『동의보감』 初稿本 주장에 대한 반론 -筆寫本의 底本과 오류를 중심으로-

Abstract

Objectives : This study aims to refute the claim that a particular transcription of the Donguibogam(東醫寶鑑) is a draft manuscript, focusing on comparison with the original text and the errors in the transcription. Methods : The transcription in question was examined and compared with various surviving editions, including supplemented versions. Results : The transcribed text of Volume 11 (Miscellaneous Diseases(雜病)) is believed to correspond to the fifth type of the old edition, whereas that of Volume 1 (Inner Canon(內經)) is thought to correspond to the sixth type. The transcription was transcribed using a woodblock print as the base text, which is a combination of at least two types of editions, the fifth and sixth type of the old edition. Based on the handwritten contents of Volume 1 (Inner Canon) and Volume 11 (Miscellaneous Diseases) the examined transcription is presumed to be transcribed by a non-medical expert. Numerous errors found in the names and courtesy names of medical texts and physicians indicate that the transcription is not the original manuscript of a medical expert, but rather a copy made by a non-specialist. Conclusions : The examined transcription is presumed to be a copy rather than a draft manuscript of the Donguibogam. Future research should investigate additional transcription data if disclosed.