麥生本系統《源氏物語》的校訂態度－－由初音卷與胡蝶卷中與玉鬘相關的描寫觀之

The Position on the Revision of The Tale of Genji in the Case of the Version Represented by Munyuubon: According to the Description About Tamakazura in Hatune Volume and Kotyou Volume

《源氏物語》除主流的青表紙本系統及河內本系統外，尚有其他不同文本。其中以麥生本為代表的文本異文相對豐富，且共可見於三套寫本內，應曾具一定數量的閱讀者，故而值得探討。本論文為此系統文本研究之一環，以初音卷及胡蝶卷為考察對象。然而，由於目前相關論著中，對於此類文本是否每卷皆可作為相對於主流文本的「別本」使用這點看法有所歧異，因此在考察這兩卷的文本時，筆者選擇先調查其中是否同樣具備此系統文本的其他卷中可見的特徵，以此確定初音卷與胡蝶卷是否同樣具備「別本」之性質。透過以上探討，確定此二卷亦有與他卷共通之特徵，可作為此系統之文本使用後，再針對其他性質的異文進行考察。其結果現，與玉鬘相關的描寫中，有與前後卷用詞不一致之處。筆者因而由這點對此系統之校訂態度以及其成立背景進行推論，並進一步指出今後考察此類文本時須注意之事項。

There are different versions of The Tale of Genji besides Aobyousibon and Kawatibon. Especially the version represented by Myunyuubon is rather abundant in different description. Furthermore, this version can be discovered in three manuscripts, which means there were more than a few readers of this version. However, there are different opinions about the classification of each volume. Therefore, it is necessary to re-examing the classification of Hatune volume and Kotyou volume by confirming the features discovered in the other volumes belong to this version. After the classification of the two volumes confirmed by the examination mentioned above, the deeper research of this version can be started. As a result, discordance can be found in the descriptions about Tamakazura. According to the result, the possible policy for the revision of this version can be infered.