earticle

영어

This paper aims to conduct an inductive analysis on the results of bibliographic research on Inkyō(韻鏡, also known as Yunjing, or “Mirror of Rhymes”), drawing from the academia of East Asian countries such as Korea, China, and Japan, and review each one’s theories. The results of the research are divided into the following three themes in this paper: the time of completion of Inkyō(韻鏡), the rhyme book upon which Inkyō(韻鏡) was based, and the editions of Inkyō(韻鏡). In the aforementioned academia, it is assumed that there was a rhyme table to which Inkyō(韻鏡) referred in its preface. There is an ongoing debate as to when the prototype of Inkyō(韻鏡) was completed. Sato(1930) holds that the original version of Inkyō(韻鏡) was completed before the Sui and Tang dynasties, Oya(1978) said that the Sui dynasty was the time of completion, and Kim(2000), Oshima(2003), Ogawa(1977), Todo and Kobayashi (1977) and Luo Changpei(1935) all agree that the prototype was completed during the Tang dynasty. Choi(2000) said the time of completion was around the end of the Tang Dynasty. All academic circles have agreed that the rhyme book to which Inkyō(韻鏡) referred utilized the QieYun(切韻) rhyme system. However, there were different theories as to what kind of rhyme book was specifically based on it. Ogura(2006) proposed the theory of Li Zhou(李舟)'s book, QieYun; Sato (1930) held the theory of the Tangyun(唐韻) books; Ge(1957) and Yang(2006) said that there had been a rhyme book from the Qieyun rhyme system in Tang dynasty which no longer exists and that Inkyō(韻鏡) referred to this book; and Li(1986) theorized that it was the Yunlue(韻略), which was published by the ministry of rites during Jingde times. None of the rhyme books that have been handed down are completely consistent with Inkyō(韻鏡), so it will require further research. As a result of a comprehensive investigation of the editions of the Inkyō(韻鏡), a few key variations were found. There was the impressive research such as Inkyō(韻鏡) exhibition Catalog(1939) published by Ōtani university library in Japan, Mabuchi(1970), Yang(2006), Liu and Deng(2011) etc. According to Mabuchi (1970), it was divided into manuscripts and printed books. Liu and Deng(2011) introduced 29 different editions of Inkyō(韻鏡). Although many scholars in the Korean Sinology academia have conducted research on Inkyō(韻鏡) from a bibliographic perspective, Korean academia still needs to focus on the problems of how Inkyō(韻鏡) was imported from China and how many editions of Inkyō(韻鏡) were published on or transported to the Korean peninsula.

한국어

본 논문에서는 동아시아 한국, 중국, 일본 학계의 『韻鏡』에 대한 문헌학 연구 성과를 『韻鏡』의 저술년대, 『韻鏡』이 기초한 운서, 『韻鏡』 판본 등으로 나누어 대표 성과를 정리하였다. 각 학계에서는 『韻鏡』의 序文으로부터 『韻鏡』의 원형이 되는 등운도가 있었음을 가정하고 있으며, 『韻鏡』의 원형이 언제 완성되었는지에 대하여 논쟁이 지속되고 있음을 알 수 있었다.『韻鏡』의 원형이 완성된 시기를 수당 이전으로 보는 설은 사토 진노스케(佐藤仁之助, 1930), 수대 설은 오오야 토오루(大矢透, 1978), 당대 설은 김정빈(2000), 오가와 타마키(小川還樹, 1977), 토도 아키야스(藤堂明保)･코바야시 히로시(小林博)(1977), 쇼지 오시마(大島正二, 2003), 羅常培(1935), 당말 설은 최영애(2000), 당말오대 설은 미츠다 신조(滿田新造, 1917), 후쿠나가 세이야(福永靜哉, 1992), 송대 설은 고노 로쿠로(河野六郎, 1996), 李新魁(2004) 등의 학자가 주장하였다. 각 학계에서는『韻鏡』이 기초한 운서가 『韻鏡』계 운서라는 점에 모두 동의하였다. 그러나 구체적으로 어떠한 운서를 바탕으로 했는가에 대해서는 차이를 보였는데, 李舟의 『切韻』 설은 오구라 하지메(小倉肇, 2006), 『韻鏡』 설은 사토 진노스케(佐藤仁之助, 1930), 당나라 운서 설에는 葛毅卿(1957), 楊軍(2007), 『景德韻略』 설은 李新魁(1986) 등이 있다. 현전하는 운서 중 어느 하나도 『韻鏡』과 완전히 일치하는 운서가 없기 때문에 이 또한 계속해서 연구되어야 할 것이다. 󰡔『韻鏡諸本展觀目錄』(1939), 마부치 카즈오(馬淵和夫, 1970), 楊軍(2007) 등의 연구에서 현전하는 『韻鏡』 판본에 대해 전면적으로 조사한 결과, 寫本과 刊本으로 나뉘며, 劉華江･鄧超群(2011)에서는 이 판본 중 29종을 정리하여 소개하였다. 한국 중국어학계에서도 적지 않은 학자들에 의하여『韻鏡』이 문헌학 관점에서 연구되었으나, 한반도에『韻鏡』이 유입된 과정과 현전하는 한국의 『韻鏡』 판본을 중심으로 연구될 필요가 있다.

일본어

本論文では東アジア韓国、中国、日本学界の『韻鏡』に対する文献学的研究成果を『韻鏡』の著述年代、『韻鏡』が基礎した韻書、『韻鏡』版本などに分けて代表成果を整理した。 各学界では｢韻鏡｣の序文から『韻鏡』の原型になる等韻図があったことを仮定しており、｢韻鏡｣の原型がいつ完成されたかについて論争が続いていることが分かった。『韻鏡』の原型が完成された時期を隋唐以前と見る説は佐藤仁之助(1930)、隋代説は大矢徹(1978)、羅常培(1935)、唐代説は金正彬(2000)、大島正二(2003)、小川環樹(1977)、藤堂明保･小林博(1977)、唐末説は崔英愛(2000)、唐末五代説は滿田新造(1917)と福永靜哉(1992)、宋代説は李新魁(2004)や河野六郎(1996)などの学者が主張した。 各学界では｢韻鏡｣が基礎した韻書が｢切韻｣系韻書という点に皆同意した。しかし具体的にどのような韻書を基にしたのかについては違いがあったが、李舟の『切韻』説は小倉肇(2006)、『韻鏡』説は佐藤仁之助(1930)、唐代の韻書説には葛毅卿(1957)、楊軍(2007)、『景徳韻略』説は李新魁(1986)などがいる。現伝する韻書のうちどれも『韻鏡』と完全に一致する韻書がないため、これもまた引き続き研究されなければならないだろう。 『韻鏡諸本展観目録』(1939)、馬淵和夫(1970)、楊軍(2007)などの研究で現伝する『韻鏡』版本について全面的に調査した結果、写本と刊本に分かれ、劉華江･鄧超群(2011)ではこの版本のうち29種をまとめて紹介した。 韓国中国語学界でも少なくない学者たちによって『韻鏡』が文献学的観点から研究されたが、韓半島に『韻鏡』が流入された過程と現伝する韓国の『韻鏡』版本を中心に研究される必要がある。