다면적 주제의식과의 상관관계를 통해 본 <호질(虎叱)>의 작자 문제
The Controversy about the Writer of <Ho-jil(虎叱)> interrelated with the Multifaceted Thematic Consciousness
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The purpose of this study is to research that why Park Ji-won described the details of <Ho-jil(虎叱)>'s inclusion inexplicitly which has caused the controversy about the original writer of this novel, and how it interrelates with <Ho-jil>'s multifaceted thematic consciousness. By this study, it will make <Ho-jil>'s research works more deeply and solve the controversy about the writer. by examing <Ho-jil>'s 'Jeonji' and 'Huji', three people doubt a writer of this novel; unnamed Chinese enraged by the 18th China's situation, Park Ji-won who copied and modified <Ho-jil>, Sim Yu-bung, the a storekeeper, who had possessed <Ho-jil>. This ambiguity is a intended result by Park Ji-won, rather than just some kind of mistake. Then what is Park Ji-won's intention? In many preceding researches, it's estimated at the way to aboid criticism and attacking from the conservative literary world and Confucianists of the day, or to increase reader's intrest in <Ho-jil>. But these explanation are not enough. On July 27 in 「Gwan-nae-jeong-sa」, one day before July 28 which includes <Ho-jil>, Park Ji-won described some stories about 'Chun-chu-dae-eui', and borrowed other people's voice instead of himself so that the meaning of stories are reinforced. We can understand the controversy about the original writer of <Ho-jil> in the same vein. Indeed, three people who doubt a writer of <Ho-jil> and this novel's three multifaceted themas can be connceted one-by-one each, and then the thematic consciousness of <Ho-jil> is reinforced. This is the same situation with many preceding researches has connected <Ho-jil>'s main thema and it's original writher. However, Sim Yu-bung, the third person who can be a writer of <Ho-jil>, has not received attention. So this study proved that Sim Yu-bung can be a original writer of <Ho-jil> sufficiently. In conclusion, Park Ji-won intend that <Ho-jil>'s thematic consciousness become multifaceted, so he described the details of <Ho-jil>'s inclusion inexplicitly and made the controversy about the original writer of this novel. Therefore, the study in the future about <Ho-jil>'s writer and main thema should being Park Ji-won who record this novel intended the diversity of interpretation of <Ho-jil>.
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to research that why Park Ji-won described the details of <Ho-jil(虎叱)>'s inclusion inexplicitly which has caused the controversy about the original writer of this novel, and how it interrelates with <Ho-jil>'s multifaceted thematic consciousness. By this study, it will make <Ho-jil>'s research works more deeply and solve the controversy about the writer. by examing <Ho-jil>'s 'Jeonji' and 'Huji', three people doubt a writer of this novel; unnamed Chinese enraged by the 18th China's situation, Park Ji-won who copied and modified <Ho-jil>, Sim Yu-bung, the a storekeeper, who had possessed <Ho-jil>. This ambiguity is a intended result by Park Ji-won, rather than just some kind of mistake. Then what is Park Ji-won's intention? In many preceding researches, it's estimated at the way to aboid criticism and attacking from the conservative literary world and Confucianists of the day, or to increase reader's intrest in <Ho-jil>. But these explanation are not enough. On July 27 in 「Gwan-nae-jeong-sa」, one day before July 28 which includes <Ho-jil>, Park Ji-won described some stories about 'Chun-chu-dae-eui', and borrowed other people's voice instead of himself so that the meaning of stories are reinforced. We can understand the controversy about the original writer of <Ho-jil> in the same vein. Indeed, three people who doubt a writer of <Ho-jil> and this novel's three multifaceted themas can be connceted one-by-one each, and then the thematic consciousness of <Ho-jil> is reinforced. This is the same situation with many preceding researches has connected <Ho-jil>'s main thema and it's original writher. However, Sim Yu-bung, the third person who can be a writer of <Ho-jil>, has not received attention. So this study proved that Sim Yu-bung can be a original writer of <Ho-jil> sufficiently. In conclusion, Park Ji-won intend that <Ho-jil>'s thematic consciousness become multifaceted, so he described the details of <Ho-jil>'s inclusion inexplicitly and made the controversy about the original writer of this novel. Therefore, the study in the future about <Ho-jil>'s writer and main thema should being Park Ji-won who record this novel intended the diversity of interpretation of <Ho-jil>.
참고문헌 (49)
- 박지원, "연암집(燕巖集)" (1986), 소명문화사
- 박종채, "과정록(過庭N)", 한국한문학연구, 6, pp.201~308 (1982), 한국한문학연구회
- 김택영, "김택영전집(金澤榮全集)" (1978), 아세아문화사
- 구수영, "호질의 공리성고", 한국언어문학, 13, pp.123~132 (1975), 한국언어문학회
- 권태을, "호질재론 -그 배경의 우의성과 작중인물의 성격을 중심으로", 한민족어문학, 9, pp.1~21 (1982), 한민족어문학회
- 김균태, "한국고전소설작품론(완암 김진세선생 회갑기념논문집)", pp.227~241 (1990), 집문당
- 김동석, "<호질> 연구: <의산문답>과의 관련을 중심으로", 한문교육연구, 14, pp.281~302 (2000), 한국한문교육학회
- 김동석, "<虎叱後識>의 分析 -<鵠汀筆談>과의 비교를 통하여-", 漢文學報, 9(1), pp.195~220 (2003), 우리한문학회
- 김명호, "열하일기연구" (1990), 창작과비평사
- 김인규, "연암 박지원의 음양오행론 연구: <홍범우익서>와 <호질>을 중심으로", 동방학, 8, pp.203~224 (2002), 한서대 동양고전연구소
- 김일렬, "고전소설신론" (2003), 새문사
- 김진영, "고소설연구사", pp.1007~1022 (2002), 월인
- 김태준, "증보조선소설사" (1990), 한길사
- 김태준, "김기동박사 회갑기념논문집", pp.137~156 (1986), 교학사
- 문범두, "『장자』 우언의 이야기형식과 <호질>", 한민족어문학, 26, pp.191~213 (1994), 한민족어문학회
- 문빙우, "<호질>의 노장철학적 조명", 도교문화연구, 6, pp.289~354 (1992), 한국도교문화학회
- 박종섭, "<호질> 고찰", 한국어문연구, 4, pp.437~452 (1988), 한국어문연구학회
- 박기석, "박지원문학연구" (1984), 삼지원
- 박기석, "한국문학사의 쟁점", pp.451~460 (1986), 집문당
- 박기석, "고전소설연구", pp.953~965 (1993), 일지사
- 박기석, "『열하일기』를 통해 본 연암의 대청인식과 <호질>의 주제", 한국어교육학회지, 94, pp.325~348 (1997), 한국어교육학회
- 박기석, "연암소설의 심층적 이해" (2008), 집문당
- 박수밀, "<호질>의 원작자, 맥락으로 다시 읽기", 고전문학과 교육, (23), pp.235~266 (2012), 한국고전문학교육학회
- 박수밀, "朴趾源의 ｢虎叱｣ 구성과 표현 방식", 어문연구(語文硏究), 40(1), pp.159~186 (2012), 한국어문교육연구회
- 박종채, "나의 아버지 박지원" (2003), 돌베개
- 박지원, "열하일기" (2009), 돌베개
- 박지원, "열하일기" (2004), 보리
- 박지원, "연암집" (2007), 현암사
- 변광배, "사르트르와 바르트의 ‘작가-독자론’ 비교 연구", 외국문학연구, (44), pp.55~80 (2011), 외국문학연구소
- 성현경, "한국고전소설연구", pp.395~433 (1983), 새문사
- 소재영, "<호질> 재론", 숭전어문학, 2, pp.107~129 (1973), 숭전대
- 오상태, "<호질>의 작자에 대하여", 한민족어문학, 5, pp.47~66 (1978), 한민족어문학회
- 이가원, "<호질> 연구", 연세대 논문집, 2, pp.147~211 (1963), 연세대
- 이가원, "연암소설연구" (1965), 을유문화사
- 이강엽, "｢관내정사｣의 ‘교직’ 지법과 <호질>", 한국한문학연구, 26, pp.295~324 (2000), 한국한문학회
- 이석래, "조선후기소설연구" (1992), 경인문화사
- 이승수, "<虎叱>과 <許生傳>의 讀法 하나-金聖嘆 서사론의 적용-", 고소설연구, (20), pp.179~203 (2005), 한국고소설학회
- 이재수, "박연암 소설논고", 경북대 논문집, 10, pp.1~24 (1966), 경북대
- 이재선, "한국단편소설연구", pp.101~122 (1975), 일조각
- 李鍾周, "『열하일기』의 서술원리", 석사, pp.1983
- 이우성, "<호질>의 작가와 주제", 창작과 비평, 11, pp.446~453 (1968), 창작과비평사
- 이원주, "상산 이재수박사 환력기념논문집", pp.431~438 (1972), 논문집간행위원회
- 이현식, "？虎叱？, 청나라 인식에 관한 우언", 한국한문학연구, (35), pp.317~346 (2005), 한국한문학회
- 정학성, "<虎叱>에 대한 재성찰", 한국한문학연구, (40), pp.209~242 (2007), 한국한문학회
- 정향호, "가면극의 <영노마당>과 연암의 <호질> 비교 고찰", 어문논집, 23, pp.119~136 (1994), 중앙어문학회
- 조동일, "한국의 문학사와 철학사", pp.203~410 (1996), 지식산업사
- 최천집, "<호질>의 사상적 기반", 어문학, (106), pp.261~288 (2009), 한국어문학회
- 팽철호, "연암의 <호질>과 닮은 글 ― 『열미초당필기』 <고망청지> 기이와 <호질>의 유사성에 대한 검토", 중국문학이론, 6, pp.187~202 (2005), 한국중국문학이론학회
- 황패강, "한국소설문학의 탐구", pp.205~237 (1978), 한국고전문학회