설공찬전 파동의 작품 내외적 맥락 재 고찰 - 용재총화 용천담적 교차 검토를 중심으로 (Reconsideration on the Work’s Internal and External Context Regarding the 『Seolgongchanjeon』 Shock -Focusing on cross-examination over 『Yongjaechonghwa』 and 『Yongcheondamjeokgi』-)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국언어문학회
· 수록지 정보 : 한국언어문학 / 121호 / 81 ~ 111페이지
· 저자명 : 김도형

초록

This study cross-examined two works recording Chae Su in order to clarify the nature of the 『Seolgongchanjeon』 shock that occurred in the initial reign of King Jungjong. Seong Hyeon recorded an anecdote about his colleague, Chae Su, in 『Yongjaechonghwa』 while Kim An-ro wrote 『Yongcheondamjeokgi』 in exile at the time when 『Yongjaechonghwa』 was published including an anecdote of his father-in-law, Chae Su, in it. In this sense, 『Yongjaechonghwa』 and 『Yongcheondamjeokgi』 work as records on political fluctuations in the 15th and 16th centuries and as cross-narratives to understand Chae Su’s 『Seolgongchanjeon 』. In 『Yongjaechonghwa』, Chae Su is depicted as Sadaebu equipped with literary talent and wit, and in 『Yongcheondamjeokgi』, he highlights Chae Su’s reputation from a son-in-law’s standpoint. This is primarily attributed to the difference of relationship as a friend and son-in-law, but it provides a piece of information that the person named Chae Su was not the owner of unconventional ideas. In the context of 『Yongjaechonghwa』, the ban of 『Seolgongchanjeon』 stems from the gap between narrative verisimilitudity and the form of a traditional narrative, and the context of 『Yongcheondamjeokgi 』 provides the logic that 『Seolgongchanjeon』 is grounded on the true story, which dilutes the unconventionality of the work. In conclusion, by comparing the articles of 『Yongjaechonghwa』 and 『Yongcheondamjeokgi』, this author could learn that the 『Seolgongchanjeon』 shock originated from the perspective of investigating Cha Sue’s ideas to see his political orientation. Also, with 『Yongjaechonghwa』, it was possible to find out newly about the fact that the Chinese envoy, ‘Aebak’, appearing in 『Seolgongchanjeon』 was a real person. This reveals a different perspective from the elements previously presented for the ban of 『Seolgongchanjeon』, for instance, possession or the experience of ghost or the afterworld. This is because such subject matters are frequently mentioned in 『Yongjaechonghwa』, too, and even Seong Hyeon himself describes his own stories about seeing ghosts. Moreover, Chae Su’s story about experiencing ghost in 『Yongcheondamjeokgi』 serves as an anecdote that reinforces the fact that the ban of 『Seolgongchanjeon』 that formed the center of controversy before was not intended but it came from the writer’s own experience. Therefore, cross-examination over 『Yongjaechonghwa』 and 『Yongcheondamjeokgi』 presents multidimensional information about Chae Su and provides new context that is useful to understand 『Seolgongchanjeon』.

영어초록

This study cross-examined two works recording Chae Su in order to clarify the nature of the 『Seolgongchanjeon』 shock that occurred in the initial reign of King Jungjong. Seong Hyeon recorded an anecdote about his colleague, Chae Su, in 『Yongjaechonghwa』 while Kim An-ro wrote 『Yongcheondamjeokgi』 in exile at the time when 『Yongjaechonghwa』 was published including an anecdote of his father-in-law, Chae Su, in it. In this sense, 『Yongjaechonghwa』 and 『Yongcheondamjeokgi』 work as records on political fluctuations in the 15th and 16th centuries and as cross-narratives to understand Chae Su’s 『Seolgongchanjeon 』. In 『Yongjaechonghwa』, Chae Su is depicted as Sadaebu equipped with literary talent and wit, and in 『Yongcheondamjeokgi』, he highlights Chae Su’s reputation from a son-in-law’s standpoint. This is primarily attributed to the difference of relationship as a friend and son-in-law, but it provides a piece of information that the person named Chae Su was not the owner of unconventional ideas. In the context of 『Yongjaechonghwa』, the ban of 『Seolgongchanjeon』 stems from the gap between narrative verisimilitudity and the form of a traditional narrative, and the context of 『Yongcheondamjeokgi 』 provides the logic that 『Seolgongchanjeon』 is grounded on the true story, which dilutes the unconventionality of the work. In conclusion, by comparing the articles of 『Yongjaechonghwa』 and 『Yongcheondamjeokgi』, this author could learn that the 『Seolgongchanjeon』 shock originated from the perspective of investigating Cha Sue’s ideas to see his political orientation. Also, with 『Yongjaechonghwa』, it was possible to find out newly about the fact that the Chinese envoy, ‘Aebak’, appearing in 『Seolgongchanjeon』 was a real person. This reveals a different perspective from the elements previously presented for the ban of 『Seolgongchanjeon』, for instance, possession or the experience of ghost or the afterworld. This is because such subject matters are frequently mentioned in 『Yongjaechonghwa』, too, and even Seong Hyeon himself describes his own stories about seeing ghosts. Moreover, Chae Su’s story about experiencing ghost in 『Yongcheondamjeokgi』 serves as an anecdote that reinforces the fact that the ban of 『Seolgongchanjeon』 that formed the center of controversy before was not intended but it came from the writer’s own experience. Therefore, cross-examination over 『Yongjaechonghwa』 and 『Yongcheondamjeokgi』 presents multidimensional information about Chae Su and provides new context that is useful to understand 『Seolgongchanjeon』.

참고자료

· 없음