As a feudal state of Confucianism, The Chosun, Ming, and Qing dynasty shared the terms of ‘a vulgar book Vulgar words(造祅書祅言)’and ‘magic prohibition(禁止 師巫邪術)’ clauses and as legal grounds for rejecting the novel. However, despite these common denominators, these three Dynasties implemented different forms of novel regulation because of the different ethnicities. Starting from this problem, the study adopted a comparative and literary methodology called cultural anthropology methodology and cross-comparison. In this study, I analyzed as an objective data, Chosun, Myeong and Qing’s law and referenced ‘silok(實錄)’. First, we looked at the succession relationship between ‘Law of Xieshu(挾書)’, ‘Law of Ming(明律)’ and ‘Law of Qing(淸律)’, which were legal sources that prohibited novels. Next, we looked at whether ‘a vulgar book Vulgar words’ clause in the ‘Law of Tang(唐律)’ was passed down to the ‘a vulgar book Vulgar words’ and ‘magic prohibition’ clauses in the ‘Law of Ming’ and ‘Law of Qing’, and how it was accepted into Chosun Dynasty. Finally, we examined the characteristics of the ‘legalization’ of the Qing dynasty, in relation to the regulation law of fiction. As a result of these considerations, the reasoning that all novels in the three dynasties of ‘Chosun’, ‘Ming’ and ‘Qing’ would have been uniformly forbidden was wrong. Next, the three dynasties shared confucian governance ideologies, but cultural and emotional differences allowed them to regulate novels in different ways. It also confirmed that the law and silok can be used as important sources in the study of ‘pollution’ and ‘resistance’ of novels that emerged by regulating novels.

‘유교주의 봉건국가’인 조선·명·청은 소설을 배척했던 통치이념과 이를 성문화한 ‘明律’의 ‘造祅書祅言’과 ‘禁止師巫邪術’ 조항이라는 법률적 근거를 공유했다. 그러나 이러한 공통분모 에도 불구하고 이들 3왕조는 각기 다른 형태의 소설규제정책을 시행하였다. 이러한 문제의식에서 출발하여 본 연구는 우선 ‘금지소설’1)의 법적 근원인 ‘挾書律’과 ‘唐律’의 계승관계를 살펴보았다. 다음으로는 ‘唐律’의 ‘造祅書祅言’ 조항이 어떻게 ‘明律’과 ‘淸律’의 ‘造祅書祅言’과 ‘禁止師巫邪術’ 조항으로 계승되었는지, 또 어떤 형태로 조선에 수용되었는지를 살펴보았다. 그리고 끝으로 전문적인 소설규제법을 제정한 청대 ‘법제화’의 특성을 살펴보았다. 이러한 고 찰 결과 유가적 통치이념을 공유하였지만 ‘淫’에 주목하지 않았던 명과 ‘淫’에 주목했던 청, 그리고 ‘稗’에 주목하였던 조선의 문화적 정서적 차이가 각기 다른 양상의 소설규제라는 정치 적 결과를 야기하였음을 알 수 있었다. 이밖에도 한중소설 비교연구에 법전과 실록이 공통성 과 객관성을 담보한 중요한 자료로 활용될 수 있음을 확인하였다.