1910년대 조선-서양 근대 지식인의 고시조 담론

Abstract

The main objective of this report is to study the activities related to Si-jo by scholars of Choseon and the West during the 1910s. Through this enables searching the meanings of Si-jo being discussed based on Modern Scholastic discourse. Studies on such are done by focusing on a Christian missionary James Scarth Gales(1863∼1937) who were first to introduce Si-jo into Western network of literature studies, and on Choi Nam Seon, who brought the interest on Si-jo to Writers and field of Literature. Gale and Choi Nam Seon has been recognizing Si-jo at their own literature discourse, one a foreigner christian missionary and the other as Korean scholar. In accordance, their discussions on Si-jo may appear to be similar im general, but has many differences in details. 1910s were the turning point on recognition on Si-jo. From then Gale and Choi nam Seon had applied perspective where their study object Si-jo are represented as comparatively old to the up to date lierature then. Si-jo before 1910s were called “Go-Si-jo”, and its discourse has also changed from text sang in musical format into written literature. However while Gales’s recognition on Si-jo was based on its nature seeking both text and the musical phases, Choi Nam Seon saw Si-jo as part of poetry and seeked more meaning as a written lierature than musical phase. During the time both foreign and Korean(Choseon) scholars in general neglected literary value of S-ijo considering that the Chinese culrue and literature has had major affect to Si-jo. Gale and Choi Nam Seon saw different. Gale understood the Chinese letters found in Si-jo as literary vocabulary, as well as recognizing the similar characteristics of Si-jo with Chinese literature as distictive character of Si-jo its own. Majority of scholars of the time has seen Si-jo as imitated copy of Chinese poems - however, Choi Nam Seon claimed that Si-jo is most distict Choseon Literature with originality, matching all conditions and format to be seen as perfect Choseon Literture. Choi Nam Seon had negative perspectives on Chinese literature affecting on Si-jo in many ways, but did not make conclusions in this regards, his claim was focusing on Si-jo’s literary value as Choseon culture and written literature. This difference is due to the different basics of the two scholars knowledge and approach on literature. Gale had already been familiar with the modern concept of literature, so he could study Choseon literature and Si-jo as 3rd party under very objective perspective. Choi Nam Seon, on the other hand, had to apply the modern literature concept that wah relatively new to him at the time, as such concept was taken into Choseon from the west. In this regards Choi Nam Seon had to seek for Choseon Literature and its value as national literature, which is different from Gale’s perspectives. Si-jo was recognized by Gale as Choseon Literature, for Choi Nam Seon it was recognized as the national literature.