「文学的翻訳」から「文化的翻訳」へ : 森鷗外とイプセン劇

Mori Ōgai (1862-1922), one of the most prominent authors and translators in Japan, translated four plays by Henrik Ibsen into Japanese : Brand (1866) in 1903, John Gabriel Borkman (1896) in 1909, Ghosts (1881) in 1911, and finally A Doll\u27s House (1879) in 1913. In Bokushi, Ōgai\u27s translation of the second act of Brand, he wiped away the matters concerning Christianity in such a way that the essence of the original text was distorted and manipulated. In his translation of John Gabriel Borkman Ōgai changed his translation strategy. Although the central ideas in the play were somewhat blurred, there was no distinct omission or manipulation in Ōgai\u27s version. His critical comments on the original play, however, were recast and placed outside the translated text, namely in his own novel Seinen (1910). Translating Ghosts as Yūrei, Ōgai used the same translation strategy as in John Gabriel Borkman, but this time he narrowed the focus on the concept of \u27ghosts\u27--\u27gengangere\u27 in Norwegian, meaning \u27something that comes back\u27, which corresponded to his evoked interest in \u27past\u27 and \u27history\u27 in general. My paper elaborates on his challenging way of \u27cultural translation\u27 with special reference to the transition from \u27literary\u27 to \u27cultural\u27 translation

Not quite the 'Great Britain of the Far East': Japan's security, the US-Japan alliance and the 'war on terror' in East Asia

Japan, in responding to US expectations for support in the 'war on terror', has displayed a degree of strategic convergence on global security objectives, thus prompting policy-makers and observers to dub it the 'Great Britain of the Far East'. This article argues, however, that Japan is far from assuming this role. For Japan, the 'war on terror' serves more as a political pretext for legitimating long-planned changes in military security policy that are often only marginally related to the US's anti-terrorism agenda. Instead, Japan has focused much more on using the terror threat rationale as a means to push forward its response to the regional and traditional security challenges of North Korea and China, even if at times it attempts to depict both as 'new security challenges' or as involving elements of counterterrorism. The final conclusion is that US military hegemony may be weakened by Japan's and the Asia-Pacific's potential divergence from the US global security agenda