本稿では，百済三書に関係した研究史整理と基礎的考察をおこなった。論点は多岐に渉るが，当該史料が有した古い要素と新しい要素の併存については，『日本書紀』編纂史料として８世紀初頭段階に「百済本位の書き方」をした原史料を用いて，「日本に対する迎合的態度」により編纂した百済系氏族の立場とのせめぎ合いとして解釈した。『日本書紀』編者は「百済記」を用いて，干支年代の移動による改変をおこない起源伝承を構想したが，「貴国」（百済記）・「（大）倭」（百済新撰）・「日本」（百済本記）という国号表記の不統一に典型的であらわれているように，基本的に分注として引用された原文への潤色は少なかったと考えられる。その性格は，三書ともに基本的に王代と干支が記載された特殊史で，断絶した王系ごとに百済遺民の出自や奉仕の根源を語るもので，「百済記」は，「百済本記」が描く６世紀の聖明王代の理想を，過去の肖古王代に投影し，「北敵」たる高句麗を意識しつつ，日本に対して百済が主張する歴史的根拠を意識して撰述されたものであった。亡命百済王氏の祖王の時代を記述した「百済本記」がまず成立し，百済と倭国の通交および，「任那」支配の歴史的正統性を描く目的から「百済記」が，さらに「百済新撰」は，系譜的に問題のあった⑦毗有王～⑪武寧王の時代を語ることにより，傍系王族の後裔を称する多くの百済貴族たちの共通認識をまとめたものと位置付けられる。三書は順次編纂されたが，共通の目的により組織的に編纂されたのであり，表記上の相違も『日本書紀』との対応関係に立って，記載年代の外交関係を意識した用語により記載された。とりわけ「貴国」は，冊封関係でも，まったく対等な関係でもない「第三の傾斜的関係」として百済と倭国の関係を位置づける用語として用いられている。なお前稿では，「任那日本府」について，反百済的活動をしていた諸集団を一括した呼称であることを指摘し，『日本書紀』編者の意識とは異なる百済系史料の自己主張が含まれていることを論じたが，おそらく「百済本位の書き方」をした「百済本記」の原史料に由来する主張が「日本府」の認識に反映したものと考えられる。 This article reviews and briefly examines the history of research on the three books of Baekje: Kudara Honki (Original Records of Baekje) , Kudara Ki (Records of Baekje) , and Kudara Shinsen (the New Selection of Baekje) . Taking various arguments into consideration, this article indicates that the three books consisted of old and new elements because they were born out of a dilemma; they were based on the original books written from the self-centered viewpoint of Baekje but edited by Baekje exiles as historical materials for the compilation of Nihon Shoki ( the Chronicles of Japan) in a favorable manner for Japan in the beginning of the eighth century. The editors of Nihon Shoki altered the times of events by modifying the Chinese zodiac calendar when using Kudara Ki to write a legend of the origin of Japan; however, as typically represented by inconsistency of the name of Japan, such as called “Kikoku” in Kudara Ki, “ (Oh-) yamato” in Kudara Shinsen, and “Nihon” in Kudara Honki, it is considered that in principle, the quotations in the notes of Nihon Shoki from the three books were hardly embellished. All of the three books were history books dated with imperial era names and the Chinese zodiac calendar system and were aimed to delineate the background of the family and profession of each Baekje clan surviving after the fall of their dynasty. In Kudara Ki, the ideal of King Song Myong period, in the sixth century, described by Kudara Honki was mirrored in the King Chogo period, and historical legitimacy was explained to Japan from the viewpoint of Baekje with an eye on its northern enemy, Goguryeo. At first, Kudara Honki was written to describe the history of the dynastic ancestors of the Kudara-no-Konikishi clan exiled from Baekje. Then, Kudara Ki was created for the purpose of providing historical legitimacy to the domination of Mimana, as well as depicting exchanges between Baekje and Wakoku (Japan) . Last, Kudara Shinsen was compiled to summarize the common perspective of numerous Baekje clans who claimed the collateral descent of the Baekje Dynasty by detailing the eras from ⑦ King Biyu to ⑪ King Muryeong, whose lineage had not been clear. Though the three books were edited one by one, they were systematically compiled for the same purpose. Inconsistencies in expression among the three books were corrected from the viewpoint of compatibility with Nihon Shoki by using terms to describe the diplomatic relationships at the times of events more clearly. In particular, the word “Kikoku” was used to describe the relationship between Baekje and Wakoku not as a tributary or completely equal relationship but as the “third slantedrelationship.”Our former article indicated that a variety of groups fighting against Baekje were collectively called as the “Japanese Mimana Government” and argued that Nihon Shoki had incorporated the perspective of Baekje that was inconsistent with that of the editors of the chronicle. This is considered because the perspective regarding the Japanese Mimana Government was affected by the insistence derived from the original materials of Kudara Honki, which was compiled from the self-centered viewpoint of Baekje.