議論 散文을 통해 본 16·17세기 문학과 사회 : 議題와 글쓰기의 특성을 중심으로

Abstract

This paper aims to examine literary perspectives and social backgrounds through disputatious prose from the 16th-17th century. We will do this under the assumption that disputatious prose's function of applying agenda is a shared function of modern media. As a result, we recognized several facts. Firstly, many writers and intellectuals had relative points of view by embodying various knowledge. Particularly, this trend was seen in Shin Heum’s view of learning and/or a geographical study represented by Discussions on the Absence of Tidal Phenomena in the Eastern Sea. We discovered a social atmosphere where various forms of knowledge existed together. Secondly, we drew diverse agenda from diversification on thinking and expansion of field. There are clearly realized topics related to philosophical and literary discussions, national crises, relief systems, criticism to absurdity, geomancy and superstition. It is also a noteworthy fact that it directly dealt with individuals’ thinking and emotion. Discussion about disease was especially representative. These facts were derived from analyzing agendas. Next, we also examined the following literary and social meanings of disputatious prose through writing. Firstly, he often ruminated on his own life and described life orientation and aspects which he adhered to in disputatious prose in the later sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. This resulted from a series of writers and intellectuals alienated due to social absurdities, and the rise of self-confession prose in the middle of sixteenth century. Secondly, many severe criticisms were written on the prevalence of social absurdity. Not even the king could avoid these criticisms. This was due not only to social absurdity but also to the changes in the relation of dynamics between royal and vassals’ authority affected by this situation. Therefore, disputatious prose writers suggested more unique issues unlike previously and solved the issues in a more detailed way in the later sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In conclusion, we found that he sensitively wrote against the changes in society and literature.