著者

中村 綾

出版者

国文学研究資料館

雑誌

国際日本文学研究集会会議録 = PROCEEDINGS OF INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON JAPANESE LITERATURE (ISSN:03877280)

巻号頁・発行日

no.30, pp.7-28, 2007-03-30

---

Tsuuzoku Chuugi Suikoden (hereafter Tsuuzoku), a widely circulated pre-modern translation/interpretation of Suikoden, still holds many problems with relation to the translator, the original text it is based on, etc.. As for the translator, the possibility of Okajima Kanzan has been raised by the presenter from the use of colloquial vocabulary, but I would like to reexamine these problems from other angles, focusing mainly on the Shuui section.The shuui in Tsuuzoku were added to an expanded edition. Originally, the first run was planned for 100 issues, but only 95 were run. In a latter 120 issue printing, the additional translations were added as shuui. The attributed translator in the book for the main body is Kanzan, but for the shuui is listed as Toutou Doujin. Traditionally, from the introduction to Chuugi Suikoden Kai written by Suyama Nantou, Kanzan was believed to be the one to affix Japanese readings to the Japanese reprint (wakokubon) of Suikooden, and that therefore the translator of Tsuuzoku was not Kanzan. However, when this reference is reexamined, doubts arise regarding Nantou's introduction, requiring a reevaluation of whether Kanzan did affix Japanese readings to the Japanese reprint.This problem will be addressed at another time, but for this presentation, the translator of the shuui will be shown to be different from that of the main work for the following reasons. 1. Poetic language used for depicting emotions in the original Chinese version of Suikoden, a colloquial novel, is dealt with differently in the translations found in the main work and the shuui. 2. The translations in some of the main section just prior to and following the shuui overlap but feature a different translation than the main section. 3. The Kinseitanbon was used in the shuui, but was not used in the main section. 4. The original text used for the main section and the shuui is thought to be different. For these and other reasons, the main section is thought to have been done by Kanzan due to similarities seen in other works by him, but the shuui are believed to have been translated by someone else.