梅溪 曺偉의 燕行文學 硏究

Abstract

This article aims to consider the works about traveling contained in the collection of Maegye (梅溪) Jowi (曺偉) (1454~1503) and examine the features and characteristics of Maegye’s travel literature. First of all, this study considered the naming of Yeonhaengrok and works about traveling through historical investigation on 「Yeonhaengrok」 based on the period of traveling, process of traveling, and the period of social intercourse, etc. Among the existing works of 54 Je (題) 73 Su (首) contained in 「Yeonhaengrok」, the works of 31 Je (題) 41 Su (首) were classified as the ones dealing with traveling. Also, to consider the characteristics of travel literature, this paper classified Jeungbeolsi (贈別詩) works of 5 Je (題) 5 su (首) and Hong Gwi Dal’s work of Zengxulei prose as the works of traveling. Yeonhaengsi’s world of works was examined largely in the following divisions: ‘admiration of the pleasure in the process of tourism and nostalgia’, ‘encouragement and respect regarding the persons of social intercourse’, and ‘sad emotion and lessons from old history at the historic sites’. First of all, in the world of works dealing with ‘admiration of the pleasure in the process of tourism and nostalgia’, Maegye wrote Jeungbeolsi for this coworkers who were about to travel to express his passion to create novel works and expectation for the tourism. And during traveling, when he encountered something exotic, he expressed the emotion of admiration. Also, when he passed by a prosperous city, he felt Ming (明) as China. Yet, once facing difficulty in the process of a long journey, he showed his humane aspects as well not hiding his nostalgia. Second, this study examined the works expressing the perspectives of ‘encouragement and respect regarding the persons of social intercourse’. Maegye also recommended the persons of social intercourse to take the tourism of exoticness as a chance to write a new poem. This viewpoint shows his consciousness of Munijaedoron (文以載道論). Also, for the figure of his social intercourse in Peking, he expressed respect for his character and knowledge. Yet, for the specific situation of diplomacy, he tended to be very consistent with compliment and respect in terms of his poetry’s topics and contents. Third, this study considered the aspects of Maegye’s historic consciousness through the works expressing ‘sad emotion and lessons from old history at the historic sites’. Maegye’s evaluation on Qinshihuangdi is quite contrary. He had such rational historic consciousness about Qinshihuangdi’s desert. Particularly, his positive evaluation on the Great Wall of China seems to have been affected by not only the utility of Kameralismus and the symbol of advanced culture but the periodic situation that the wall was built until the latter period of Ming complexly. We can see that he did recalling and showed admiration at the historic sites. As passing by the relics or historic sites, Maegye did not simply do recalling or show admiration but tried to get impressions through Ongojisin (溫故知新) and Jeoncheolbuldap (前轍不踏) by recognizing and reevaluating history critically. Regarding the literary significance of Maegye’s travel literature, first, we can see that Yeonhaengsi (燕行詩) was influenced greatly by Sosik (蘇軾) or Gangseosi School (江西詩派). The form of Chinese poetry mostly adopted was Chileonyulsi, and in terms of rhetoric, Yongjeon (用典) or Hwangoltaltae Method (換骨奪胎法) was often taken. Next, Maegye’s Yeonhaengsi pursued the world of lyrical works centering around Chileonyulsi and showed positive social intercourse.