Source: Im 2005

• Texts: T2039; 三國遺事

Im reviews and summarises this monograph:

Ha Jeong-yong 河廷龍. Samguk Yusa saryo bipan 삼국유사 사료비판 三國遺事史料批判. Minjoksa 民族社, 2005.

According to Im, Ha argues that the fifth fascicle 卷第五 and some other parts of the Samguk yusa 三國遺事 T2039 were written by Iryeon 一然 during his lifetime, but various other parts were added subsequently by Iryeon’s disciples and others.

Portions added later comprise three sections thought to have been written by Mugeuk 無極 [1251–1322; aka Hongu 混丘]:

the note 條 on the section Jeonhu sojang sari 前後所將舍利 [in fasc. 3];

Gwandong pungak baryeon suseokgi 關東楓岳鉢淵藪石記 [in fasc. 4];

Jeongi 傳記 [probably meaning 五臺山寶叱徒太子傳記 in fasc. 3 --- KHR];

plus two sections added even later:

a separate note 分註 [the latter of two HKR] of the section Jajang jeongnyul 慈藏定律 [in fasc. 3];

Wangnyeok 王曆 [the first part of Fascicle 1].

Kim investigates 48 occurrences of the editorial comments introduced by the word chan 讚, in addition to the usual phrase chanwal 讚曰; and the phrase naeyu chanwal 內有讚曰 with Seokhae un 石海云 at the end. He concludes that sections so marked were not written by Iryeon.

In addition, the phrase hoego ji 廻顧至 at the end of the 23rd editorial comment 讚 is presumably a scribal error for hoego un 廻顧云, meaning ‘thinking back’, 'in retrospect, we might say ...' and it is presumed that this portion is also not Iryeon’s work.

In addition, Kim argues that the following facts support the thesis that there are multiple authors:

(1) there is no mention of the author’s name before the first chapter Wangnyeok 王曆 [the author's name is only first given in fasc. 5];

(2) the section title 篇目 Gii gwon je il 紀異券第一 [in the latter part of fasc. 1 --- KHR] is different than the other section titles;

(3) in fascicle 3, the [fourth] section Tapsang 塔像, which follows [the third section] Heungbeop je sam 興法第三, should logically be entitled Tapsang je sa 塔像第四, but it is simply listed as Tapsang 塔像;

(4) the number of articles 條目 per section 篇目 can vary up to a factor of two, showing a severe imbalance in the distribution.

Kim also claims that five sections of the text certainly postdate Iryeon, namely:

(1) the separate note 分註 attributed to Mugeuk 無極 in the article 前後所將舍利;

(2) the part of the article 條 Jajang jeongnyul 慈藏定律 citing the article Jeonhu sojang sari 前後所將舍利;

(3) the separate note 分註 of the article on Gojoseon 古朝鮮, citing Baegakgung 白岳宮 [identifying Baegakgung as the location of the mythical city Asadal 阿斯達];

(4) the part using the word chajeon 此傳 in the article 條 Muwang 武王, and

(5) the section Daesan oman jinsin jeon (臺山五萬眞身傳) [fasc. 3].

Kim also raised the possibility that the annotation 注 in the main text of the article 條 Wonseong Daewang 元聖大王 and the chajeon 此傳 in the article 條 Naksan idaeseong Gwaneum jeongchwi josin 洛山二大聖觀音正趣調信 were later additions.

Accordingly, Kim suggests that a critical approach be taken when using the Samguk yusa as a historical source, considering that it contains later additions by many people other than Iryeon.

Edit