2003 Fiscal Year Final Research Report Summary
Comparative Research on Kaempter
| Project/Area Number |
14510581
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
|
| Allocation Type | Single-year Grants |
|---|
| Section | 一般 |
|---|
| Research Field |
独語・独文学
|
|---|
| Research Institution | Osaka University |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
NAKA Naoichi Osaka Univ., Faculty of Language and Culture, Professor, 言語文化部, 教授 (50143326)
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
2002 – 2003
|
| Keywords | Kaempfer / Geschichte und Be-schreibung von Japan / old edition / Dohm / Heutiges Japan / new edition / rewriting / comparison |
|---|
| Research Abstract |
In my research I aimed to compare the new edition of Kaempfer's "Heutiges Japan" in the "Complete Works of Kaempfer" with its old edition "Geschichte und Beschreibung von Japan". My intention was to research whether the traditional image over Kaempfer is now to be renewed or not. Concletely my aims were: (1) To make a datebase of the comparison of the old and new edition, (2) To list the important points of the result of comparison, (3) To criticize the conventional Japanese translations, and (4) To consider the possibility of the new Japanese translation.
As the result of the research I found following tow problems. (A) Not all the manuscripts which are to be found in the British Library are written by Kaempfer himself. Another men were concerned in the making of manuscripts. (B) The rewriting of Dohm was not partial but total. So it is not easy to say where are the rewritten parts of Dohm and where are the original parts of Kaempfer.
So I devided the "Heutiges Japan" into tow parts: parts which were written by Kaempfer aud parts which are written by another men. And part to part I compared "Heutiges Japan" with "Geschichte und Beschreibung von Japan". The results are: (I) In the edition of Dohm's "Geschichte und Beschreibung von Japan" there are many parts, which are rewritten by Dohm with his value judgment. But there are also parts, which are not rewritten by Dohm. (II) It is true that the edition of Dohm has problems. But they are not too profound to renew the traditional image over Kaempfer.
|
