朝鲜洪大容《乾净衕笔谈》为杜撰本说献疑

A Re-examination of the Viewpoint that Ganjeongdongpildam by Hong Dae-yong of the Choson Dynasty is A Work of Fabrication

日本夫马进教授认为朝鲜王朝洪大容的《乾净衕笔谈》为杜撰本,而《乾净笔譚》则是作者亲自定本。本文通过仔细对比二书,认为夫马进教授此说值得商榷。因为第一,《乾净衕笔谈》与《乾净笔譚》二书祖本相同,二者关系密切;第二,二书的文字互有优劣,不能以个别可能出自后期校勘的错误,指责《乾净衕笔谈》为杜撰本;第三,《乾净衕笔谈》比《乾净笔譚》多出接近一万字,极具文献意义和价值。所以,在研读洪大容留存的中朝文化交流文献时,《乾净衕笔谈》与《乾净笔譚》都是值得珍视的。

It is the opinion of Professor Susumu Fuma that Ganjeongdongpildam by Hong Dae-yong of the Choson dynasty is a work of fabrication, while Ganjeongdongpil is the true work by the hand of Hong. Based on a meticulous comparison between the two books, this article raises doubts to Professor Fuma＇s viewpoint for the following reasons： Firstly, the two books share the same original-print and remain closely-related. Secondly, both books have gains and loss regarding their textual merits. It would be imprudent to claim that Ganjeongdongpildam is a work of fabrication based on the errors that could have happened during the later collative process. Thirdly, the near ten-thousand words preserved only in Ganjeongdongpildam has a high bibliographical value which should not be easily dismissed. Therefore this article argues that both Ganjeongdongpildam and Ganjeongpildam prove to be valuable resources by Hong Dae-yong in the research of the cultural exchanges between China and Korea.