@article{oai:rekihaku.repo.nii.ac.jp:00001496,
 author = {内田, 澪子 and Uchida, Mioko},
 journal = {国立歴史民俗博物館研究報告, Bulletin of the National Museum of Japanese History},
 month = {Mar},
 note = {application/pdf, 『極楽寺殿御消息』は六波羅探題を長きに亙って務めた北条重時が、晩年に成したとされる家訓書で、同じく重時の『六波羅殿御家訓』と共に現存最古の武家家訓とされる。同書はこれまで尊経閣文庫架蔵本の孤本とされてきたが、本稿ではこの異本と認められる田中穣氏旧蔵本を紹介し、これと現行の本文とを校合することによって同家訓を検討するものである。
尊経閣文本と田中本とは極めて近い系統のうちにはあるが、直接の書承関係や兄弟の関係も現時点では認め難い。両書の本文は概ね、室町初期書写かとされる尊経閣本、天文一九年（一五五〇）書写の田中本、という書写年代の前後を反映した特徴を示しているが、対校することによって、尊経閣本本文も批判的な読みを必要とするものであることなどが明らかとなった。
両書間の最も大きな違いは、含まれる条数に差があることで、田中本は尊経閣本に見えない九条を有する。しかし後発の写本ではあるが九条全てが田中本の増補とは言い切れず、条数に出入りのある伝本の存在は、享受段階での変質というだけでなく、『極楽寺殿御消息』の成立のあり方とも併せて検討すべき問題であると考えられる。
特に、重時の名を冠して極楽寺流北条家に伝えられたはずの家訓書であるが、後世早い段階から、重時の娘婿である最明寺殿時頼に仮託されて『西明寺殿教訓』などの名で流布したことが知られている。このことはこれまであくまでも享受の一側面として理解されてきたのであるが、条数に揺れの在る伝本の存在や、編集や本文表現の未完成と見える側面を併せて鑑みれば、『極楽寺殿御消息』そのものが重時個人による執筆というよりも、重時の周辺、あるいは時頼なども含めた後世の人手を介して成った一書という視点でとらえ直すべきではないか、という可能性を提示した。, “Gokurakuji-dono Goshosoku” (“The Gokurakuji Letter”) was a code of conduct completed by Hojo Shigetoki, who for many years held the post of Rokuhara Tandai (chief of the Kamakura Shogunate in the Kinai region), during his last years. Along with Shigetoki's “Rokuhara-dono kakin” (“Code of Conduct for Rokuhara”) it is the oldest extant warrior code of conduct. Although it has been thought that “Gokurakuji-dono Goshosoku” was published by Sonkeikaku Bunko and existed on its own, this paper introduces a book held formerly in the Tanaka Yutaka Collection which is regarded as an alternate version. Thus, the author examines the code of conduct by comparing this version with the extant “Gokurakuji-dono Goshosoku”.
Even though the Sonkeikaku book and the Tanaka book have a history that is extremely closely related, at this point in time it is difficult to directly verify the relation between the two. The main texts of each book have features that reflect the period in which they were copied. The Sonkeikaku book appears to have been copied early on in the Muromachi period, while the Tanaka book was copied in 1550. A comparison of the two texts has revealed that critical reading is required in the case of the Sonkeikaku book as well.
The biggest difference between the two is the difference in the number of articles, with the Tanaka book containing nine articles that do not appear in the Sonkeikaku book. Although it was copied at a later stage, all nine articles cannot be said to be supplements added to the Tanaka book. The existence of a book with a different number of articles is not merely a matter of changes that might have been made once it had been read, but is also something that should be examined in conjunction with the manner of the compilation of the “Gokurakuji-dono Goshosoku”.
In particular, although it is a code of conduct bearing Shigetoki's name that was meant to have been passed down through the Gokurakuji Hojo family, it is known to have been distributed later on under the title “Saimyojidono Kyokun” at the request of Shigetoki's son-in-law Tokiyori of Saimyoji Temple. Up until now, this has been understood as merely one aspect of what happens when a book is read. However, if we take into account the existence of a book with a different number of articles together with incomplete editing and expressions in the text, we should consider the possibility that “Gokurakuji-dono Goshosoku” itself was not written by the lone hand of Shigetoki, but rather was written by those around Shigetoki or that even those from later generations such as Tokiyori had a hand in its writing.
Finally, as a result of tracing the names that remain at the back of the Tanaka book, the author would like to point out that it is possible that the book was passed down by those in the Gohojo clan who wanted to succeed the Kamakura Hojo clan., 一部非公開情報あり},
 pages = {1--38},
 title = {『極楽寺殿御消息』再考 : 田中穣氏旧蔵典籍古文書所収本の紹介から・附翻刻},
 volume = {136},
 year = {2007},
 yomi = {ウチダ, ミオコ}
}