ozaki are the translators of Fūsei Chōzoku Keishidan; however, nowadays Chisen Asahina is considered as the actual translator of the work (Kawato, 2002, p. 341; Yanagida, 1961, p. 60). For quotations from the work in this article, Fujita and Ozaki's names will be mentioned following what the book itself states.

7. A poet Shiki Masaoka (1867–1902) was a starter of shaseibun. He used this technique first for poetry and later for prose.

8. Major institutions to study English literature established around the 20th year of the Meiji period were the department of English literature at Tokyo Imperial University in 1887, Kokumin Eigaku Kai (private school of English) in 1888, and the department of English literature at Tokyo Senmon Gakkō (Tokyo private school) in 1890 (Sato, 2008).

9. Even-Zohar does not give a detailed explanation of what norms are, but his colleague, Gideon Toury, developed a concept of ‘translation norm.’ Toury (2012, p. 63) explains it as ‘the translation of general values or ideas shared by a community – as to what would count as right or wrong, adequate or inadequate – into performance “instructions” appropriate for and applicable to concrete situations.’ Even-Zohar (1978/2004) seems to use the word ‘norm’ in a more general way; ‘norms’ in his study could be described as ‘usual’ or ‘standard,’ since he uses this word without a descriptive text analysis for norms.

10. Other characteristics of ōbun-myaku are personal pronouns including third person pronouns, such as kanojo (she) and kare (he), tokoro no as a translation of relative pronouns, comparative forms, superlative forms of adjectives, causative verbs, progress forms of verbs, the perfect tense of verbs, and other expressions peculiar to the Western languages (Morioka, 1999).

11. Ōbun-myaku is considered as ‘the forerunner’ of hon-yakuchō or translationese (Wakabayashi, 2009, p. 6), and because foreignness is common to both of them, in certain cases the term hon-yakuchō could be functioned as a synonym of ōbun-myaku. Nevertheless, on the one hand, as ōbun means ‘European writing,’ sources of ōbun-myaku are always European (or Western) texts, but sources of hon-yakuchō can be texts of any foreign languages. In addition to that difference, usually loanwords written in katakana are not marked as a characteristic of ōbun-myaku though it is considered as a characteristic of hon-yakuchō (Wakabayashi, 2009).

12. Koshoshi Miyazaki, a novelist and critic, first called Shiken Morita the translation king in 1891 (Kokumin Shinbun newspaper, 24 November 1891).

13. The other translator Yanagida (1943) mentions is Shimei Futabatei (1864–1909), who was a translator and novelist.

14. Hakuchō Masamune (1879–1962), a novelist, playwright, and critic, valued Morita as ‘a great wholesaler of English literature’ (Masamune, 1933). For Tayama's comment on Morita's works, see Section 6.

15. This book (Tayama, 1909/1995) was published under the name of Rokuya Tayama, which was Katai Tayama's real name.

16. Most people did not consider it a problem that Morita retranslated from English translations, instead of from French originals. That was because they regarded him highly on the basis of his educational background and extensive experience as a journalist. In addition, people at that time agreed that there was a need for a large number of Western works to be introduced to further modernize the Japanese society, and as such, introducing French works through retranslation was common when there were not many people who could translate from French originals. Japanese audiences expected each translator to introduce as many works as possible, making use of his or her language skills to fulfil the urgent need.

17. Uchida wrote this article using his pen name ‘M. M.’

18. At the same time, Uchida thought that, if it was possible, as a translator, he wanted to translate in a literal way without even changing the word order and the number of words in original texts (Uchida, 1909). He knew that precise literal translation was quite difficult, even if it was not impossible, for translations from Western languages to Japanese.

19. This example is presented in Morioka (1999), which exemplifies ōbun-myaku elements in translated and non-translated works produced by Japanese people.