논의를 통해 조선 전기 언해 사업의 현황과 그러한 언해 사업이 이루어낸 성과의 사회 문화적 의미를 어느 정도 밝혔다고 본다.
둘째, 당시에 간행된 언해 문헌 31종을 몇몇 기준에 따라 분류하여 각 문헌들의 성격을 밝혔다. 분류 기준은 문헌의 내용, 한자음 주음 방식 등의 문체(文體), 간행 특성, 언해 체제 등이다. 이를 통해 15세기 언해 문헌들의 언해 형식 및 형태서지적 특성을 정리하였다.
셋째, 언해 문헌들은 우리 문자와 한자를 혼용해서 만들어낸, 독창적인 출판 양식 창안의 결과였다. 중앙어의 정착 및 보급에도 일정 부분 기여했다. 아울러 간행된 책의 성격이나 간행 과정의 엄격성으로 당시의 사회상 및 문화적 특성을 또렷하게 전해주고 있기도 하다. 논의를 통해 이러한 내용을 밝혔다.
넷째, 언해 사업은 새로 제정된 국문자의 정착 및 보급을 위한 왕실의 의지와 밀접하게 관련된 것임을 확인하였다. 당시에 간행된 언해 문헌의 대다수는 불전이었다. 불전의 간행은 조선의 치국이념이나 시대 상황과 배치되는 일이었다. 그럼에도 불구하고 불경들을 언해의 주된 대상으로 삼았다. 대부분 왕실이나 간경도감 등의 국가기관에서 발행했다. 이는 관료 조직인 사대부들과는 달리 왕실에서는 뿌리 깊은 불심에 기대어 국문자의 정착?보급 수단으로 언해를 이용했던 것으로 이해했다.
이러한 일련의 과정이 우리 문자에 의한 출판물 간행이라는 새로운 문화의 창출로 이어졌다. 결과적으로 ‘언해’는 훈민정음 창제 후 국문자의 보급과 관련해서 창안된 독특한 번역 양식이고, 인출 양식이었다.This paper studies literatures which were published in the beginning of promulgation of Hunminjeongeum(訓民正音). And, those literatures were kinds of Jeongeummunheon(正音文獻) from Seokbosangjeol(釋譜詳節, 1447 A.D.) to Gaegan Beopwhagyeongeonhae(改刊 法華經諺解, 1500 A.D.). Main argument of this paper starts from necessity of elucidation of following questions. First of all, from when did we start using a term of Eonhae(諺解), and what was the meaning of Eonhae? What was a process of Eonhae? Secondly, what were the features and the bibliographic characteristics of Eonhaebon(諺解本)? Thirdly, what are sociocultural value and meaning of those Eonhaebon which were massively published in relatively short period?This paper partially demonstrates status of Eonhae project in early age of Choseon and performance of the project in terms of sociocultural meanings.
First of all, Eonhae stands for Eonjayeokhae(諺字譯解), Eonmunyeokhae(諺文譯解), and Eonseoyeokhae(諺書譯解). Eonhae means translation in Hangeul from Chinese character. In 15th century, a term of Eonhae did not exist. In 1510s A.D., Eonhae firstly appeared in documents and Naeje(內題). Since Sohakeonhae(小學諺解, 1588 A.D.) had published, Eonhae was widely used in title of documents including Pansimje(版心題). After the adopting Eonhae for title of documents, using Eonhae was generalized. Based on this phenomenon, academics presume that Eonhae was used retroactively from 15th century. Generally, we call all Jeongeummunheon, which were translated in Hangeul from Chinese character, as Eonhae from middle of 15th century to Kapogyeongjang(甲午更張, 1894 A.D.).
A process of Eonhae starts from Gugyeol(口訣) Hyeonto(懸吐) and finishes after corrections. I examined the process of Eonhae through records of Eojebal(御製跋), which is a part of Hwaljabon Neungeomgyeongeonhae(活字本 楞嚴經諺解, 1461 A.D.).
Secondly, I classified 31 classes of Eonhae books and elucidated the features of those Eonhae books. Criterions of the classifying are contents of Eonhae books, styles of writings, publication characteristics, and Eonhae systems. Through those criterions, I arranged Eonhae type and bibliographic style of Eonhae documents of 15th century.
Thirdly, Eonhae documents were creative publication form because Eonhae mixed Hangeul and Chinese character. Eonhae contributed spread and settlement of standard Korean language, too. Also, Eonhae vividly proves social aspects and cultural status through characteristics of published documents and strictness of a process in publications.
Fourth, I identified that Eonahe project related to willingness of royal family for spread and settlement of Hangeul. Although publication of Buljeon(佛典) which was the most parts of Eonhae was opposite to governing ideology and era circumstances of Choseon, Bulkyeongs were main objects of Eonhae. The most of Eonhae were published by national organizations like Gangyeongdogam(刊經都監) or royal organizations. This fact proves that royal family of Choseon, unlikely high officials and nobles, used Buddhism as an instrument of spread and settlement of Hangeul.
Above series-processes resulted in documents publication of Hangeul and creation of new cultural model. In conclusion, Eonhae was a creative translation form for propagation of Hangeul after creation of Hunminjeongeum.