글쓰기 妙方묘방은 無妨무방이다

간호윤 문예운동사 2010 문예운동 Vol.- No.107

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.-

『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.

『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.-

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.-

『奇人奇事錄』(上·下) 考察

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

<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.-