이 논문은 도학가류 가사작품을 대상으로 하여 작자 내지 필사자의 정치적 입장이나 이념에 따른 이본 분화의 특징을 모색하고자 한다. 문학작품을 연구 하는데 있어서 당대의 사회적⋅정치적 동향을 배제하고 작품을 읽어낼 수는 없다. 왜냐하면 이것은 작품을 만들어낸 작가의 의식과 연결되는 것으로 동시대의 작품일지라도 작가의 의도에 따라 사회적⋅정치적 동향은 다르게 전달될 수 있기 때문이다.
가사의 경우, 조선후기 활발하게 유통⋅전승되면서 작품의 원전은 여러모로 변모하여 많은 이본이 발생하게 된다. 이때 원작자의 작품과 제목이 비교적 온전히 전승되는 경우도 있지만, 작품의 내용은 물론이고 제목까지 바뀌어 전하는 경우도 흔하다. 작품이 전승되는 과정에서 표기법의 차이, 어구나 어휘의 누락 내지 오기는 필사자의 실수에 의한 것으로 원전의 내용을 크게 훼손시키지 않으므로 원전을 확정하고 연구하는데 큰 문제가 되지 않는다. 그러나 원전을 바탕으로 한 또 다른 작자의 재창작 내지 필사자의 의도적 개입에 따른 변형은 문제가 다르다. 필사자의 문학관과 이데올로기가 반영된 것으로 이는 작품의 전반에 영향을 끼치게 되고, 원전과는 전혀 다른 이본의 발생을 초래하기 때문이다.
이 논문은 이러한 특징이 비교적 잘 드러나는 도학가류 가사작품을 대상으로 하여 먼저 도학가류 가사작품에 드러나는 도맥의 양상을 살펴보았다.당파에 따른 이본 분화를 논의하기에 앞서 기존 가사자료집에 나타난 도학의 흐름을 전체적으로 조망하였다. 그리고 작자 내지 필사자의 이념에 따라 이본이 분화되는 양상을 개별 작품을 통해 확인해보았다.
The purpose of this study was to identify the characteristics of different version speciation of Ethics Verses according to political views and visions of writers or transcribers. we cannot read literary works without thinking of social and political trend of the contemporary times, because the consciousness of the writer is deeply rooted at or connected with their social and political inclinations and different social and political trends can be shown according to the intention of the writers even among contemporary works.
Gasa, which is a kind of verse and a representative literary genre in Chosun, was actively distributed and transcribed in late Chosun. While they were transcribed, the original work was changed and many different versions were created. There were some cases that the title and contents by original writer were passed down relatively intact but there were also many cases that title as well as contents was changed completely.
For example, if there were mistakes of transcribers such as expression, omission and wrong replacement of words or phrases, it did not make big problems in fixing and studying the original version because they would not damage the contents of the original version. But it would make problems if some other writers made intentional intervention or tried to recreate the work based on the original version. Intentional intervention of transcribers who are not an original writer would reflect the vision of literature and ideologies of the transcribers and it will influence overall aspects of the work, which results in a different version.
The discourse is divided into three. First, categorization of Ethics Verses was tried. Conventionally, Ethics Verses were divided into Instructional Verses, Moral Verses and Warning Verses, but Ethics Verses which describe Confucianism and theory and tradition of Ethics can be said to have different characteristics from these verses. Inclusively, Ethics Verses mean the works specifying Confucianism or theory and flow of Ethics. However, even when main contents of the works are about warning, lesson, weird behaviors and repaying the kindness, they can be classified as Ethics Verses if they specify the flow or tradition of Ethics.
Second, works studying the flow or tradition of Ethicsshown in the verses such as Anthology of Verses by ImGi‐jungand other manuscript materials were reviewed. Although there were many verses showing the flow of Confucianism, there were only a few works specifying the pedigree of Confucians.
Third, the aspects of speciation of different versions according to writer or transcribers were studied through individual works. First of all, comparing<Hwangnambyeolgok> and<Hwangsanbyeolgok>, it was found that two works had more than 80% identical contents. As <Hwangsanbyeolgok> is half century behind of <Hwangnambyeolgok>,<Hwangsanbyeolgok> seems to revise <Hwangnambyeolgok>. Particularly, <Hwangsanbyeolgok>specifies the tradition of Ethics in Korea as PoeunJeongMong‐ju, Hanhweondang Kim Going‐pil, IlduJeongHyo‐chang, Jeongam Cho Gwang‐jo and Toigye Lee Hwang unlike <Hwangnambyeolgok>. It excluded Yulgok and Uam who were mentioned in <Hwangnambyeolgok>. It is because Yun Hee‐bae who was a writer belonging to Gihonam modified <Hwangnambyeolgok> according to his intention, which was written from the perspective of Noron.
Although<Songbisanga> and<Songbisangyusangga> have more than 50% identical contents, they show ideological conflicts. <Songbisanga> does not have direct ideological comments in the verse, but the intention of the writer or transcriber is shown through the editing work that publishes works of Yulgok and Uam in the same volume. On the contrary,<Songbisangyusangga> mentions writers belonging to Naminallotting much space. Although it is difficult to find out which one is the first or the original version, it is certain that the transcriber of each version intentionally deleted or added some contents according to their ideology.
