竹島問題の歴史

29.6.07

1877 - Different Japanese Views on Matsushima

The following document was prepared by Tanabe Taichi, who was the head of the Communications Bureau in the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1877. The document summarizes the different views in the ministry on what to do about the petition by Japanese businessman Mutoh Heigaku (武藤平学) to open up an island referred to as Matsushima. As you can see in the document, the Japanese were not sure which island was Mutoh's Matsushima. Some believed it to be Joseon's Ulleungdo; some believed it to be Ulleungdo's Usando, and others believed it to be some uninhabited island, as was summarized in an 1876/77 letter written Watanabe Kouki (渡辺洪基), who was the Director of the Bureau of Documents in the Japanese Foreign Ministry at the time.

The document was probably written in 1877 or 1878, but it was included in the last volume of a 3-volume set of books entitled "A Study of Historical Evidence of Takeshima" (竹島考証), which was an 1881 compilation of documents related to Takeshima (Ulleungdo). Here is the translation of the document:
"Arguments on the Pros and Cons of Inspecting Matsushima"

Tanabe Taichi, the Head of Communication BureauOpinion A (甲): Whether the island should be opened can be discussed another time, but today we should debate the merits of an inspection. I have heard that Japanese use the name "Matsushima," but the actual name is "Usan," which is part of Joseon's Ulleungdo (蔚陵島). Concerning Joseon's ownership of Ulleungdo (蔚陵島), there was a dispute during the old government (Tokugawa) when, after exchanging several documents to support our claims, we agreed to give it up, a fact that is permanently written in our two histories. To dispatch someone to inspect without any reason is like counting another's treasure, and trespassing into a neighbor's territory.

Although Japan and Korea have just begun exchanges, there is still some animosity and suspicion, so people who are trying to develop relations will probably be against something like this since it could cause, in one stroke, a gap to reappear. Moreover, they would probably like it even less if we hired an English or Russian ship to take us to the island. Even if the island is not Korean territory, wise people say that it was clearly a mistake to open up the uninhabited islands in the south and make them a part of Ryukyu County. What we need to strive for now it stabilizing our country, and we will gain nothing by upseting Joseon and causing disorder.

We cannot and should not open up Matshushima. To inspect it while knowing how useless it would be, would be extremely unbeneficial. Moreover, it would cause harm later.

Opinion B (乙): We cannot decide to open up the land until we have inspected it. When discussing territory, we must physically see it. It is wrong to believe something based on just a piece of paper. Moreover, the island is located near our shore. It is an important route for our people when they sail to the Korean mainland or to Russian locations, so it would be negligent of us to make a decision without without investigating all the details of the land and its situation. Therefore, we should inspect not only the island in question (Matsushima), but also Takeshima (Ulleungdo). We need to know all the details of its current situation.

An inspection is needed, but, needless to say, it would be stupid to hire an English or Russian ship, anchor there for only a day or half a day, and allow only one or two officials to land and inspect it. Also, it is not necessary that we do it right away. When the Navy is free, after the Seinan war (a local war inside Japan), we should dispatch naval officers who are experts on surveying and drafting and government officials who are experts on production an product development and let them inspect the island. After that, we can compare writings, maps, and documents to finally determine if Matsushima is a part of Ulleungdo (蔚陵島), if it is Usan, or if it is an ownerless island. Then we can consider the benefits of cultivating it. Therefore, since it is impossible to decide whether to open up the island before we inspect it, we have no choice but to inspect Matsushima. At any rate, it would be regrettable if we accept arguments like Mr. Sewaki's, who says we should not dare do this.
Opinion C (丙): There was a theory in a Bristish newspaper that said the UK needed a naval base in the northern Pacific to stop Russia’s eastward expansion, so they may take notice of an island like Matsushima. Also, I have heard that a British government ship named Sylvia made a voyage from Nagasaki to Korea. We do not know the route they took, as there was no Japanese interpreter onboard, so there is a chance they passed the island. If a UK minister or someone else asks about the island in question, it would not only be embarrassing to say we have no idea, it could cause trouble. Therefore, let's not debate opinions A and B, on whether we should open the island, since our most urgent task is to determine the status of the island in question.
If there is someone willing to inspect the island or anchor near the island, regardless of the ship he uses, we should permit him and hire him to do so. Even if we achieve only what has been mentioned so far, it will naturally cost something. After determining how much it is worth to get the task done soon, we should give Mr. Sewaki a predetermined amount of money and have him do the task within that budget. Although we cannot rule out the possibility that the Korean government will become more suspicious if a Japanese arrives on a foreign ship, since the Korean people on the island cannot differentiate Japanese and other foreigners, I do not believe it will hurt the friendship with our neighbors.
As you can see from the above document, the Japanese were unsure of where Matsushima was, but one opinion was that it was Ulleungdo's Usando. Some Korean historians claim that the Japanese believed Usando to be Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo), but all Japanese maps showing "Usando" (于山島) showed it as a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, not Liancourt Rocks. In fact, some Japanese maps even showed it to the west of Ulleungdo, which means it could not have been Liancourt Rocks. Liancourt Rocks are ninety-two kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo.

The following are Japanese maps showing Usando (亐山島 or 于山島):

1873 - 朝鮮国細見全図 - 染崎延房編著



1873 - 朝鮮全図 - 海軍水路寮



1877 Aug - 原版朝鮮全国之写 - 陸軍編纂



1894 - 明治二十七年 朝鮮全図 - 柴田源三郎編

14 comments:

  1. Pacifist,

    Could you please check my edit of your translation for mistakes?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Gerry,

    Thanks a lot for the new posting.

    As for the opinion B, Mr. Wakisaka was my mistake, it was Mr. Sewaki - the same person in the opinion C.

    And the last sentence in the opinion B seems not right.

    From the site:
    "We will surely have to wait until another time in the future".

    My original translation:
    "However, the argument by Wakisaka (→Sewaki)doesn’t dare to make it right (to inspect it) but it would be regrettable in the future".

    I think it says if they did as Mr. Sewaki insisted, they would have to regret it in the future.

    One more thing, there is a word repeatedly used in the opinion B:
    "a decision without without investigating"

    And please correct Mr. Sewaki's name in the opinion C.
    It reads "Sewak".

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you, Pacifist. I have made the corrections.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Gerry,

    Thanks for the swift response!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Kaneganese,

    If you would like to make a Japanese version of the above post, here is the Japanese:

    第二十壹號

    松島巡視要否ノ議 公信局長 田邊太一

    甲云、他日開否ノ略定リテ而後今日視察ノ要否ヲ論スヘシ、聞クカ如キハ松島ハ我邦人ノ命セル名ニシテ其實ハ朝鮮蔚陵島ニ屬スル于山ナリ、蔚陵島ノ朝鮮ニ屬スルハ舊政府ノ時一葛藤ヲ生シ、文書往復ノ末永ク證テ我有トセサルヲ約シ、載テ兩國ノ史ニ在リ、今故ナク人ヲ遣テコレヲ巡視セシム、此ヲ他人ノ寶ヲ數フトイフ、況ンヤ跡隣境ヲ侵越スルニ類シ、我ト韓トノ交漸ク緖ニ就クトイヘトモ猜嫌猶未全ク除カサルニ際シ、如此一擧ヨリシテ再ヒ一隙ヲ開カンコト尤交際家ノ忌ム所ナルヘシ、況ンヤ英或ハ露船ヲ雇ヒコレニ赴カンコト、又尤彼ノ忌ム所ニ出ツルヲヤ、縱令該島ヲシテ韓籍ニ屬セストモ、南無人島ヲ開キ琉球ヲ藩トスルモ識者或ハ其宜ニ非サルヲ論ス、現今ノ務方ニ國脉ヲ靜養スルニアリ、鮮ヲ煎テコレヲ擾ス計ノ得ルモノナラス、松島斷シテ開ク能ワス、又開クヘカラス、其不能不可ヲ知テコレヲ巡視スル、豈無益ナラサランヤ、況ヤ後害ヲ釀サントスルヲヤ、
    乙云、開否ノ略ハ視察ノ後ニ非サレハ定ムル能ワス、版圖ノ論今其實ヲ視ス、只ニ○紙上ニ據信スルハコレヲ可トイフヘカラス、況ンヤ我近海ニアリ我民ノ韓ノ內地ニ航スルモノ、露ノ藩地ニ航スルモノ、必由ノ途タレハ其地ノ狀形ヲ悉サスシテコレヲ不問ニ措ク、我吾務ヲ盡ササル○栽シ、故ニ該 島ハ勿論所謂竹島ナルモノモ亦巡視シテソノ今日ノ狀ヲ詳知スヘシ、巡視ハ必要スル所ナ
    リ、サレトモ英露等ノ船ヲ雇ヒ僅ニ一日半日ノ碇泊ヲナシ一人二人ノ官吏上陸視察ストモ果果敷事ナキハイフヲマタス。且今日ノ失フテハ再ヒスヘカラサル機會ナリトイフマテニモアラサレハ、西南勦定ノ後海軍モ無事閑暇ノ時アルヘケレハ、其時ニ至リ測量製圖等ニ熟セル海軍士官ト生産開物ニ明カナル官吏トヲ派差シテ、コレヲ檢セシメ、而後コレヲ書圖ニ徵シ古文書ニ照シテ初メテ松島ノ蔚陵島ノ一部ナリヤ、果テ于山ナリヤ又別ニ一ノ無主地ナリヤ、ヲモ定得ヘク、將後來開墾シテ利益ノ有無ヲモ考得ヘシ故ニ、巡視ノ後ニアラサレハ開否得議ヲ定メカタシ、松島必巡視セサルヘカラサルナリ、然レトモ瀨脇氏ノ議ノ如キハ敢テコレヲ可トセス、必將ニ他日ヲ竢アルヘ、 
    丙云、英國新聞ニ露國ノ東路ヲ預妨セントテ旣ニ太平海北部ニ一ノ海軍屯站ノ地ヲ要セントスルノ論アリ、松島等ノ如キ或ハ彼カ注目スル處タルモ知ルヘカラス、且聞該國官船シルビヤ長岐ヨリ韓地ニ航セリト、當時我譯官乘組居ラサレハ何ノ地ヲ航過セシヤヲ知ルニ由ナシ、或ハ該國ヲモ預メ巡視セシメ右シコト必無トモ信シカタシサレハ今ニモ英公使或ハシカラストモ他ヨ該島ニ就キ云云ノ論アルトキ一切知ラスト答ヘンハ頗ル忸怳ナキアタワス、所謂不都合ナルモノナリ故ニ今日ノ策ハ甲乙ノ所論ノ如キ開否等ノ議ニ涉ラス、聊ニテモ該島ノ現狀ヲ知ルコトヲ急務トセリ故ニ誰ニテモ其地ヲ巡視スヘキノ望アルモノ、何船ニテモ其近傍ヲ航シ甘ンシ、寄椗セントイフモノアレハコレヲ許可シ、コレヲ雇フヲ可ナリトイヘトモ、ソノ効ヲ椗ムルモノハ只ニ前ニ述ル所ノミニ止ルモノナルハ計算上多費ヲ要スルコトハ妙トセス、須ク如此効ヲ收ムルコト若干ノ價アルヘキヲ算シ若干金ヲ瀨脇氏ニ付シ、是額內ヲ以テ此擧ヲナスヘキヲ命セハ計ノ得ルモノニ哉カシ、我邦人外國ノ船ニ搭シ韓地ニ至リシトテ韓政府ノ猜嫌ヲ增サントノ過慮ハナキニアラストイヘトモ、該島ニ在ル韓民(縱令官吏アルモ)邦人ト外國人トヲ區別スルノ眼睛モアルマシケレハ斷然交隣ノ誼ニ於テハ妨碍ヲ生セサランコトヲ信ス、

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thank you Gerry, for the post and Japanese text. Off course, I am going to Japanese version soon.

    I have been working on timeline for the whole week. The first idea was if I put all the events, maps, articles and documents from both side in a timeline, I could figure out more interesting thing. But it seems endless since there are thousand of documents and maps which has anything to do with Takeshima/LR in Japan...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Wow, Kaneganese. I just looked at your timeline. You've been busy.

    Yes, there is a lot of information, but if you give a brief explanation about how each map or document fits into the historical puzzle, then you can tell the story of Dokdo/Takeshima in timeline fashion. Sometimes we need different views of a story, especially a complicated story, to really understand it.

    Good job.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Pacifist,

    Could you give me a rough translation of the following?

    右ニ付甲乙丙ノ論ニ就キ更ニ評論ヲ下ス者卽第二十二號是ナリ、丁印第三號是ナリ。

    第二十二號 記錄局長 渡邊洪基
    本文甲乙丙之論ヲ並考セシハ其中處ニ達セン英官船シルビア號ハ朝鮮近海ニ發セシハ旣ニ明カナリ、露西亞船モ其邊巡視ニ出テタリトノ事アリ、又此中ヲ-ダシユース(英フラグシップ)箱舘ヨリ領事乘込、アドミラールライデル氏モウラシヲストツク赴キノ該島ハ其航路上ニアタル今日シポリチカール、コンジシヨンニテハ是モ英ノ注目セル所トナランハ、又自然ノ勢ナリ、就テハ其槪略ニテハ知ラサレハ現時不都合ヲ生セン此處ニ行之者ハ良港ラシキ者ハアリヤ、樹
    木魚貝等ハ何等ノ品ナリヤ、來リ住スル者ハ朝鮮人ナリヤ、同人等ハ何ト思フテ居タルヤ、治政ノ道ハ多少立チ居ルヤ、此島ハ蔚陵島ト謂フ歟、于人島ナルヤヲ知ニ增ル間十分也、是カ爲メニ少少ノ金ハ費シテモ然ルヘシ、又或ハ蔚陵島ト竹島ハ同島異名ノ事判然シ、松島モ亦竹島ト同島異名爲ルカ如シ、否ラサルモ其屬島ナルカ如シ、右竹島之外ニ松島ナル者アリテ我近所ニアラハ旣ニ竹島日本人行キ葛藤ヲ生セシヲ見レハ其島ヨリ近キ松島ヘハ必ラス行キタル人ナシト云フヘカラス、去レハ竹島ト別物ナラハ因隱石等之國ニ歸セサルヲ得ス、去レハ是等ノ縣ニテハ知ルヘキ筈ナレハ、同縣等ニ問合セ松島之屬否、竹島松島ノ異同ヲ就調フヘシ、去レハ愈松島ハ純然タル日本屬島ナリヤ、又ハ竹島又ハ其小屬島ナリヤト、事ヲ明カニシ得ヘシ而シテ現場ノ有樣ト從來之模樣トヲ合セテ其眞ノボシシヨン定ムヘキナリ、

    ReplyDelete
  9. Kaneganese,

    Here is a link to an 1835 Map that I noticed was not on your list. It shows Takeshima and Matsushima as Japanese territory. There seems to be a discussion of the map HERE. I do not know what they are saying about the map, but it is a nice looking map.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thank you Gerry,

    I have already put some of the maps from Kobe University site, but it seems like I overlooked the map. And thank you for the correction of the links on the Google docs & maps. I just noticed that too. And I asked pacifist to check my Japanese version of this post. I just came back to Tokyo and bit tired, so I will add them tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Opinion A is Tanabe Taichi's own opinion. He strongly opposed to opening up a development for an island referred to as Matsushima. He said "Matsushima was named by Japanese, but actually it is Usan which is attached to Korean Ulleungdo". Tanabe Taichi clearly knew "Matsushima" which Mutoh Heigaku was referring to was Ulleungdo and the real "Matsushima" was Ulleungdo's Usan(=Dokdo).


    Tanabe Taichi's understanding of Usando is not from his own head. As he said, the fact that Ulleungdo and its attached island(Dokdo) belong to Korea was written in the real history of Korea and Japan. As a government official of a department concerning foreign documents and communications in Ministry of Foreign Affairs, he seems to be well aware of the Japanese historical documents related to the ownership of Ulleungdo and Dokdo. The Japanese documents proving Dokdo was a part of Chosun(Korea) are:

    Japan’s 1695 Tottori Bafuku Records
    Japanese official's report on how“…How Ulleungdo and Dokdo became Chosun Possessions…”
    Dajokan Order of 1877 (日本海內竹島外一島ヲ版圖外ト定ム)


    Tanabe Taichi's statement is very significant for the following reasons:

    1. Tanabe Taichi knew Usan(do) was Korean name of Japan's Matsushima(Dokdo). Usando is not Jukdo which is just two kilometers off the east shore of Ulleungdo. Jukdo was never called as Matsushima by Japanese and Tanabe Taichi had no reason to mention about Jukdo in the debate on the island which Mutoh Heigaku saw on the way to Vladivostok.

    Opinion B also clarifies Usan indicates Dokdo, not Jukdo. Opinion B said as translated in this post " After that, we can compare writings, maps, and documents to finally determine if Matsushima is a part of Ulleungdo (蔚陵島), if it is Usan, or if it is an ownerless island." Definitely, opinion B didn't refer Jukdo to Usan here.


    2. Tanabe Taichi exactly recognized Dokdo was an attached island to Ulleungdo. Ulleungdo and Dokdo have been unseparable. That's why Ulleungdo and Dokdo have always been depicted together in both Korean and Japanese maps. And that's why Shogunate's voyage ban to Takeshima(Ulleungdo) in 1696 automatically included voyage ban to Matsushima(Dokdo) even though there was no specific mention of Matsushima(Dokdo) in the Ordinance Prohibiting Voyages to Takeshima (渡航禁制令).


    Today, Japanese government's bold provocation on Dokdo is like counting other's treasure(今故ナク人ヲ遣テコレヲ巡視セシム 此ヲ他人ノ宝ヲ数フトイフ) if I borrow Tanabe Taichi's expression. Japan has such a history and learned a priceless lesson from it. It's unwise of Japanese government to stir up Japanese people especially young generation to retake other's land which imperial Japanese took by greed and force. It is self-destructive revival of Japanese imperialism.

    ReplyDelete
  12. matsu様 

    沢山の質問を有難うございます。誤解しているかもしれませんが、出来る限り答えさせて頂きます。

    >「甲乙丙丁」のうち、「甲」と「丁」だけが田辺太一の意見だとする理由を、もう少しわかりやすく述べてください。私には理解できません。

    田邉太一の名前がある北澤正誠『竹島考證』(1881)の「丁」(第二十三号文書)の前半は、田邉が纏めた「松島巡視要否ノ議」(第二十壱号文書)の「甲」と殆んど同じことが書いてあります。従って、「丁」と「甲」は田邉の意見であることは明白です。尤も、小嶋日向守様のように、「丁第二十三号交信局長田邉太一」は「エムテイ出版のテキストなどをもとにした妄想」と云われるなら別ですが。

    >彼は、自分の意見を、私はこう思う、と直接的に書くことが出来たと思います。そうしないで引用の形をとったのはなぜですか?

    田邉の「松島巡視要否ノ議」は、題名のとおり松島巡視が必要か否かにつき、外務省内で行われた代表的な甲乙丙3人の意見を紹介したものです。彼は第二十三号文書で自分の考えを直接書いています。

    >「甲」と「丁」だけが田辺太一の意見であって、「乙」や「丙」は田辺の意見ではないと否定する根拠は何ですか?

    「乙」や「丙」は、田邉の意見である「甲」と「丁」とは明白に異なっています。

    >田邉太一は、様々な情報を判断して伝統的松島について、「松島ハ我邦人ノ命ゼル名ニシテ其実ハ朝鮮蔚陵島ニ属スル于山ナリ」と簡潔且的確に表現しました」とありますが、その「様々な情報」とは、具体的に、何と、何と、何と、何だったとお考えですか?

    これは推測するしかないですが、前に書いたように、于山は、文献では『高麗史』『東國輿地勝覽』『竹島考』、地図では染崎延房『朝鮮國細見全圖』(1873)にあります。また内務省等からの情報で、田邉は「竹島外一島本邦関係無之」と決定したこと等も知っていたでしょう。『竹島考』については、民間の医師兼郷土史家の安部恭庵は当時の見聞を忠実に記している一方、四百二十石取りの鳥取藩士岡嶋正義は立場上、竹島は鬱陵島ではないと主張せざるを得なかった事情を、ベテラン外交官田邉太一は容易に理解することが出来たと思います。

    >「今果シテ聞クノ如クナランニハ」は「蔚陵島ノ朝鮮ニ属スルハ旧政府ノ時一葛藤ヲ生シ文書往復ノ末永ク認テ我有トセサルヲ約シ・・」を受けております。の部分も理解できません。

    田邉の考えを述べた第二十三号文書は冒頭に、「聞ク松島ハ我邦人ノ命ゼル名ニシテ其実ハ朝鮮蔚陵島ニ属スル于山ナリト」と書き、松島は開拓願が出された鬱陵島ではなく、『隠州視聴合紀』や長久保赤水の地図に記された伝統的松島であることを示しました。この文章はこれだけで一つのパラグラフを作っていると考えます。次の「蔚陵島ノ朝鮮ニ属スルハ旧政府ノ時一葛藤ヲ生シ文書往復ノ末永ク証テ我有トセサルヲ約シ・・」は、話題を変え鬱陵島のことを述べています。従って、私は「今果シテ聞クノ如クナランニハ」は「蔚陵島ノ朝鮮ニ属スルハ・・」に係るものと見ました。

    追加質問としてmatsu様は、「開拓の対象となる松島」について議論しているのに、田邉は、“なぜ突然、“「伝統的松島」について、”「松島ハ我邦人ノ命ゼル名ニシテ其実ハ朝鮮蔚陵島ニ属スル于山ナリ」と表現したと理解されるのでしょうか”と、尋ねられたのでお答えします。

    田邉太一は、1876年から1877年にかけて瀬脇壽人が提出した松島開拓願に対し、「松島ハ朝鮮ノ欝陵島ニシテ我版図中ナラス・・許可スルノ権ナキ旨答フベシ」との附ケ札をしています。西南戦役後の1878年8月瀬脇は再び松島開拓願を上申したので、松島巡島の議論が起り、田邉は「松島巡視要否ノ議」を纏めました。ここで重要なのは松島という誤った名で鬱陵島の開拓願が繰返し何度も出されたことです。突然、「伝統的松島」が出てきた訳ではありません。

    そのため田邉は伝統的松島について説明する必要を感じ、「松島ハ我邦人ノ命ゼル名ニシテ其実ハ朝鮮蔚陵島ニ属スル于山ナリ」と的確に説明しました。我が邦人は鬱陵島を松島と命名したことはありませんから、松島=鬱陵島を否定し、実際の松島は朝鮮鬱陵島に属する于山である、ことを示しました。

    ReplyDelete
  13. matsu様が第二十三号文書は「田辺の名前を誰かが補足しただけですね。」と云われた小嶋日向守様の言葉を信じておられるように見えるのは残念です。

    >>田邉太一の名前がある北澤正誠『竹島考證』(1881)の「丁」(第二十三号文書)の前半は、田邉が纏めた「松島巡視要否ノ議」(第二十壱号文書)の「甲」と殆んど同じことが書いてあります。従って、「丁」と「甲」は田邉の意見であることは明白です。

    >まったく理解できません。丁の意見の後半は、甲の意見とは明らかに異なるもので、むしろ反対方向を向いていることは、上に書いた通りです。だからこそ、「4つ目の意見」として、丁の記号をふったのだと私は考えます。「前半が同じ」という理由だけで、甲と丁を同一人物とするのは、根拠が全く不十分だと思います。それを全く述べずに『従って、「丁」と「甲」は田邉の意見であることは明白です。』と言い切ってしまうarareさんに、正直、頭は大丈夫ですか?と申し上げたいほどです。

    第二十三号文書前半の「甲」と同じ文章は「・・今我ト韓トノ交漸ク緒ニ就クトイヘトモ猜嫌猶未タ全ク除カサルニ際シ如此一挙ヨリシテ再ヒ一隙ヲ開カンコト尤モ交際家ノ忌ム所ナルヘシ」迄です。新しく加えた田邉の意見は「今果シテ聞クノ如クナランニハ断然松島ヲ開クヘカラス又松島ノ未タ他邦ノ有ニ属セサルモノタル判然タラス所属曖昧タルモノナレハ我ヨリ朝鮮へ使臣ヲ派スルニ際シ海軍省ヨリ一艘ノ艦ヲ出シ之レニ投シ測量製圖家及生産開物ニ明カナルモノヲ誘ヒ弥無主地ナリヤモ認乄利益ノ有無モ慮リ後チ任地ニツキ漸ト機會ヲ計リ縦令一小島タリトモ我北門ノ関放擲シ置クベカラサルヲ告ケテ之レヲ開クニシカザランカ故ニ瀬脇氏ノ建言スル所採ル能ハサルナリ」です。

    心やさしい田邉は、「断然松島ヲ開クベカラズ」と言い切ってしまったので、「乙」「丙」の意見も取り入れ、「松島が所属不明ならば、ゆっくりと機会を計り、たとえ小島でも我が北門の関であり、放擲できないことを朝鮮に告げて開かざるを得ないから、瀬脇氏の建言(すぐ開くべき)は採ることは出来ない」と書きました。私には後半も田邉が書いたとしか思えません。

    >>田邉の「松島巡視要否ノ議」は、題名のとおり松島巡視が必要か否かにつき、外務省内で行われた代表的な甲乙丙3人の意見を紹介したものです。彼は第二十三号文書で自分の考えを直接書いています。

    >これも、まったく理解できません。田辺太一が第二十三号で自分の意見を述べるのであるなら、これは自分の意見だと書けばいいはずで、それを匿名とする理由がありません。外務省公信局長として、自分の意見を自分の名前で述べることをはばかる理由はないと思います。ここに「丁」と書いてあるということは、繰り返しになりますが、田辺が、これは4番目の意見と認識した、ということを示すと私は考えます。

    『竹島考證』を編纂した北澤正誠は第二十三号文書に交信局長田邉太一の名前を入れています。匿名ではありません。matsu様が第二十三号文書を何故匿名と考えられるのか、私には全く理解できません。

    matsu様はやはり第二十三号文書は「田辺の名前を誰かが補足しただけ」と思っておられるのですか?

    ReplyDelete
  14. arareさん

    私の反論は、ご承知のように、以下のポストで行っています。
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.jp/2012/09/1876-watanabe-koukis-second-opinion-on.html

    この議論は、上記ポストのコメントの内容を受けてはじまっていること、別の場所にコメントをしていくと、コメントされているのに気付かない恐れがあるためです。

    arareさんがこのポストに書かれるのも、理由がないことと考えているわけではありませんが、私の反論は、今後も上記ポストで行うつもりです。
    二度手間になりますので、ご協力を頂ければと思います。

    ReplyDelete