琉球状 - 翻刻

翻刻

北倭属燕と申文にて候を鉅燕の南倭の北と読
候へは南倭北倭と申名目は聞え不申候是は彰
考館総裁立原伯時話にて御座候き推量いたし
候へは此句読まさしく異称日本伝にて誤られ
候歟見林白石共に麁漏なる事にて候き今
本書を見候へは第十二《割書：海内北経｜》にて御座候此次
に朝鮮￣ハ在＿二列陽￣ノ東海北山南￣ニ＿一列陽￣ハ属＿レ燕と有之此両
条を併考候て句読の誤は不＿レ可＿レ有事と被存候
琉球談□事異を引て後花園院宝徳三年七月琉球
人来りて義政将軍に銭千貫と方物を献すと記
し候て是を皇国往来□初の様に載たり引書
いまた考す然るに康冨記宝徳三年八月十三日の
下に或語云琉球島船商人去月未着＿二兵庫津＿一之処
守護細川京兆早遣＿レ 人彼商物撰取未＿レ渡＿二料足＿一之間
先￣ニ年￣ニ料足等進物及＿二 四五千貫＿一無＿二返弁＿一又売物
抑留為島人難堪之由申之間自＿二公方＿一被＿レ 下＿二遣奉行
三人＿一《割書：布施下野守飯尾与｜三左衛門同六郎》被＿二糺明＿一之所被＿二押取＿一之（ノ）物
有京兆未＿レ被＿レ返依＿レ之奉行未＿二 上落＿一云￣ニ京兆は前管領
也希代之所業□如何云￣ニこゝに先々年々と記し
たれは是年はしめにて有間敷存候殊に南島志

現代語訳

「北倭属燕」という文であるのを「鉅燕の南倭の北」と読めば、南倭北倭という名目は聞こえません。これは彰考館総裁立原伯時の話です。推量いたしますに、この句読は確かに『異称日本伝』にて誤られたのでしょうか。見林・白石共に粗漏なことです。今この書を見ますと第十二（海内北経）にございます。この次に「朝鮮は列陽の東海北山南に在り、列陽は燕に属す」とあり、この両条を併せ考えますと句読の誤りはあり得ないことと思われます。

『琉球談』は□事異を引いて「後花園院宝徳三年七月、琉球人来りて義政将軍に銭千貫と方物を献ず」と記し、これを皇国往来の初めのように載せています。引用書はまだ考察していません。しかるに『康富記』宝徳三年八月十三日の下に「或る人語りて云く、琉球島船の商人去月まだ兵庫津に着かざる処、守護細川京兆早く人を遣わして彼の商物を撰び取り、まだ料足を渡さざる間、先々年々料足等進物四五千貫に及ぶも返弁無く、また売物を抑留して島人の堪え難きを為すの由申す間、公方より遣奉行三人（布施下野守・飯尾与三左衛門・同六郎）を下され、糺明せられし所、押し取られし物あり。京兆まだ返されず、これに依りて奉行まだ上洛せずと云う。京兆は前管領なり。希代の所業□如何」と云う。ここに「先々年々」と記したれば、この年は始めではないはずと存じます。殊に『南島志』

英語訳

The text "Hokuwa zoku En" (Northern Wa belongs to Yan) should be read as such, but if read as "north of Kyoen's Nanwa," the terms Nanwa and Hokuwa would not make sense. This is according to Tachihara Hakuji, Director-General of the Shōkōkan. I surmise that this punctuation was indeed mistaken in the "Ishō Nihon-den." Both Kenrin and Hakuseki were careless in this matter. Looking at this book now, it is in the twelfth section (Kainai Hokukei). Following this, it states "Chōsen is located east of Retsuyo, between the northern mountains and southern sea, and Retsuyo belongs to Yan." Considering these two passages together, I believe there cannot be an error in punctuation.

The "Ryukyu-dan" cites □jiyi, recording that "in the seventh month of Hōtoku 3 (1451) during the reign of Emperor Go-Hanazono, Ryukyuan people came and presented 1,000 kan of coins and tribute goods to Shogun Yoshimasa," presenting this as if it were the beginning of relations with the imperial country. I have not yet examined the cited source. However, in the "Kanemi-ki" under the entry for the 13th day of the 8th month of Hōtoku 3, it states: "Someone said that Ryukyuan island ship merchants had not yet arrived at Hyōgo port last month, when Guardian Hosokawa Kyōchō hastily sent people to select and take their trade goods. Since payment had not yet been made, and tribute goods and payments from previous years totaling 4,000-5,000 kan remained unreturned, and with trade goods being detained, causing unbearable hardship for the islanders, the Kubō sent down three magistrates (Fuse Shimotsuke-no-kami, Iio Yozaemon, and the same Rokurō) to investigate. It was found that goods had indeed been seized. Kyōchō has not yet returned them, so the magistrates have not yet returned to the capital. Kyōchō is the former Kanrei. What unprecedented behavior!" Since it records "previous years," this year should not be the beginning. Particularly the "Nantō-shi"...