翻刻
趣ハ宮内少家ノ御朱印分ハ皆織部へ返し跡職
諸道具ハ皆主殿頭へ可有進退之趣也宮内少家へ
約束状《見せ消ち：アリ是不審者也｜》トテ織部宮貞信三
判之契約状アリ是不審者也子細者此以前豊
前守貞信ニ家ノ朱印ノ役義無沙汰仕間敷
由書立一々有之加判被望候ヘハ両人ハ役義仕上ハ
加判スマシキ由ニテセラレスト聞及ヌ然ニ一紙被出候
事近比之不審之者也今ノ兄弟衆古大蔵大輔保和
弟保業主税助保台等ハ仕たる由也是ハ無異
儀セラレ可申也外ノ買得方々ハスマシキ也如何
十六日 昨日之口上書公儀へ持参也
正殿之御やね檜皮共百六十一人家々俵縄
弐筋宛出之此比令撤却故今日弐束宛□□配
取也寛永五年之御殿也木ハ不朽分ハ悉
木屋ノ東方へ入也惣而御造営ニ出来候内陣之
御道具木柱万一必誰取ト申事ハ無之也
現代語訳
（口上書の）趣旨は、宮内少輔家の御朱印分はすべて織部（正）へ返し、跡職（後継ぎの職）・諸道具はすべて主殿頭が進退（管理・処分）すべきである、というものであった。宮内少輔家への約束状として、織部・宮貞信の三人が判を押した契約状がある。これは不審なものである。子細（詳細）は、これ以前に、豊前守・貞信に対して、家の朱印の役義（職務）を無沙汰（怠り）申すまじき旨を書き立て、一々（の事項に）ある。（彼らに）加判を望んだところ、両人は役義を果たした上でなければ加判はすまじき（しない）、という由にて（断られて）されなかったと聞き及んでいる。しかるに、一紙（一枚の書状）が出されたことは、近頃の不審な事である。今の兄弟衆（は、）古大蔵大輔保和の——
弟の保業・主税助・保台等はした（加判した）という由である。これは異議なくされるべきものであろう。外の（その他の）買い得（不正取得）の方々はすまじき（あってはならない）ものである。いかがなものか。
十六日、昨日の口上書を公儀（幕府）へ持参した。
正殿の御屋根の桧皮（ひわだ）について、百六十一人の（関係する）家々から俵縄二筋ずつを出す（ことになっていた）。この頃（の修繕で）撤去したため、今日、二束ずつを□□（各家に）配り取らせた。寛永五年の御殿である。木は朽ちていない部分はことごとく木屋（材木小屋）の東方へ入れた（収めた）。総じて御造営に（用いられた）内陣の御道具・木柱（など）は、万一にも誰が取ったということはない（ものである）。
英語訳
The substance (of the written statement) was as follows: the portion bearing the shogunal vermilion seal (goshuin-bun) belonging to the household of Kunai-no-shōyū should be returned in its entirety to Oribe(-no-shō), and the successor's position (atoshoku) and all furnishings and implements should be under the management of Tonomo-no-kami. There exists a written contract bearing the seals of three parties — Oribe, Miya, and Sadanobu — presented as a written pledge to the household of Kunai-no-shōyū. This document is suspect. The details are as follows: prior to this, written declarations were drawn up — one by one — to the effect that Buzen-no-kami and Sadanobu would not neglect their duties (yakugi) pertaining to the household's vermilion seal. When they were asked to affix their seals (to such declarations), I have heard that both men refused, saying they would not do so until they had fulfilled their duties. Therefore, the appearance of a single document (bearing their seals) is a matter that has recently aroused suspicion. As for the current brothers — the late Ōkura-no-taifu Yasukazu's——
——younger brothers Yasunari, Chikara-no-suke, and Yasudai and others, it is said that they did (affix their seals). In their case, it should be accepted without objection. As for others who obtained (documents or holdings) through purchase — this should not be allowed. What is to be done about this?
The 16th day: The written statement from yesterday was brought to the public authorities (the shogunate).
Regarding the cypress-bark (hiwada) roofing of the main shrine hall: each of 161 households was to contribute two strands of straw rope used for baling (tawara-nawa). Since (the roofing) was removed during recent repairs, today two bundles each were distributed (back) to each household. (The building in question) is the shrine hall from the fifth year of Kan'ei (1628). The timber that had not decayed was stored entirely to the east of the lumber storehouse (kiya). In general, there is absolutely no question of anyone having taken (for private use) any of the interior furnishings or wooden pillars produced for the (original) construction.