Abstract
The purpose of the study was to decide Korean translation and the copying period of "Korean Translation of " and to look all around their characteristics in different versions carefully until now. The "Korean Translation" is a collection of Korean-translated romance and love stories excavated by a professor Kim,Il Geun, and there is not a little meaning in the context of novel history in the point of view of 'Korean translation of a court possession'. Arranging conclusion of the study generally, it is as follows. (1) Considering phonological phenomena, grammar and vocabulary in the study of Korean language, it is presumed that they would be translated into Korean and copied between the regime period of the King Sukjong and the regime period of the King Yungjo in the Joseon Dynasty. For, they were composed of a middle declaration of copied 'Myeoknambon "Korean Translation of Taepyeonggwanggi(태평광기)"' and 'NakseonJaebon(낙선재본)' between the middle of the 17th century and the middle of the 18th century and the regime period of the King Jeongjo in the Joseon Dynasty appointed as the background period of the novels should be excepted. Consequently, through the Korean Translation, we can confirm that the novel scope between the 17th century and the 18th century in Korean novel history was widened until 'The Royal Court' and 'Women'. (2) In the side of vocabulary, the "Korean Translation" also has not a little meaning in the side of a collection translated in the Royal Court. It doesn't have new vocabularies, but partial vocabularies as '(Traces:痕)' '(Clean eyes:明眸)', ' (Sail:帆)', '(Get up:起)', '글이플(Weak grass:弱草)', '쇼록(Owl:? 梟 or 鴉?)', '이 사라심(This life:此生)', and '노혀오매(Look for:訪)' are good data in the study of Korean language. (3) The "Korean Translation" is a valuable data about translation and copying of a court novel and we can discover intentionally changed parts and partially omitted sentences rather in the than in the . There are differences between a translation book and a copying book and we can catch sight of intention of translation and unsettledness of copying in the second work. Therefore, we can know that the "Korean Translation" has a double context which one work is translated and a work in different version is derived, compared to a simple copy. (4) The "Korean Translation" has a close relation with "Hangoldong(閒汨董)", but it doesn't regard the same copy as a foundation. The basic copy of translation of the "Korean Translation" is a different version of the same line as "Hangoldong" and "Jeochobon(저초본:정명기 소장본)" and is more similar line to "Hangoldong", but it is also not the same basic copy. (5) Considering that the "Korean Translation" doesn't has a distinct relation with the "Hangoldong", there is no correlation between the "Korean Translation" and and the "Hangoldong" and . In addition, we could not discover a writer's identity between the two.