고려대 중앙도서관 화산문고 소장 『논어대문구결』의 구결에 대하여 = Kugyŏl of the Nonyŏ Taemun Kugyŏl Held in the Hwasan Collection of Korea University Library

국문 초록 (Abstract)

노요한, 2026, 고려대 중앙도서관 화산문고 소장 『논어대문구결』의 구결에 대하여, 어문연구, 209 : 183~232 본고는 고려대 화산문고 소장 을해자본 『논어대문구결』의 구결을 분석하여 간행 시기, 편찬 배경, 구결의 성격과 계통을 검토하였다. 먼저 동 문고 소장 을해자본 『서전대문』과의 비교를 통해 두 책의 선후 관계 및 구결 작업자 집단의 차이를 살폈고, 세종·세조 연간 경서구결사업의 전개 과정을 정리하였다. 이어 『논어언해』와의 전면 대조를 통해 주격·목적격 조사 사용, 옛이응 표기, 경문 해석 등 여러 층위에서의 異同을 분석하였으며, 이황 『논어석의』에 수록된 여러 舊說이 『논어언해』보다 이 책의 구결과 더 빈번하게 일치함을 논증하였다. 이 책은 명종 초 무렵에 간행된 것으로 추정되며, 세종·세조 이래 경서구결사업과 선조 연간 언해사업 사이에 적어도 두 계통의 상이한 구결 전통이 병존하였음을 확인하였다. 즉 『서전대문』으로 대표되는 계통의 구결이 선조조 언해에 거의 그대로 계승된 것과 달리, 『논어대문구결』로 대표되는 계통의 구결은 선조조 언해 편찬 과정에서 대폭 수정되었다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study analyzes the kugyŏl annotations of the Nonyŏ Taemun Kugyŏl (論語大文口訣), which is an ŭlhae-type edition preserved as a unique copy in the Hwasan Collection of the Korea University Library. The date of publication, background of its compilation, and nature and lineage of its kugyŏl are clarified. First, the text is compared with the ŭlhae-type edition of the Shujŏn Taemun (書傳大文) held in the same collection. The chronological relationship between the two books and differences in the groups responsible for producing the kugyŏl are examined. In addition, the development of the state-sponsored kugyŏl projects for the Confucian classics during the reigns of King Sejong and King Sejo is outlined.
Next, the kugyŏl of the Nonyŏ Taemun Kugyŏl are comprehensively compared with those of the Nonyŏ ŏnhae (論語諺解), which was completed during the reign of King Sŏnjo. Through this comparison, similarities and differences are analyzed across several levels, including the usage of nominative and accusative particles, orthographic use of the archaic iŭng, and variations in the interpretation of the canonical text. Furthermore, by confirming that the “old interpretations” (kusŏl, 舊說) cited in Yi Hwang’s Nonyŏ sŏkŭi (論語釋義) correspond to the kugyŏl of the Nonyŏ Taemun Kugyŏl more frequently than to those of the Nonyŏ ŏnhae, this study demonstrates that the kugyŏl of this text continued to circulate among literati until the time of Yi Hwang.
The analysis suggests that the Nonyŏ Taemun Kugyŏl was likely printed before the early reign of King Myŏngjong. Moreover, at least two distinct traditions of kugyŏl coexisted between the earlier kugyŏl projects on the Confucian classics initiated under Sejong and Sejo and the later vernacular annotation (ŏnhae) projects of Sŏnjo’s reign. While the kugyŏl tradition represented by the Shujŏn Taemun was transmitted almost unchanged into the Shujŏn ŏnhae, that [A3]represented by the Nonyŏ Taemun Kugyŏl underwent extensive revision during the compilation of the Nonyŏ ŏnhae. This case thus provides an important example demonstrating that different traditions of kugyŏl interpretation—diverging by classical text and by scholarly group—coexisted and competed in the early Chosŏn history of classical exegesis.