『석보상절』 권제3의 저경과 번역 (On the original Chinese text and its interpretation in Seokbosangjeol Vol. 3.)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 국어사학회
· 수록지 정보 : 국어사연구 / 18호 / 219 ~ 247페이지
· 저자명 : 김성주

초록

본고는 『석보상절』 권제3의 언해문에 대응하는 한문 원문을 밝히고, 제시된 한문 원문을 토대로 『석보상절』 권제3의 언해문과 한문 원문의 대응 양상에 대해 살펴본 글이다.
『석보상절』의 저경에 대해서는 여러 선학들의 논의에 이어 김기종(2010)의 체계적인 논의가 있다. 이 글은 김기종(2010)에서 밝히지 못한 부분을 보완하여 『석보상절』 권제3의 저경을 보다 충실하게 밝히고자 한 것이다. 그러나 이 글에서도 협주를 포함하여 『석보상절』 권제3의 저경을 밝히지 못한 부분도 있다.
『석보상절』 권제3의 저경은 『석가보』와 『석가씨보』를 비롯하여 『주석가여래성도기』, 『불본행집경』, 『잡보장경』 등의 문헌으로 이루어져 있다. 특히 『주석가여래성도기』는 기존 연구에서 『석보상절』의 저경으로 거론하지 않았던 문헌이다.
『석보상절』의 편찬자들은 주요 저경인 『석가보』에도 제시되어 있지 않는 부분을 다시 『석가보』의 저경으로부터 인용하기도 하였다. 또한 『석보상절』 편찬자들은 저경의 문장 순서를 바꾸기도 하고, 여러 가지 저경에서 교차 인용하기도 하였으며, 저경의 내용을 요약하여 번역하기도 하였다.
따라서 『석보상절』은 간경도감 언해본과 성격이 다른 문헌이라기보다는 기본적으로 간경도감 언해본과 같이 한문을 한글로 옮긴 문헌이라는 관점에서 접근할 필요가 있다.

영어초록

The aim of this paper is to find out the original Chinese text of Seokbosangjeol(here after, SS) vol. 3. which is composed of 24 volumes, from various Buddhist sutra and to investigate how to be translated into the Hangeul text of SS on the basis of its newly found-out original Chinese text. Through this research, we can understand its editors' intention, its characteristics of the style, and the aspect of between its original Chinese text and translated Hangul text.
We can summarize the characteristics of the original Chinese text of SS, as follows;Firstly, the original Chinese text of SS is quoted from Seokgabo and Seokgassibo as the main source and Juseokgayeoraeseongdogi, Pulbonhaengjipkyeong and Japbojangkyeong, etc.
Secondly, the newly found-out original Chinese text are the part 5, part 8, part 16, part 21, part 27, part 28 and part 40. Among them, the entire paragraph of the part 21 and part 27 is quoted from the Juseokgayeoraeseongdogi.
Thirdly, we do not have found out its original Chinese text of the part 16, part 28, part 31, part 32 and part 40 yet.
We summarized the aspect of correspondence between the original Chinese text and its translated Hangeul text of SS, as follows;Firstly, there is a direct quotation for some parts of Hangeul text from not its main source literature Seokgabo but other Buddhist sutra, as (47).
Secondly, there is a case for the order of the original Chinese text to be changed in order to express the natural Hangeul style, as (48) and (49).
Thirdly, some paragraphs of Hangeul text in SS are quoted from the several Buddhist sutra not from only one sutra, as (50).
Fourthly, there is a case of the change a sentence-type of the original Chinese text into other sentence-type for the natural expression of its Hangeul text, as (51).
Fifthly, some parts of Hangeul text in SS vol. 3. is not direct translation of its original Chinese text but the summary of it, as (53).
This conclusion above is not from the entire text in SS. However, SS vol. 3. is a very special one among the entire 24 volumes of SS, because the text of vol. 3. of SS is quoted from the more various Buddhist sutra than others.
There is a tendency for SS to be treated as a more special one than other 15th-century Hangeul literatures from the viewpoint of its style. But SS is also basically normal 15th-century Hangeul literature which are normally translated from Chinese literature, mainly from Buddhist sutra, only except for no original Chinese text on the literature.
We need continuously to find out the original Chinese text of SS in order to investigate its philological characteristic, its editors' intention and its style, etc.

참고자료

· 없음