@article{oai:ir.soken.ac.jp:00006611,
 author = {福原, 真子 and FUKUHARA, Masako},
 issue = {19},
 journal = {総研大文化科学研究, SOKENDAI Review of Cultural and Social Studies},
 month = {Mar},
 note = {application/pdf, 「定家様」と称される藤原定家（一一六二―一二四一）による印象的で個性的な文字造形は、中世期においては定家の子孫や一部の門弟達によって継承されたが、桃山時代から江戸時代にかけてその枠組みをこえて広く享受されるようになる。この「定家様」を記すための書法について記された唯一の古典籍が、『定家卿筆道』『定家卿筆諫口訣』などと称される一連の写本（以下この作品の総称としては『定家卿筆道』と称す）であるが、定家に仮託した偽書であるとする理解から、詳細な研究は行われてこなかった。しかし、秘本とされながらも江戸時代に写本が繰り返し行われていることから、この時代の定家様受容解明にあたり重要な伝書であると言える。
　そこで本稿では、『定家卿筆道』の伝本を調査し、その整理と伝播の実態解明を試みる。最初に校本（本稿末尾に付属）を作成しつつ伝本間の相違を比較検討し、構成面における差異を基準として、『定家卿筆道』の系統とその性質、各伝本の成立背景を明らかにする。
　伝本は大別して３系統に分類できる。まず、最も原本に近いと考えられるのがⅠ系統である。構成においては共通性が高く、巻末に筆致を学ぶための手本と思われる「いろは歌」等を付随する。小堀遠州の本奥書を備え、概ね定家様で書かれているという特徴を持つ。Ⅱ系統は次いで定家仮託偽書としての体裁が整えられた系統である。名称が『定家卿筆諌口訣』となり、冷泉為相の偽奥書を加えることで、為相が定家から口伝を受けたように体裁が整えられる。手本である「いろは歌」に代わり、文字構成に関する本文が追加され、より理論的な性質が強まる。大半が江戸後期の和学者間による書写となる。そしてⅢ系統は、Ⅰ・Ⅱ系統とは異なる部分を持ち、後代に改変された伝本群と考えられ、松花堂昭乗（一五八二―一六三九）あるいはその門流に関係するのではないかと思われる。
　調査結果からは、『定家卿筆道』は小堀遠州（一五七九―一六四七）より時代が遡るものは見当たらない。Ⅰ・Ⅲ系統には共通して、小堀遠州等の茶道に関わる人物による伝領が記されており、この書自体が遠州周辺のコミュニティーから生じ、定家様の書記法の理解がある人々の間で伝来するテキストであった蓋然性が高い。
　Ⅱ系統は、江戸後期の和学者間で写本が頻繁に行われていた事実を示す。定家様の書き手に伝わっていたものが、江戸後期の有職故実への関心の高まりと関連資料の調査検討の流行に伴い、和学者へと伝えられていったものと考える。伝本成立期には、定家様を書くための実用書であったものが、実際に書記しない人々へと流れたことで、実用書としての側面は薄れ、論書として享受されるようになった。それにつれて挿図も意が汲み難い描写で享受されるようになり、結果的に『定家卿筆道』が不可解な入木道書とされるに至った。
　『定家卿筆道』一連の伝本は、『続群書類従』に所収された和学者による伝本が先行して紹介されたことで見え難くなっていたが、その実態は定家様を用いた遠州流茶道の人々を中心とした実用書であった。そして、今回の伝本調査からは、江戸時代における定家様の流行とその傾向の一端を理解することができる。

The impressive and unique character writing style of Fujiwara Teika (1162–1241), known as Teika-style, was adopted by his descendants and some of his students during the medieval period, but the style was appreciated beyond its framework during the Momoyama and Edo periods. The only classical manuscripts that describe the Teika-style calligraphy are a series of manuscripts called Teikakyo-hitsudo and Teikakyo-hikkankuketsu (collectively referred to as “Teikakyo-hitsudo”). These manuscripts, however, have not been studied in detail due to the understanding that they are forgeries written under the pseudonym Fujiwara Teika. The manuscripts, while they were considered to be secret copies, were repeatedly copied during the Edo period. Therefore, they are important sources for understanding the process how the Teika-style was accepted during this period.
In this paper, the authors research the manuscripts of the Teikakyo-hitsudo, organize them and clarify the actual situation how they spread. First, we compare and contrast the differences between the manuscripts and clarify the lineage and nature of the Teikakyo-hitsudo and the background to the formation of each manuscript based on differences in composition.
The manuscripts can be broadly classified into three lines. First, is Lineage I, which is considered to be closest to the original text. Lineage I has a high degree of commonality with the original text in composition, and is accompanied by Iroha-uta at the end, which is considered a model for learning brush strokes. It is also characterized by the fact that it has a postscript by Kobori Enshu and is generally written in Teika-style. Teikakyo-hikkankuketsu is Lineage II, a secondary lineage, which is styled as a forgery entrusted to Teika and with an added fake postscript by Reizei Tamesuke. This manuscript was prepared as if Tamesuke had received the oral tradition from Teika. In place of the Iroha-uta included in Lineage I, text on character composition is added and the text is characterized by a more theoretical nature. The majority of the texts were copied by scholars of Japanese literature in the latter half of the Edo period. Lineage III differs from Lineages I and II in many aspects and is considered to be a group of manuscripts altered in later periods, and may be related to Shokado Shojo (1582–1639) or his disciples.
The survey results indicate that the Teikakyo-hitsudo does not appear to date any further back than Kobori Enshu (1579–1647). Both Lineages I and III contain descriptions in common: the manuscripts were handed down by persons involved with tea ceremony such as Kobori Enshu. It is, therefore, highly probable that the manuscripts were prepared in the community around Enshu and were passed down among those who had an understanding of Teika-style’s scribal method.
Lineage II indicates that manuscripts were frequently copied by scholars of Japanese literature in the late Edo period. The authors believe that the style which Teika-style scribers acquired was then passed on to the scholars of Japanese literature as a result of the growing interest in aristocratic traditions and the prevalence of research and examination of related materials in the late Edo period. During the period of the establishment of manuscripts, the Teikakyo-hikkankuketsu was a practical book for writing in Teika-style, but as it was passed on to people who did not actually scribe, its practical aspect faded and the manuscript became more recognized as a treatise. As a result, the Teikakyo-hitsudo was regarded as an incomprehensible book on the secrets of calligraphy.
The series of Teikakyo-hitsudo became less visible because of Zokugunsyoruijyu, which scholars of Japanese literature had introduced before the Teikakyo-hitsudo. The Teikakyo-hitsudo, as a matter of fact, was a practical book mainly for Enshu-style tea ceremony practitioners who used the Teika-style. The survey results of the manuscripts help elucidate the popularity of the Teika-style and its trend during the Edo period.},
 pages = {1(260)--38(223)},
 title = {『定家卿筆道』伝本考　付校本},
 year = {2023}
}