조선시대 道文論의 논점과 비평사적 의의

Abstract

This paper examines the divergent views and debates surrounding the relationship between Dao(道) and Wen(文) in historical literary criticism and related studies. It aims to highlight the significance and prospects for further research on criticism in literary history through a nuanced examination of these differences. As a preliminary study, this paper provides a diachronic overview of Dao-Wen theory within the context of Chinese literary criticism, comparing the Dao-Wen discourse of Guwenga(古文家, advocates of classical prose) and Daoxuega(道學家, scholars of Confucian moral philosophy). Special attention is given to the influential views of Zhu Xi(朱熹) and their impact on Joseon-era thought. Although a few historical cases argued for the separation of Dao and Wen, it was only with the modern introduction of Western literary concepts that traditional notions emphasizing Dao underwent significant transformation. Early Joseon views on Dao-Wen theory emerged within a socio-political consciousness, reflecting national pride in cultural sophistication. Following the mid-Joseon period, where Zhu Xi's thought had profound influence, Joseon scholars largely adopted a consistent framework in Dao-Wen discourse. However, nuanced differences in these debates can still be identified, which allows for a multidimensional understanding of the discourse. To achieve this, four criteria are proposed: the relative emphasis on the value of Wen, the extent of Dao’s scope, the necessity of separate learning for Wen, and the linkage between Dao’s level and the evaluation of Wen. Through specific examples, this study highlights the unique perspectives of individual writers. To critically review existing studies on Dao-Wen theory in Joseon and to draw relevant issues and perspectives in criticism history, this paper addresses three research questions. First, does Dao-Wen theory remain valid as a methodological approach to classical literary criticism? Given the richness of relevant materials and the nuanced interpretation that different standards afford, Dao-Wen theory holds methodological significance. Productive analysis, however, requires careful consideration of potential disparities between discourse and actual works, alongside meticulous attention to context and terminology. Second, how should the issue of "Dao-Wen separation" be approached? The declaration of Dao-Wen separation gains significance when understood in relation to the practical implications of Dao-Wen unity in literary creation. Additionally, it requires a reevaluation within the broader context of literary transformations in late Joseon. Third, what significance does Dao-Wen theory hold for contemporary literary theory? Rather than insisting on a strict separation of Dao and Wen, exploring new possibilities for their integration may yield pathways for reinterpreting Dao-Wen theory’s relevance within the study of classical Sino-Korean literary criticism today.