翻刻
其節月番宮内権大輔雑掌掃部助両人於
評議所被申渡候然者此度御伝 奏被仰渡
御座候哉不承候間此度正祝転任之義申上
間敷存候以上
二月十七日 林 三位判
一社御中
評云林三位書付之通正祝之義其通ニ可指置旨御
伝奏被仰渡之義日次ニ不相見然者書顕候様
可被尋ニ付被仰遣処他行之旨也 七家之輩被申候ハ
其時分ハ権祝職之出入ニテ正祝之義ハ申分無之候兎
角其通りニ難成義ニ候間明十九日寄会被相催各
有参集而相談可然由ニ而退散也
十九日 臨時寄会 余事略之
一転任之義相談可有之事書顕へ口上之趣被尋処正祝
之義ハ何共不承被候由也段々有評議而又日次吟味也
寛文七年之日次雖被考林重豊正祝直任之子細
無之中間之相対云々御条目以来次第転昇勿論之
義也先年権祝訴論之時一社ゟ以書付被仰上候
趣ヲ以此度も公武江御断被仰上間敷哉之旨ニ一決
則口上書出来也廿二日ニ持参可有之旨也依之林
現代語訳
その節（先年の御伝奏の申し渡しの際）、月番の宮内権大輔と雑掌の掃部助の両人が評議所において申し渡されました。しかしながら、この度、御伝奏より仰せ渡されているかどうか存じませんので、この度、正祝転任の義を申し上げますまいと存じます。以上。
二月十七日 林 三位（花押）
一社御中
評議していうに、林三位の書付の通り、正祝については「その通りに指し置くべき旨を御伝奏が仰せ渡した」という件が、日次（日記）には見当たらない。そうであれば、書き顕わした（文書に記した）ように確認されるよう仰せ遣わしたところ、他行（外出・不在）の由であった。七家の人々が申されるには、その時分（先年）は権祝の職をめぐる訴訟・争いのことであって、正祝については申し分（異議）がなかったのだということである。とにかく、そのまま（林家の譜代と）なすことは難しい義（筋合い）であるから、明十九日に寄合を催し、各々参集して相談するのがよいとの由にて退散した。
十九日 臨時寄会 余事これを略す。
一、転任の義について相談すべく、書き顕した口上の趣旨を確認したところ、正祝の件については何とも承っていないとの由であった。段々と評議があり、また日次の吟味（精査）が行われた。寛文七年（1667年）の日次を調べてみたが、林重豊が正祝に直任（直接任命）された子細（詳細な経緯）は見当たらなかった。中間（この間）の相対（内々の取り決め）とのことであるが、御条目（幕府の条規）以来、次第転昇（順次転任・昇任）は言うまでもないことである。先年、権祝の訴論（訴訟・論争）の時に、一社（賀茂社全体）から書付をもって申し上げた趣をもって、この度も公武（朝廷と幕府）へ御断りを申し上げてはどうかとの旨に一決した。そして口上書が作成された。二十二日に持参すべき旨である。これにより、林（三位）は――
英語訳
At that time (when the previous decree was issued by the Imperial Messenger), the two officials serving as monthly duty officers—Kunai-gon-daibu and the Zōshō Kamon-no-suke—had conveyed the decision at the deliberation hall. However, since I am not aware whether, on this occasion, a decree has been issued by the Imperial Messenger (Gidensō), I do not intend to submit a request for the transfer of the Shō-hōri at this time. Respectfully submitted.
The 17th day of the 2nd month Hayashi Sanmi (seal)
To the Shrine Assembly
The deliberations found as follows: As stated in Hayashi Sanmi's written submission, the claim that the Imperial Messenger decreed that the Shō-hōri position should be "left as it stands" is not found in the daily records (hinami). Therefore, a request was sent to have this confirmed in written form, but it was reported that he was away from home. The members of the Seven Families stated that at that time (in previous years), the dispute concerned the position of Gon-hōri, and that there had been no objection raised regarding the Shō-hōri. In any case, since it would be difficult to simply accept the matter (as a hereditary Hayashi family claim) as it stands, it was decided that a meeting would be convened on the following 19th day, at which all members would assemble to deliberate, and the assembly dispersed.
19th Day: Special Meeting — Other matters are omitted.
One: In order to discuss the matter of transfer, the content of the oral statement that had been put in writing was verified, and it was reported that nothing had been heard regarding the Shō-hōri matter. After extensive deliberations, the daily records were again carefully examined. Although the daily records from Kanbun 7 (1667) were consulted, no detailed account of Hayashi Shigotoyo's direct appointment (chokunin) to the position of Shō-hōri was found. It was said that this had been an informal private arrangement (aitai) among the parties involved in the interim. However, it was noted that since the promulgation of the shogunal regulations (gojōmoku), sequential transfer and promotion (shidai-tenshō) was a matter beyond question. It was unanimously decided that, following the precedent of the written submission made by the entire shrine (Ichisha) during the previous dispute (訴論) over the Gon-hōri position, a formal objection should likewise be submitted to both the imperial court and the shogunate (kōbu) on this occasion. Accordingly, a written oral statement was prepared. It was noted that it should be delivered on the 22nd day. As a result, Hayashi [Sanmi]— (continues)