洪大容을 둘러싼 오해와 진실

Abstract

This article has discussed around a number of recent issues surrounding Hong Dae-yong. First, it is the 『Seongyuldangnongso』 incident of Lee Deok-moo. Lee Deok-moo participated in the poetry and literature writing of 『Hoeseongwonjip』 and 「Damwonpalyoung」 to have Hong Dae-yong and exchange to meet each other for the first time. In fact, after 「Damwonpalyoung」, he left writings on the yukbi that was kept by Hong Dae-yong and paintings and calligraphic works of Ban Jeong-gyun and further participated in 「Geongonilchojeongjeyoung」 of Hong Dae-yong. Such a fact is conforming to the contents of the Lee Deok-moo's annual report. Therefore, the 『Seongyuldangnongso』 incident of Lee Deok-moo would be the content that may mislead with the dual attitude of Hong Dae-yong on Lee Deok-moo unless the Hong Dae-yong related literatures are not closely reviewed. Second, 『Ganjeongdong-Pildam』, 『Ganjeong-Pildam』, and 『Ganjeongdong- Pildam』 are the subject of the written communication of Hong Dae-yong. As part of 『Ganjeongdong-Hoewurok』, since 『Ganjeong-rok』 2 was introduced to the academic circle, it is still one of the hottest issues of discussion. 『Ganjeongdong-Pildam』 did not have any traces anywhere before 『Damdeon-seo』, and it was not listed on 『Yeonhui』 that was broadly distributed and handed down as it listed 『Yeonhaeng-ilgi』, 『Damheon-yeongi』 and 『Yeolha-ilgi』 that were referred to as the 3 major Yeonhaeng-roks in the 18th century. However, in 『Jeungjusipilgasiseon』 of Yoo Deuk-gong, it showed the situation where Hong Dae-yong wrote 2 volumes of 『Ganjeong-Pildam』 and 3 volumes of 『Hoewu-rok』 and kept them at his residence upon his return to his country. It is attributable to the fact that, even during the time around 1777, Hong Dae-yong revised 3 volumes of 『Ganjeongdong-Hoewurok』 to complete 『Ganjeong-Pildam』 and he kept those 3 volumes of 『Ganjeongdong-Hoewurok』 without disposing them. Accordingly, it is the time that the written communication study of Hong Dae-yong requires more empirical work than the text aspect. And third, with the literatures related to Hong Dae-yong that are kept in the Korea Christian Museum of Soongsil University are known in the academic circle, it is the newly emerged aspect. It introduced the only data to convey by a copier as it is the ‘Mujasamwolchosamilsiseo. geonjeonghupyeon.’ of 『Ganjeonghupyeon』2. Significant interests were generated as to when ‘Muja’ would be finalized and it would be reasonable to consider the Year of Muja was not 1768, but 60 years thereafter in 1828. This is profoundly related to the situation with the copy of 『Eulbyeongyeonhaeng-rok』 from the Hong Dae-yong family. After the passing of Hong Dae-yong, it is assumed that the literary men of China summarized the poetry and literature of Hong Dae-yong and his descendents collected and organized the poetry and literature of Hong Dae-yong to transcribe 『Ganjeong-hupyeon』 and 『Ganjeong-bupyeon』. Up to this time, the academic circle has been studies with 『Damdeon-seo』 as the basic text, but 『Damdeon-seo』 contained significant errors and omissions in the original context or works with extremely chaotic system and formation. Even in the record of Jung In-bo, it would be far insufficient to call as a complete text. Therefore, it is urgent to prepare the genuine copy of 『Damdeon-seo』 on the basis of comprehensive and sophisticated text research that encompasses the literatures related to Hong Dae-yong. This is to imply that it is a turning point of the Hong Dae-yong study as well as a new beginning.