The word Náyún (拏雲) appeared in the Tang Dynasty, which was mostly used to describe people’s lofty aspiration, and then produced the verb-object phrases with structure of “Verb (grasp) + Noun (cloud/fog rain/snow)” such as Náyúnwòwù (拏雲擭霧) and so on. In the process of use, ná yún wò wù have been replaced by same word class morphemes or near-synonymy morphemes, and produced phrases like Náyúntǔwù (拏雲吐霧) as well as Náyúnténgxiāo (拏雲騰霄) that describe high ability or magnificent momentum; these phrases are often used as predicates or objects in sentences. Sháobǔ (杓卜) originally refers to use the Big Dipper for divination, while the latter Sháo (杓) refers to wooden dippers and wine-taking dippers which are similar in shape to the Big Dipper. Because the soothsayers can’t be trusting, Zen-Buddhist takes Sháo (杓) to show that they can’t trust words to soothsayers, but should comprehend Zen by personally feeling and understanding. Driven by the evolution of Chinese disyllabic words and influenced by the flexibility and diversity of Zen language, the verb-object structure phrase Yāliángwéijiàn (壓良爲賤) has changed from a verb-object structure phrase to a verb Yāliáng (壓良) that means pushing someone.

The famous Korean monster Shizishan cited many documents to annotate “Shichaoshi”, which included ten seven-character Octaves written by the famous Tang poet Wen Tingyun. This paper tries to compare it to “The chronicle of Tang Poetry”, “Youxuan Anthology”, “Tang Poetry Guchui”, “Appreciation of Tang Poetry”, “Tang Poetry” and finds some dissimilarities among them. This paper aims to make a textual study on it and argue the merits and demerits of the dissimilarities. The quotations in “Shichaoshi” involved many ancient classics, but were given too simple explanation. For example, it didn’t annotate the well-known “Huanzi Xinlun”. What’s more, it abbreviated the book names, “Yu” for “Lunyu”, “Xuan” for “Wenxuan”, but it didn’t give an appendix of short forms. This will bring difficulty for the offspring to collect and edit the lost ancient books. It is the modern people’s responsibility to correct the mistakes made to the ancient classics in passing from generation to generation.

서평

LÜ Zu-Qian, ZHEN De-Xiu, and JIN Lü-Xiang are all renowned Neo-Confucianists during the Song Dynasty. Their viewpoint on literature was built on Confucianism’s Tao and they considered sentences from Liu Jing canon for their sentence structuring. Yet there are differences in compilations they made regarding selection of literatures and writers based on their selection criteria. LÜ Zu-Qian’s Song Wen Jian contained various works and writing styles, adhering to the emperor’s order to select sentences that would do good for politics. However, his compilation is criticized for lack of coherence. His another compilation Gu Wen Guan Jian mainly consists of sentences of archaic prose writers, holding true to its purpose of guide to sentence structuring. Taken together, overarching characteristics of LÜ’s compilations are purpose of guide to sentence building. ZHEN De-Xiu viewed sentence as part of academic pursuit, and argued that literature should identify sages’ findings and teachings. And it should be practically useful for the country, not merely a talk for talking’s sake. Holding true to such belief, ZHEN compiled Wen Zhang Zheng Zong by dividing the compilation into four sections: CiMing (purpose), YiLun (exchange of opinion), XuShi (launch work) and ShiFu (verse and prose) in a bid to teach readers for what the right kind of literature works is. This book, albeit stronger philosophical thought of Neo-Confucianism of the Song Dynasty compared to LÜ’s compilations, is mainly intended as a guide to creation of literature. JIN Lü-Xiang’s Lian Luo Feng Ya, the first compilation of poems written by Neo-Confucianists of the Song Dynasty contains the Lian Luo School’s poems and proses to identify the school’s origin and scholastic mantles. JIN put his painting Lian Luo Feng Ya Tu on the first page to demonstrate his academic tradition as a successor of Zhu Xi, and arranged literature works in the order of this. It has an implication as the first compilation of the Song's Neo-Confucianists’ poems that abstracted poems created by figures of the Lian Luo School and reestablished line of the Lian Luo School, a big move from traditional framework of compilation for traditional literatures.

산문 몇 편만 알려졌던 정약전(丁若銓, 1758-1816)의 시문집이 발견되었다. 정약전과 정약용 형제는 흑산도와 강진으로 유배된 뒤에 자주 시와 편지를 주고받았다. 이번에 소개하는 『여유당집(與猶堂集)』은 두 형제가 이 시기에 지은 글들을 수집하여 필사한 책인데, 여기에 실린 글 가운데 「송정사의(松政私議)」를 제외한 정약전의 글들은 지금까지 소개된 적이 없었다. 『여유당집』의 첫 부분 「여유당집」에는 정약용이 정약전에게 보낸 편지(上仲兄書)가 9편 실렸다. 그 뒤에 실린 「잡설(雜說)」은 정약용이 강진 유배생활에 대한 보고서를 정약전에게 보내자, 정약전이 그에 화답하여 지은 것인데 『여유당전서(與猶堂全書)』에 실리지 않은 글도 있다. 두 번째 부분인 「여유당시집(與猶堂詩集)」에는 정약용이 강진에서 지어 정약전에게 보냈던 시 22제(題) 37수(首)가 실려 있다. ‘이하 손관(以下 巽舘, 가칭 정약전시문집)’에는 정약전이 지은 시 32제 40수가 실려 있다. 이런 점들로 미루어보면, 「여유당집」과 「여유당시집」· ‘이하 손관(가칭 정약전시문집)’을 함께 필사한 편집자는 강진의 정약용이 흑산도의 정약전에게 보낸 시문과 정약전이 흑산도에서 지은 글들을 함께 편집하는 데 목적이 있었다고 생각된다. 정약용과 달리 정약전은 섬의 어부나 나무꾼들과 어울려 술을 마시며 지냈다. 또 이들과 시를 주고받기도 했다. 정약용은 그곳 주민들을 ‘오랑캐 같은 섬사람’이라 표현했지만, 정약전은 나무꾼 고기잡이들과 기쁘게 친구가 되었다. 왕조실록에 나오는 흑산도는 대부분 유배지였는데, 유배 온 문인들은 자신이 몸담고 있는 섬의 자연을 노래하였을 뿐, 그 섬의 사람들과 어울려 시를 짓지는 않았다. 자신과 섬을 별개로 여기고, 자신은 잠시 있다가 떠날 존재로 인식한 것이다. 그러나 정약전은 흑산도와 하나가 되어, 흑산도를 문학의 현장으로 승화시켰다. 『玆山魚譜』가 어부들과 함께 쓴 물고기 생태학 보고서이고, 「송정사의(松政私議)」가 나무꾼들을 위해서 제출한 정책건의문이라면, 정약전 시문집은 어부나 나무꾼들과 친구가 되어 주고받은 흑산도 16년의 자서전이라고 할 수 있다.