@article{oai:rekihaku.repo.nii.ac.jp:00002195,
 author = {富田, 正弘 and Tomita, Masahiro},
 journal = {国立歴史民俗博物館研究報告, Bulletin of the National Museum of Japanese History},
 month = {Dec},
 note = {application/pdf, 早川庄八『宣旨試論』の概要を章毎に紹介しながら少し立ち入って検討を加え，その結果に基づいて，主として早川が論じている宣旨の体系論と奉書論に対して，いくつかの感想めいた批判をおこなってみた。
早川の宣旨論は，９・10世紀における諸々の宣旨を掘り起こし，その全体を誰から誰に伝えられたかという機能に即して整理をおこない，その体系化を図ろうとしたものである。上宣については，「下外記宣旨」・「下弁官宣旨」・「下諸司宣旨」に及び，上宣でないものについては，「検非違使の奉ずる宣旨」，「一司内宣旨」，「蔵人方宣旨」まで視野に入れて，漏れなく説明し尽くしている。ここに漏れているものは，11世紀以降にあらわれる地方官司における国司庁宣や大府宣，官司以外の家組織ともいうべき機関における院宣・令旨・教旨・長者宣などであり，９・10世紀を守備範囲とする『宣旨試論』にこれらを欠く非を咎めだてをすることはできない。強いて早川の宣旨体系論の綻びの糸を探し出そうとするならば，唯一天皇の勅宣を職事が奉じて書く口宣と呼ばれる宣旨について論及していない点である。それほどに，早川の宣旨論は完璧に近い。
つぎに早川は，宣旨とその施行文書との関係を論じ，奈良時代に遡って宣旨を受けて奉宣・承宣する施行文書に奉書・御教書の機能を発見する。そのうえで，従来の古文書学が，宣旨や奉書・御教書を公家様文書として平安時代に誕生したと説く点を厳しく批判する。早川が説くように宣旨の起源も，奉書・御教書の機能をもつ文書の起源も，８世紀に遡るという指摘は傾聴に値する。しかし，宣旨を施行する公式様文書が全て奉書・御教書の機能をもつという点には疑問がある。上宣を受けて出される官宣旨は奉書としての機能をもつとしても，上宣を受けて出される官符は差出所である太政官に上卿自身が含まれているわけであるから，奉書的な機能はないというべきである。また，従来の古文書学で奉書・御教書が平安時代に多く用いられる意義を強調するのは，奉書的機能に関わって論じられているのではなく，奉書・御教書が書札様文書・私文書であることに意義を見出して論じられているのである。したがって，早川の批判にも拘わらず，従来の古文書学における公家様文書という分類はなお有効性をもっている。もちろん，これによっても，早川の宣旨論は，古代古文書学におけてその重要性がいささかも色褪せるものではない。, This article introduces the outline of Preliminary Essays on Senji by Hayakawa Syohachi while examining each chapter of the book. Based on the results of the examination, some comments and criticisms are made mainly about his theory on the systematization of Senji and on Hosho.
The Senji essays by Hayakawa are aimed to systematize Senji (a letter to inform low-rank officers of decisions made by high-rank officers) by uncovering such documents from the ninth to tenth century and organizing all of them according to their functions from the perspective of who informs whom. His essays are comprehensive as they cover not only Josen, including Senji sent to Geki, Benkan, and Shoshi, but also other types of Senji, such as Senji from Kebiishi, Senji within one Shi, and Senji of Kuroudo. What he missed in his essays is Senji written by local governmental officers, such as Kokushi Chosen and Daifusen, and Senji within organizations, or family systems, outside of official departments, such as Inzen, Ryoji, Kyoji, and Chojasen. Since they all appeared after the 11th century, however, it is only natural that Preliminary Essays on Senji which focuses on Senji in the ninth to tenth century, does not cover them. If any criticism has to be made against his theory on the systematization of Senji, it is that he failed to refer to Kuzen, a type of Senji written by Shikiji to convey imperial decisions. Thus, his systematization of Senji is almost perfect.
Hayakawa's study also argues the relationship between Senji and letters of implementation, and discovers that the functions of Hosho and Migyosho originated back in the Nara period from letters of implementation sent and received based on Senji. Moreover, his essays sharply criticize the conventional study of paleography for their insistence that Senji, Hosho, and Migyosho appeared as Kugeyo-monjo in the Heian period. Though it is worth paying attention to Hayakawa's theory that Senji as well as documents with the functions of Hosho and Migyosho originated back in the eighth century, it is also doubtful that all of Kushikiyo-monjo, letters to put Senji into implementation, had the functions of Hosho or Migyosho. Kansenji, which were issued based on Josen, surely had the function of Hosho, but Kampu did not as they were issued based on Josen (letters from Shokei) and sent from Dajokan, some of whom held the rank of Shokei. Moreover, the conventional study of paleography emphasizes the importance that Hosho and Migyosho were often used in the Heian period, not because of their function as Hosho, but because of their function as Shosatsuyo-monjo and private documents. Therefore, despite the criticism from Hayakawa, the conventional study of paleography is still useful in the point that it has established a category of Kugeyo-monjo. However, even though he cannot fully discredit the conventional theory, it is not that Hayakawa's Senji essays as a whole have lost luster. His theory on Hosho and Migyosho has made a significant contribution to the study of ancient paleography.},
 pages = {129--170},
 title = {古代文書様式の中世への展開① : 早川庄八『宣旨試論』の検討},
 volume = {192},
 year = {2014},
 yomi = {トミタ, マサヒロ}
}