겐엔학파(蘐園学派)의 고문 비평의 쟁점과 특징 -오규 소라이(荻生徂徠)의 『사가준(四家雋)』, 『고문구(古文矩)』, 다자이 슌다이(太宰春臺)의 『문론(文論)』을 중심으로-

Abstract

Interest in reading and writing of Classical Chinese during the Edo Period has increased, and Ohgyu Sorai and his Disciples were at the beginning of the flow. The more the rhetoric of Classical Literature was taken into consideration, the more concrete grounds and cases were needed to elucidate their own arguments. Sorai of <Sagajun(四家雋)>, <Komungu(古文矩)> is prose criticism that pays exceptional attention to the descriptive characteristics, the operation of the lexical items, and the connotations of ancient writing. Sorai’s criticism method reflects his literary theory including the idea that recovery of a descriptive is important in prose, and it can be achieved through rhetoric. Sorai’s critique has an important meaning as an actual example that genuinely demonstrates the remedy of Qin Han classical theory which had not been materialize even by the Former and Latter Seven Master(前後七子). On the other hand, Dazai Shundai of <Munron(文論)> is prose criticism that refutes Sorai’s literature theory, Former and Latter Seven Master on the basis of the Jaedolon theory(載道論). The reasoning behind literary criticism in the way of historical explication, along with the reasoning behind taking strong warning against literary remedies can be said to be the unique reasoning held by his lecture literature. When compared it with the prose criticism enforced at the Korean literary world at the same time, the prose criticism of Sorai and Shundai have the following characteristics: first, they criticize the literature of Former and Latter Seven Master’s Literature, and second, they carry out detailed analysis in words and phrasal units. These methods of criticism can provide one clue that can be seen by analogy of the differences in the position of the writers of Korean and Japanese about Classical Chinese.