<論説>書札様文書の礼紙について : 田中稔氏の礼紙論の検討によせて

Abstract

古文書の形態の研究は非常に立ち遅れている。そのうちでも封式の研究にその感が強い。正式の書札様文書は本紙・礼紙・封紙の三紙からなることは古くから知られているが、礼紙・封紙についてはその名称は一定せず、様々な呼び方が行われている。田中稔氏は先年「礼紙について」なる論文を発表、従来礼紙といわれてきたのは本紙の一部であって、「重紙」と称すべきであるとされた。これは田中氏の古文書に関する豊富な知識と経験に裏付けられたものであるため、十分な検証・討議を経ることなく、ほぼ定説として認められているというのが実状である。これに対して本稿では(1)書札様文書の料紙の使い方、(2)田中氏がその論拠とされた『請文書札礼』『消息耳底秘抄』などの記載を検討し、従来いわれている礼紙はそのまま礼紙と呼ぶべきこと、田中氏が「重紙」とされたのは書札様文書ではなく、下文様文書にそえられた料紙であることを明らかにするとともに、書札様文書の封式についても見解を述べた。

Research concerning the format of ancient and medieval documents has long been neglected. This is particularly true concerning the study of the envelope. It has long been recognized that the formal shosatsuyo-monjo consists of three styles : honshi, raishi and fushi However, because the exact characteristics of raishi and fushi have not been fully understood, they have often been confused. A few years ago in a thesis entitled "Raishi ni tsuite, " TANAKA Minoru put forth that what had been known as raishi was actually a part of honshi and, he posited, raishi should be identified more properly as "kasanegami" This opinion was supported by Mr. Tanaka's experience and knowledge of ancient and medieval documents. As such, this opinion was accepted as an established fact without an further investigation or scholarly discussion. In contrast to this situation, I have tried to investigate the following points : (1) the choice of the type of paper of the shosatsuyo-monjo, and (2) the statements in the Ukebumishosatsurei, Shosokujiteihisyo and other documents on which Mr. Tanaka based his arguments. As a result, I attempted to clarify the reasons that raishi should not, in fact, be called "kasanegami" as Mr. Tanaka suggested, but that it is correct to identify it as raishi. Additionally, I pointed out that what is labeled "kasanegami" by Mr. Tanaka is actually derived from the paper attached to the kudashibumiyomonjo not the Shosatsuyo-monjo. Moreover, I referred to the envelope of the Shosatsuyo-monjo.