近代文学における本文の変容をどのように考えるか ―『一読三嘆当世書生気質』初刊本と『逍遙選集』本文の資料性について―

Abstract

This study intends to probe into (1) What kind of problems exist in the text of modern literature that becomes the basic data in studying the vocabulary of modern Japanese, (2) How the problems shall be treated, and (3) What is obtained as the outcome using the specific example of “Temperament of Students of Nowadays” (1885-1886) by Shoyo Tsubouchi. The choice of book and its text comes important when taking examples from the works at a particular period in order to clarify the linguistic fact of the time. This has been pointed out conventionally. In addition, “Temperament of Students of Nowadays” addressed in this study is a relatively important data for investigating Japanese language in the early Meiji Era, at the end of the 19th century, and its actual vocabulary and notation; however, it is inconvenient to know that it does not reflect the linguistic facts in the early Meiji Era as the text different from the first edition is in circulation. There are still many materials that need to be examined individually in order to find out about the vocabulary and notation used at the time. I reexamined the problems relating to the text of “Temperament of Students” which has been pointed out and probed into the difference appearing between the texts published in the first edition and “Shoyo Collection”, particularly the use of Chinese word or Chinese notation which appeared to require further verification. “Shoyo Collection” was chosen as the subject of comparison for it has been used as the basis for Iwanami Books which is the representative text that can be obtained relatively easily today. At current stage, I completed the examination of episode 1 ~ 10 out of total 19 episodes of “Temperament of Students”, and this study summarized the result of inquiring into the problems found within its scope. Although there is a gap of 40 years between the publications of the first edition and the “Collection”, it became clear that there were many changes in the word form and notation in the text with the exception of the cases to be considered as a simple mistake or negligence. From here, it was possible to find the problems as in the following; While the first edition took the complicated structure where the loanword notated in katakana such as “所謂≪いはゆる≫ユニテイ〔統一≪ひとまとめ≫〕とが” were translated with Chinese words or Japanese words with the hiragana suggesting the pronunciation, the “Collection” indicated the katakana pronunciation for the loanword for Chinese words (or Chinese notation) side by side as in “所謂≪いはゆる≫統一≪ユニテイ≫とが.” This type of changing the text erased the correspondence between Chinese words and Japanese words in the early period of the Meiji Era. Considering why the text of the first edition has been modified in this way in “Collection”, it is possible to imagine a group of words whose origin should be considered individually. Also, it is possible to recognize the tendency in which the unstable notation of Chinese words was becoming stabilized. Although it appears that the notations were being stabilized in the direction where they matched the meaning of the Chinese characters, there were other examples where “兩個 (two)” which showed the characteristics of Chinese language changed to “二個 (two)”, where the Chinese use of character disappeared as in “假令 (if)” à “例へば (if)”, and where Chinese notations that were used for the same word such as “時器 / 時計 (watch and clock)” converged into “時計 (watch and clock).” Besides, there are examples showing the substitution of Chinese word by Japanese word such as “ichinin (one person)” à “hitori (one person)“, exmaples where the meaning became rather unclear after changed from “Riya/Uriya” à “Kitei”, and examples where the pronunciation was replaced with a Chinese verb such as ”Shyaba” à “Shyakuwai.” Such modifications are considered to have potential to be used as the data reflecting the linguistic change that took place between the late 19thcenturyand the early 20th century. Although it is clear that the text of the “Collection” does not reflect the linguistic fact at the end of the 19th century, it is quite likely that it would provide useful information as research material to find examples of linguistic change at the time if the first edition is used as the main text and compared with the “Collection” as the supplementary text.