본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

최부의 <표해록>에 대한 두 가지 의문

Two Enigmas in Choi Bu's Pyohaerok

0

조회

0

다운로드

9

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류한국어와문학

초록

This paper addresses two problems concerning Pyohaerok by Choi Bu that have been unnoticed or neglected so far in the academic circle. One is on the existence of dual title: Jungjo Mungyeon Ilgi and Pyohaerok. It is doubtful whether the two titles were intended to mean the same or only one title was meant to be appropriate. The other concern is how Choi Bu, a member of Confucian magnates who followed Jeompiljae Kim Jongjik, actually responded to the life-threatening experience of going adrift at sea and what it truly meant to him on the spot. The existing studies seem to overlook a possible significance of these questions, often bypassing the truth. 1. Why did he originally entitled the book Jungjo Mungyeon Ilgi, but why was it posthumously retitled to Pyohaerok? According to Joseon Wangjo Sillok, King Seonjong recommended him to write a journal. Choi Bu, under obligation, narrated his experience in a form of journal to dedicate it to the king, so that the title included 'journal.' But a question arises: why did he restrict himself then by entitling his journal Jungjo Mungyeon Ilgi instead of directly mentioning the days or experiences lost at sea? Did he think little of his wreckage experience? Very unlikely. Literature has it that Choi Bu told those who came to comfort him all the stories of his boat's going adrift at sea after wreckage, even to the extent that he came to be slandered afterwards. All these facts considered, it is more likely that he had to use two tactics for narration: candidness before his friends and a lesson-gathering, royalty-proving attitude before the king's court. The reason why the book came to adopt the title Pyohaerok after his death is deemed to hint at the awareness that the inappropriateness or the limitation of the first title should be anyhow overcome. 2. How did the author respond to this crisis of life and death? In the existing studies, Choi Bu's scholarly nonchalant attitude unlike that of the crew members was underscored. It is beyond our imagination, however, that he only sticked to a rational attitude as a Confucian magnate rather than rely upon a religious supplication. Facing an extreme danger, in fact, the Confucian magnates in Joseon tended to respond religiously contrary to our common belief, which makes us in limbo so far as Choi Bu's reluctance to pray for heavenly salvation. A scrutiny into Pyohaerok indicates, however, that Choi Bu was not an exception since there was a scene where the author's religious appeal was present without doubt. In front of death, Choi Bu prayed to Heaven, not merely trying to rationally cope with the crisis. It is noteworthy that the academic circle has not properly addressed the problem yet. The reason might be a prejudice regarding the relationship between Confucianism and Confucian magnates and their religion. The prejudice could extend to the biased belief that there is no idea of God in Confucianism, all the magnates thus being naturally atheists. The religious attitude of Choi Bu is different from that of shamanism since it is differentiated in terms of perceived cause of suffering, the nature of prayer and so on. First, he ascribed the cause of suffering to his own sins. Second, his prayer is not just for personal benefit, unlike the shamanistic tradition. More precisely, it is a petition for the lives of 40 other crew members since he prays for mercy making it clear that the lives of innocent people should not be claimed. This prayer of Choi Bu's as a Confucian magnate runs up to a redemptive prayer, which is believed to set an example for today's elite.

Abstract

This paper addresses two problems concerning Pyohaerok by Choi Bu that have been unnoticed or neglected so far in the academic circle. One is on the existence of dual title: Jungjo Mungyeon Ilgi and Pyohaerok. It is doubtful whether the two titles were intended to mean the same or only one title was meant to be appropriate. The other concern is how Choi Bu, a member of Confucian magnates who followed Jeompiljae Kim Jongjik, actually responded to the life-threatening experience of going adrift at sea and what it truly meant to him on the spot. The existing studies seem to overlook a possible significance of these questions, often bypassing the truth. 1. Why did he originally entitled the book Jungjo Mungyeon Ilgi, but why was it posthumously retitled to Pyohaerok? According to Joseon Wangjo Sillok, King Seonjong recommended him to write a journal. Choi Bu, under obligation, narrated his experience in a form of journal to dedicate it to the king, so that the title included 'journal.' But a question arises: why did he restrict himself then by entitling his journal Jungjo Mungyeon Ilgi instead of directly mentioning the days or experiences lost at sea? Did he think little of his wreckage experience? Very unlikely. Literature has it that Choi Bu told those who came to comfort him all the stories of his boat's going adrift at sea after wreckage, even to the extent that he came to be slandered afterwards. All these facts considered, it is more likely that he had to use two tactics for narration: candidness before his friends and a lesson-gathering, royalty-proving attitude before the king's court. The reason why the book came to adopt the title Pyohaerok after his death is deemed to hint at the awareness that the inappropriateness or the limitation of the first title should be anyhow overcome. 2. How did the author respond to this crisis of life and death? In the existing studies, Choi Bu's scholarly nonchalant attitude unlike that of the crew members was underscored. It is beyond our imagination, however, that he only sticked to a rational attitude as a Confucian magnate rather than rely upon a religious supplication. Facing an extreme danger, in fact, the Confucian magnates in Joseon tended to respond religiously contrary to our common belief, which makes us in limbo so far as Choi Bu's reluctance to pray for heavenly salvation. A scrutiny into Pyohaerok indicates, however, that Choi Bu was not an exception since there was a scene where the author's religious appeal was present without doubt. In front of death, Choi Bu prayed to Heaven, not merely trying to rationally cope with the crisis. It is noteworthy that the academic circle has not properly addressed the problem yet. The reason might be a prejudice regarding the relationship between Confucianism and Confucian magnates and their religion. The prejudice could extend to the biased belief that there is no idea of God in Confucianism, all the magnates thus being naturally atheists. The religious attitude of Choi Bu is different from that of shamanism since it is differentiated in terms of perceived cause of suffering, the nature of prayer and so on. First, he ascribed the cause of suffering to his own sins. Second, his prayer is not just for personal benefit, unlike the shamanistic tradition. More precisely, it is a petition for the lives of 40 other crew members since he prays for mercy making it clear that the lives of innocent people should not be claimed. This prayer of Choi Bu's as a Confucian magnate runs up to a redemptive prayer, which is believed to set an example for today's elite.

참고문헌 (16)

  1. 김기주, "조선중기 錦南 崔溥의 정치활동", 역사학연구, 24(24), pp.191~232 (2005), 호남사학회
  2. 김기주, "『漂海錄』의 저자 崔溥 연구", 역사학연구, 19, pp.233~258 (2002), 호남사학회
  3. 박원호, "최부 표해록 번역 술평", 한국사학보, 21 (2005)
  4. 박원호, "최부 표해록 판본고", 서지학연구, 26 (2003), 서지학회
  5. 서인범, "조선 관인의 눈에 비친 중국의 강남-최부 <표해록(漂海錄)>을 중심으로", 동국사학, 37 (2002), 동국사학회
  6. 서인범, "표해록" (2004), 한길사
  7. 서인석, "최부의 <표해록>에 나타난 해외 체험과 체험의 대화적 재구성", 고전문학과 교육, 13 (2007), 한국고전문학교육학회
  8. 서인석, "최부의 표해록과 사림파 관료의 중국체험", 한국문화연구, 10 (2006), 이화여자대학교 한국문화연구원
  9. 안동준, "해상 사행문학과 천비신앙", 도남학보, 16 (1997), 도남학회
  10. 이광호, "상제관을 중심으로 본 유학과 기독교의 만남", 유교사상연구, 19 (2003), 한국유교학회
  11. 이복규, "묵재일기에 나타난 조선전기의 민속" (1999), 민속원
  12. 이종건, "한국한문학개론" (1991), 보진재
  13. 장덕순, "이국기행의 ?금남표해록" (1995), 박이정
  14. 조동일, "죽음과 질병을 맞이하는 선인들의 자세" (1994), 서울대학교출판부
  15. 주성지, "표해록을 통한 한중항로 분석", 동국사학, 37 (2002), 동국사학회
  16. 최래옥, "비교민속학", 비교민속학, 10 (1993), 비교민속학회

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (13건)