trapped in the quest for realism - uniroma1.it · trapped in the quest for realism 107 mong-ryong....

Trapped in the Quest for Realism:Mistaken Equality in Namchang Chunhyangga

Cho Sung-Won

Abstract

Critics have argued that Namchang Chunhyangga reflects Sin Jae-hyo’squest for realism, as he attempts to correct the “realistically impossible”cross-class marriage between Chun-hyang and Mong-ryong by “promot-ing” Chun-hyang’s social status from a gisaeng to a seonyeo (illegiti-mate daughter of a yangban). The actual presentation of Chun-hyang’ssocial status in the text, however, sheds doubts on Sin’s alleged questfor realism. Not only is Chun-hyang’s resistance to the malicious magis-trate in Namchang not rationalized by the fact that she is a seonyeo,but she never wins legitimacy as the hero’s wife or honored for her loy-alty. This paradoxical treatment of Chun-hyang’s social status not onlydestroys the principle of imyeon (verisimilitude) that Sin Jae-hyo val-ued so much, but undermines the popular spirit of freedom and humanequality. In conclusion, the transformation of Chun-hyang fromgisaeng to seonyeo does not indicate class promotion but the confirma-tion of class hierarchy.

Keywords: Sin Jae-hyo, Namchang Chunhyangga, seonyeo, Chun-hyang, class hierarchy, middle-class consciousness

* This study was supported by Seoul Women’s University Research Grant.

Cho Sung-Won (Jo, Seong-won) is Professor of English Language and Literature atSeoul Women’s University. She received her Ph.D. in Comparative Literature fromUniversity of Texas at Austin in 1994. Her publications include “Renaissance Nun vs.Korean Gisaeng: Chastity and Female Celibacy in Measure for Measure and Chunhyangjeon” (forthcoming) and “Waiting for the Sage King: The ‘Political Unconscious’ ofNamchang Chunhyang Ga” (2003). E-mail: [email protected].

Introduction

Namchang Chunhyangga (Male Vocal Version of the Song of Chun-hyang)1 is Sin Jae-hyo’s pansori version of Chun-hyang’s story, astory that had long been the most popular in late Joseon society. Inlate nineteenth-century Korea, it was told and retold in various ways—in fairy tales, shamanistic rituals, folk songs, poems, and novels—but it was most loved in pansori form. Sin did not have to depart farfrom tradition to “rewrite” this famous story: he keeps the originalplot of Chun-hyang’s cross-class love and marriage with Mong-ryong,and provides his text with the traditional happy ending. In his ren-dering of the characters and themes, however, Sin Jae-hyo differsfrom his source tales, and he is so creative in what he does that Nam-chang may well be entirely credited to him rather than to an anony-mous folk tradition. The work is coherent in style and plot, consistentin characterization, unified in narrative structure, and logical in pre-sentation of themes and ideas. These are the characteristics of singleauthorship, virtually missing in other pansori versions of Chun-hyang’s story before Namchang. Previous versions are anonymous,and presumed to be products of multiple authorship.

Critics have argued that Namchang reflects Sin Jae-hyo’s questfor realism and objectivity,2 and there is much textual evidence thattells us that he “deliberately” rewrote the story of Chun-hyang tomake it “realistic” and “logical.” In Namchang, Sin often speaks inhis own voice, whenever needed, to explain why he wants to presentcertain scenes and ideas differently from the conventional handlingsof them. In most cases, Sin intervenes when the traditional textsinclude inconsistencies in the presentation of characters and eventsand unrealistic and illogical development of themes and ideas. One ofthe most important elements of pansori performance is its verisimili-tude (imyeon), which means to present, act, or tell things as realisti-

103Trapped in the Quest for Realism

1. The work will be abbreviated as Namchang hereafter.2. Kang (1972, 105-131); Bak (1978); Jeong Byeong-heon (1986).

cally and reasonably as possible so as to convince the audience thatwhat they see and hear on stage is true and possible.3 Since Sin Jae-hyo remains loyal to the principle of imyeon in his writing,4 he triesto correct the points he considers illogical or impossible in traditionalpresentations of the Chun-hyang story, and judges them either froman approach of contemporary social reality or of dramatic structure.For example, from an approach of nineteenth-century Korean sociallaw, the cross-class marriage between a yangban and a gisaeng(female entertainer) was not only impossible, but also improper.Thus, the literary convention that continued to fantasize about thisrealistically impossible marriage in the name of love had to be cor-rected so that it would no longer seem inconceivable. To make thestory more plausible and acceptable, then, not only did the heroine’ssocial status as a gisaeng need to be changed, but she also needed tomanifest the virtue and dignity appropriate for the image of a womanof great loyalty and chastity (jeongnyeol buin). This is part of the rea-son—according to critics—why Chun-hyang in Namchang is given ayangban father by Sin Jae-hyo: he thus makes her a “compatible”partner for the hero, both socially and ethically, by elevating hersocial status. This is the kind of the logic, Sin seems to insist, whichthe story should have in order to keep itself in accordance with its

104 KOREA JOURNAL / SUMMER 2004

3. The word for verisimilitude in Korean, imyeon, means the inside story, and “actingin accordance with imyeon” is uniting the inside and the outside. In pansori, there-fore, imyeon refers to a coherence between what the audience sees or hears onstage and what is represented by the saying or actions on stage. Imyeon empha-sizes the intrinsic possibility of things, or their likeness to the truth, and in Koreanpansori, imyeon is best compared to the Aristotelian concept of verisimilitude inWestern literature. For a more detailed discussion of Sin’s use of imyeon, seeJeong Byeong-heon (1986, 45-51).

4. In his recent studies of Sin Jae-hyo’s Namchang and Dongchang (Children’s VocalVersion), Seong Hyeon-gyeong argues that the quest for imyeon is the fundamentalprinciple which governs the narrative structures of both works. The difference is,he notes, that Namchang shows an active quest for verisimilitude, while Dong-chang remains passive and incomplete in following this principle. Seong concludesthat Dongchang is the earlier version of the two, challenging the general opinionthat Namchang was written first. See Seong H. (1993a, 75-97; 1993b, 181-203).


imyeon.5

Despite Sin’s intentions, however, his text tells a different storyabout the heroine’s class. Contrary to what critics have argued, theformal change in Chun-hyang’s social status does not seem to helpher when it comes to her treatment as the daughter of a yangban. InNamchang, despite her supposedly promoted status, Chun-hyangremains the hero’s concubine, while the other “low-born” Chun-hyang characters in earlier versions are rewarded for their greatendurance and fidelity by becoming legitimate wives. In addition,Chun-hyang is repeatedly referred to by the characters in the text—including herself and her mother—as a cheonmin, a member of thelowest class. Therefore, it is questionable whether Sin Jae-hyo trulymeant to promote Chun-hyang socially by giving her a yangbanfather. If Sin had really wanted to promote her, he would surely havemade her a legitimate wife at the end. It is, therefore, ironic thatNamchang’s Chun-hyang winds up with a lower social position thanany other Chun-hyang characters, although she is the most aristocrat-ic and virtuous character among them.

Sin Jae-hyo’s ambiguous treatment of his heroine’s social statusessentially undermines the structural principle of imyeon he so val-ued. It creates a discrepancy between what the author seems to havewanted to present and what is unconsciously “represented” in hisactual presentation. This paper will explore the meaning of this dis-crepancy and what it symbolically hides. My conclusion is that theseonyeo6 Chun-hyang reflects Sin’s middle-class (jungin) anxiety

5. Those critics cited in notes 2 and 4 agree that the change in Chun-hyang’s socialstatus reflects Sin’s conservative attitude toward her cross-class marriage with thehero, which he obviously considered impossible.

6. The term seonyeo describes an illegitimate daughter of a yangban. Although theseonyeo, like seoja (an illegitimate son), belonged to the cheonmin, the lowest classof Joseon society, the term bestows Chun-hyang with a slightly better social posi-tion than the code of law does, primarily because of her half-noble heritage. Thus,in Joseon society, the incongruity between the legal definition and the actual treat-ment of the seo-eol (illegitimate person) class often caused social and political con-flicts.


about social mobility in late Joseon society and that this has little rel-evance to human equality.

Chun-hyang as Seonyeo: Promotion or Confirmation?

Why did Sin Jae-hyo change Chun-hyang’s social status in Namchang?Previous versions had Chun-hyang’s mother as a gisaeng, and herfather unknown but presumed to be a sangmin (commoner), thusmaking Chun-hyang a gisaeng as well and therefore one of the cheon-min class. In Namchang, by contrast, Chun-hyang is an illegitimatechild born to a yangban father, and is therefore bestowed with a half-noble heritage.7 Although Chun-hyang’s blood does little to promoteher status legally, it is influential in regard to her love and marriagewith Mong-ryong, because it relieves the potential social uneasinesscaused by this cross-class relationship. In Sin’s version, the extremeradicalism of the traditional story—that a gisaeng of the lowest classcan become the “legitimate” wife of a yangban—is moderated by thefact that Chun-hyang now has every virtue of a yangban lady savethe title. Chun-hyang’s transformation from gisaeng to seonyeo marksa significant change in the history of this story, and after Namchangall other versions of Chun-hyang followed Sin’s definition of hersocial rank. In Yeollyeo Chunhyang sujeolga (Song of Chunhyang, AWoman of Loyalty and Chastity), the most well-known version of theChunhyangjeon (The Story of Chunhyang), Chun-hyang is promotedfurther by having a father with the title of deputy minister (cham-pan). The influence of Yeollyeo Chunhayng sujeolga was so great thateven today Koreans take for granted that Chun-hyang was an illegiti-mate daughter of a gisaeng and deputy minister. Indeed, in lateJoseon society, Chun-hyang’s low social status was such a seriousmatter that audiences doubted the probability of her marriage with

7. Sin Jae-hyo was the first to provide Chun-hyang’s father with the last name“Seong” and the official title cheonchong. The title was given to local military offi-cers of the third-rank, who had a relatively high status in late Joseon buraucracy.


Mong-ryong. Deeply aware that Korean society was experiencing asocial class crisis, authors of the various versions of The Story ofChunhyang, including Sin Jae-hyo, felt the need to make Chun-hyang’s cross-class marriage with Mong-ryong as acceptable as possi-ble. This way, their union would not appear radical and threateningto society as it might have seemed in reality. By presenting their rela-tionship in this manners, the various authors were perhaps suggest-ing a solution to their society’s class conflict.

Critics have provided two reasons explaining why Sin changedChun-hyang’s social status in his version. First, given that Namchangwas presumably written about 20 years before the Gabo Reform8

between 1867 and 1873 when people’s dissatisfaction with classinequality was at its peak, Sin probably wanted to symbolize people’sdesire for human equality through a cross-class marriage. Sin Jae-hyowas himself a member of the “middle class” or jungin, who struggledto penetrate the world of yangban aristocracy with little success.9

Deeply frustrated with the rigidity of feudal bureaucracy, Sin mayhave found comfort in the literary world in which his heroine issocially elevated and enters the yangban class by birthright. In thissense, Namchang’s Chun-hyang may not only be the embodiment ofthe people’s quest for human equality, but also a symbolic reflectionof the author’s desire for his own status promotion.10

Critics who attempt a humanistic interpretation of Chun-hyang’sclass elevation in Namchang emphasize Sin Jae-hyo’s role in pushing

8. The Gabo Reform was the first major modern reform in Korean history thatbrought an end to feudal bureaucracy of the Joseon dynasty. There had been,however, a long series of civil uprisings and people’s movement before this reformsuch as an end to the feudal system, the abolishment of class distinction betweenyangban and sangmin, and the establishment of the right for widows to remarry.

9. See Seo’s discussion of Sin Jae-hyo (1984, 28-29).10. The view that Chun-hyang’s class promotion not only reflects Sin Jae-hyo’s desires

but also articulates people’s concern with human equality has been argued by thecritics such as Kim Dong-uk, Seol Seong-gyeong, Kim Tae-jun, Jeong Byeong-heon,and Seo Jong-mun. See Kim D., Kim, and Seol (1983, 19-20); Seol S. (1986, 154-159); and Jeong Byeong-heon (1986, 63-68).

pansori toward modernism. Others criticize his aristocratic prejudicefor his inability to accept the fact that a gisaeng could have becomethe legitimate wife of a yangban by means of her virtue alone; theydeny any popularist motivation behind Sin’s making Chun-hyang aseonyeo, and insist that the author simply wanted to make Chun-hyang’s union with Mong-ryong appear realistic and proper so that hisaristocratic audience would have little trouble in accepting the cross-class affair. Moreover, in order to be eligible as an aristocrat’s wife,Chun-hyang needed to adopt appropriate manners. Thus, Sin’s criticsnote that her transformation from a gisaeng to a half-yangban is justone of the prerequisite conditions for her marriage with the hero in away that would be “reasonable” and less threatening to late Joseonsociety. From a modernist point of view, however, Sin Jae-hyo’s ideaof reality and verisimilitude is a reflection of his belief in yangban ide-ology, which he mistakenly took for granted as “the” reality of hissociety. Thus, his version of Namchang did not help promote pansoritoward modernism; on the contrary, it worked against pansori as apopular art by aligning it with aristocratic officialdom and Confucianconservatism. In this sense, Sin is neither an advocate of modernismnor a representative of the movement for human equality. He is mere-ly a middle-class intellectual who hoped for personal promotion byadapting his artistic world to the yangban ideology.11

Although these two attitudes toward Sin’s work conflict witheach other at almost every point in evaluating Namchang’s signifi-cance for the history of pansori, they agree at least on one point: thatNamchang’s Chun-hyang is promoted in social status and adopts theappropriate manners for her aristocratic role. However, critics onboth sides have ignored the importance of the “actual” presentationof Chun-hyang in Namchang with regard to her own class conscious-ness. They have tried to explain the significance of the change in hercharacterization only in terms of the superficial fact that she is aseonyeo, but have ignored the significance of other intra-textual rela-


11. Criticism of Sin Jae-hyo’s pansori as an adaptation to the aristocratic culture hasbeen made in the following studies: Kim H. (1983, 111-154); Bak (1978, 57).


tionships in the story, such as how she treats herself and is treated byothers.

Namchang is the first work in the history of The Story of Chun-hyang that presents the heroine as a non-gisaeng.12 By doing so, thework anticipates the final victory of the heroine that was to comelater in the most popular version of Chun-hyang, the Yeollyeo Chun-hyang sujeolga. There, she is depicted as a seonyeo and becomes thelegitimate wife of the hero, earning the title of a woman of great loy-alty and chastity. Sin Jae-hyo’s treatment of Chun-hyang in Nam-chang remains ambiguous and incomplete: she never achieves anhonorable title, nor does she become Mong-ryong’s legitimate wifedespite the fact that she is eligible to marry the hero. Moreover, com-pared to earlier works that present Chun-hyang as a gisaeng butallow her to become a woman of great loyalty and chastity, Nam-chang departs from a tradition of liberalism, and regresses into theworld of Confucian patriarchy. In the social context of nineteenth-century Korea, the class struggle depicted in the Chun-hyang storycould not simply be solved through a happy ending. When writingNamchang, Sin Jae-hyo was clearly aware of the seriousness of theproblems that the marriage between Chun-hyang and Mong-ryongmight have caused for society. The question is how to interpret SinJae-hyo’s ambiguous attitude toward Chun-hyang’s social class, andthe paradox of her promotion from cheonmin to half-yangban whileshe remained the hero’s “concubine” at the end. To answer thisquestion, we must first understand the author’s underlying con-sciousness of the class system in nineteenth-century Korea as it isrepresented in the text.

If Chun-hyang receives proper treatment as the daughter of ayangban in Namchang, this confirms Sin Jae-hyo’s intention to ele-vate her socially. This remains unclear, however, because in Sin’sversion, Chun-hyang gains social and official recognition as a seon-yeo, but also suffers from ethical and cultural bias against gisaeng.Not once in the text is Chun-hyang referred to as anybody other than

12. Seol S. (1986, 180).


a commoner (sangmin). Moreover, despite her best efforts to behavelike a yangban, she calls herself, and is referred to by others, as acheon-gi (a gisaeng of the lowest class). The following exampleshows the discrepancy between Chun-hyang’s status and the treat-ment she receives. Here, Bangja, the hero’s page, tries to persuadeher to accept Mong-ryong’s invitation to meet. When asked to bringChun-hyang to his master, Bangja warns the hero that it would beimproper to treat her as a gisaeng, because she is no ordinarygisaeng, but a virtuous lady trying to educate herself as befitting herstatus. Nevertheless, when he speaks with her on behalf of his mas-ter, Bangja does not use, nor feels the need for, honorific forms ofspeech, considering her to be in the same class as himself:

(Bangja) My master Yi doryeong (a young, unmarried yangban

man) is a sadaebu (scholar-official),13 but you’re just a lowlycheonmin. How dare you laugh at his intention and refuse to go!

(Chun-hyang) I may be a cheonmin, but my name has never beenregistered in the Book of Gisaeng. . . .

(Bangja) How wonderful it would be if you were to become thefavorite concubine of such a handsome gallant like my master, oneso high in family name and exceptional in appreciation of poetryand nature! You will wear the most beautiful clothes made of pre-cious silk, eat delicious foods such as juicy meat, healthy grain, andfresh fruit, and be called mamanim or anaessinim14 wherever yougo in the elegant coach. This is your chance of a lifetime, and youstill refuse to go? I don’t understand you.15

13. This term refers to the class of yangban in general, but has a strong political affilia-tion: members of the sadaebu were selected members of the yangban bureaucracy,especially those who held high government offices.

14. These are terms used to call a yangban’s concubine, especially those of the higheststation. By using these words, Bangja unconsciously limits the social position thatChun-hyang can reach to that of a concubine.

15. Kang (1971, 11). My translation. Hereafter, the quotations from Namchang will befrom this edition and all translations are my own.


Underscoring the fact that she has a father of noble heritage (as thehero has), the title cheonmin, repeatedly spoken by both Bangja andChun-hyang, remind the reader that ultimately she belongs to themost insignificant and powerless class of the society. Moreover,Bangja suggests that by becoming an aristocrat’s concubine, Chun-hyang will achieve a luxurious and elegant lifestyle, as if an economi-cally superior standard of living could compensate for a low socialstation. Ironically, Chun-hyang has enough material means withwhich to free herself from living as a gisaeng, so Bangja’s reasoningis ineffective. Realizing that he has not persuaded Chun-hyang, Bang-ja threatens her by saying that his master “will get furious and putyour old mother in jail, torture, and punish her, if you disobey himmore than twice.”16 Bangja uses the word “disobey” to focus on theissue of power. This raises the notion of class struggle between thehero and the heroine, symbolically reasserting Chun-hyang’s dilem-ma as a powerless gisaeng. Significantly, it is only after this threatthat Chun-hyang changes her mind and considers Mong-ryong’s invi-tation. “I am so afraid that my mother might get hurt because of me,undutiful daughter that I am!” she sighs after Bangja has gone, andthen asks Hyangdan, her maid, to go to see what Mong-ryong lookslike (Namchang, p. 13). Although Chun-hyang can never be forced tofall in love, the tension derived from their class difference obviouslyaffects their relationship. Therefore, the scene in which Chun-hyangand the wicked magistrate have a power confrontation recalls theearlier scene between Chun-hyang and Bangja, for the magistratepractices exactly the same power play as Bangja. After all, the heroand the magistrate belong to the same class of the yangban aristocra-cy; the difference is that Chun-hyang loves the hero, not the magis-trate.

Sin deliberately places an emphasis on the heroine’s low socialposition and on the notion of class conflict in this scene, both ofwhich are missing from earlier versions of the story. For example,

16. Namchang, p. 11. The emphasis is mine.


Namwon gosa (Old Story of Namwon) and Yigobon Chunhyangjeon(Yi Myeong-seon’s Version of the Chunhyangjeon), the two bestknown works of Chun-hyang before Namchang, present the heroineas a gisaeng who has no particular interest in becoming a yangban.She is neither embarrassed by her low station nor does she feelsocially degraded because of it.17 She never calls herself a gisaeng; onthe contrary, she blames Bangja for making the hero believe that sheis a gisaeng. Moreover, in these anonymous writings Chun-hyangopenly acknowledges her gisaeng status as something unique andenjoyable, and appears more confident and positive than she does inNamchang.18 There is little sense of class struggle in these versions,and no power plays in the opening conversation between her andBangja. On the contrary, the mood is much more comic, lively, fes-tive, and cheerful, and Chun-hyang in these texts seems not to careso much about being socially degraded as about being personallymistreated by the hero. While the above-mentioned scene in Nam-chang reflects serious class conflict, the ones in the earlier, popularisttexts reflect a struggle that is personal and gender-oriented. TheChun-hyang in Namwon gosa, for instance, is more interested in safe-guarding her chastity as a free woman (or human being) than in man-ifesting her nobility (or membership in the aristocracy) as she fulfillsthe greatest feminine virtue of Confucianism, yeol (fidelity).19 Indeed,by making Chun-hyang the most class-conscious heroine in the tradi-tion of The Story of Chunhyang, Namchang not only blocks out thepopular stream of liberalism that the traditional story entails, but alsocomplicates our understanding of Chun-hyang’s characterization andthe social significance of her ordeal in defense of her chastity. Theauthor symbolically reasserts the Confucian ideology of class over thenaive celebration of the people’s longing for human equality.

17. For a comparison of the scene in Namchang with other versions, see Kim D., Kim,and Seol (1983, 78-82).

18. Namwon gosa and Yigobon Chunhyangjeon are generally considered as the bestrenderings of the story that celebrate the free and vital spirit of people’s culture inBakhtinian carnival terms.

19. Seong (1985, 299-331).

Another example showing that Sin refused to present Chun-hyang as a yangban lady is found in the scene in which Mong-ryongcomes to see her for the first time. To his great disappointment, sheis not there when he arrives. Wolmae, Chun-hyang’s mother, un-knowingly undercutting Chun-hyang’s identity as “non-gisaeng,”excuses her daughter’s behavior by saying that, “She is too youngand shy to receive customers; when she saw you approaching, shehid herself in my room” (Namchang, p. 19). Surprised by his unex-pected visit, Wolmae almost assumes that he is paying a customaryvisit that noblemen would make to gisaeng. Ironically, at the momentwhen the hero comes to woo Chun-hyang, she and her mother feelobliged to take on the role and manners that society has traditionallyset for them as gisaeng. Moreover, by referring to Mong-ryong as“customer,” Wolmae implicitly expresses her suspicion—perhaps totest his real intention—that the hero may not be so sincere and seri-ous about Chun-hyang as he claims to be.

The self-defending cynicism of the powerless is subconsciouslypresented in this scene, undermining the naiveté of the hero’s roman-tic adventure, and emphasizing the unavoidable fact that Chun-hyang has no legal right to insist on her chastity. Note Wolmae’shumble but cynical words to Mong-ryong, which reveal her worriesand her reluctance to allow the two’s engagement:

I just wanted her to find a man of her station for a spouse so that Ican rely on the couple in my old age and when I’m dead [i.e.,memorial services]. But you are a man of noble birth. How pitifuland helpless would we both be, the young and the aged if, drivenby your spring fever, you just wanted to play with her now anddesert her later?” (Namchang, p. 19).

These words of doubt and cynicism eventually force Mong-ryong toleave them a written pledge that he will never forget her (“Bulmang-gi”); it is doubtful, however, that this pledge will actually legally bindtheir marriage. Mong-ryong is in fact aware of the social improbabili-ty of what he is about to do, so he is neither willing nor bold enough



to write an actual proposal of marriage (honseoji). Instead, he givesher a simple note containing a pledge of his love: “Do not doubt mywords, for I am a man of integrity. If you still do not trust me, I willwrite a pledge. But I cannot write a marriage proposal” (Namchang,p. 19). This pledge, then lacks the power to legalize the marriagebetween Chun-hyang and Mong-ryong, and is merely a personalstatement of his emotional commitment to her.20 Still, having no bet-ter way to claim their right to fair treatment, Chun-hyang and hermother cannot but accept Mong-ryong’s pledge as a last hope for thefuture, hoping that his intentions toward Chun-hyang are sincere.

Reality is bitter, however. When their time of separation at Ori-jeong pavilion finally comes, Chun-hyang again faces the fact thatshe has no legal right or public support to bolster her claim of beingMong-ryong’s legitimate wife. Again realizing that Mong-ryong’spledge was useless, Chun-hyang laments and accepts her separationfrom him:

All things considered, I know I must accept today’s farewell. Iguess I should not complain. . . . What worries me, however, isthat deep down, I fear that you may forget me. Once separated, aman of good fortune as yourself will soon have a bright andexquisite wedding ceremony and marry a legitimate wife. Then,when you finally win the first prize at the state examination (gwa-

geo) and becomes a high ranking official . . . surrounded by manybeautiful ladies . . . will you even have a chance to think of me,Chun-hyang, your humble concubine in Namwon, a thousand ri21

away? (Namchang, p. 29; my emphases and ellipses)

Although her tone is cynical and her lamentation sympathetic, Chun-hyang’s words reveal no traces of anger against the social injusticethat is the fundamental cause of this separation. She also does notblame Mong-ryong for failing to live up to her trust. She even accepts

20. Kim D. (1985, 235).21. A ri is equivalent to about 400 meters.

the fact that Mong-ryong as a yangban will eventually “have to” takean aristocratic lady as his legitimate wife, and swears that she willforever remain his concubine. Obviously, this moderate and evendegrading alteration of the Orijeong separation scene, which is one ofthe most tragic and intense moments of class struggle in the work, isSin’s own invention. In fact, Sin’s Chun-hyang is the only one whopredicts that Mong-ryong will take a “legitimate” noble wife, whichhe indeed does.22

None of the other versions of the story have Chun-hyang alsoreact in such a subdued and contained manner as Sin’s Chun-hyangdoes at this unfair separation.23 Compared to the way the Namwongosa dramatizes the class confrontation implied in this separation atOrijeong, Namchang’s presentation certainly reduces the tension andthe potential for a clash between classes, as Sin Jae-hyo suppressesthe heroine’s anger in keeping with her “yangban-ness,” the charac-ter he deliberately gave her at the beginning. In the Namwon gosa,since Chun-hyang—after vigorously fighting back Mong-ryong’s prej-udice against her class—has already obtained his ultimate pledge totake her as his “legitimate” wife,24 she has no need to worry that hemay take another aristocratic lady for his wife; thus, as they separatefrom each other, all she is worried about is how long the separationmay be and how painful her waiting for his return may be.25 Indeed,it is an irony that Chun-hyang in Namchang is the only heroine,among all other heroines of The Story of Chunhyang, who has to


22. Although Chun-hyang in Namwon gosa is also aware that Mong-ryong may needto have a legitimate marriage, there is no indication in the work that the hero actu-ally marries a yangban lady. On the contrary, at the end of Namwon gosa, the kinggrants Chun-hyang with the title of loyal and chaste wife, she receives a publicmarriage ceremony, and is acknowledged as the hero’s “true and legitimate wife”by his family. See Kim D., Kim, and Seol (1983, 491-492). In contrast, Sin Jae-hyomakes it clear that Mong-ryong actually married the daughter of the prime ministerwhen he went to Seoul (Namchang, p. 55).

23. For the heroine’s different reactions to this separation, see Kim D., Kim, and Seol(1985, 203-206).

24. Kim D., Kim, and Seol (1985, 93).25. Kim D., Kim, and Seol (1985, 198-203).

worry about Mong-ryong’s gaining a new wife “legitimately,” despitethe fact that she is the most “yangban-like” (aristocratic) lady ofthem all.

The best example of the ambiguous treatment of Chun-hyangoccurs at the end, when the hero finally defeats the evil magistrateByeon Hak-do and rescues Chun-hyang. Unlike other versions, Nam-chang does not use this moment to resolve the class conflict raisedby the confrontation between Chun-hyang and the magistrate, butinstead reconfirms the ideology of traditional social hierarchy. Thisscene is a dramatic moment of recognition and celebration in whichall the pain Chun-hyang has suffered for her husband is rewarded,and she is praised for her virtue and publicly acknowledged for herloyalty and chastity. It is also a symbolic moment of harmony andunity in which all present—including the audience—are invited to jointhe celebration as the personal liberation of the heroine transcends thestory and embodies people’s wishes for freedom and equality.26 Thus,the greater the praise of Chun-hyang, and the more splendid the unionbetween her and her lover-rescuer, the more exciting and satisfyingthe ending becomes for the general public who want to experience anultimate release from the burdens of Confucian norms. To create dra-matic excitement and produce catharsis, all versions of The Story ofChunhyang other than Namchang celebrate the couple’s publicreunion at the courtyard where the tyrant magistrate was holding hisbirthday party. The magistrate is tried and expelled, and everybodygathered for the party witnesses the couple’s cross-class relationshipand praises Chun-hyang’s loyalty and her husband’s just use of power


26. Although readings of The Story of Chunhyang vary from political to folkoristicreadings, critics all agree that The Story of Chunhyang is a love story that is sym-bolically built on social criticism of late Joseon society. Class conflict is reflected inChun-hyang’s fight to remain chaste, and the people’s longing for social reform isdramatized in the hero’s becoming the undercover royal inspector. In the finalmoment when Chun-hyang is rescued and embraced by the hero, the two socialissues are brought together and resolved in a great ceremony of reconciliation. SeeSeol S. (1983, 140-151); Jang (1983, 97-106); Yi (1986, 218-231); and Seol J. (1990,157-182).

through dancing and singing.27 At this moment of festivity, the peo-ple’s wish for a new era of equality is fulfilled.

In Namchang, however, the mood of festivity disappears and thetransformation of Chun-hyang into a representative of the oppressedpeople hardly occurs as Sin deprives her of the opportunity to recog-nize the royal inspector (amhaeng eosa) as her long-awaited hus-band. The hero deliberately disguises his identity—hiding his facewith a fan and changing his voice—neither Chun-hyang nor hermother recognizes him. Therefore, there is no public approval ofChun-hyang’s cross-class relationship to the inspector. Instead of dis-playing his love and revealing his identity to Chun-hyang, the hero inNamchang is so preoccupied with fulfilling his duty as the represen-tative of royal authority that he displays no sign of affection to her.After expelling the evil magistrate, Mong-ryong retries all prisoners tofind out if they are truly innocent, and he treats Chun-hyang as oneamong them, despite his knowledge of her innocence. The hero evenaccuses Chun-hyang of having violated the social code by disobeyingthe magistrate:

If you are a gisaeng, your duty is to give your lips to whoever asksfor them. Your crime of disobeying the magistrate’s order is not inthe least slight, and it is even greater since you dared to resist andinsult him in blasphemous language. Confess your wrongdoings,and dare not hide a thing!” (Namchang, p. 95).

This mock interrogation ironically repeats the previous scene whereChun-hyang was subjected to torture and coercion by the magistrate.Thus, it not only undermines the happy moment of her liberation,but the cruelty of the hero confuses the reader. Seeing Mong-ryongplaying the same power as the magistrate,28 the reader wonders why


27. In most endings, Chun-hyang bursts into tears of joy when she realizes that theroyal inspector is her beloved, jumps up to the court to embrace him, and singsand dances with him to celebrate their happy reunion. For more on the variousscenes of reunion, see Kim D., Kim, and Seol (1985, 476-482).

28. Yi Jae-seon argues that the two different forces which oppress and liberate Chun-


he must behave so, or why the author emphasizes class hierarchyjust when Chun-hyang’s fight against class discrimination is about toend. Has not Chun-hyang been longing for a fair humanistic judg-ment, waiting to proclaim that she loved and loves Mong-ryong, notbecause he is the figure of power, but because he cares for herbeyond the class barrier between them? For these questions, Sin Jae-hyo raises his voice to explain:

Deep inside his heart, the inspector feels great sympathy and carefor Chun-hyang; however, what would become of the royal authori-ty he represents if he were to address her personally, identify him-self as her husband, and embrace her? (Namchang, p. 97).

Thus, Chun-hyang is sent home still unaware that the inspector washer husband, and Mong-ryong sneaks to her only at night after com-pleting his public duties (Namchang, p. 99). Chun-hyang achievesneither honorable recognition of her loyalty, nor the legitimate title ofwife of the hero.

Sin Jae-hyo values the Confucian ideals of justice and order morethan the popular spirit of freedom and equality, and unconsciouslycreates inconsistent characters, thus destroying the unity and coher-ence he so emphasized in his rewriting of The Story of Chunhyang. Inother versions, she was endowed with a half-noble heritage to makeher a more suitable partner for the hero, but in Sin’s version she isdeprived of the respect and recognition she deserves, so that the tra-ditional class hierarchy remains undisturbed. And though Mong-ryong was once in love with Chun-hyang despite her low social sta-tus, as a royal inspector he refrains from making a public announce-ment of their cross-class relationship because he has to maintainyangban ideology.

hyang—one represented by the magistrate, and the other by the royal inspector—have their origins from the same ideological root, the power of dominance. Thedifference is simply that the first shows the abused side of power, while the lattercorrects the abuse by the justice of power. See Yi (1986, n. 25).

Conclusion

Kim Dong-uk writes: “I believe that [Sin Jae-hyo], realizing the grow-ing popularity of The Story of Chunhyang among members of theyangban aristocracy in the middle of King Gojong’s reign, elevatedChun-hyang’s social status to a seonyeo in order to rationalize herresistance to the magistrate, a resistance that might have been other-wise too radical for the yangban audience to accept.”29 Kim notesthat the demands from the aristocratic audience changed over thegeneral course of pansori’s development, implying that Sin Jae-hyomeant to effect a social promotion by making his heroine the illegiti-mate daughter of a yangban. Having examined the textual presenta-tion of Chun-hyang’s social status in Namchang, however, this articlequestions this opinion, arguing that Sin’s fundamental motivation inchanging her social status seems to be more a matter of “ensuring”the continuance of Confucian class hierarchy than “neutralizing” orconcealing the force of revolution. Contrary to Kim’s understanding,Chun-hyang’s resistance to the magistrate in Namchang is not ratio-nalized by the fact that she is a seonyeo; and Chun-hyang neverbecomes the legitimate wife of the hero. She is also never awardedthe title of a woman of great loyalty and chastity, despite the fact thatshe possesses all virtues of an aristocratic lady as well as a half-nobleheritage. Moreover, at the dramatic climax of the story, the herofalsely accuses Chun-hyang of violating the order of class and sendsher home without revealing himself as her husband, so that her resis-tance to unjust authority is publicly called into question. The popu-lar, subversive force of her resistance is undermined, and is turnedinto a conservative assertion that the Confucian doctrine of classhierarchy is the ultimate doctrine of society. In short, the transforma-tion of Chun-hyang from gisaeng to seonyeo in Namchang does notsymbolize class promotion, but is a confirmation of class hierarchy.Contained in the author’s feudalistic vision of propriety, Sin’s Chun-


29. Kim D. (1985, 217).


hyang deceptively delays the imminent advent of human equality fortwenty years to come, until the Gabo Reforms.

REFERENCES

Bak, Myeong-hui. 1978. “Sin Jae-hyo-ui pansori saseol-e natanan jakga uisik”(Authorial Consciousness in Sin Jae-hyo’s Pansori Narratives). Master’sthesis, Ewha Womans University.

Jang, Eul-byeong. 1983. “Jeongchi hakja-ga bon chunhyangjeon” (The Storyof Chunhyang: A Reading by a Political Scientist). Munhak sasang(Monthly Literature and Thought) 128: 97-106.

Jeong, Byeong-heon. 1986. Sin Jae-hyo-ui pansori saseol-ui yeongu (TheStudy of Sin Jae-hyo’s Pansori Narratives). Seoul: Pyung Min Sa.

Jeong, Byeong-uk. 1979. “Pansori-ui sasilseong-gwa seomin jeongsin” (Real-ism and the Popular Spirit in Pansori). In Pansori-ui ihae (The Under-standing of Pansori), 61-70. Seoul: Changbi.

Jo, Dong-il, and Kim Heung-gyu, eds. 1979a. Pansori-ui ihae (The Under-standing of Pansori). Seoul: Changbi.

____________. 1979b. “Pansori-ui jeonbanjeok seonggyeok” (The General Char-acteristics of Pansori). In Pansori-ui ihae, 11-30.

Kang, Han-yeong, ed. 1971. Sin Jae-hyo pansori saseoljip (The CollectedWorks of Sin Jae-hyo’s Pansori). Seoul: Gyomun Sa.

____________. 1972. “Sin Jae-hyo-ui pansori saseol bipyeonggwan” (Sin Jae-hyo’s Critical Theory of Pansori). Dongyanghak (Oriental Studies) 2:105-131.

____________. 1979. “Pansori-ui iron” (The Theory of Pansori). In Pansori-uiihae, 52-60.

____________. 1988. “In-gan Sin Jae-hyo-ui jaejomyeong” (The Retrospect ofSin Jae-hyo, the Man). In Pansori, edited by Kang Han-yeong et al., 13-32. Jeonju: Sina.

Kim, Dong-uk. 1985. Chunhyangjeon yeongu (The Study of The Story ofChunhyang). 3rd ed. Seoul: Yonsei University Press.

Kim, Dong-uk, Kim Tae-jun, and Seol Seong-gyeong. 1983. Chunhyangjeonbigyo yeongu (A Comparative Study of The Story of Chunhyang). Seoul:Sam Young Sa.

Kim, Heung-gyu. 1983. “Sin Jae-hyo gaejak chunhyangga-ui pansori sajeokwichi” (Sin Jae-hyo’s Revised Song of Chunhyang in the History of Pan-

sori). In Hanguk gojeon soseol yeongu (The Study of Korean ClassicalNovels), edited by Yi Sang-taek and Seong Hyeon-gyeong, 111-154.Seoul: Sae Moon Sa.

____________. 1986. “Pansori-ui sahoejeok seonggyeok-gwa geu byeonmo”(Pansori’s Social Nature and Development). In Pansori-ui batang-gwaareumdaum (The Basis and Beauty of Pansori), 102-133. Seoul: Indong.

Seo, Jong-mun. 1984. Pansori saseol yeongu (The Study of Pansori Narra-tives). Seoul: Hyung Seul.

Seol, Jung-hwan. 1990. “Chunhyangjeon-ui inmul gujo-ro bon sahoejeokseonggyeok” (The Social Significance of Characterization in The Story ofChunhyang). In Hanguk gososeol-ui jomyeong (The Illumination of Kore-an Classical Novels), edited by the Research Society of Korean ClassicalNovels, 157-182. Seoul: The Asian Culture Press.

Seol, Seong-gyeong. 1977. “Sin Jae-hyo ron” (On Sin Jae-hyo). In Hangukmunhak jakgaron (The Study of Korean Writers), edited by Hwang Pae-gang et al., 429-443. Seoul: Hyung Seul.

____________. 1983. “Chunhyangjeon juje-ui teukseong” (The Thematic Char-acteristics of The Story of Chunhyang). In Hanguk munhak yeongu bang-beomnon (The Methodology in the Study of Korean Literature), 140-151.Seoul: Minjok Munhwasa.

____________. 1986. Chunhyangjeon-ui hyeongseong-gwa gyetong (The Forma-tion and the Classification of The Story of Chunhyang). Seoul: Jeong-eumsa.

Seong, Hyeon-gyeong. 1985. “Namwon gosa chunhyangjeon-ui gujo-wauimi” (The Structure and Meanings of Old Story of Namwon, The Storyof Chunhyang). In Gojeon soseol yeongu-ui banghyang (The Directionsfor the Study of Korean Classical Novels), edited by the Association ofKorean Classical Literature, 299-331. Seoul: Sae Moon Sa.

____________. 1993a. “Sin Jae-hyo-ui Chunhyangga yeongu” (A Study on SinJae-hyo’s Song of Chunhyang) I. Seogang inmun nonchong (SogangHumanities) 2: 75-97.

____________. 1993b. “Sin Jae-hyo-ui chunhyangga yeongu” (A Study on SinJae-hyo’s Song of Chunhyang) II. Dongni yeongu (Studies of Dongni SinJae-hyo) 1: 181-203.

Yi, Jae-seon. 1986. “Chunhyangjeon-gwa gwollyeok-ui uimi gachi” (TheStory of Chunhyang and the Significance of Power). In Uri munhak-euneodiseo wanneun-ga (Where Does Korean Literature Come From), 218-231. Seoul: Soseol Munhaksa.


GLOSSARY


amhaeng eosa anaessinimBangja BulmanggiByeon Hak-do champan cheon-gicheonmin Dongchang doryeong gisaeng gwageo honseojihyangni imyeonjeongnyeol buin jungin

ri mamanim Mong-ryong Namchang Chunhyangga Namwon gosa Yigobon Chunhyangjeon Orijeong pansori sadaebu sangmin seonyeo seo-eolWolmae yeol Yeollyeo Chunhyang

sujeolga

暗行御史

아내씨님

방자

不忘記

변학도

參判

賤妓

賤民

童唱

道令

妓生

科擧

婚書紙

鄕吏

裏面

貞烈婦人

中人

里

마마님

夢龍

男唱春香歌

南原古事

李古本春香傳

五里亭

판소리

士大夫

常民

庶女

庶孼

월매

烈

烈女春香

守節歌

trapped in the quest for realism - uniroma1.it · trapped in the quest for realism 107 mong-ryong....

Documents