추가 적립 안내

저자가 여러 해에 걸쳐 설화 연구에 집중해오면서 축적한 논문을 단행본으로 엮어낸 책이다. 멀리는 인도, 가까이는 중국과 일본에 접해있는 한국은 불교에 기반을 두고 인도와 중국의 문화적 영향을 받는 일면, 그것을 일본에 전해주는 위치에 있다. 이 책은 기본적으로 이러한 문화적 구도 속에서, 인도와 중국과 한국과 일본에 공통으로 전승되는 몇몇 주요 설화유형을 대상으로 하여, 비교적인 시야에서 접근하고 분석적으로 다루고 있다. 이러한 관점에서의 고찰을 통하여 한국의 설화를 대하는 시야를 확대하고, 각국 설화의 공통점과 함께 차이점을 더욱 깊이 이해하는 데 기여하고 있다. 민담을 주된 비교 연구 대상으로 삼고 있지만, 저자는 그 주변에 있는 전설이나 고시가 및 욕설에 대해서까지도 관심을 보여주고 있다. 또한 서동요의 ‘알’에 해석이나 에밀레종의 ‘유래담’ 등 쟁점 사항도 다루고 있어, 비교연구의 가능성과 필요성을 넓히는 데에 또 다른 시사점을 던져주고 있다.

■ ‘人不救’ 설화의 印·中·韓 비교 고찰
1. 머리말 ···················································································· 13
2. 인도전승 자료의 유형성 ·························································· 15
3. 중국 전승 유형의 유형성과 변이 모습 ····································· 24
4. 한국 전승 유형의 두 양상 ······················································· 30
5. 맺음말 ···················································································· 39
■ ‘두더지혼인’ 설화의 印·中·韓 비교적 고찰
1. 머리 ······················································································· 43
2. ?판차탄트라? 소재 ‘두더지혼인’담 ·········································· 45
3. 중국 전승 유형의 유형성과 변이 ············································· 51
4. 한국 전승 유형의 변이 ···························································· 55
5. 한국적 토착화의 또 다른 단계 ················································ 60
6. 맺음 ······················································································· 63
■ 한·중·인 ‘구복여행(求福旅行)’ 설화의 비교적 고찰
1. 머리말 ···················································································· 67
2. 불전 소재 인도 유형담의 설화적 기반 ····································· 69
3. 중국 전승 유형의 고찰 ···························································· 78
4. 한국 전승 자료의 유형과 내용 ················································ 92
5. 맺음말 ·················································································· 105
■ ‘범보다 무서운 곶감’ 설화의 비교적 고찰
1. 머리 ······················································································ 107
2. 인도 ?판차탄트라? 소재 곶감 설화 ······································· 109
3. 중국 전승 유형과 변이 ·························································· 112
4. 한국 전승 유형의 변이 ·························································· 122
5. 맺음 ······················································································ 135
■ ‘부부송경(夫婦訟鏡)’담의 유형·전파론적 재고
-인도·중국·한국 전승자료를 대상으로-
1. 머리말 ·················································································· 137
2. 선행 연구와 그 문제점 ·························································· 138
3. ‘부식조영(不識照影)’ 유형담군의 유형 검토 ····························· 140
4. 한·중 ‘부부송경’담의 상사성 ··············································· 144
5. ‘부부송경(夫婦訟鏡)’담의 발생과 전파문제 ······························ 146
6. 맺음말 ·················································································· 151
■ ‘해골둔갑여우’ 설화의 비교적 고찰
1. 머리말 ·················································································· 153
2. 중국의 ‘해골둔갑여우’ 자료 점검 ··········································· 154
3. ‘해골둔갑여우’ 삽화의 제재적 배경 ······································· 159
4. 한·중 ‘해골둔갑여우’담의 동이점 고찰 ································ 164
5. 맺음말 ·················································································· 169
■ 한·중 ‘우렁이색시’ 담의 비교적 고찰
1. 머리말 ················································································· 171
2. 우렁이색시 설화의 형성과 ‘우렁이’ ······································· 173
3. 우렁이색시 설화의 발생과 한국 전파 ···································· 180
4. 우렁이색시담의 주제와 구조의 기반 ····································· 183
5. 한·중 간의 비교 고찰 ·························································· 188
6. 마무리 ·················································································· 195
■ 한·중·일 ‘집 떠난 삼형제 성공담’ (AT653·654·1650)의 유형성 고찰
1. ‘삼형제 성공담’의 범위 ·························································· 197
2. 국제유형 AT653과 AT654 ····················································· 199
3. 중국 AT653과 AT654의 검토 ················································· 201
4. AT653과 AT654에 대한 한국의 분류 ····································· 204
5. ‘타고난 특재로 집을 나가 성공한 삼형제’의 유형 ··················· 205
6. AT1650의 국제유형 문제 ······················································ 207
7. 중국의 경우에 대한 확인 ······················································· 208
8. 한국 AT1650 유형의 유형성과 특징 ······································ 209
9. 일본의 시험형과 유물형의 특징 ············································ 211
10. 맺음 ···················································································· 215
■ 한국 ‘뱀신랑’ 설화의 유형과 의미
1. ‘뱀신랑’ 설화의 유형 문제에 대한 관심 ·································· 239
2. 자료 소개 ·············································································· 240
3. 유형의 설정과 자료 정리 ······················································· 241
4. 유형구조의 의미 고찰 ··························································· 247
5. 문체적 특징-결 ····································································· 251
■ 에밀레종 전설의 근원과 전래
1. 머리 ······················································································ 255
2. 대운사종의 역사배경 ···························································· 257
3. 대운사종 전설 자료소개 ························································ 260
4. 대운사종 전설 형성의 기반과 동기 ········································ 267
5. 대운사종 전설의 한국 전래 ··················································· 276
6. 맺음 ······················································································ 282
■ ‘참을 인자 세 번이면 살인도 면한다’ 설화 고찰
1. 머리말 ·················································································· 287
2. 자료 및 유형담의 기본 줄거리 ··············································· 289
3. 사실담으로서의 층위성과 일반유형의 형성 ··························· 294
4. 표현의 측면에서 본 문화·사회적 배경 요인 ························· 298
5. 중국 전승 자료와의 비교 ······················································· 305
6. 맺음말 ·················································································· 308
■ 서동요(薯童謠)의 ‘알(卵)’ 해석 재론
1. 머리 ······················································································ 315
2. ‘알’ 해석의 종전 관점과 한계점 ············································· 316
3. ‘알’ 이해의 민속문화적 시각에 따른 사례 소개 ······················ 320
4. 상호 유사성의 실체적 기반 탐색 ··········································· 327
5. ‘알’ 민속문화에 견줘본 〈서동요〉의 내용 음미 ······················· 330
6. 맺음 ······················································································ 333
■ 사막지방의 ‘물’과 설화
1. 관심의 계기와 이해의 방향 ··················································· 335
2. 사막지방의 자연조건과 물의 중요성 ····································· 336
3. 사막지방 생활터전의 확립과 물의 기능 ································· 338
4. 지하수로[karez]의 중요성과 설화적 관심의 깊이 ··················· 340
5. 역사사건·역사인물담에 나타난 한(漢)문화적 영향 ··············· 344
6. 불교 쪽으로부터의 또 다른 영향 ··········································· 348
7. 그 외 본격민담적 전설의 몇 가지 예 ······································ 353
8. ‘물’의 서사적 기능과 의의 ····················································· 356
■ 한국 ‘방귀’소화(笑話)의 유형·묘미·의의
1. 방귀소화의 소재적 성격 ························································ 361
2. 방귀소화의 여러 유형들 ························································ 364
3. 방귀에 대한 과장표현의 묘미 ················································ 370
4. 방귀소화 유형의 한국적 성격 ················································ 374
5. 방귀소화의 의의 - 맺음 ························································· 379
■ 한·일 욕설의 비교 고찰
1. 욕설의 본질과 특성 ······························································· 381
2. 관용어로 본 욕설에 대한 양국의 의식 ··································· 384
3. 양국 욕설 유형의 양상 ·························································· 387
4. 유형상의 차이점에 대한 비교적 고찰 ···································· 393
5. 마무리 ·················································································· 400
■ 중국 민서(?西) 客家人 ‘土樓’전설 고
1. 머리 ······················································································ 403
2. 복건성의 지역적 특징과 ‘土樓’의 중요성 ······························· 405
3. 土樓 관련 설화의 자료 현황과 갈래상의 특징 ························ 411
4. ‘土樓’전설에 반영된 객가인의 현실의식 ································ 416
5. 주요 인물의 유형과 형상 ······················································· 423
6. 전설에 나타난 민간사고 ························································ 428
7. 맺음 ······················································································ 431
■ 참고문헌 ···························································································· 433
■ 찾아보기 ···························································································· 440
■ 수록 논문 게재 일람 ·····································································

“이로써 볼 때, 에밀레종 전설은 세계적인 걸작이라는 성덕대왕신종에서 자연스럽게 우러난 상상의 산물이 아니었다. 에밀레종의 높은 예술성에 견줄 때, 그와 관련된 전설은 어쩐지 실물과 어울리지 않는 기괴한 내용이라는 느낌을 누구나 받아왔는데, 이제 그 이유를 알게 된 것이다. (……) 이제, 에밀레종 전설을 두고 ‘투동주종(投童鑄鐘)’의 사실성 여부나, 쇠 속에 인골 성분이 과연 있나 없나, 있으면 어느 정도인가 하는 등의 의문이나 논쟁은 무의미하게 되었다. 다만 전설을 설화문학으로 이해하는 관점이 더 심화될 필요성만 남은 셈이다.”

[저자 서문]
‘구전설화 비교연구’라는 이름의 이 저서는 저자가 그동안 발표해온 논문을 주제별로 묶는 작업의 하나이다. 한국 구전설화의 몇몇 유형을 국외 자료와 비교하는 시각에서 고찰한 결과를 위와 같은 이름으로 정리한 것이다. 한국을 중심으로 하여, 비교의 영역은 인도·중국·일본을 대상 범위로 삼고 있다.
뒤돌아보니 저자가 설화를 마음에 두고 조사와 이해를 도모해온 지도 벌써 여러 해가 지났다. 국내를 조사의 무대로 삼아 인물전설과 지역전설 자료를 모으느라 이곳저곳을 헤맨 것이 주된 답사 행각이었지만, 그러한 답사의 발길은 때로 국외로 이어지기도 했다. 그리고 그러한 경험은 자연히 국내와 국외 비교에 대한 관심을 넓히고, 수시로 자료를 비축하는 의미 있는 기회가 되어주었다. 여기에 모은 몇 편의 논문은 바로 이러한 오랜 국외 답사 경험과 조사를 통하여 자료를 모으면서, 그에 대한 이해를 도모해온 노력의 작은 소출인 셈이다.
저자가 구전설화 방면에 관심을 둔 초기 시절부터 마침 아시아설화학회(AFNS)나 비교민속학회에 적을 두었던 것은, 설화의 비교연구에 대한 관심을 자극하고 동기를 부여하는 데에 좋은 기회가 되어 주었다. 저자로서 그러한 활동에 등한했더라면 아마도 이 방면에 대한 결실은 지금 모습보다도 훨씬 빈약했을 것이다. 이러한 학회 활동에 동참할 수 있었던 기회를 저자는 다행으로 여기며, 학회 측에 고맙게 생각한다. 이와 더불어, 저자는 이들 학회를 통한 발표와 자료조사 활동 외에 인접한 여러 유관 학회에 가담하여 이따금 국외 자료 조사에 동참하기도 하고, 때로는 같은 목적을 위하여 동호인 모임을 구성하여 먼 이역에 대한 장기 답사여행을 감행하기도 하였다. 그런가 하면, 그것으로 부족하다고 여겨 단신으로 국외 대학에 방문 교수를 자원하기도 했는데, 그 주된 목적은 어디까지나 다양한 현지 경험과 비교 자료 수집에 있었다. 이제, 별스럽지 않은 결과이지만, 여기 몇 편의 논문으로 정리된 논고들은 이러한 오랜 기간에 걸친 저나 나름의 경험과 모색으로써 이루어진 것이라 하겠다.
비교 이해를 추구하는 저자의 기본적인 주안점은 비교되는 쌍방의 문화에 크고도 지속적으로 영향을 주는 측면이 무엇인지를 주목하는 데 있다고 할 수 있다. 그에 따라 해당 지역의 자연배경, 인간의 생태환경, 종교적 특징 등을 주로 살피는 가운데 설화에 지배적인 영향을 미치는 요인들을 깊이 유념하자는 것이다. 이는 역사 이해에서 장기지속적인 요인을 중시하려는 관점, 또는 이미 널리 일반화된 풍토론적 시야를 좀 더 입체화하여 다루는 시각과 크게 다르지 않다고 할 수 있다. 이러한 관점은 기층언어문화의 하나인 설화의 형성과 지속 현상은 물론, 민족과 문화의 차이에 따른 그것의 변이 양상을 이해하는 데에도 가장 중요한 요인이 된다는 점에서, 평이하지만 그러나 설화 연구에서 늘 기본적으로 유념해야 할, 유효한 접근시각이라고 본다. 또한 그렇기 때문에 이러한 관점에서의 관찰은 비교되는 양쪽 설화의 특징이나 독자성을 중시하고 그것을 좀더 본질적으로 해명하고자 할 수록, 더욱 세밀하고 깊게 추구할 필요가 있다고 본다. 이 책에서 이러한 관점이 일관되게 추구되고 있지는 못하지만, 연구 주제에 따라, 그리고 다루는 항목에 따라 되도록 그러한 의도를 잊지 않고자 유념하였다. 그러한 결과, 여기에 수록된 논고들은 대개 국외의 여러 지역에 대한 저자의 직접적인 확인과, 새로운 자각과, 혹은 작은 느낌들까지가 보이지 않는 가운데 이곳저곳에 배어있다고 할 수 있다. 그런 점에서 비록 결과는 보잘것없지만, 저자로서 돌아보는 감회는 곱절로 깊다는 점을 말해두고 싶다. 비교적인 시각에서의 연구라고 하지만, 수록한 논문 가운데에는 본격적인 비교 연구가 못 되고, 그러한 각도에서 간접적으로만 언급하고 만 것도 있다. 그러나 비록 가 운 언급에 그친 것이라고 해도, 아주 무익하지는 않을 것이라는 생각에 이들 논고도 함께 싣기로 했다. 또한 설화가 아닌 논문도 한편 포함되어 있고, 외국 자료만을 단독으로 다룬 것도 있다. 처음부터 큰 주제로 다룬 연구가 아니고, 수시로 학술지에 게재된 것들을 한 자리에 모은 결과 드러나는 미비점들이다. 이런 점을 고려할 때, ‘비교론고’ 정도의 표제가 어울릴 텐데 ‘비교연구’라는 지나친 제목을 붙인 것 같아 좀 미안하다. 논문을 모으고 정리하는 과정에서, 전체적으로 처음 글을 다시 읽으면서 어휘와 문맥의 부드럽지 못한 부분들을 약간씩 손보았다. 필요에 따라서는 각주 보완이 필요하기도 할 터이지만, 그렇게까지는 하지 못하였다. 이점에 대하여서도 읽는 분들의 넓은 양해를 구하고자 한다.