『국역본 <쥬생뎐>·<위생뎐>』 고찰 = A Study on 『Korean Translation of <Jyusaengjeon (쥬생뎐)>·<Wisaengjeon (위생뎐)>』 -Focused on declared characteristics and characteristics in different versions-

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

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.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

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.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 문선규 역, "화사 외 2편" 통문관 1961

2 신기형, "한국소설발달사" 창문사 1960

3 유탁일, "한국문헌학연구" 아세아문화사 1989

4 간호윤, "한국 고소설비평 용어 사전" 경인문화사 2007

5 간호윤, "한국 고소설비평 연구" 경인문화사 2002

6 정경주, "필사본 한문소설집 『초호별전』 해제" 경성한문학연구회 1999

7 소재영, "필사본 한문소설 화몽집에 대하여, 한국학연구 2" 태학사 2002

8 이복규, "초기 국문?국문본소설" 박이정 1998

9 박재연, "중국소설회모본" 강원대학교출판부 1993

10 정병호, "주생전과 위경천전의 비교 고찰" 한국고소설학회 6 : 1998

11 김일근, "주생전?위경천전 언해의 연철본(쥬?뎐?위?뎐) 출현에 따를 서지적 문제" 겨레어문학회 25 : 2000

12 간호윤, "조선후기필사본한문소설집, 선현유음" 이회 2003

13 권혁래, "조선조 한문소설 국역본의 존재 양상과 번역문학적 성격에 관한 시론" 동양학연구소 36 (36): 1-25, 2004

14 이가원, "조선문학사 상?중?하" 태학사 1997

15 임형택, "전기소설의 연애주제와 위경천전" 단국대 동양학연구소 22 : 1992

16 정? 민, "위경천전의 낭만적 비극성" 한양대 한국학연구소 24 : 1993

17 김춘택, "우리나라 고전소설사" 한길사 1993

18 정학성, "역주 17세기 한문소설집" 삼경문화사 2000

19 남광우, "보정 고어사전" 일조각 1991

20 정? 민, "목릉문단과 석주 권필" 태학사 1999

21 리철화, "림제?권필작품선집 (조선고전문학전집 13)" 조선문학예술총동맹출판사 1963

22 조희웅, "고전소설이본목록 1" 집문당 1999

23 정출헌, "고전소설사의 구도와 시각" 소명출판 1999

24 간호윤, "閒汨董 所載 <韋生傳> 硏究" 한국고전문학교육학회 14 (14): 299-332, 2007

25 문범두, "石洲權? 文學의 硏究" 국학자료원 1996

26 정명기, "<위생전>(<위경천전>) 이본 연구" 한국어문학회 95 : 2007

27 정명기, "<위생전>(<위경천전>) 교감의 문제점" 22 : 2206-,

28 "<韋敬天傳>(임형택본), <韋生傳>(저초본), <韋生傳>(유재영본), 국문본<위?뎐>(김일근본), <韋生傳>(한골동본), 조선왕조실록홈페이지, 민족문화추진회홈페이지, 국사편찬위원회홈페이지"

29 박일용, "17세기 애정소설의 사실적 경향과 낭만적 경향, 조선시대의 애정소설" 집문당 1993

30 홍윤표, "17세기 국어사전" 태학사 1995