http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
金昌協의 산문 批評을 통해 본 글쓰기 방법론: ‘주제 잡기’와 ‘단락 구성’의 문제
박경남(PARK KYEONGNAM) 국문학회 2010 국문학연구 Vol.0 No.21
This essay is to review Kim, Chang-hyup(金昌協) s prose criticism, and through that, to devise some specific writing guidelines which is useful to today s composition curriculum. Kim, Chang-hyup(金昌協), as a distinguished scholar and a good writer in 17th Joseon Dynasty, criticized an imitative writing custom called Yongsa(用事), and advanced an alternative methods considering prose writing characteristics. The Yongsa(用事) is a method of conventional composition that quotes or modifies former text in expressions level, for using it, the common writers in the Joseon Dynasty must memorize a great many phrase and sentence in various classics. Kim, Chang-hyup(金昌協) thought that the writing based on Yongsa(用事) made a lot of mistake when quote former classical text, and had been attended by evil effects of imitation. So he roundly criticized the imitative writing custom and raised a writing methods which is suitable for the prose itself. He suggested that the prose writer had to learn the method on ‘fixing a central themes’ and ‘arranging paragraphs’, not imitating the expression of it from a great work, especially the Sagi(史記) which had been become a canon in the history of prose writing. By analyzing his literary criticism about several classical prose work writtin by Kim, Chang-hyup(金昌協), I set before each five detailed guidelines on ‘fixing a subject’ and ‘composing paragraphs’ at this essay, and had in place an available guidelines nowaday which is applying the classic literary criticism at the same time.
조선시대 문학관의 변화와 한국문학의 정체성(2) -기(氣) 위주 문학관을 중심으로-
박경남 ( Park¸ Kyeong-nam ) 한국한문학회 2021 韓國漢文學硏究 Vol.- No.83
본고는 문학관을 매개로 한국문학의 정체성 및 정체성 개념 그 자체를 다시 생각해 보고자 하는 두번째 기획이다. 이를 위해 본고에서는 동아시아 전통적 문학관의 다기한 측면중 ‘氣를 중심으로 한 문학관’을 소개하고, 이를 통시적으로 살펴보았다. 기 위주 문학관 역시 중국의 문학 담론과 긴밀한 관계를 지니며 조선 문인들 개개인의 고민과 시대적 요청 속에서 새롭게 호명되고, 서로 경쟁하며 변화하는 양상을 보이고 있었다. 고려 중기부터 조선 전기까지는 선천적인 기를 중시하는 문기론과 유람과 독서를 통한 양기론이 각축했고, 이러한 각축은 서거정 단계에서 양기론을 긍정하는 것으로 귀결되었다. 이후 조선에서는 선천적인 기를 중시하는 담론은 논의의 중심에서 사라지고, 유람을 통한 양기론과 경전 독서를 통한 양기론이 공존하며 점차 강화되어 갔다. 또한, 독서를 통한 의기 함양 담론은 유가 성리학 경전에 국한되지 않는 다양한 독서를 지향하는 개방적 경향과 유가 성리학 이외의 서적에 대한 독서를 이단으로 취급하며 배제하는 경향이 공존하며 각축했다. 다만, 동아시아의 기철학과 서구 근대학문의 성과를 종합하고자 했던 최한기와 같은 개방적인 기 위주 문학관은 서구와 일본 제국주의의 침략으로 더 이상 확산되지 못했고 그로 인해 기 위주 문학관은 근대 이후 계승되지 못하고 그 생명력을 상실했다. 그럼에도 기 위주 문학관에서 강조되었던 ‘부단한 독서’와 ‘내면적 성찰’, ‘여행을 통한 견문의 확대’ 등은 현대에도 여전히 창작 수련의 가장 중요한 방법으로 인식되고 있다. 따라서 비록 기라는 용어의 쓰임새와 유효성은 현대사회에서 미미해졌지만 기 중심의 문학 담론으로 제출되었던 여러 의견들은 여전히 문학 창작과 비평에 유효하다고 할 수 있다. This paper is the second study to reconsider the concept of identity and identity of Korean literature through a point of view on Literature. To this end, we introduced and reviewed it at different times to the discourse of Qi 氣-oriented literature among the diverse aspect of the point of view on literature in the pre-modern East Asia. The discourse of Qi-oriented literature had also a close relationship with Chinese literary discourse, and was newly called, competed with each other, and showed aspects of change amid Joseon writers' individual concerns and requests of the times. From the mid-Goryeo period to the early Joseon Dynasty, the discourse of WenQi 文氣 that values innate Qi and the discourse of LiangQi 養氣 through sightseeing and reading were competed. This competition resulted in the affirmation of the discourse of LiangQi 養氣 in the period of Seo GeoJung 徐居正. Since then, the discourse of WenQi has disappeared from the center of discussion in Joseon, and the discourse of LiangQi that train one's mind through sightseeing and reading has gradually been strengthened by coexistence. Furthermore, the discourse of LiangQi through reading competed and coexisted with the open tendency toward various reading not limited to the Confucian scriptures and the tendency to treat it as heresy and exclude reading of books other than the Confucian scriptures. However, open views such as Choi Hanki 崔漢綺, who sought to combine the achievements of East Asian philosophy of Qi and Western modern university culture, were no longer spread or enlightened by Western and Japanese imperial invasions. As a result, the discourse of Qi-oriented literature was no longer inherited and lost its vitality after modern times, but the constant reading, internal reflection and expanding knowledge through sightseeing and reading that were emphasized in it are still recognized as the most important ways of literary creation and training. Therefore, although the usefulness and validity of the term Qi has become insignificant in modern society, many opinions that have been submitted as a Qi-oriented literary discourse are still valid in literary creation and criticism.