본고는 주제별 분류 가집으로 널리 알려진 『古今歌曲』의 원본을 발굴하여 학계에 소개하고 轉寫 경로를 파악하였다. 지금까지 『古今歌曲』은 원본의 행방이 묘연한 상황에서 4종의 轉寫本만 전해오고 있다. 현재 『古今歌曲』의 원본의 행방에 대해서는 아사미 린타로[淺見倫太郞 : 1869-1943]가 소장했었다는 정보 이외에 어떠한 것도 알려진 것이 없다. 그런데 필자는 최근에 日本 宮內廳 書陵部에 소장된 『歌詞類聚』이라는 제목의 필사본 가집이 『古今歌曲』일 것이라는 단서를 포착하고 1928년 마에마 교오사쿠[前間恭作 : 1868-1942]가 작성했던 원본 해제와 轉寫本과의 對校를 통해 이 가집이 淺見倫太郞이 소장했던 『고금가곡』의 원본임을 확인하였다. 다만 원본에서도 가집명, 편찬 시기, 편자 및 지역성 문제 등 『고금가곡』을 둘러싼 주요 과제에 대한 해결의 실마리는 포착되지 않는다. 우리가 『고금가곡』의 전사와 관련하여 특별히 기억할 인물이 南滄 孫晉泰(1900-?)와 前間恭作이다. 이 두 사람은 누구보다도 먼저 『고금가곡』의 가치를 파악하고 원본을 전사하여 세상에 알린 이들이다. 하지만 前間恭作에 비해 손진태의 역할에 대해서는 우리에게 거의 알려진 것이 없다. 그런데 본고의 논의 결과 『고금가곡』의 가치가 알려진 데는 손진태가 결정적인 역할을 했다는 사실을 알 수 있었다. 孫晉泰는 1928년 3월 이은상에게 원본을 전사하게 한 후 『고금가곡』의 특성에 대해 前間恭作에게 자문을 구했던 바, 前間恭作은 그해 4월에 해제를 작성하여 손진태에게 주는 한편 원본을 정밀하게 전사하였던 것으로 파악했다. 하지만 두 사람의 轉寫에 대한 관점과 태도는 사뭇 달랐다. 前間恭作本은 轉寫本 가운데 유일하게 원본의 完帙을 전사한 판본이다. 前間恭作本을 일별하면 얼마나 충실하게 原本을 전사하려했던가를 곳곳에서 확인할 수 있다. 이러한 轉寫 태도는 일본의 식민지 지배의 일환으로 한국 연구를 시작한 日人 학자의 한국의 古典籍에 대한 서지학적 관심에서 나온 것이다. 반면에 남창본은 국문시가를 중심으로 취사선택하여 전사하였다. 남창본은 漢詩 辭賦나 科體詩를 생략하고 「풍아별곡」부터 시작한다. 그 이유는 일차적으로 『朝鮮古歌謠集』의 간행을 준비하던 손진태에게 한문학 작품은 관심 대상이 아니었던 데서 찾을 수 있다. 우리는 여기에서 한문문학을 배제하고 순국문문학을 중심으로 우리문학사를 구성하려 했던 초기 국학 연구자들의 시각을 읽을 수 있다. 남창본이 가람본으로 가람본이 다시 도남본으로 거듭 전사되며 국내에서 유전된 이유도 이와 무관하지 않다.

In this thesis, I discovered the Gogeumgagok’s original text which was widely known as a topical classified anthology and introduced to the academic world. And I traced the Gogeumgagok’s transcriptions. Until now, we have hardly known the trace of the Gogeumgagok’s original text and we have just four versions of transcription. About the information of Gogeumgagok’s original text’s trace, we just have known that the original had been owned by Asami Rintaro[淺見倫太郞: 1869-1943]. However I recently got a clue that Gasayuchwi which is a transcript of anthology at library of Imperial Household Agency in Japan is Gogeumgagok. And then I compared this transcript with the original bibliographical introduction which was written by Maema Gyoosaku[前間恭作: 1868-1942] and Maema Gyoosaku version which is closed to the original. Therefore I confirmed that this transcript is the original had been owned by Asami Rintaro. However I could not find the main questions about Gogeumgagok like the anthology’s name, the compilation’s time, compiler and area etc. We should remember Namchang 南滄, Jin-Tae Son(孫晉泰: 1900-?) and Maema Gyoosaku regarding the transcription of Gogeumgagok. These two persons knew the value of Gogeumgagok, copied the script and introduced it to the world. However we hardly know Jin-Tae Son’s role as compared to Maema Gyoosaku. But I found that Jin-Tae Son played a key role in introducing of Gogeumgagok’s value. Jin-Tae Son let Eun-Sang Lee transcribe the original text in March, 1928. And he consulted Maema Gyoosaku about the characteristics of Gogeumgagok. Therefore I found that Maema Gyoosaku wrote the bibliographical introduction and gave it to Jin-Tae Son, and also precisely transcribed the original in April, 1928. However two persons’ viewpoints and attitudes were very different. Maema Gyoosaku version which was transcribed by Maema Gyoosaku is the only full version among the transcriptions. We could find how Maema Gyoosaku tried to transcribe closely the original when we read Maema Gyoosaku version. This kind of Maema Gyoosaku’s attitude to the Gogeumgagok’s transcription was from the Japanese scholar’s bibliographical interest for the Korean classical books. However Namchang version was transcribed focusing on the vernacular poetry. Namchang version‘s transcription was started from Pungabyelgok omitting Cifu (辭賦) and the poetry of state examination style(科體詩). Because Jin-Tae Son was preparing for the publishing of Joseongogayojip(朝鮮古歌謠集), he was not interested in poetry in Chinese. And scholars’ viewpoint in the early stage of Korean studies was reflected. They tried to compose the history of Korean literature focusing on the vernacular literature except Korean litera -ture in Chinese. That is why Gogeumgagok was transcribed from Namchang version to Garam version and from Garam version to Donam version.

In this thesis, I discovered the Gogeumgagok’s original text which was widely known as a topical classified anthology and introduced to the academic world. And I traced the Gogeumgagok’s transcriptions. Until now, we have hardly known the trace of the Gogeumgagok’s original text and we have just four versions of transcription. About the information of Gogeumgagok’s original text’s trace, we just have known that the original had been owned by Asami Rintaro[淺見倫太郞: 1869-1943]. However I recently got a clue that Gasayuchwi which is a transcript of anthology at library of Imperial Household Agency in Japan is Gogeumgagok. And then I compared this transcript with the original bibliographical introduction which was written by Maema Gyoosaku[前間恭作: 1868-1942] and Maema Gyoosaku version which is closed to the original. Therefore I confirmed that this transcript is the original had been owned by Asami Rintaro. However I could not find the main questions about Gogeumgagok like the anthology’s name, the compilation’s time, compiler and area etc. We should remember Namchang 南滄, Jin-Tae Son(孫晉泰: 1900-?) and Maema Gyoosaku regarding the transcription of Gogeumgagok. These two persons knew the value of Gogeumgagok, copied the script and introduced it to the world. However we hardly know Jin-Tae Son’s role as compared to Maema Gyoosaku. But I found that Jin-Tae Son played a key role in introducing of Gogeumgagok’s value. Jin-Tae Son let Eun-Sang Lee transcribe the original text in March, 1928. And he consulted Maema Gyoosaku about the characteristics of Gogeumgagok. Therefore I found that Maema Gyoosaku wrote the bibliographical introduction and gave it to Jin-Tae Son, and also precisely transcribed the original in April, 1928. However two persons’ viewpoints and attitudes were very different. Maema Gyoosaku version which was transcribed by Maema Gyoosaku is the only full version among the transcriptions. We could find how Maema Gyoosaku tried to transcribe closely the original when we read Maema Gyoosaku version. This kind of Maema Gyoosaku’s attitude to the Gogeumgagok’s transcription was from the Japanese scholar’s bibliographical interest for the Korean classical books. However Namchang version was transcribed focusing on the vernacular poetry. Namchang version‘s transcription was started from Pungabyelgok omitting Cifu (辭賦) and the poetry of state examination style(科體詩). Because Jin-Tae Son was preparing for the publishing of Joseongogayojip(朝鮮古歌謠集), he was not interested in poetry in Chinese. And scholars’ viewpoint in the early stage of Korean studies was reflected. They tried to compose the history of Korean literature focusing on the vernacular literature except Korean litera -ture in Chinese. That is why Gogeumgagok was transcribed from Namchang version to Garam version and from Garam version to Donam version.

, , , , , , ,

Gogeumgagok(古今歌曲), Songgyeyeonwolong(松桂煙月翁), anthology, sijo, Jin-Tae Son, Maema Gyoosaku [前間恭作], Asami Rintaro [淺見倫太郞], transcription