김태준(金台俊)의 학문연구 ― 일인학자 및 루쉰(魯迅)과의 학문적 교섭

Abstract

Kim Tae-Joon became interested in traditional Chinese literature and other fields of fiction and drama centered on poetry and prose as a student in Kyongsong Imperial University while he was attending the Chinese Fiction and Drama course taught by the newly-appointed professor Karashima Takeshi. Moreover, he felt responsible as a Korean for cultivating Joseon Studies (Korean Studies) in a stand against Joseon Studies by the Japanese, and began to study the history of Joseon fiction from his second year as an undergraduate. Kim also felt that it was his academic task as a Chinese literature major to import and introduce China's new literature. He put this task into concrete action by having A View of Chinese Literature after the Literary Revolution published serially in the Dong-A Daily News. Although it was commonly viewed to be based on a thesis called Modern Literature of China by Senuma Saburo, it became known that Kim referred to many different materials, as Kim himself revealed. Kim Tae-Joon referred to the writings of Japanese writers Senuma Saburo and Seiki Masaru,and to the thesis of Korean writer Jeong Rae-Dong. He also consulted various materials from China: the works of literatury history by Hu Shi and Tan Zhengbi; criticism of Chinese New Literature by Qian Xingcun(錢杏邨), Chen Yuan(陳源), Yu Dafu(郁達夫), Xiang Peiliang(向培良), and Li Helin; and the anthology of Guo Moruo. While it is true that Kim actively referred to the contents of Senuma Saburo’s Modern Literature of China, we need not state categorically that he based it simply on Senuma Saburo’s thesis from the fact that Kim assessed the flow of China's new literature as the stages of Literary Revolution→Revolutionary Literature→Proletarian Literature. It was natural that Kim, who inclined toward a class concept of history, would form the conclusions as he witnessed the Chinese literary scene after the formation of the Chinese League of the Left-Wing Writers. There is no need to presume any one influence since it was the common perception of Korea, China and Japan in understanding of China's new literature around 1930. Moreover, Kim Tae-Joon, while making sufficient use of the academic results of Japanese and Chinese scholars, made diligent efforts to make his studies his own from the perspective of national literature such as working on “Joseon in the Chinese New Literature movement.”Kim Tae-Joon did not feel the need to actively refer to Lu Xun's A History of Chinese Fiction since he had accepted the current view held by China's Left-wing Critics in considering Lu Xun's work as no longer valid, but we can surmise from several circumstances that he would have pored over the book to add depth and breadth to his understanding of Chinese fiction history. As for the study of ancient fiction by Korea China and Japan, if Kim Tae-Joon consulted Lu Xun's A History of Chinese Fiction as Karashima Takeshi consulted Kim's A History of Joseon Fiction, we can take it to mean that Korea, China and Japan share the academic research results of East Asian ancient fiction, having followed a similar path of development. Kim's introduction of China's new literature and his narrative of the history of Joseon fiction was a work that amply absorbed the existing academic fruits of Korea, China and Japan. In particular, his A History of Joseon Fiction has a noticeable purpose of narrating within the entire composition of East Asian literature based on his understanding of the histories of Chinese fiction and Japanese fiction. To sum up, because Kim Tae-Joon's academic achievement has amply absorbed existing study results by China and Japan on a firm basis of his own system and contents, it is extremely significant in the aspect of academic exchange and discussion among Korea, China, and Japan.