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’s quest 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 ). The actual presentation of Chun-hyang’s social status in the text, however, sheds doubts on Sin’s alleged quest for 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 only destroys the principle of imyeon (verisimilitude) that Sin Jae-hyo val- ued so much, but undermines the popular spirit of freedom and human equality. In conclusion, the transformation of Chun-hyang from gisaeng 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 Women’s University Research Grant.

Cho Sung-Won (Jo, Seong-won) is Professor of English Language and Literature at Seoul Women’s University. She received her Ph.D. in Comparative Literature from University of Texas at Austin in 1994. Her publications include “Renaissance Nun vs. Korean Gisaeng: Chastity and Female Celibacy in Measure for Measure and Chunhyang jeon” (forthcoming) and “Waiting for the Sage King: The ‘Political Unconscious’ of Namchang Chunhyang Ga” (2003). E-mail: [email protected]. Trapped in the Quest for Realism 103

Introduction

Namchang Chunhyangga (Male Vocal Version of the Song of Chun- hyang)1 is Sin Jae-hyo’s version of Chun-hyang’s story, a story that had long been the most popular in late society. In late nineteenth-century , 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 far from tradition to “rewrite” this famous story: he keeps the original plot 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 differs from 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, consistent in characterization, unified in narrative structure, and logical in pre- sentation of themes and ideas. These are the characteristics of single authorship, 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 quest for realism and objectivity,2 and there is much textual evidence that tells us that he “deliberately” rewrote the story of Chun-hyang to make it “realistic” and “logical.” In Namchang, Sin often speaks in his own voice, whenever needed, to explain why he wants to present certain scenes and ideas differently from the conventional handlings of them. In most cases, Sin intervenes when the traditional texts include inconsistencies in the presentation of characters and events and unrealistic and illogical development of themes and ideas. One of the most important elements of pansori performance is its verisimili- tude (imyeon), which means to present, act, or tell things as realisti-

1. The work will be abbreviated as Namchang hereafter. 2. Kang (1972, 105-131); Bak (1978); Jeong Byeong-heon (1986). 104 KOREA JOURNAL / SUMMER 2004

cally and reasonably as possible so as to convince the audience that what 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 tries to correct the points he considers illogical or impossible in traditional presentations of the Chun-hyang story, and judges them either from an approach of contemporary social reality or of dramatic structure. For example, from an approach of nineteenth-century Korean social law, 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 this realistically impossible marriage in the name of love had to be cor- rected so that it would no longer seem inconceivable. To make the story more plausible and acceptable, then, not only did the heroine’s social status as a gisaeng need to be changed, but she also needed to manifest the virtue and dignity appropriate for the image of a woman of great loyalty and chastity (jeongnyeol buin). This is part of the rea- son—according to critics—why Chun-hyang in Namchang is given a yangban father by Sin Jae-hyo: he thus makes her a “compatible” partner for the hero, both socially and ethically, by elevating her social status. This is the kind of the logic, Sin seems to insist, which the story should have in order to keep itself in accordance with its

3. The word for verisimilitude in Korean, imyeon, means the inside story, and “acting in 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 on stage 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 Korean pansori, imyeon is best compared to the Aristotelian concept of verisimilitude in Western literature. For a more detailed discussion of Sin’s use of imyeon, see Jeong Byeong-heon (1986, 45-51). 4. In his recent studies of Sin Jae-hyo’s Namchang and Dongchang (Children’s Vocal Version), Seong -gyeong argues that the quest for imyeon is the fundamental principle 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 concludes that Dongchang is the earlier version of the two, challenging the general opinion that Namchang was written first. See Seong H. (1993a, 75-97; 1993b, 181-203). Trapped in the Quest for Realism 105

imyeon.5 Despite Sin’s intentions, however, his text tells a different story about the heroine’s class. Contrary to what critics have argued, the formal change in Chun-hyang’s social status does not seem to help her when it comes to her treatment as the daughter of a yangban. In Namchang, despite her supposedly promoted status, Chun-hyang remains the hero’s concubine, while the other “low-born” Chun- hyang characters in earlier versions are rewarded for their great endurance 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 , a member of the lowest class. Therefore, it is questionable whether Sin Jae-hyo truly meant to promote Chun-hyang socially by giving her a yangban father. If Sin had really wanted to promote her, he would surely have made her a legitimate wife at the end. It is, therefore, ironic that Namchang’s Chun-hyang winds up with a lower social position than any 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 status essentially undermines the structural principle of imyeon he so val- ued. It creates a discrepancy between what the author seems to have wanted to present and what is unconsciously “represented” in his actual presentation. This paper will explore the meaning of this dis- crepancy and what it symbolically hides. My conclusion is that the seonyeo6 Chun-hyang reflects Sin’s middle-class () anxiety

5. Those critics cited in notes 2 and 4 agree that the change in Chun-hyang’s social status reflects Sin’s conservative attitude toward her cross-class marriage with the hero, which he obviously considered impossible. 6. The term seonyeo describes an illegitimate daughter of a yangban. Although the seonyeo, like seoja (an illegitimate son), belonged to the cheonmin, the lowest class of 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. 106 KOREA JOURNAL / SUMMER 2004

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 her father unknown but presumed to be a (commoner), thus making Chun-hyang a gisaeng as well and therefore one of the cheon- min class. In Namchang, by contrast, Chun-hyang is an illegitimate child born to a yangban father, and is therefore bestowed with a half- noble heritage.7 Although Chun-hyang’s blood does little to promote her status legally, it is influential in regard to her love and marriage with Mong-ryong, because it relieves the potential social uneasiness caused by this cross-class relationship. In Sin’s version, the extreme radicalism of the traditional story—that a gisaeng of the lowest class can become the “legitimate” wife of a yangban—is moderated by the fact that Chun-hyang now has every virtue of a yangban lady save the title. Chun-hyang’s transformation from gisaeng to seonyeo marks a significant change in the history of this story, and after Namchang all other versions of Chun-hyang followed Sin’s definition of her social rank. In Yeollyeo Chunhyang sujeolga (Song of Chunhyang, A Woman of Loyalty and Chastity), the most well-known version of the Chunhyangjeon (The Story of Chunhyang), Chun-hyang is promoted further by having a father with the title of deputy minister (cham- pan). The influence of Yeollyeo Chunhayng sujeolga was so great that even today take for granted that Chun-hyang was an illegiti- mate daughter of a gisaeng and deputy minister. Indeed, in late Joseon society, Chun-hyang’s low social status was such a serious matter 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. Trapped in the Quest for Realism 107

Mong-ryong. Deeply aware that Korean society was experiencing a social class crisis, authors of the various versions of The Story of Chunhyang, 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 threatening to 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 changed Chun-hyang’s social status in his version. First, given that Namchang was presumably written about 20 years before the Gabo Reform8 between 1867 and 1873 when people’s dissatisfaction with class inequality was at its peak, Sin probably wanted to symbolize people’s desire for human equality through a cross-class marriage. Sin Jae-hyo was himself a member of the “middle class” or jungin, who struggled to penetrate the world of yangban aristocracy with little success.9 Deeply frustrated with the rigidity of feudal bureaucracy, Sin may have found comfort in the literary world in which his heroine is socially elevated and enters the yangban class by birthright. In this sense, Namchang’s Chun-hyang may not only be the embodiment of the people’s quest for human equality, but also a symbolic reflection of the author’s desire for his own status promotion.10 Critics who attempt a humanistic interpretation of Chun-hyang’s class elevation in Namchang emphasize Sin Jae-hyo’s role in pushing

8. The was the first major modern reform in Korean history that brought 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 reform such as an end to the feudal system, the abolishment of class distinction between yangban 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 the critics 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). 108 KOREA JOURNAL / SUMMER 2004

pansori toward modernism. Others criticize his aristocratic prejudice for his inability to accept the fact that a gisaeng could have become the legitimate wife of a yangban by means of her virtue alone; they deny any popularist motivation behind Sin’s making Chun-hyang a seonyeo, and insist that the author simply wanted to make Chun- hyang’s union with Mong-ryong appear realistic and proper so that his aristocratic 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 critics note that her transformation from a gisaeng to a half-yangban is just one of the prerequisite conditions for her marriage with the hero in a way that would be “reasonable” and less threatening to late Joseon society. From a modernist point of view, however, Sin Jae-hyo’s idea of reality and verisimilitude is a reflection of his belief in yangban ide- ology, which he mistakenly took for granted as “the” reality of his society. Thus, his version of Namchang did not help promote pansori toward modernism; on the contrary, it worked against pansori as a popular art by aligning it with aristocratic officialdom and Confucian conservatism. In this sense, Sin is neither an advocate of modernism nor a representative of the movement for human equality. He is mere- ly a middle-class who hoped for personal promotion by adapting his artistic world to the yangban ideology.11 Although these two attitudes toward Sin’s work conflict with each other at almost every point in evaluating Namchang’s signifi- cance for the history of pansori, they agree at least on one point: that Namchang’s Chun-hyang is promoted in social status and adopts the appropriate manners for her aristocratic role. However, critics on both sides have ignored the importance of the “actual” presentation of Chun-hyang in Namchang with regard to her own class conscious- ness. They have tried to explain the significance of the change in her characterization only in terms of the superficial fact that she is a seonyeo, 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 has been made in the following studies: Kim H. (1983, 111-154); Bak (1978, 57). Trapped in the Quest for Realism 109

tionships in the story, such as how she treats herself and is treated by others. 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, the work anticipates the final victory of the heroine that was to come later in the most popular version of Chun-hyang, the Yeollyeo Chun- hyang sujeolga. There, she is depicted as a seonyeo and becomes the legitimate 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 an honorable title, nor does she become Mong-ryong’s legitimate wife despite the fact that she is eligible to marry the hero. Moreover, com- pared to earlier works that present Chun-hyang as a gisaeng but allow her to become a woman of great loyalty and chastity, Nam- chang departs from a tradition of liberalism, and regresses into the world of Confucian patriarchy. In the social context of nineteenth- century Korea, the class struggle depicted in the Chun-hyang story could not simply be solved through a happy ending. When writing Namchang, Sin Jae-hyo was clearly aware of the seriousness of the problems that the marriage between Chun-hyang and Mong-ryong might have caused for society. The question is how to interpret Sin Jae-hyo’s ambiguous attitude toward Chun-hyang’s social class, and the paradox of her promotion from cheonmin to half-yangban while she remained the hero’s “concubine” at the end. To answer this question, we must first understand the author’s underlying con- sciousness of the class system in nineteenth-century Korea as it is represented in the text. If Chun-hyang receives proper treatment as the daughter of a yangban in Namchang, this confirms Sin Jae-hyo’s intention to ele- vate her socially. This remains unclear, however, because in Sin’s version, 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). 110 KOREA JOURNAL / SUMMER 2004

a commoner (sangmin). Moreover, despite her best efforts to behave like a yangban, she calls herself, and is referred to by others, as a cheon-gi (a gisaeng of the lowest class). The following example shows the discrepancy between Chun-hyang’s status and the treat- ment she receives. Here, Bangja, the hero’s page, tries to persuade her to accept Mong-ryong’s invitation to meet. When asked to bring Chun-hyang to his master, Bangja warns the hero that it would be improper to treat her as a gisaeng, because she is no ordinary gisaeng, but a virtuous lady trying to educate herself as befitting her status. Nevertheless, when he speaks with her on behalf of his mas- ter, Bangja does not use, nor feels the need for, honorific forms of speech, 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 lowly cheonmin. How dare you laugh at his intention and refuse to go!

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

(Bangja) How wonderful it would be if you were to become the favorite concubine of such a handsome gallant like my master, one so high in family name and exceptional in appreciation of poetry and nature! You will wear the most beautiful clothes made of pre- cious silk, eat delicious foods such as juicy meat, healthy grain, and fresh fruit, and be called mamanim or anaessinim14 wherever you go in the elegant coach. This is your chance of a lifetime, and you still 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 highest station. By using these words, Bangja unconsciously limits the social position that Chun-hyang can reach to that of a concubine. 15. Kang (1971, 11). My translation. Hereafter, the quotations from Namchang will be from this edition and all translations are my own. Trapped in the Quest for Realism 111

Underscoring the fact that she has a father of noble heritage (as the hero has), the title cheonmin, repeatedly spoken by both Bangja and Chun-hyang, remind the reader that ultimately she belongs to the most 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 social station. Ironically, Chun-hyang has enough material means with which to free herself from living as a gisaeng, so Bangja’s reasoning is ineffective. Realizing that he has not persuaded Chun-hyang, Bang- ja threatens her by saying that his master “will get furious and put your old mother in jail, torture, and punish her, if you disobey him more than twice.”16 Bangja uses the word “disobey” to focus on the issue of power. This raises the notion of class struggle between the hero and the heroine, symbolically reasserting Chun-hyang’s dilem- ma as a powerless gisaeng. Significantly, it is only after this threat that 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, and then asks Hyangdan, her maid, to go to see what Mong-ryong looks like (Namchang, p. 13). Although Chun-hyang can never be forced to fall in love, the tension derived from their class difference obviously affects their relationship. Therefore, the scene in which Chun-hyang and the wicked magistrate have a power confrontation recalls the earlier scene between Chun-hyang and Bangja, for the magistrate practices exactly the same power play as Bangja. After all, the hero and 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 social position and on the notion of class conflict in this scene, both of which are missing from earlier versions of the story. For example,

16. Namchang, p. 11. The emphasis is mine. 112 KOREA JOURNAL / SUMMER 2004

Namwon gosa (Old Story of Namwon) and Yigobon Chunhyangjeon (Yi Myeong-seon’s Version of the Chunhyangjeon), the two best known works of Chun-hyang before Namchang, present the heroine as a gisaeng who has no particular interest in becoming a yangban. She is neither embarrassed by her low station nor does she feel socially degraded because of it.17 She never calls herself a gisaeng; on the contrary, she blames Bangja for making the hero believe that she is a gisaeng. Moreover, in these anonymous writings Chun-hyang openly acknowledges her gisaeng status as something unique and enjoyable, and appears more confident and positive than she does in Namchang.18 There is little sense of class struggle in these versions, and no power plays in the opening conversation between her and Bangja. On the contrary, the mood is much more comic, lively, fes- tive, and cheerful, and Chun-hyang in these texts seems not to care so much about being socially degraded as about being personally mistreated by the hero. While the above-mentioned scene in Nam- chang reflects serious class conflict, the ones in the earlier, popularist texts reflect a struggle that is personal and gender-oriented. The Chun-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 fulfills the 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 the popular stream of liberalism that the traditional story entails, but also complicates our understanding of Chun-hyang’s characterization and the social significance of her ordeal in defense of her chastity. The author symbolically reasserts the Confucian ideology of class over the naive 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 best renderings of the story that celebrate the free and vital spirit of people’s culture in Bakhtinian carnival terms. 19. Seong (1985, 299-331). Trapped in the Quest for Realism 113

Another example showing that Sin refused to present Chun- hyang as a yangban lady is found in the scene in which Mong-ryong comes to see her for the first time. To his great disappointment, she is 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 young and shy to receive customers; when she saw you approaching, she hid herself in my room” (Namchang, p. 19). Surprised by his unex- pected visit, Wolmae almost assumes that he is paying a customary visit that noblemen would make to gisaeng. Ironically, at the moment when the hero comes to woo Chun-hyang, she and her mother feel obliged to take on the role and manners that society has traditionally set for them as gisaeng. Moreover, by referring to Mong-ryong as “customer,” Wolmae implicitly expresses her suspicion—perhaps to 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 subconsciously presented 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’s humble but cynical words to Mong-ryong, which reveal her worries and her reluctance to allow the two’s engagement:

I just wanted her to find a man of her station for a spouse so that I can 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 pitiful and helpless would we both be, the young and the aged if, driven by your spring fever, you just wanted to play with her now and desert her later?” (Namchang, p. 19).

These words of doubt and cynicism eventually force Mong-ryong to leave them a written pledge that he will never forget her (“Bulmang- gi”); it is doubtful, however, that this pledge will actually legally bind their 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 114 KOREA JOURNAL / SUMMER 2004

to write an actual proposal of marriage (honseoji). Instead, he gives her a simple note containing a pledge of his love: “Do not doubt my words, for I am a man of integrity. If you still do not trust me, I will write a pledge. But I cannot write a marriage proposal” (Namchang, p. 19). This pledge, then lacks the power to legalize the marriage bes.). :81e-hyang and Mong-ryong, and is merely a personal statement of his emotional commitment to her.20 Still, having no bes- ter way to claim their right to fair treatment, :81e-hyang and her mother cannot but accept Mong-ryong’s pledge as a last hope for the future, hoping that his intentions toward :81e-hyang are sincere. Reality is bitter, however. When their time of separation at Ori- jeong pavilion finally comes, :81e-hyang again faces the fact that she has no legal right or public support to bolster her claim of being Mong-ryong’s legitimate wife. Again realizing that Mong-ryong’s pledge was useless, :81e-hyang laments and accepts her separation from him:

All things considered, I know I must accept today’s farewell. I guess I should not complain. . . . What worries me, however, is that deep down, I fear that you may forget me. Once separated, a man of good fortune as yourself will soon have a bright and exquisite 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 many beautiful ladies . . . will you even have a chance to think of me, :81e-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, :81e- hyang’s words reveal no traces of anger against the social injustice that is the fundamental cause of this separation. She also does not blame 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. Trapped in the Quest for Realism 115

the fact that Mong-ryong as a yangban will eventually “have to” take an aristocratic lady as his legitimate wife, and swears that she will forever remain his concubine. Obviously, this moderate and even degrading alteration of the Orijeong separation scene, which is one of the most tragic and intense moments of class struggle in the work, is Sin’s own invention. In fact, Sin’s Chun-hyang is the only one who predicts that Mong-ryong will take a “legitimate” noble wife, which he indeed does.22 None of the other versions of the story have Chun-hyang also react in such a subdued and contained manner as Sin’s Chun-hyang does at this unfair separation.23 Compared to the way the Namwon gosa dramatizes the class confrontation implied in this separation at Orijeong, Namchang’s presentation certainly reduces the tension and the potential for a clash between classes, as Sin Jae-hyo suppresses the 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 to take her as his “legitimate” wife,24 she has no need to worry that he may take another aristocratic lady for his wife; thus, as they separate from each other, all she is worried about is how long the separation may 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 need to 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 king grants Chun-hyang with the title of loyal and chaste wife, she receives a public marriage 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-hyo makes it clear that Mong-ryong actually married the daughter of the prime minister when 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). 116 KOREA JOURNAL / SUMMER 2004

worry about Mong-ryong’s gaining a new wife “legitimately,” despite the fact that she is the most “yangban-like” (aristocratic) lady of them all. The best example of the ambiguous treatment of Chun-hyang occurs at the end, when the hero finally defeats the evil magistrate Byeon Hak-do and rescues Chun-hyang. Unlike other versions, Nam- chang does not use this moment to resolve the class conflict raised by the confrontation between Chun-hyang and the magistrate, but instead reconfirms the ideology of traditional social hierarchy. This scene is a dramatic moment of recognition and celebration in which all the pain Chun-hyang has suffered for her husband is rewarded, and she is praised for her virtue and publicly acknowledged for her loyalty and chastity. It is also a symbolic moment of harmony and unity in which all present—including the audience—are invited to join the celebration as the personal liberation of the heroine transcends the story and embodies people’s wishes for freedom and equality.26 Thus, the greater the praise of Chun-hyang, and the more splendid the union between her and her lover-rescuer, the more exciting and satisfying the ending becomes for the general public who want to experience an ultimate release from the burdens of Confucian norms. To create dra- matic excitement and produce catharsis, all versions of The Story of Chunhyang other than Namchang celebrate the couple’s public reunion at the courtyard where the tyrant magistrate was holding his birthday party. The magistrate is tried and expelled, and everybody gathered for the party witnesses the couple’s cross-class relationship and 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 folkoristic readings, 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 in Chun-hyang’s fight to remain chaste, and the people’s longing for social reform is dramatized in the hero’s becoming the undercover royal inspector. In the final moment when Chun-hyang is rescued and embraced by the hero, the two social issues are brought together and resolved in a great ceremony of reconciliation. See Seol S. (1983, 140-151); Jang (1983, 97-106); Yi (1986, 218-231); and Seol J. (1990, 157-182). Trapped in the Quest for Realism 117

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 the transformation of Chun-hyang into a representative of the oppressed people 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 face with a fan and changing his voice—neither Chun-hyang nor her mother recognizes him. Therefore, there is no public approval of Chun-hyang’s cross-class relationship to the inspector. Instead of dis- playing his love and revealing his identity to Chun-hyang, the hero in Namchang 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 to find out if they are truly innocent, and he treats Chun-hyang as one among them, despite his knowledge of her innocence. The hero even accuses Chun-hyang of having violated the social code by disobeying the magistrate:

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

This mock interrogation ironically repeats the previous scene where Chun-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-ryong playing 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 the royal inspector is her beloved, jumps up to the court to embrace him, and sings and dances with him to celebrate their happy reunion. For more on the various scenes 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- 118 KOREA JOURNAL / SUMMER 2004

he must behave so, or why the author emphasizes class hierarchy just when Chun-hyang’s fight against class discrimination is about to end. Has not Chun-hyang been longing for a fair humanistic judg- ment, waiting to proclaim that she loved and loves Mong-ryong, not because he is the figure of power, but because he cares for her beyond 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 care for 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 was her husband, and Mong-ryong sneaks to her only at night after com- pleting his public duties (Namchang, p. 99). Chun-hyang achieves neither honorable recognition of her loyalty, nor the legitimate title of wife of the hero. Sin Jae-hyo values the Confucian ideals of justice and order more than the popular spirit of freedom and equality, and unconsciously creates inconsistent characters, thus destroying the unity and coher- ence he so emphasized in his rewriting of The Story of Chunhyang. In other versions, she was endowed with a half-noble heritage to make her a more suitable partner for the hero, but in Sin’s version she is deprived 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 maintain yangban 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. The difference is simply that the first shows the abused side of power, while the latter corrects the abuse by the justice of power. See Yi (1986, n. 25). Trapped in the Quest for Realism 119

Conclusion

Kim Dong-uk writes: “I believe that [Sin Jae-hyo], realizing the grow- ing popularity of The Story of Chunhyang among members of the yangban aristocracy in the middle of King Gojong’s reign, elevated Chun-hyang’s social status to a seonyeo in order to rationalize her resistance to the magistrate, a resistance that might have been other- wise too radical for the yangban audience to accept.”29 Kim notes that the demands from the aristocratic audience changed over the general course of pansori’s development, implying that Sin Jae-hyo meant 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 article questions this opinion, arguing that Sin’s fundamental motivation in changing her social status seems to be more a matter of “ensuring” the continuance of Confucian class hierarchy than “neutralizing” or concealing 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 never becomes the legitimate wife of the hero. She is also never awarded the title of a woman of great loyalty and chastity, despite the fact that she possesses all virtues of an aristocratic lady as well as a half-noble heritage. Moreover, at the dramatic climax of the story, the hero falsely accuses Chun-hyang of violating the order of class and sends her 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 turned into a conservative assertion that the Confucian doctrine of class hierarchy is the ultimate doctrine of society. In short, the transforma- tion of Chun-hyang from gisaeng to seonyeo in Namchang does not symbolize 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). 120 KOREA JOURNAL / SUMMER 2004 hyang deceptively delays the imminent advent of human equality for twenty 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’s thesis, Ewha Womans University. Jang, Eul-byeong. 1983. “Jeongchi hakja-ga bon chunhyangjeon” (The Story of 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 (The Study 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 Collected Works 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-ui ihae, 52-60. ______. 1988. “In-gan Sin Jae-hyo-ui jaejomyeong” (The Retrospect of Sin 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 of Chunhyang). 3rd ed. Seoul: Press. Kim, Dong-uk, Kim Tae-jun, and Seol Seong-gyeong. 1983. Chunhyangjeon bigyo yeongu (A Comparative Study of The Story of Chunhyang). Seoul: Sam Young Sa. Kim, Heung-gyu. 1983. “Sin Jae-hyo gaejak chunhyangga-ui pansori sajeok wichi” (Sin Jae-hyo’s Revised Song of Chunhyang in the History of Pan- Trapped in the Quest for Realism 121

sori). In Hanguk gojeon soseol yeongu (The Study of Korean Classical Novels), 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-gwa areumdaum (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 sahoejeok seonggyeok” (The Social Significance of Characterization in The Story of Chunhyang). In Hanguk gososeol-ui jomyeong (The Illumination of Kore- an Classical Novels), edited by the Research Society of Korean Classical Novels, 157-182. Seoul: The Asian Culture Press. Seol, Seong-gyeong. 1977. “Sin Jae-hyo ron” (On Sin Jae-hyo). In Hanguk munhak 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 ), 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-wa uimi” (The Structure and Meanings of Old Story of Namwon, The Story of Chunhyang). In Gojeon soseol yeongu-ui banghyang (The Directions for the Study of Korean Classical Novels), edited by the Association of Korean Classical Literature, 299-331. Seoul: Sae Moon Sa. ______. 1993a. “Sin Jae-hyo-ui Chunhyangga yeongu” (A Study on Sin Jae-hyo’s Song of Chunhyang) I. Seogang inmun nonchong (Sogang Humanities) 2: 75-97. ______. 1993b. “Sin Jae-hyo-ui chunhyangga yeongu” (A Study on Sin Jae-hyo’s Song of Chunhyang) II. Dongni yeongu (Studies of Dongni Sin Jae-hyo) 1: 181-203. Yi, Jae-seon. 1986. “Chunhyangjeon-gwa gwollyeok-ui uimi gachi” (The Story of Chunhyang and the Significance of Power). In Uri munhak-eun eodiseo wanneun-ga (Where Does Korean Literature Come From), 218- 231. Seoul: Soseol Munhaksa. 122 KOREA JOURNAL / SUMMER 2004

GLOSSARY amhaeng eosa 暗行御史 ri 里 anaessinim 아내씨님 mamanim 마마님 Bangja 방자 Mong-ryong 夢龍 Bulmanggi 不忘記 Namchang Chunhyangga 男唱春香歌 Byeon Hak-do 변학도 Namwon gosa 南原古事 champan 參判 Yigobon Chunhyangjeon 李古本春香傳 cheon-gi 賤妓 Orijeong 五里亭 cheonmin 賤民 pansori 판소리 Dongchang 童唱 sadaebu 士大夫 doryeong 道令 sangmin 常民 gisaeng 妓生 seonyeo 庶女 gwageo 科擧 seo-eol 庶孼 honseoji 婚書紙 Wolmae 월매 hyangni 鄕吏 yeol 烈 imyeon 裏面 Yeollyeo Chunhyang 烈女春香 jeongnyeol buin 貞烈婦人 sujeolga 守節歌 jungin 中人 Trapped in the Quest for Realism 123