『國朝詩刪』의 평어 연구－三唐詩人의 한시를 중심으로

Abstract

Gukjosisan is an anthology compiled in 1607 by Heo Gyun(1569-1618) who is regarded as one of the best literature critics in the Joseon Dynasty with the selected poems in various styles from early Joseon to his time. Since Heo Gyun was executed in relation to a plot of treason, Gukjosisan had been passed on in the hand-copied manner until 1695 when it was organized and published through the woodblock printing by Pak Tae-sun(1653-1704). Gukjosisan is not only famous for its fairness in the selection of poems but also helpful for the readers to understand by adding pertinent critique(bi and pyeong) and the reason for the selection for each poem. Hand-copied Gukjosisan includes additional critiques that are missing in the woodblock anthology so that we can get a glimpse of Heo Gyun's attitude toward selected poems. As previous studies pointed out, Heo Gyun highly praised Tang poems and was critical about Song poems, and was recognized as notifying the contribution of Three Tang Poets who made Tang style popular in the mid Joseon. When Heo Gyun compiled Gukjosisan, he included 103 poems under 95 titles of Three Tang Poets, 95 among which he added critiques. While his criticism(bi) mainly dealt with aesthetics and background of the artworks as whole, his criticism(pyeong) mainly discussed aesthetics of certain lines. However, as it is difficult to clearly differentiate bi and pyeong, and there is no distinction of them in the hand-copied anthology, it is not certain whether Heo Gyun himself made the distinction or Pak Tae-sun did in the process of woodblock printing compilation. Anyhow those critiques can be classified into; aesthetics of the works with style terminology; relations to certain styles; appreciation of the works with the phrases from previous books; backgrounds or meanings of the poems and the public evaluation of them, and the first three critiques are clearly found in the poems of Three Tang Poets. In the aesthetics of the works with style terminology, phrases showing each poet's unique sense of aesthetics are suggested. The relations to certain styles, mainly to Tang poems, are composed of impressions on the works as whole and certain poets' styles. Finally in the appreciation of the works with the phrases from previous books; words of criticism are mostly borrowed from Seseolsineo and its revised edition Seseolsineobo, and used for the metaphorical evaluation of the poems without much escaping the original meanings.