한국 한문산문 연구의 쟁점
Issues of Korea’s Chinese Prose Researches
2
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This article examined key issues of Korea’s Chinese prose research history and suggested future plans. Korea’s Chinese prose research started by studying ancient documents in the early 1980s and accumulated considerable theoretical achievements until later 1990s. Based on these efforts and achievements, the historic developments of Chinese prose were unfolded. As for the developments after late 16th century when talks on prose were much activated, many theses were released, proving the relevance with literatures of Ming and Qing Dynasties of China. Researches on Kim Chang-hyup and Park Ji-won became full blown, who played an essential role in the history of prose criticism and creation. The most heated discussion in Chinese prose research in Korea is between those who argue for external influence and for internal development and for school development as an extension. The external effect argument was sparked by researchers who viewed existing Chinese prose studies looked away from more substantial truth by accepting only the theories of western modernization and nationalism. They proved some developments that had been vaguely regarded as internally driven or national characteristics were actually due to external influence. Whereas the internal development argument started from the reflection that the external influence argument concentrated solely on discovering similarities with Chinese literature while overlooking internal drivers. The argument is significant in that it explored more independent and characteristic features the external influence argument failed to properly deal with. These debates have stood against each other for the recent 10 years, generating rich and interesting discussions. In terms of the theory of work, however, it is regrettable that only few writers such as Jiwon Park in late Chosun Dynasty have been discussed. It is true that researches on writing styles, rhetorics and other expressive features can produce a meaningful result when contextual characteristics are sufficiently considered together and to do this, researchers have to invest lots of time and efforts, facing more difficulties. However, in order for a further leap forward of Chinese prose researches, careful understanding of subject works must the first to make.
Abstract
This article examined key issues of Korea’s Chinese prose research history and suggested future plans. Korea’s Chinese prose research started by studying ancient documents in the early 1980s and accumulated considerable theoretical achievements until later 1990s. Based on these efforts and achievements, the historic developments of Chinese prose were unfolded. As for the developments after late 16th century when talks on prose were much activated, many theses were released, proving the relevance with literatures of Ming and Qing Dynasties of China. Researches on Kim Chang-hyup and Park Ji-won became full blown, who played an essential role in the history of prose criticism and creation. The most heated discussion in Chinese prose research in Korea is between those who argue for external influence and for internal development and for school development as an extension. The external effect argument was sparked by researchers who viewed existing Chinese prose studies looked away from more substantial truth by accepting only the theories of western modernization and nationalism. They proved some developments that had been vaguely regarded as internally driven or national characteristics were actually due to external influence. Whereas the internal development argument started from the reflection that the external influence argument concentrated solely on discovering similarities with Chinese literature while overlooking internal drivers. The argument is significant in that it explored more independent and characteristic features the external influence argument failed to properly deal with. These debates have stood against each other for the recent 10 years, generating rich and interesting discussions. In terms of the theory of work, however, it is regrettable that only few writers such as Jiwon Park in late Chosun Dynasty have been discussed. It is true that researches on writing styles, rhetorics and other expressive features can produce a meaningful result when contextual characteristics are sufficiently considered together and to do this, researchers have to invest lots of time and efforts, facing more difficulties. However, in order for a further leap forward of Chinese prose researches, careful understanding of subject works must the first to make.
참고문헌 (41)
- 강명관, "16세기 말∼17세기 초 의고문파의 수용과 진한고문파의 성립", 한국한문학연구, 18 (1995), 한국한문학회
- 강명관, "허균과 명대문학", 민족문학사연구, 13 (1998), 민족문학사학회
- 강명관, "16세기 17세기 초 秦漢古文派의 산문비평론", 대동문화연구, 41, pp.167~205 (2002), 대동문화연구원
- 강명관, "이덕무와 공안파", 민족문학사연구, 21, pp.159~188 (2002), 민족문학사학회
- 임유경, "우리한문학과 일상문화" (2007), 소명출판
- 임유경, "우리한문학과 일상문화" (2007), 소명출판
- 강명관, "다산과 명청문학", 동양한문학연구, 36(36), pp.5~21 (2013), 동양한문학회
- 권정원, "李德懋 初期散文에서 公安派 受容의 實踐樣相-敍述技法의 特徵的 面貌를 中心으로-", 漢文學報, 13(1), pp.353~386 (2005), 우리한문학회
- 권정원, "李德懋의 公安派 批評理論의 受容樣相", 漢文敎育硏究, 25(1), pp.725~754 (2005), 한국한문교육학회
- 권정원, "이덕무 초기 산문의 공안파 수용양상 연구", 박사, 한문학, pp.2006
- 金大中, "조선후기 한문학연구와 ‘중국’이라는 타자", 대동문화연구, (60), pp.227~270 (2007), 대동문화연구원
- 김도련, "고문의 원류와 성격", 한국학논총, 2 (1979), 국민대학교 한국학연구소
- 김도련, "연암문학에 대한 小考:연암의 고문론을 중심으로", 한국학논총, 4 (1981), 국민대학교 한국학연구소
- 김도련, "한국고문의 발전과정과 특성", 중국학논총, 1 (1985), 국민대학교 중국문제연구소
- 김동석, "『열하일기』에 형상화된 공안파의 영향", 한문학보, 5 (2001), 우리한문학회
- 金聲振, "許筠의 尺牘에 대핸 一考察", 한국한문학연구, (31), pp.7~47 (2003), 한국한문학회
- 김영진, "조선후기의 명청소품 수용과 소품문의 전개 양상", 박사, 국어국문학, pp.2004
- 김우정, "월정 윤근수 산문의 성격", 한문학논집, 19 (2001), 근역한문학회
- 김우정, "간이 최립 산문 연구", 박사, 산문문학, pp.2005
- 김우정, "조선 중기 복고적 산문의 두 경향", 한국한문학연구, (37), pp.399~428 (2006), 한국한문학회
- 김우정, "유몽인 산문에 있어서 自得의 의미와 실현양상", 동양학, (40), pp.1~20 (2006), 동양학연구원
- 김우정, "선조ㆍ광해 연간 文風의 변화와 그 의미: 前後七子 수용 논의의 반성적 고찰을 겸하여", 한국한문학연구, (39), pp.187~222 (2007), 한국한문학회
- 김우정, "허균산문의 연구 ―산문텍스트의 확장과 문예미를 중심으로―", 동아시아고대학, (16), pp.273~298 (2007), 동아시아고대학회
- 김우정, "신흠의 ‘視古修辭’와 이정구의 ‘隨意抒寫’에 관하여", 한문학논집(漢文學論集), 30, pp.83~104 (2010), 근역한문학회
- 김우정, "澤堂 李植과 17세기 초 문단", 동방한문학, (46), pp.119~142 (2011), 동방한문학회
- 김우정, "『月汀集』의 知性史的 意味와 位相 －尹根壽의 학문과 문학에 대한 조망을 겸하여－", 민족문화, 39(39), pp.39~68 (2012), 한국고전번역원[DOI]
- 김철범, "19세기 전반 산문론의 전개와 그 특성", 동양한문학연구, 11 (1997), 동양한문학회
- 김풍기, "조선중기 고문의 소품문적 성향과 許筠의 척독", 민족문화연구, 35 (2001), 고려대학교 민족문화연구원
- 김혈조, "고려 중엽 한문 산문의 문체", 漢文學報, 18(1), pp.85~120 (2008), 우리한문학회
- 노경희, "17세기 明代文學論의 流入과 漢文散文의 '朝鮮的' 전개에 대한 一考 -申最 金錫 選集 刊行의『皇明茅鹿門王 州二大家文抄』를 중심으로", 고전문학연구, (27), pp.423~453 (2005), 한국고전문학회
- 송혁기, "조선후기 한문산문의 이론과 비평" (2006), 월인
- 유명종, "한국의 양명학" (1983), 동화출판공사
- 윤해동, "‘숨은 神’을 비판할 수 있는가? -金容燮의 ‘內在的 發展論’-", 韓國史學史學報, (14), pp.105~134 (2006), 한국사학사학회
- 임형택, "허균의 문예사상, In 한국문학사의 시각" (1984), 창작과비평사
- 이성혜, "소품문의 문체적 특징에 관한 고찰", 동양한문학연구, 12 (1998), 동양한문학회
- 이우일, "원굉도와 박지원의 문학사상 연구: 소품문을 중심으로", 박사, 한문학, pp.2003
- 이종주, "북학파의 인식과 문학" (2001), 태학사
- 이종호, "허균 문예사상의 좌파양명적 성향(Ⅰ)", 한국사상과 문화, 11 (2000), 한국사상문화학회
- 이종호, "허균 문예사상의 좌파양명적 성향(Ⅱ)", 한국사상과 문화, 12 (2000), 한국사상문화학회
- 장유승, "前後七子 수용과 秦漢古文派 성립에 대한 비판적 고찰", 한문학논집(漢文學論集), 36, pp.97~128 (2013), 근역한문학회
- 정선모, "唐·宋古文의 初期受容樣相考 -對北宋 外交를 중심으로-", 한국한문학연구, (48), pp.11~49 (2011), 한국한문학회