本稿は六百番歌合当時、「かひや」という歌ことばの意味解釈をめぐる一連の論争を万葉研究の注釈学的方法から考察を試みたものである。「かひや」をめぐる論争は藤原俊成を軸とする「御子左家」と藤原清輔死後、顕昭を中心とする「六条藤家」との学問的衝突の一面を見せる。本稿は「かひや」に関する一連の論争を中世万葉研究という観点に基き、当時の歌論・歌学書などの著述に施された方法論と近来の万葉注釈学的方法論との隔たりを検討した。

This study focuses on lyrics of “Kahiya” which has a great controversy during the period of Roppyakuban Uta-awase, based on an analytic viewpoint of Manyoshu. Mikohidarike, who was the representative writer, followed a tradition of a viewpoint of “Monogatari such as Isemonogatari and Genjimonogatari in his writing. In contrast to Mikohidarike, Rokujoke who represented Rokujoke selected “Manyoshou” as a primary source of Waka, so he tried his new approach to Waka thorough Roppyakuban Uta-awase. The analysis of “Kahi” in “Kahiya” is the most controversy part of the study. Several different viewpoints in its understanding are existed according to each party. Mikohidarike and a party of Shunzei understands the meaning of Kahi as a compound word of “Ka” and “Hi,” while Genshou and a party of Rokujoke interprets this word as “to rear.” As a result of research, the researcher concludes Mikohidrike’s analysis is relevant, even though there was no clear concept of Jodai Tokushu Kanzukai that the distinction of Korui and Oturui in his era. Despite this fact, Shunzei’s analysis and methodology is based on study of actual usage of vocabulary which is the most ground work of the study of modern Manyoshu study.