<研究ノート>式目註釈書について

Abstract

この拙稿は、初めに『中世法制史料集』第一巻 (鎌倉幕府法) 第二部追加法集の編集に当り調査し、また、その後調べた諸本についての解題を試み、聊かこれを系統的に分類してみた。次に、式目が甚だしく現行法規としての効力を失った室町末期から、式目註釈学が盛んになったのはどうしてか。しかも、その式目註釈学が、必ずしも今日云う「法制史学」でなく、著しく漢学的訓詰学であったのはどうしてか。そのような式目註釈家にはどんな家筋があったか。式目三家と云はれた斎藤・飯尾・清家のうち、前者が不振に陥った後も、独り清家の栄えたのはどうしてか。それは、消家の家学の然らしめる所であると思うから、それについて卑見を述べた。もとより甚だしく粗雑なものであるから、諸彦のお教えを仰ぎ、よりまとまったものにしたい。

The present paper deals with the writer's informations on the systematic arrangement and bibliography due to some references, which were researched during editing the history of law in the middle age of Japan, vol. 1 (law of the "Kamakura" Shogunate), no. 2 (compilation of supplementary law). Why did the annotation of "Shikimoku" become popular from the last period of "Muromachi" when "Shikimoku" lost its effect as an active law? Why did the way of annotation not always belong to so-called" the history of law" but an exegetics like Chinese classics? How many lineages were there among "Shikimoku" annotators? Why did only "Seike" lineage develop after other lineages, "Iio" and "Saitô", had declined? This seems to depended upon the method of family study of "Seike". The writer is very sorry to find that the present paper has many logical errors, so he hopes some advancement in the present paper through guidances of readers.