유길준의 『노동야학독본』과 『노동야학』 비교 고찰

Abstract

This paper compare and consider two books which are written by Yugiljun. These books are titled as ‘Nodongyahakdokbon(勞動夜學讀本)’ and ‘Nodongyahak(勞動夜學)’ respectively. From the Nodongyahak which is recently found, we can see that Yugiljun had published in the same year two different books under the same thema of night school for laborer. These two books can be looked into relating to the censorship of Japanese Resident-General of Korea at the end of Joseon dynasty and Yugiljun‘s activities of Nodongyahakhoe. Nodongyahakdokbon was published by the GyeongseongIlbo which was controlled by Japanese Resident-General of Korea but Nodongyahak was published by Dongmungwan which was established by Yugiljun to press the writings of Heungsadan. And in Nodongyahak, the illustrations are not included, which clearly show the position and enlightenment consciousness of Yugiljun who was advisor of night school gathering for laborer. This is related with the fact that night school for laborer was separated from Nodongyahakhoe which was renamed as Nodonghoe according to the imperial order in september 1908. Nodongyahak is aligned with Nodongyahakdokbon in the aspect of that this book explains the concept of labor and presents in the modern society the meaning of laborer, ethical beliefs on job, etc. With the changes of structure, contents and style, this book proceeded to the direction in which general readers including laborer could easily understand the concept and value of labor and realize the rights and duties of laborer. The added contents in Nodongyahak made people to think about labor under the relation with capital by reminding ethical, economical and social values of labor and informing what laborer have to be conscious of in modern society. In addition, Yugiljun had increased readability in this book by applying the Korean style. In this aspect, Nodongyahak can be considered as a revision of Nodongyahakdokbon. And we can see that Yugiljun had edited and published Nodongyahak under the political pressure from the fact that some chapters in which politically critical situations were dealt and efforts for recovering national sovereignty were urged, had been deleted. Therefore this book has to be read not in the frame of author and reader but in the frame of author, censor, author as an editor and reader.