『高麗史』에 수록된 두 편의 蒙古軍 牒文 (Two Letters from the Commander of the Invading Mongolian Forces Found in the Goryeosa)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 진단학회
· 수록지 정보 : 진단학보 / 118호 / 31 ~ 94페이지
· 저자명 : 송기중

초록

본고는 『高麗史』 권23 (고종18년/1231년 음12월조)에 수록된, 몽고 침략군의 장수 撒禮塔이 고려 국왕에게 보낸 첩문 2편의 해석과 주석이다. 이 첩문들은 문체가 특이하고 난해한 語句들이 다수 포함되어 있어서 漢文 지식만으로는 올바르게 이해하기 어렵다.
최근까지 국내 학자로서 이 첩문들을 상세히 연구한 사람이 없었다. 첩문 2편 전체의 해석과 주석만을 취급한 논문은 村上正二(1960)와 Gari Ledyard(1963)이다. Cleaves(1979)에는 첫째 첩문의 서두 구절 해석과 관련하여 기간의 논저들을 최대한 수집, 인용ㆍ평가하면서 상세한 설명과 새로운 해석을 제시하였다.
亦隣眞(1982)는 元代에 몽고어의 영향을 받아 등장한 구어체 중국어 公文語의 특징을 정리한 논문으로 부록에 소개한 예문 10편 중 한 편이 본고의 첫째 첩문이다. 李玠奭(2010)은 고려 초기 몽고와의 관계를 기술한 장편의 논문인데, 그 일부에 두 첩문을 번역하고 원문을 분절하여 소개하고 일부 어사들에 대한 주석을 붙였다. 국내 학자로는 처음으로 난해한 첩문에 대한 근거있는 해석을 시도하였다.
본고에서는 위에 언급한 제논문을 참고․평가․인용하고 지난 수십년 사이에 등장한 宋元代 白話文 사전 및 기타 관계 문헌들을 참고한 필자의 해석을 추가하였다.
첩문의 언어는 기본적으로 구어체 중국어이다. 그러나, 필시 본래 몽고어로 기술된 첩문을 中國語文에 능통하지 못한 자(레쟈드는 여진인 통역으로 추정)가 서툴게 번역한 데서 기인하는 생경한 어사, 고려와 조선의 필사자들이 첩문의 언어를 이해하지 못하여 교정하지 못한 데서 기인하는 각종 오류, 당시에는 통용되었을 수 있으나 다른 문헌에서 확인할 수 없는 표현 등이 혼효되어 이해하기 어렵게 된 것으로 추측한다. 그러나 일견 생소하게 보이는 첩문 어사의 상당 수는 宋元代 白話文과 元代에 몽고어의 강한 영향하에 생산된 각종 공용문서의 용례에서 확인된다.

영어초록

This article is a philological study on the two letters from the commander of the Mongolian forces, Sallyet’ap/Sallit’ai/Sarta/Sartaγ 撒禮塔/||答/|里打/|兒塔, to the King of Korea in the 12th moon of 1231~1232 with twenty days of interval.
Those who are well-known of Written Chinese, or wenyan 文言/guwen 古文 in Chinese or Hanmun 漢文 in Korean, are surely bewildered as they encounter these two letters while they are reading the Goryeosa 高麗史 (History of the Goryeo Dynasty). For them, the documents are partly understandable with uncertainties. Those who have studied baihuawen 白話文 of the Song and Yuan periods would find a number of familiar characters typically used for a certain senses in the colloquial Chinese literature. Yet, the larger parts of the two documents remain incomprehensible.
The language of the two documents basically reflects colloquial Chinese of the time. However a number of misprints, unknown expressions and unusual syntactic structures are so intermingled that one can hardly grasp the correct senses conveyed by them. A part of the ambiguities is assumed to have inherited from the fact that they were originally written in Mongolian which were translated into Chinese by a certain hand, presumably a Jurchen defected to the Mongols, whose knowledge of Chinese writing was severly limited. Another reason might have been that the Korean copiers of the documents at later times did not know the language and, therefore, were unable to correct the inappropriate characters and phrases.
Yet, many of the expressions unknown to the students of Written Chinese could be identified in the dictionaries of the colloquial Chinese literature of the Song and Yuan periods. And, examples of a certain unusual phrases and syntactic structures could be found in a certain documents translated from Mongolian.
The peculiarity of the two letters has attracted attentions of a few scholars during the past a half of a century. The Japanese scholar, Murakami Shōji 村上正二(1960) initiated investigation into the letters. This study exclusively devoted to the two documents. The texts are punctuated with superscribed Japanese particles and translated into modern Japanese with occasional annotations.26) For detailed bibliogrphical information of this and the following works, see “Bibliogrphy” at the end of the article in Korean.
Gari Ledyard(1963) is a remarkable and memorable work for the study of the two documents. A lengthy, detailed introduction and meticulously worded translations are followed by numerous annotations.
The late Professor Francis Woodman Cleaves, who was well known as one of the most eminent philologists of Sino-Mongolian documents of pre-modern periods, worked on the two documents for many years and once took them as the text for reading and discussion in a graduate seminar course. Unfortunately his work, fully dealing with the two documents, was not published. However, the initial formulae of the first doucument is treated meticulously and exhaustively in Cleaves(1979), following the early 20th century tradition of philological investigations in the west.
Yi Renzhen 亦隣眞(1982) and Yi Kae-sŏk 李玠奭(2010) contributed to the improvement of understanding of a certain unusual vocables found in the documents.
In the present study, the two documents are examined character by character and for each unit of expression the above mentioned earlier works are consulted, evaluated and/or quoted and the author’s interpretaions are added.

참고자료

· 없음