赵冬梅 韩国高丽大学
Zhao, Dongmei, Korea University
原文Original
再谈《九云记》的作者问题
《九云记》是一部出自中国文人之手的小说还是出自朝鲜文人之手的小说，虽然一直有不同的看法，但一些书目、丛书还是将其作为中国小说收入，网上书库也将其视为中国古典小说以广流传。最近出现的论文仍在强调《九云记》的作者是中国文人的观点，因而，笔者认为，这一问题尚有进一步论证说明的必要。
本文以文本为依据，对《九云记》的作者问题进行了再考察。认为《九云记》决不可能出自中国文人之手。原因如下：第一，《九云记》中表意不清的病句到处可见，不可能出自汉语为母语的文人之手。第二，《九云记》在词汇的使用方面也有很多偏误现象，既有受朝鲜语影响产生的偏误，也有对目的语汉语领会不当导致的使用偏误。第三，不仅亲属称谓语的使用十分混乱，其他一些称谓的使用也有不符合汉语习惯的部分，很显然作者并不熟悉汉语的称谓习惯。并且《九云记》中一些人物的名字也多抄袭中国小说，这也是由于作者对这类人物如何命名没有概念造成的。第四,《九云记》是抄录多书而成的。一味抄袭，不能体味其中含义而加以选择改动，便导致了一些不当之处的产生。如官职名称的错乱，以及其他一些会错原文之意而出现的偏差等。同时，由于《九云记》的作者不能很好地运用白话表义，加之此书又从不同时代的多部小说中转抄，不能融会贯通，遂导致小说的语言面貌十分芜杂。上述种种，足以说明《九云记》不可能是一部出自中国文人之手的小说，它的作者应该是一位朝鲜文人，也就是说，《九云记》是一部朝鲜文学作品。
译文Translation
A Re-evaluation of the Question of Authorship of Jiuyunji
The question of whether Jiujiunji was a novel penned by a Chinese or a Korean author has long been a hotly debated issue in Chinese literary circles. Although there have been a proliferation of views, several booklists and online classifications now categorize it as a classic Chinese novel. Recently a number of papers have also emerged which have argued that Jiuyunji was written by a Chinese author. It is timely to now re-examine the evidence.
On the basis of the text itself, I have re-examined the authorship of Jiuyunji, and my conclusion is that on the following basis Jiuyunji could not have been written by a Chinese author: Firstly, the language is unclear and there are several errors in the language used, which indicate that the author could not have been a native Chinese speaker. Secondly, frequent lexical errors also appear. These errors are influenced by Korean language patterns and by misunderstanding and a lack of fluency in Chinese. Thirdly, familial forms of address are confused, and do not comply with the Chinese way of doing things. Clearly the author is not familiar with the way in which the Chinese naming system works. In addition to this Jiuyunji uses names copied from other Chinese novels. This is due to the fact that the author does not have any idea about how Chinese names are given. Fourthly, Jiuyunji has elements copied from many other novels. Those parts are simply copied with little understanding of the meaning and with no appropriate adaptations made, which indicates that the meaning was not understood, and as a result confusion emerges. For example, the names of official positions in the Ming dynasty have been misused. In addition to this the author is unable to use baihua (the written form of modern Chinese) well in order to explain their meaning. This book is also copied from many books written in a variety of different periods, so because it has not been well mastered the language in the novel appears quite confused. The above reasons clearly prove that Jiuyunji cannot be a novel penned by a Chinese author. The writer must have been Korean and as such the work should be catalogues as a piece of Korean Chosun literature.