본고는 병자호란 실기 서발류를 대상으로 하여 서발류의 다양한 양상과 그 기능을 파악하려는 목적에서 출발하였다 . 조선 중기까지의 서발류는 문학이나 사상등에 대한 의견을 피력함으로써 학문적 논쟁의 장으로 기능하는 경향이 강했다. 그러나 전란을 겪고 실기라는 양식이 생겨나면서 체험 당사자의 기록이나 후대인에 의한 기록에 서발류가 수록되는데 그 전개는 이전과는 조금 다른 양상이었다. 이는 기존의 서발류처럼 성책 과정을 서술하면서도 17세기 이후 사회상과 맞물려변화를 맞게 된 것이다. 체험 당사자가 직접 쓴 실기 서발류는 전란이라는 충격적 체험을 겪고 난 후이를 기록으로 남겨 후대에 전해야겠다는 체험 보존의 강한 욕구를 표출하거나, 직접 목격한 상황을 종합하여 전란 참여자들의 잘잘못을 가리고 있다. 후대인이작성한 실기 서발류는 표면적으로 고인을 칭송하고 있다는 것이 공통점인데 이면적으로는 그 의도가 상이하게 나타난다. 후대인으로서 친분이 있는 사람이거나명망이 있는 인물에 의해 작성된 서발류는 포폄논쟁에 희생된 인물을 변호하거나, 특정 가문 혹은 지역을 중심에 둠으로써 향촌 사회 내에서 지배력을 획득하고자한다. 이처럼 서발류가 효용성을 전제로 하는 글이라는 것을 인식하여 실기 서발류의 저자들은 다양한 의도를 직접 혹은 간접적으로 표출하였다.

This study aims to comprehend various aspects and functions of prolog and epilog of nonfiction literary works on the Second Manchu Invasion of Korea. Until the mid-Joseon Dynasty, prolog and epilog had a strong tendency of playing a role as a place of academic debates by setting forth opinions on literature and thought. With the advent of a new literary style called ‘nonfiction literary works’ after war, however, prolog and epilog came to be included in records on those who experienced war or written by the following generations, and the development aspects of prolog and epilog were a little different from those before. In other words, while describing the same process of writing book as the previous prolog epilog, it went through literary changes along with new social aspects after the 17th century. Written by those who experienced war in person, earlier prolog and epilog of nonfiction literary works expressed a strong desire of experience preservation by recording their shocking war experiences and passing down the records to the following generations, or judging right from wrong among those involved in war by putting together all the circumstances and events they witnessed in person. Written by the following generations, later prolog and epilog of nonfiction literary works superficially praised the deceased, which was similar to the earlier one, but its intent appeared definitely different from that of the earlier one on the other hand. As prolog and epilog was written by some descendents who were acquainted with those involved in war, or some well-reputed people, it justified some historical figures sacrificed by critical controversies, or by having a specific family or area as a central point, it connoted a hidden purpose of acquiring control over the rural community. In this way, as they realized that prolog and epilog was subject to utility, prolog and epilog of nonfiction literary works writers tried to express various intentions in both direct and indirect ways.