미발표 소월 자필 유고의 쟁점과 과제

전정구(Chon Chong-ku) 韓國批評文學會 2009 批評文學 Vol.- No.33

This paper aims to study issues in Sowol Kim’s own handwritings which discovered and published founded by {Munhaksasang/文學思想}(1977, December) and {Munyejungang/文藝中央}(1978, Spring). The target of the study is the second volume of the original copy of Sowol’s complete works, that is, {Jungbon Sowoljunjib Ha/正本素月全集 下}(Myungsang, 2005). The conclusion of the study can be summarized as follows. Firstly, on the issues of the handwritings at the time of the discovery, this paper reillustrated writing practice of Uk Kim, business relationship between Uk Kim with Sowol in writing poems, and ownership relation on works jointly owned in the process of translation. As a result, it has been disclosed that the handwritings, which were discovered miraculously from wastepaper 40 years after Sowol’s death, had been possessed by Uk Kim, and that some of the works in the handwritings were unclear in ownership between Uk Kim and Sowol. Secondly, from the first result, this paper disclosed that it was not appropriate to consider the whole works in the handwritings from {Munyejungang} to be of Uk Kim. In addition, this paper pointed out the strong possibility that some of the works in the handwritings, which were not of the published works of Uk Kim, were of Sowol. Thirdly, this paper disclosed that some of the works interpreted by Jongwook Kim from the handwritings from {Munhaksasang} and published by him in {Jungbonsowoljunjib Ha} had been misinterpreted and that the number of the works had been miscalculated. The above results showed the necessity to correct the errors, that is, the misinterpertation and the miscalculation, appeared in the Sowol’s complete works by Jongwook Kim, which is considered to be seriously by researchers on Sowol and gets confidence as the definitive edition of Sowol’s works. Further, approximately 10 pieces of the works excluded from the complete works by Jongwook Kim in the handwritings from {Munhaksasang} have to be reverified, and the works in the handwritings from {Munyejungang} classified to be of Uk Kim have to be reverified for the original author through public discussion in academic community.

재구성적 체험과 김환태의 실천비평

전정구 ( Chong Ku Chon ) 현대문학이론학회 2013 現代文學理論硏究 Vol.0 No.55

김환태의 실천비평에 속하는 글들 중에서 작가-시인의 한 사람에 집중하여 쓰인 「시인 김상용론」이나 「정지용론」, 또는 「상허의 작품과 그 예술관」에는 정확하고 이해하기 쉬운 언어로 자기주장의 근거와 논점이 분명히 밝혀져 있다. 이러한 글에서 ‘어맥과 어휘의 혼란’이나 ‘조잡한 문자의 나열’, 그리고 ‘몽롱함이나 난해한 이론’을 찾아내기 어렵다. 조화롭게 균형 잡힌 문장력이 그의 주장과 논리의 명쾌함을 보장한다. 그의 문예이론의 실천적 사례로서의 글들은 대부분 ‘상대방 문장-글과의 친화력’을 바탕으로 표현해낸 한 작가의 예술-문학에 대한 주관적 인상기(印象記)로서 ‘한폭의 정갈한 예술가-작가의 초상화’에 비유될 수 있다. 작품에 부여된 정서가 암시하는 방향에 따라 유효적절하게 종합하고 통일하는 재구성적 체험을 통해 그는 분석대상이 된 작품과 ‘독립된 예술적 초상화’를 완성하는 것을 실천비평의 목표로 삼았다. 그렇지만 그가 주장한 선진적 문학이론-형식주의 비평방법의 측면에서 볼 때 그것들은 성공적이지 못하다. 대상작품을 대하는 순간 감지되는 인상에 몰입하여 완성한 그의 예술적 초상화들, 즉 「정지용론」 「시인 김상용론」 「상허의 작품과 그 예술관」 등은 작품론이 아니라 작가론에 포인트가 놓여 있다. 이것들은 작가의 인간적-생활적 측면이 강조되는 작가론의 범주에 속하는 글들로서 작품 자체에 대한 분석에 중점을 두는 형식주의-내재적 비평방법의 실천적 사례로 취급하기는 어렵다. 작가의 생활습성에서 ‘작품에 대한 총체적인 인상-감상’을 추출해 내는 ‘예술적 초상화’ 그리기로서의 그의 실천비평들은, 작가의 생활습성이나 혹은 내면적 정신세계와 작품 사이에 유기적인 관련성을 부여하여 그것에 초점을 맞춘 비평가의 인상을 중심으로 재구성되어 있다. 이것은 김환태의 실천비평이 대부분 그것 자체가 하나의 예술적 창작품으로 읽혀질 수 있도록 기획되어 있기 때문이다. 예술작품의 미적 효과를 확인하고 천재적인 작가의 개성을 발견하여 그것에 대한 인상을 충실히 재구성한 그의 실천비평들은 자발적이고 능동적인 자기 발견의 독서 이론을 연상시킨다는 점에서 비평사적 의의를 지닌다. 그렇지만 한 작가의 예술적 초상화를 그려내기 위해 그 작품에 몰입하여 얻은 인상을 재구성한 그의 실천비평이 보편타당한 객관성을 확보한 것은 아니다. 자기 반응을 덧붙여 작품과 별개의 독자적인 예술적 초상화를 그린 「정지용론」이 그 대표적인 예이다. 주관에 철저하게 의지하여 감상의 객관성이 담보될 수 있음을 증명하고자 한 「정지용론」이 끝내 개인의 인상을 넘어 ‘보편적 가치를 구유’한 것은 아니다. 고도의 심적 훈련과 심미적 교양이 요구되는 비평 활동의 정당성은 ‘작품의 생명과 약동성’을 발견하거나 설명하기 위한 어떤 비평적-기법적 장치의 적용이 수반되어야 한다. 독자 반응비평의 ‘능동적 읽기’의 논리적 정합성이 상당 부분 ‘형식주의-구조시학의 정교한 기법’의 활용에 의거하고 있다는 사실을 간과해서는 안 된다. 사회주의 리얼리즘이나 이데올로기 위주의 창작방법과 규준을 작가들에게 강요하여 ‘작가의 창작력을 고갈시킨 카프파의 고뇌’도 ‘비평의 객관성 확보’와 무관하지 않았을 것이다. 예술작품의 위대한 독창성을 주관적 인상에만 의존하여 객관화-논리화시키는 작업은 불가능한 일이다. 김환태의 「정지용론」이 천재 예술가의 초상화로서 성공했음에도 불구하고 그의 예술의 보편적 가치를 구현하는 데 한계를 갖는 이유가 여기에 있다. 따라서 그가 주장한 문예이론과 그것의 적용 사례인 실천비평의 사례들은 서로 어긋나는 측면을 보여주고 있다. 「정지용론」을 비롯하여 「시인 김상용론」이나 「상허의 작품과 그 예술관」은 제목이 지시하는 것처럼 작품론에 초점이 맞추어진 것이 아니고 작가론의 범주에 속하는 것들이다. 다시 말하면 그것들은 형식주의적-내재적 문학론이 적용된 것이 아니라 인상주의적-낭만주의적 예술관이 반영된 일종의 주관적 인상을 중시한 역사주의 비평에 근접한 것들이다. Among the writings of Kim Hwan-tae that are classified as practical criticism, ?An Essay on Poet Kim Sang-yong?, ?An Essay on Jeong Ji-yong?, and ?The Works of Sang Heo and His View of Arts? contain basis and views for his argument on writer-poet oriented perspective in precise and comprehensible words. Thesis essays reveal some difficulty to find ‘ambiguity in context and vocabulary’, ‘frequent usage of coarse words’, and ‘obscure and incomprehensible theory’. In the essays, well-balanced and harmonized composition ability guarantees clarity of his argument and its logical justification. The most of his writings as practical examples of his literature criticism can be considered as ‘neat portraits of artist-writer’ in terms of subjectively-impressed writing on art-literature about writers, which are expressed based on ‘his affinity to their composition-writings’. The aim of his writings to completion of both his criticism on the works and his independent artistic portraits on the poets by means of restructural experiences which are synthesized and unified along the way implied by the sentiment imposed by the works of the poets. However his writings are not very successful when they are reviewed at the perspectives of the critique of the literature criticism-formalism that he argued in his writings. Due to the his devotion to instantaneous impression on the works of the poets, his artistic portraits, that is, ?An Essay on Poet Kim Sang-yong?, ? An Essay on Jeong Ji-yong?, and ?The Works of Sang Heo and His View of Arts?, are placed at the center of writer criticism, not of work criticism. The writings cannot be considered as practical examples of a formalism-Intrinsic approach critique method, which focuses on analysis of works themselves, since they are in the boundary of writer criticism, which emphasizes humanistic-life perspective of writers. His practical criticism as drawing of ‘artistic portraits’ that extract ‘general impression-sentiments on works’ in life style or behavior is re-organized at the center of impression of the critic himself focusing on the relation between life style-internal spiritual world of poets and their works by means of imposing organic and systematic correlation between them. It is because the most of this practice criticism themselves are intended interpreted as artistic works. It is one of the implications and meanings of the criticism history that his practice criticism, which recognizes the aesthetic effects of the works, discovers genius characteristics of the poets, and re-organizes substantially the impression on the works and poets, is to be associated with the reading theory of voluntary and active self-realization. However, it does not mean that his practice criticism, which re-organizes the impressions obtained from the works by devotion in order to draw an artistic portrait for a poet, gets general and proper objectivity. ?An Essay on Jeong Ji-yong? is the typical example of such a criticism that draws an artistic portrait of a poet with his self-response, which is irrelevant with or independent from the works of the poet. The essay, where the objectivity of the impression is to be guaranteed based on personal and individual view point, does not seem to be worth of generality over his individual impression on the works of the poet, at last. The criticism requiring high level of spiritual training and aesthetic education cannot be justified without application of any critical-technical method or mechanism to discover or explain ‘life and vital movement of the works’. It cannot be disregarded that the logical appropriateness of ‘active reading’ of reader-response criticism is considerably based on exploitation of ‘refined technique of formalism-structure poetics’ The ‘KAPF`s gnawing having exhausted writer`s creativity’ by enforcing writing methods and rules based on social realism and ideology seems to have not been irrelevant to ‘obtaining criticism objectivity’. It is impossible to subjectify or justify logically the great originality of artistic works only with subjective impression. Here is the reason why there is a limitation in realization of his general value for art, despite of his essay on Jeong Ji-yong being successful as a portrait of a genius artist. Therefore there mus be a contradiction between his literature theory and his practice criticism as application of the theory. Beside ?An Essay on Jeong Ji-yong?, both ?An Essay on Poet Kim Sang-yong? and ?The Works of Sang Heo and His View of Arts? are in the category of writer criticism, instead of work criticism, as the titles indicate. More specifically, his criticism are close to historicism criticism emphasizing a sort of subjective impression reflecting impressionism-romanticism, instead of formalistic literary-Intrinsic approach criticism.

백석의 「적경(寂境)」 본문 연구

전정구 ( Chong Ku Chon ) 현대문학이론학회 2014 現代文學理論硏究 Vol.0 No.58

본문의 전승문제와 관련하여 백석이 생전에 펴낸 『사슴』(1936) 수록본 중 「寂境」이라는 작품이, 최근까지 발간된 백석전집에 재수록되는 과정에서 본문-원문의 마지막 행의 ‘그마음’이 ‘그마을’로 변개되어 있다. 본고에서 필자는 시집본과 전집본의 두 판본의 본문을 비교·검토하면서 어느 판본이 정본으로 합당한가에 대한 문제를 거론했다. 그 결과 기존의 전집에서 「寂境」의 마지막 행의 ‘그마음’을 ‘그마을’로 교열한 것은, 최소 교열 원칙이나 인쇄본을 중시하는 최근의 본문 비평 이론에도 위배된다는 점을 본고에서 밝혔다. 따라서 전승되는 두 판본 중 『사슴』에 수록된 「寂境」의 본문 그대로를 인정하는 것이 현재로서는 타당하며 시집본이 전집본보다 해석의 다양성이나 풍부성이라는 측면에서 우위를 점하고 있다. ‘본문의 전승과 보전’에 관한 문제가 백석 전집의 발간의 첫 번째 핵심과제이다. 교열의 필요성이 객관적으로 인정된다면 잘못 인쇄된 부분을 바로잡아 본문이 와전(訛傳)되는 것을 막아야 한다. 그러나 확실한 근거도 없이 편집자의 주관적 판단에 의거하여 본문이 변경되는 것이 용인되어서는 안 된다. The publication of the complete works of a writer implies the collection of all of the works of literary world of the writer, compilation of all of the studies about the writer, arrangement of all of the compiled studies, and the establishment of the intensive literal world of the writer on the whole. In recognition of the significance of the publication of the complete works of Baekseok in this perspective, a problem of preservation of the text of Jeok-kyeong(「寂境」) is stated, and a solution for the problem is presented, in this paper. The summary of the discussion in the paper is as follows. Firstly, the title of the poem, Jeok-kyeong (「寂境」), implies lonely place, area or boundary. It indicates that the house where the first son was born is located in the lonely area, and implies that the house is not in village with a group of houses. Secondly, the “inhabited mountain recess” (‘인가멀은산중’) phrase in the second line of the poem is in accord with the title, and it emphasizes repeatedly the fact that the first-son-born house is in the lonely area. At the same time, it performs the supporting function of enforcing the atmosphere of Jeok-kyeong (「寂境」), in addition to its correlation with the title. The house of the young wife is assumed to be of a husbandless broken family at the secluded area in a mountainous district. Thirdly, the husband of the young wife is not appeared at the surface of the poem, but it plays an important role. It is the reason why it is important to notice that the poetic words are chosen to imagine a person to be both the son of the widower and the husband of the young wife, as well as the father of the just-born first son, from the poem. The circumstance of the absence of the husband is the core of the poem, and it is related with the national difficulty of Korea at that time. The poem places the poor and hard family life of the young woman, who delivered her first son, in the center of its poetic implication. Conclusively, the revision of the “that mind” (‘그마음’) at the last line of the poem to the “that village” (‘그마을’) in text is a violation of both the minimum revision principle and the recent criticism theory, which attaches importance to the work in print form. Especially, Jeok-kyeong (「寂境」) in the complete works has strong possibility of limiting interpretational diversity and richness of its text. It is appropriate to recognize the Jeok-kyeong in the Sa-seum (『사슴』) as original in its text among two handed down versions, up to the present time. The publication of the complete works of a writer is the first step to enable both to synthesize his literary world systematically and scientifically and to analyze the literature about him precisely in detail. It implies that the start line for the study of Baekseok in higher level is ready. The first and intensive work for the study is how to inherit and preserve his literature in original text. Undoubtedly, it is necessary to prevent the text from being misinformed by means of correcting the misprinted text, if it is necessary, after reasonable debates and discussions. However it is not permitted to revise the text based on the subjective judgement of editors without objective and reliable evidence. This kind of the principle has to be maintained fully in the future publication of the complete works of Baekseok.

백석 시작품의 원전비평적 고찰

전정구(Chon Chong-ku) 韓國批評文學會 2010 批評文學 Vol.- No.38

『 진달래꽃 』교열 원칙과 그 실제

전정구 현대문학이론학회 1993 現代文學理論硏究 Vol.2 No.-

이문구 소설의 문체연구 : 「관촌수필(冠村隨筆)」과 「우리 동네」를 중심으로

전정구 현대문학이론학회 1998 現代文學理論硏究 Vol.9 No.-

예술의 상품화 경향과 21세기 시문학

전정구 현대문학이론학회 1999 現代文學理論硏究 Vol.12 No.-

원전의 교열과 정본 확정의 제 문제 : 소월시를 중심으로

전정구 현대문학이론학회 1999 現代文學理論硏究 Vol.11 No.-