그동안 유일본으로 알려졌던 임형택본 <韋敬天傳>을 두고 몇 차례 교감 작업이 이루어진 바 있다. 그러나 이들 연구성과들이 궁극적으로 한 작품에 대한 보다 깊은 이해를 꾀하기 위한 초석으로서의 의미를 지니는 교감 작업의 실제 목표에 얼마나 근접했는지는 의문이 아닐 수 없다. 임형택본 <韋敬天傳>은 여러 가지 점을 고려할 때, 사실 그렇게 좋은 자료라고는 할 수 없다. 이런 점에서도 임형택본 <韋敬天傳>의 서술문면에서 확인되는 숱한 오류를 적극적으로 교감하려는 태도가 다시 한번 요청된다고 하겠다. 기존의 교감 작업들을 통하여 임본 <韋敬天傳>에 나타난 오류의 상당 부분이 바로잡혀질 수 있었지만, 그와는 달리 또 다른 오류를 그들이 의도했든 아니했든간에 범하였다는 사실을 근자에 입수한 몇 종의 <韋生傳>과의 비교 검토를 통하여 확인할 수 있었다.선행 연구에서 진행된 교감 작업의 문제점을, 첫째, 원문의 빠진 글자를 교감자가 채워넣은 경우. 둘째, 원문을 교감자가 바로 잡아 넣은 경우. 셋째, 원문을 교감자가 잘못 띄어쓴 경우. 넷째, 원문의 글자(체)를 교감자가 잘못 이해한 경우. 다섯째, 교감자의 분명한 잘못으로 보여지는 경우로 나누어, 이상의 경우에서 드러나는 오류의 실례를 먼저 구체적으로 지적한 뒤, 이어 그 오류의 많은 부분을 새롭게 발굴한 다른 이본과의 비교 검토를 통하여 정확히 교감할 수 있었다.보다 분명한 근거나 객관적 사실 등에 바탕하지 않고, 연구자의 의욕만이 앞서 교감 작업을 수행하다 오류가 발생하는 것보다는 새로운 이본이 출현하기까지 조금 더 기다려 완정한 의미의 교감 작업을 행하는 것이야말로 우리들이 향후 견지해야 할 현명한 자세라고 생각된다.

The Study on problems of making corrections in proofs of WheesaengJeon(=WheegyeongchonJeon) The manuscript of WheegyongchonJeon, which Lim, Hyeongtak's procession, was known to a single version and made corrections in several proofs. But the question is that these proofs were accomplished the final goal which is for trying to set up the foundation for appreciation the work. Frankly speaking, the Lim's manuscript is not good material for research due to a lot of miswritten words. So researchers bravely attempt to make corrections in proofs. Several proofs of WheegyeongchonJeon had been corrected many miswritten words. On the other hand, they intentionally or accidentally made mistakes through the process of proofs. It could be ascertained by contrasting Lim's WheegyongchonJeon with newly discovered ones. There are many types of mistakes which were made in proofs. They are interpolations, wrong proofreading, wrong spacing words, and misunderstanding on the shape of letter and several accidental faults. So I corrected the mistakes by contrasting Lim's WheegyongchonJeon with others which are newly discovered ones. When researchers try to make corrections in proofs, it should be based on the objective materials. They did not depend on the subjective inference.

The Study on problems of making corrections in proofs of WheesaengJeon(=WheegyeongchonJeon) The manuscript of WheegyongchonJeon, which Lim, Hyeongtak's procession, was known to a single version and made corrections in several proofs. But the question is that these proofs were accomplished the final goal which is for trying to set up the foundation for appreciation the work. Frankly speaking, the Lim's manuscript is not good material for research due to a lot of miswritten words. So researchers bravely attempt to make corrections in proofs. Several proofs of WheegyeongchonJeon had been corrected many miswritten words. On the other hand, they intentionally or accidentally made mistakes through the process of proofs. It could be ascertained by contrasting Lim's WheegyongchonJeon with newly discovered ones. There are many types of mistakes which were made in proofs. They are interpolations, wrong proofreading, wrong spacing words, and misunderstanding on the shape of letter and several accidental faults. So I corrected the mistakes by contrasting Lim's WheegyongchonJeon with others which are newly discovered ones. When researchers try to make corrections in proofs, it should be based on the objective materials. They did not depend on the subjective inference.

WheegyongchonJeon which Lim, WheegyongchonJeon which Lim, Hyeongtak's procession, WheesaengJeon which Jeong, Myeonggi's procession, WheesaengJeon which Yoo, Jaeyeong's procession, proofs, mistakes in proof. spacing words, shape of letter