『국역본 <쥬생뎐>·<위생뎐>』 고찰

간호윤 한국고전문학교육학회 2008 고전문학과 교육 Vol.15 No.-

The purpose of the study was to decide Korean translation and the copying period of 『Korean Translation of <Jyusaengjeon(쥬생뎐)>·<Wisaengjeon(위생뎐)>』 and to look all around their characteristics in different versions carefully until now. The 『Korean Translation』 is a collection of Korean-translated romance and love stories excavated by a professor Kim,Il Geun, and there is not a little meaning in the context of novel history in the point of view of ‘Korean translation of a court possession’. Arranging conclusion of the study generally, it is as follows. ①Considering phonological phenomena, grammar and vocabulary in the study of Korean language, it is presumed that they would be translated into Korean and copied between the regime period of the King Sukjong and the regime period of the King Yungjo in the Joseon Dynasty. For, they were composed of a middle declaration of copied ‘Myeoknambon 『Korean Translation of Taepyeonggwanggi(태평광기)』’ and ‘NakseonJaebon(낙선재본)’ between the middle of the 17th century and the middle of the 18th century and the regime period of the King Jeongjo in the Joseon Dynasty appointed as the background period of the novels should be excepted. Consequently, through the 『Korean Translation』, we can confirm that the novel scope between the 17th century and the 18th century in Korean novel history was widened until ‘The Royal Court’ and ‘Women’. ② In the side of vocabulary, the 『Korean Translation』 also has not a little meaning in the side of a collection translated in the Royal Court. It doesn’t have new vocabularies, but partial vocabularies as ‘그므양념(Traces:痕)’ ‘말근 눈바퀴(Clean eyes:明眸)’, ‘돗자리(Sail:帆)’, ‘닓바퀴(Get up:起)’, ‘글이플(Weak grass:弱草)’, ‘쇼록(Owl:鴟梟 or 鴉鴞)’, ‘이 사라심(This life:此生)’, and ‘노혀오매(Look for:訪)’ are good data in the study of Korean language. ③ The 『Korean Translation』 is a valuable data about translation and copying of a court novel and we can discover intentionally changed parts and partially omitted sentences rather in the <Wisaengjeon(위생뎐)> than in the <Jyusaengjeon(쥬생뎐)>. There are differences between a translation book and a copying book and we can catch sight of intention of translation and unsettledness of copying in the second work. Therefore, we can know that the 『Korean Translation』 has a double context which one work is translated and a work in different version is derived, compared to a simple copy. ④ The 『Korean Translation』 <Jyusaengjeon(쥬생뎐)> has a close relation with 『Hangoldong(閒汨董)』, but it doesn’t regard the same copy as a foundation. The basic copy of translation of the 『Korean Translation』 <Jyusaengjeon(쥬생뎐)> is a different version of the same line as 『Hangoldong』 and 『Jeochobon(저초본:정명기 소장본)』 and is more similar line to 『Hangoldong』, but it is also not the same basic copy. ⑤ Considering that the 『Korean Translation』 doesn’t has a distinct relation with the 『Hangoldong』, there is no correlation between the 『Korean Translation』 <Jyusaengjeon(쥬생뎐)> and <Wisaengjeon(위생뎐)> and the 『Hangoldong』<Jyusaengjeon> and <Wisaengjeon>. In addition, we could not discover a writer’s identity between the two. The purpose of the study was to decide Korean translation and the copying period of 『Korean Translation of <Jyusaengjeon(쥬생뎐)>·<Wisaengjeon(위생뎐)>』 and to look all around their characteristics in different versions carefully until now. The 『Korean Translation』 is a collection of Korean-translated romance and love stories excavated by a professor Kim,Il Geun, and there is not a little meaning in the context of novel history in the point of view of ‘Korean translation of a court possession’. Arranging conclusion of the study generally, it is as follows. ①Considering phonological phenomena, grammar and vocabulary in the study of Korean language, it is presumed that they would be translated into Korean and copied between the regime period of the King Sukjong and the regime period of the King Yungjo in the Joseon Dynasty. For, they were composed of a middle declaration of copied ‘Myeoknambon 『Korean Translation of Taepyeonggwanggi(태평광기)』’ and ‘NakseonJaebon(낙선재본)’ between the middle of the 17th century and the middle of the 18th century and the regime period of the King Jeongjo in the Joseon Dynasty appointed as the background period of the novels should be excepted. Consequently, through the 『Korean Translation』, we can confirm that the novel scope between the 17th century and the 18th century in Korean novel history was widened until ‘The Royal Court’ and ‘Women’. ② In the side of vocabulary, the 『Korean Translation』 also has not a little meaning in the side of a collection translated in the Royal Court. It doesn’t have new vocabularies, but partial vocabularies as ‘그므양념(Traces:痕)’ ‘말근 눈바퀴(Clean eyes:明眸)’, ‘돗자리(Sail:帆)’, ‘닓바퀴(Get up:起)’, ‘글이플(Weak grass:弱草)’, ‘쇼록(Owl:鴟梟 or 鴉鴞)’, ‘이 사라심(This life:此生)’, and ‘노혀오매(Look for:訪)’ are good data in the study of Korean language. ③ The 『Korean Translation』 is a valuable data about translation and copying of a court novel and we can discover intentionally changed parts and partially omitted sentences rather in the <Wisaengjeon(위생뎐)> than in the <Jyusaengjeon(쥬생뎐)>. There are differences between a translation book and a copying book and we can catch sight of intention of translation and unsettledness of copying in the second work. Therefore, we can know that the 『Korean Translation』 has a double context which one work is translated and a work in different version is derived, compared to a simple copy. ④ The 『Korean Translation』 <Jyusaengjeon(쥬생뎐)> has a close relation with 『Hangoldong(閒汨董)』, but it doesn’t regard the same copy as a foundation. The basic copy of translation of the 『Korean Translation』 <Jyusaengjeon(쥬생뎐)> is a different version of the same line as 『Hangoldong』 and 『Jeochobon(저초본:정명기 소장본)』 and is more similar line to 『Hangoldong』, but it is also not the same basic copy. ⑤ Considering that the 『Korean Translation』 doesn’t has a distinct relation with the 『Hangoldong』, there is no correlation between the 『Korean Translation』 <Jyusaengjeon(쥬생뎐)> and <Wisaengjeon(위생뎐)> and the 『Hangoldong』<Jyusaengjeon> and <Wisaengjeon>. In addition, we could not discover a writer’s identity between the two.

古小說批評論(Ⅱ) : 「燕山君日記」~「顯宗實錄」을 중심으로

簡鎬允 順天鄕語文學硏究會 2000 順天鄕語文論集 Vol.6 No.-

古小說㧗評論(Ⅰ) : 태조-성종실록을 중심으로

簡鎬允 順天鄕語文學研究會 1998 順天鄕語文論集 Vol.5 No.-

『흠영(欽英)』의 소설비평(小說批評) 연구(硏究)

간호윤 한국어문교육연구회 2001 어문연구(語文硏究) Vol.29 No.3

조선시대 私的인 기록 중 최초로 체계화된 理論的 小說批評은 18세기 兪晩柱의 『欽英』에 나타난 小說批評이다. 『欽英』은 通園 兪晩柱의 일기인데, 이 日記에는 작자가 중국문학사에 대한 깊이 있는 이해를 바탕으로 우리의 고소설을 비평한 글들이 실려 있다. 『흠영』에 보이는 소설의 定義나 起源說에 대한 견해는 당시로서는 상당한 論理性과 批評眼을 보인 것이다.兪晩柱의 소설 비평어의 핵심은 人情物態인데. 이 용어는 우리 소설 비평사 속에서 소설이 시민권을 획득했음을 알리는 비평어로서 의미가 깊다. 또 ‘逼眞, 技痒, 文章如畵’ 등, 상당수의 小說批評用語들이 『흠영』 전후기의 私的ㆍ公的인 기록을 넘나듦을 볼 수 있다. 특히 ‘文章如畵’는 19세기 수사선생의 『廣寒樓記』에서는 文章作法 用語로 등장하기도 한다. 이로 보아 이 『흠영』에서 소설 비평의 內在的 發展過程도 살필 수 있다.

< 광한루기 > 의 소설 비평론 연구 : ' 문장여화법론(文章如畵法論) ' 을 중심으로

간호윤 한국고소설학회 1999 古小說 硏究 Vol.8 No.1

This thesis makes the target of the novel titled <kwang-han-ru-ki (廣寒樓記)>,in which we can look for kaleidoscopic criticism terms of a novel among our 19th novels. Form criticism in the novel titled <kwanghanruki>, we can find out enough novel theories to call a treasure house of our criticism literature such as the condition of a novel, readers reading the text, the structure of a description, using freely styles, various criticism terms, and so on. In particular, Su-san(水山), the author of the novel, states 'Mun-jang-yeo-hwa-beob-ron' ('文章如畵法論' : It means that writing is like painting) utilizing the landscape painting as a technique of a novel. This theory, which is a special novel criticism term in the history of criticism on our old novels, is the heart of understanding this novel as a composition principle of the novel titled <kwanghanruki>. Accordingly, this thesis prescribes it as a theory of a novel criticism called 'Mun-jang-yeo-hwa-beob-ron' and tris to arrange an aspect of our 19th old novel criticism. To sum up the studied results, it is as follows. 1) 'Mun-jang-yeo-hwa-beob-ron' Su-san's novel theory, is a visual criticism of a novel theory, which makes use of the landscape painting of an Oriental painting called Kum-gang-san-do(金剛山圖). But his painting theory does not correspond to the general landscape of an Oriental painting. The reason is that his landscape painting theory is deliberate, keeping an elaborate plot of a novel in his mind. If we read the criticism of Un-rim-cho-kaek(雲林樵客), we can understand precisely Kum-gang-san-do which he insisted as a principle of a novel writing. That is, he invented the landscape painting technique called Kum-gang-san-do in order to develop plot called the introduction, the development of the theme, conversion, and summing up. Accordingly, painting the East sea at first is to emphasize the background, and painting Bi-ro-bong(毘盧峰) high at the end is to stress the subject, contrary to the previous Oriental painting theory. We can grasp intent of 'Mun-jang-yeo-hwa-beob-ron' in comparing life to a novel at So-eum-ju-in's(소엄주인) introductory criticism of the fifth chapter. The introductory criticism of the fifth chapter deals with the plot of a novel, too. These plot theories of a novel connect the blooming ecological principle with a novel and describe it as the four steps in composition. In the end, the fact that Su-san develops the intentional painting theory of Kum-gang-san-do in 'Mun-jang-yeo-hwa-beob-ron' backs up cause and effect relations logically in a novel. Besides, so as to appeal to readers, it changes the fictional story called a novel into the epic style which is made up of probability. 2) Another theory is to emphasize the setting. The setting in Su-san's 'Mun-jang-yeo-hwa-beob' is the sea. The reason he began to paint Kum-gang-san-do from the sea was that he kept the setting of a novel in his mind. Su-san who considered elaborate plot of a novel started from describing the real setting at length called kwang-han-ru(廣寒樓) a situation of the novel. 3) Contrary to the general painting theory, Su-san painted the most important Bi-ro-bong at the end, which intended to emphasize Chun-hyang's(春香) beautiful figure and righteous fidelity, the subject of the novel called kwang-han-ru-ki. 4) Su-san's Kum-gang-san-do is a landscape painting. It starts by nature from searching for author's infinite consciousness boundary reflected in the eternal world of Mother Nature. If a novel is substituted for it, it means studying author's inside thoughts. Accordingly, Soeum-ju-in tried to grasp the intention of 'Mun-jan-yeo-hwa- beob-ron' with Chun-hwa-do-beob-ron(春畵圖法論)emphasizing the inside language, so did Un-rim-cho-kaek with Buddhistic term called Jung-beod-an-jang-ron.(政法眼藏論) 5) Su-san tried to compare kwang-han-ru-ki to a painting, for he emphasized writing equal to painting and Kwang-han-ru-ki and ennobled a novel equal to literature. In the end, in the course of studying this thesis, their novel theories are much the same, and are connected with one another. In addition, their pen names are related to nature. So it is probable that they are a same person of the different name. It is likely that Su-san set up different fictitious author and editor and critic and used the intentional false names in order to minimize his responsibility for suggesting his special theory of a novel.

<廣寒樓樂府>의 장르運動性과 意義 考察

簡鎬允 동양고전학회 2000 東洋古典硏究 Vol.13 No.-

小說受容時調의 現況과 批評的 含意 - 시조에 나타난 소설수용시조의 비평을 중심으로 -

간호윤 동양고전학회 2004 東洋古典硏究 Vol.20 No.-

「崔顯傳」

간호윤 우리문학회 2001 우리文學硏究 Vol.14 No.-

『奇人奇事錄』(上·下) 考察

간호윤 한국어문교육연구회 2006 어문연구(語文硏究) Vol.34 No.2

燕巖의 文學論 考察 : 思想의 志向性 探索을 위하여

簡鎬允 順天鄕語文學硏究會 1997 順天鄕語文論集 Vol.3.4 No.-