『於于野談』 소재 귓신담 一考

Abstract

This study examined about characteristics and symbolical significance in Gwishin(鬼神), which is material of Eouyadam(於于野 談). The attitude in Yu Mong-in(柳夢寅), who recorded a story of having material as Gwishin(鬼神-ghost), was showing quite difference from a Confucian theory of Gwishin, which had been the dominant ideology at that time. Yu Mong-in is indicating post-Confucian propensity different from a Confucian theory of Gwishin, which had tried to describe life (生), death(死), and existence in Gwishin with Hapsan(合散) and Ulgyeol(鬱結) in energy(氣). Such propensity had been embodied literarily into the diverse looks in Eouyadam. What a story of Gwishin is recorded in Eouyadam was regarded as a reason why Yu Mong-in had post-Confucian propensity and is accepting the relativism of Chuang-tzu. The symbolic meaning in Gwishin of Eouyadam, first, is what reveals the wound and the lack in a human being due to war, a lean year, and epidemic, and second, is what criticized a irrationally political situation at that time, which had been severe in party strife for struggling for rights, by establishing specific space. Finally in the aspect that two souls dwell in one body or that the dead ghosts proceed with living together in one space called the world of life, Yu Mong-in saw it as what confusion and disorder in society at that time came to be metaphorical. In Im Bang(任埅 1640∼1724)’s Cheonyerok(天倪錄), which appeared following Yu Mong-in’s Eouyadam is described even many of stories, which are entirely consistent in behaviors or reasons of having come to appear, as well as stories, which have the almost same motive as Eouyadam . By the way, Cheonyerok was expanded the same story of Gwishin into the more complex structure, thereby having characteristic that is definitely distinguished from Eouyadam. Given comparing Gwishin in Cheonyerok and Gwishin in Eouyadam, both works seem to be likely to come to be clear in its characteristics. This is left as future task.