고려 전·중기 한문산문의 창작 실제와 이제현의 고문창도

서정화 ( Suh Junghwa ) 한국고전문학회 2021 古典文學硏究 Vol.60 No.-

한문산문사에서 고려 중기는 형식적으로 騈體에서 散體로 완전하게 전환되고, 공용적 실용문을 탈피하여 개인성이 발현되는 산문이 창작되어 문학적 전환이 이루어진 시기이다. 하지만 이제현이 고문을 창도했다는 학계의 통설 때문에 고려 중기는 고문에 성취를 보지 못한 ‘적막한 시기’로 규정되고 있다. 본고는 이를 반박하기 위해 이제현이 고문을 창도했을 때 발생하는 문제점을 검토하고, 고려 중기의 한문산문 창작 현장에서 당송고문이 실현된 사례를 살펴보았다. 먼저 고려 후기의 문학적 전환 또는 특징을 규정할 수 있는 것은 역사적 개념을 과도하게 적용한 ‘고문’이 아니라 사상과 문학 등에 합당하게 적용할 수 있는 키워드인 ‘성리학’이 적합함을 주장하였다. 또한 한유의 고문운동과 이제현의 고문창도를 무리하게 연결하면 500년이라는 간극이 발생하며, 중국 산문사의 흐름과 잣대를 그대로 한국 산문사에 적용할 경우 수용 주체의 자발성이나 창의적 능력을 무시하는 결과를 초래한다는 것도 논했다. 다음으로 고려 전·중기는 당송고문이 유입되어 창작 현장에서 실제로 구현되었음을 밝혔다. 고려 전·중기 문인들은 당송팔대가의 존재를 분명하게 인식하였고, 당송고문의 형식적 특징인 騈體에서 散體로의 전환을 이루었으며, 당송고문을 대표하는 양식인 송서, 설, 논, 산수유기, 가전 등을 창작하였다. 또한 당송고문이 수용된 증거로 한유, 유종원, 소철, 왕안석의 표현기법이 박문, 임춘, 이규보의 편지, 묘지명, 산수유기에 실현되어 있었다. 고려 시대 한문산문사는 고려 전기에 당송고문이 수용되고, 고려 중기에 당송고문이 정착·확립되고, 고려 후기에 성리학적 이념이 투사된 산문이 창작되어 500년 간 이어질 성리학적 글쓰기의 시대를 열었다고 거칠게나마 정리할 수 있을 듯하다. 그런데 이제현이 고문을 창도하게 되면 그 흐름이 이상해진다. ‘이제현의 고문창도’설을 폐기해야만 고려 시대 한문산문사가 제자리를 찾을 수 있다. 다시 말해 이제현의 고문창도는 성리학자들 ‘그들만의 리그’에서만 유효하다. The time of sino-Korean literature in mid-Goryeo period is when ‘byunchae(騈體)’ was completely transitioned to ‘sanchae(散體)’ in style. It is when literature transitioned from being practical statements for public use and started to be created as proses that reflect individual characteristics. However, due to the common academic view that sees Lee Je-hyun advocating for classical style prose, the mid-Goryeo period is defined as the “dreary period’ when the classical style prose did not flourish. This study reviews the issues that arise if Lee Je-hyun had advocated for writing classical style prose and studied the cases where the literary style of Tang and Song was practiced in sino-Korean literature. First, this study asserts that the keyword ‘Neo-Confucianism(性理學)’ is more appropriate for defining the transition of literature in the later Goryeo period or its characteristics because it is reasonably applied in philosophy, literature, and etc., not ‘prose’, which is overly applied with the historical concept. Grouping Han-yu’s Classic Chinese Prose Movement(古文運動) and Lee Je-hyun’s advocation for writing classical style prose creates the gap of five hundred years. Also, this study discusses that applying the flow and standards of Chinese prose to the history of Korean prose will result in ignoring the spontaneity or creative ability of the recipient. Secondly, this study reveals that the literary style of Tang and Song was actually seen in the creative writing in the early to mid-Goryeo period. The writers in the early to mid-Goryeo period clearly recognized the existence of the Eight masters in Tang and Song(唐宋八大家). The proses at the time transitioned from byunchae(騈體) to sanchae(散體), which shows the characteristic of the literary style of Tang and Song, and the writers wrote in styles that represent the literary style of Tong and Song , such as songso(送序), seol(說), non(論), sansuyugi(山水遊記), and gajeon(假傳). Also, the writing techniques of Han-yu(韓愈), Liu Zongyuan(柳宗元), Su Zhe(蘇轍), and Wang Anshi(王安石) were found in letters, memorial inscriptions(墓誌銘), and sansuyugi(山水遊記) of Park Moon(朴文), Lim Chun(林椿), and Lee Kyu-bo(李奎報) It can be summarized that the history of Chinese prose in Goryeo Dynasty accepted the literary style of Tang and Song in the early Goryeo period, and the literary style was settled and established in mid-Goryeo period, then in later Goryeo period, the proses with the Neo-Confucius philosophy were written, opening the door of the Neo-Confucius writing era, which continued on for about five hundred years. However, if it is viewed that Lee Je-hyun had advocated for writing classical style prose, it disrupts such flow. In order to find the right place of the history of Chines prose in Goryeo Dynasty, the theory of ‘Lee Je-hyun’s advocacy for writing classical prose’ must be discarded. In other words, Lee Je-hyun’s advocation for writing classical prose is only valid among the ‘league of Neo-Confucian scholars.’

從詞牌運用觀察李齊賢對北宋金元代詞接受攷

이태형 연세대학교 인문학연구원 2019 人文科學 Vol.116 No.-

During the Tang Song Dynasty, the company was called '小道' or '薄技' and was recognized as an emotional literature dealing with love between man and women. On the other hand, when he came to Jin Yuan Dynasty, he emphasized the importance of projecting the writer's subjective consciousness that reflects the times, views of life, and political attitudes. In addition, as Ci's Poetry emphasized Confucian poetry tradition by reciting her emotions at Jin Yuan Dynasty in earnest, the musical character of Ci's Poetry gradually faded. Lee Je-hyun's a Goryeo scholar, wrote many original works by using his favorite autographs such as "柳永(Liu yong)," "蘇軾(Su Shi)" and "吳激(Wu Ji)" or "元好問(Yuan Hao Wen) " as examples. In fact, Korean artists used to create creative death by digesting their own materials by accepting the historical theory that used to be popular in the Jin Yuan era in private creation, using similar contents, themes, and foregrounds that used to be hominids, the operation of the same order, borrowing similar phrases or phrases, or rhymes. Therefore, Seo Geo-jeong of the Joseon Dynasty highly valued Lee Je-hyun's private works, which were published in 10 volumes of 『益齋亂稿』. Seo Geo-jung acknowledged that the Goryeo Dynasty signatories did not know Chinese, so he could not build a temple, and claimed that Lee was able to build a temple because he had earlier gone to China and learned to study Qing Culture. However, Seo's theory is not true, although similar. According to the analysis of five Ci Pai, which were widely used among the 53 Ci's Poetry of Lee Je-hyun, he already had a foundation to build a private temple for himself from the Goryeo Dynasty, and later, he went to China to interact with many Chinese writers, building a unique Korean Ci Xue through multi-faceted knowledge theory and practice. In addition, it was revealed that his private school training was transferred from North Song Dynasty to Won Dynasty, Jin Dynasty and Goryeo Dynasty. It is believed that contemporary or junior scholars failed to create such high-quality pieces as Lee Je-hyun because they lacked various foundations for private affairs like Lee Je-hyun. 唐宋 시기 詞를 ‘小道’ 혹은 ‘薄技’라고 불렀고 남녀간의 애정을 다루는 ‘言情’의 문학으로 인식되었다. 반면 金元시기에 와서는 사에 ‘言志’를 부분을 강조하여 시대상황, 인생관, 정치태도 등을 반영한 작가의 주관적 의식을 투영하는 것을 중시했다. 또한 본격적으로 金元代에 오면 詞가 ‘情性’을 읊어 儒家의 詩敎論을 강조함으로써 音韻과 格律을 강구하지 않는 면이 많아지게 되어 詞의 음악적 특성이 점차 퇴색하게 되었다. 고려사인 이제현은 북송대 유영, 소식, 원금대 오격이나 원호문 등과 같은 사인이 즐겨썼던 사패를 본보기로 삼아 모방하여 독창적인 사작품을 많이 지었다. 실제 한국사인들은 사창작에 있어 금원대 유행했던 사론을 수용하여 호방사인 다용한 내용 · 주제 · 전고, 사조의 운용, 비슷한 구절이나 어구의 차용, 원운에 대해 차운하거나 화운하여 사를 지으면서 나름대로 자기 것으로 소화시켜 창조적으로 사를 짓곤 했다. 그래서 조선시대 서거정은 『東人詩話』에서 『益齋亂稿』 10권에 실려있는 이제현의 사작품을 매우 높이 평가하였다. 그는 고려시대 사인들은 중국어를 몰라서, 倚聲塡詞할 수 없었다고 인식했고, 이제현은 일찍이 중국에 가서 일찍이 北學을 배웠기 때문에 사를 지을 수 있었다고 주장했다. 그러나 서거정의 학설을 비슷하긴 하지만 사실이 아니다. 이제현의 53수 사작품 중에서 다용했던 5개 사패를 뽑아 분석해본 결과 , 그는 고려에 있을 때부터 이미 중국어를 알아서 사를 지을 수 지을 수 있는 기초토대가 있었고, 이후에 중국에 가서 많은 중국문인들과 교류하면서 사에 대한 다방면의 지식이론 및 실제 연습을 통하여 뛰어난 한국 특유의 사를 짓게 되었던 것이다. 아울러 그의 詞學 연원이 북송에서 원, 금 그리고 고려를 거쳐서 전래되었음을 알 수 있었다. 동시대 또는 후학자들이 이제현처럼 수준 높은 사작품을 창작하지 못한 것은 그들이 이제현과 같은 사에 대한 다양한 기초토대가 부족했기 때문이라고 사료된다.

宋元版의 資料에 收錄되어 있는 高麗王朝 關聯記事의 硏究

장동익 역사교육학회 2011 역사교육논집 Vol.46 No.-

This article deals with the some newly found accounts of the Koryo dynasty in the Sung and Yuan literature and the later copies of them. These cases were not dealt in my previous studies of the Sung and Yuan literature. The new 14 accounts on Koryo dynasty in the Sung and Yuan literature may be categorized into a Buddhist term, a postscript, 2 of inscriptions, 5 of proses, and 5 of brief reports on objects and events. We can find other accounts of Koryo dynasty in the later copies of the Sung and Yuan literature. These later copies mentions about Koryo dynasty in 19 cases: 11 cases from Chinese copies, 6 from Japanese ones and 2 from Korean ones. These 19 cases can be grouped by their nature into 6 of proses,2 of praises and 3 of proscripts, a dairy and 7 of brief reports on objects and events. All these accounts are expected to be important clues in explaining the diverse aspects of connection between Koryo and Yuan after the second half of 13th century when Koryo fell under control of the Yuan empire. The most notable material among them are the proses of Kwon Han-gong(權漢功) and Lee Je-hyun(李齊賢). The distinguished scholars of King Chungseon's Mangwondang were Lee Je-hyun, Kwon Han-gong and Chu Teh-jun(朱德潤). The collections of Lee Je-hyun and Chu Teh-jun were reflected partly in the social intercourse with them. But it was difficult to distinguish the level of closeness. I were examined concretely the social intercourse with Lee Je-hyun and Chu Teh-jun through autographic poetry that I found lately. These materials were contained the two poetries of Kwon Han-gong and the four poetries of Lee Je-hyun. It henceforth must be investigated the place of possession, the quality and the size of the materials but it would be the important material to consider the social intercourse with the literary men between Koryo and Yuan. In spite of the poetry's intercourse with the literary men between Koryo and Yuan, it has not been remaining in the existing collection of works. In particular, there were few the poetry of Koryo. But the collection of Chu Teh-jun included his poetry to response of the poetries of Kwon Han-gong and Lee Je-hyun, which was judged useful to catch the academic intercourse more than the former materials. And these materials as an autograph literature were the outstanding texts in the present circumstances that not remain the real trace in those days. In particular, the material of Kwon Han-gong is the important thing to examine his literature and writing ability. Therefore,these materials would be held an important position in the research of the field of poetry and calligraphy in the latter part of the Koryo dynasty.

‘益齋 李齊賢의 古文倡導’에 대한 재검토

徐正和(Suh, Jung-hwa) 대동한문학회 2010 大東漢文學 Vol.32 No.-

李齊賢의 산문은 여유롭고 명쾌하면서도 작품의 주제를 선명하게 전달하므로 그를 뛰어난 고문가로 평가하는 것은 당연하다. 하지만 그간 이제 현을 ‘고문의 창도자’로 규정한 것에 대해 필자는 견해를 달리한다. 그 이유는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 한중 문화교류는 신속하게 진행되어 늦어도 100, 150년 정도 내에서 수용되고 變奏되었다. 그러나 이제현을 한국의 고문창도자로 규정할 경우, 중국의 고문창도자라고 할 수 있는 한유와의 거리가 500여년 이상 차이가 나기 때문에 한중 문화교류의 일반사와 크게 괴리된다. 둘째, 고문운동은 문학운동이자 사상운동이지만, 이러한 잣대를 적용하여 이제현에게 고문창도의 공을 물려줄 필요는 없다. 고려 문단에서 고문운동이 반드시 일어날 필요도 없거니와 이 두 가지 중에서 어떤 하나가 먼저 발생할 수도 있다. 중국의 잣대를 고려 문단에 적용시켰기 때문에 고려전･중기는 적막한 시대가 되었고, 이 당시의 산문은 그 의미가 평가절하 되었다. 셋째, 고려문단에서는 12세기 무렵부터 당송고문을 명확하게 인지하고 있었고, 이제현에 비해 사상운동의 측면은 미약하였으나, 문학운동의 측면은 보다 활발하고 다양하게 진행되었다. 金黃元이 변려문에 반발하여 고문을 창작한 것, 林椿이 형식에 치우친 場屋文學을 신랄하게 비판한 것, 李奎報가 새로운 문학론을 제출한 것이 그 예이다. 넷째, 고려 중기에 假傳이 창작되었을 뿐만 아니라 당송고문의 핵심이라고 할 수 있는 贈序類와 論說類 산문들이 창작 현장에서 이미 실현되고 있었다. 또한 당송고문의 字句만을 답습하는 것이 아니라 자신의 의도를 개진하기 위한 도구로 활용하고, 자신의 시각으로 재해석하는 등 자유자재로 당송고문을 변주하였다. 고려시대 산문사라는 거시적인 관점에서 볼 때, 그간 ‘이제현이 고문을 창도했다’라고 설정한 좌표는 수정되어야 하며, 이를 통해 고려시대 산문사를 바라보는 온당한 시각을 재정립해야 할 것이다. Lee Je-hyun demonstrated his writing talents during the Koryo dynasty, and temporary critics evaluate him as a great writer. However, I would like to offer an alternative view of estimating him as an advocate of writing classical style prose. I suggested several reasons in this paper like below. First, cultural exchange between Korea and China always had been progressed within 150 years top. In this case, we can't define Lee Je-hyun as an advocate of writing classcical style prose in Korea. Because he was born over 500 years later than Han Yu, who was an advocate of writing classical style prose during the Tang dynasty in China. Second, the movement of writing classical style prose was about literature and also about ideas. But we can't apply this concept to Lee Je-hyun as it is. That is because the condition of Koryo was totally different from China's. Writing prose had not that big meanings during the Koryo dynasty. Third, the literary world of Koryo certainly recognized the literary style of Tang and Song. There were several writers who presented their own theory about writing classical style prose. Kim Hwang-won(金黃元), Lim Chun(林椿) and Lee Kyu-bo(李奎報) were typical writers during that period. Fourth, a number of writers already created variety form of prose skillfully before Lee Je-hyun. They were not limited just following the literary style of Tang and Song.Considering above reasons, I think we should revise erstwhile evaluation of Lee Je-hyun as an advocate of writing classical style prose. And we should reestablish a proper view of the literary history of Koryo dynasty

논문 : 송(宋),원판(元版)의 자료(資料)에 수록(收錄)되어 있는 고려왕조(高麗王朝) 관련기사(關聯記事)의 연구(硏究)

장동익 ( Dong Ik Chang ) 역사교육학회 2011 역사교육논집 Vol.46 No.-

This article deals with the some newly found accounts of the Koryo dynasty in the Sung and Yuan literature and the later copies of them. These cases were not dealt in my previous studies of the Sung and Yuan literature. The new 14 accounts on Koryo dynasty in the Sung and Yuan literature may be categorized into a Buddhist term, a postscript, 2 of inscriptions, 5 of proses, and 5 of brief reports on objects and events. We can find other accounts of Koryo dynasty in the later copies of the Sung and Yuan literature. These later copies mentions about Koryo dynasty in 19 cases: 11 cases from Chinese copies, 6 from Japanese ones and 2 from Korean ones. These 19 cases can be grouped by their nature into 6 of proses, 2 of praises and 3 of proscripts, a dairy and 7 of brief reports on objects and events. All these accounts are expected to be important clues in explaining the diverse aspects of connection between Koryo and Yuan after the second half of 13th century when Koryo fell under control of the Yuan empire. The most notable material among them are the proses of Kwon Han-gong(權漢功) and Lee Je-hyun(李齊賢). The distinguished scholars of King Chungseon`s Mangwondang were Lee Je-hyun, Kwon Han-gong and Chu Teh-jun(朱德潤). The collections of Lee Je-hyun and Chu Teh-jun were reflected partly in the social intercourse with them. But it was difficult to distinguish the level of closeness. I were examined concretely the social intercourse with Lee Je-hyun and Chu Teh-jun through autographic poetry that I found lately. These materials were contained the two poetries of Kwon Han-gong and the four poetries of Lee Je-hyun. It henceforth must be investigated the place of possession, the quality and the size of the materials but it would be the important material to consider the social intercourse with the literary men between Koryo and Yuan. In spite of the poetry`s intercourse with the literary men between Koryo and Yuan, it has not been remaining in the existing collection of works. In particular, there were few the poetry of Koryo. But the collection of Chu Teh-jun included his poetry to response of the poetries of Kwon Han-gong and Lee Je-hyun, which was judged useful to catch the academic intercourse more than the former materials. And these materials as an autograph literature were the outstanding texts in the present circumstances that not remain the real trace in those days. In particular, the material of Kwon Han-gong is the important thing to examine his literature and writing ability. Therefore, these materials would be held an important position in the research of the field of poetry and calligraphy in the latter part of the Koryo dynasty.

李齊賢 산문의 수사 기법 연구

徐正和(Suh, Jung-hwa) 동양한문학회(구 부산한문학회) 2009 동양한문학연구 Vol.29 No.-

李齊賢의 산문은 개인적인 감정을 기술한 것보다 국가를 위해 창작한 우국충정과 애민 등 충효를 주제로 한 작품들이 많은 편이다. 이것은 60여 년간 관직 생활을 하면서 국가의 대사를 책임졌으며, 실천궁행을 강조하던 그의 성리학적 사유와 관련이 깊다. 그렇다면 이와 같은 특징은 무엇을 통해 구현되는가? 본고가 주목하는 것은 이제현 산문의 수사 기법이며, 이는 선행 연구가 주로 주제에 입각하여 작품을 분석한 것에 대한 반성적 차원에서 기획되었다. 수사 기법 연구가 작품 연구에 있어 한계점을 지니고 있음을 충분히 인정할 수밖에 없지만, 본고는 같은 주제라 하더라도 이를 부각시키기 위해 기법들을 어떻게 사용하느냐에 주목하였다. 이제현은 類比를 통해 상대를 옭죄거나 당부의 바람을 선명하게 드러냈고, 적절한 예증을 통해 논리적 타당을 확보한 후에 이를 요약함으로써 주제를 집약화하기도 하였다. 또한 기존의 논의를 활용하면서도 이를 심화ㆍ확장함으로써 자신의 입론을 강화하기도 하였다. 따라서 이제현의 산문이 간명하면서도 의론이 정심하며, 돌출적이지 않고 안정감이 있는 것은 그가 성리학적 사유를 글쓰기에 투사했기 때문만은 아니며 수사 기법이나 구성에 힘을 기울인 결과도 주요 요인으로 작용한 것으로 판단된다. Lee Je-hyun, a writer of Koryo Dynasty, left lots of proses. He mostly wrote about the thought of loyalty and filial piety. This might came from his political position and the thought of Sung Confucianism. Then I wondered the way of embodiment of these characters. Former researches about Lee Je-hyun generally focused on his main theme or subject in his prose. However, I focused on the rhetorical devices which Lee Je-hyun used in his prose. He used various rhetorical devices in his prose, and those really contributed to make subject clear and flourish. Lee Je-hyun used analogy to inculcate his opponents. And he sometimes used illustrations to establish logical propriety. He also made the most of existing debates, and made it deepen and expanded to strengthen his arguments. Lee Je-hyun's prose are highly estimated because of its brevity and logicality. I think those virtues mostly came from rhetorical devices which he used in his prose.

고려 문인들의 팔경문학 향유에 대하여

김건곤(Kim, Kun Kon) 한국학중앙연구원 2015 장서각 Vol.0 No.34

이 글은 고려시대의 팔경문학의 전개양상을 통시적으로 살펴본 것이다. 고려 문인들이 중국의 소상팔경을 대상으로 시를 짓고 차·화운하는 한편, 고려의 특정지역이나 공간을 팔경으로 정하고 문학활동을 영위한 과정을 저작경위와 영향관계에 주목하여 고찰하였다. 특히 소상팔경시와 한국 팔경시, 八景詩와 八景詞로 나누어 그 전개과정을 파악하고, 기존연구의 몇 가지 문제점을 검토하였다. 고려시대에 처음으로 소상팔경시와 소상팔경도가 제작된 것은 명종이 신하들에게 지시를 하면서부터이다. 李仁老의 한시 〈宋迪八景圖〉가 그 당시에 지어진 것으로, 현전하는 가장 오래된 작품이다. 이것은 후대에 지어진 여러 팔경시의 전범이 되었다. 이어서 李奎報가 6편, 陳澕가 1편의 소상팔경시를 남기고 있는데, 당시 관료·문인·승려들 사이에 소상팔경시를 짓고 차운하는 것이 유행하였다. 고려 후기에는 소상팔경시가 그다지 지어지지 않았다. 李齊賢이 지은 1편이 남아있을 뿐이다. 대신 李穡은 소상팔경이 아닌 중국의 다른 승경을 대상으로 〈東吳八詠〉과 〈鳳山十二詠〉을 지었다. 곧 대상과 형식이 다양해진 것이다. 한편 고려 문인들은 소상팔경을 한국적으로 변용하여 한국 팔경시를 창작하였다. 金克己는 강릉의 8곳을 유람하며 최초의 한국 팔경시 〈江陵八景〉을 남겼다. 실경을 소표제로 삼고 경관과 관련 있는 역사나 전설을 원용한 점이 특징적이다. 이규보는 2편의 한국 팔경시를 지었지만, 모두 자신이 즐기기 위해서가 아니라 남을 위해 지어준 것이다. 고려 후기에는 한국 팔경시가 여러 문인들에 의해 성행하였다. 문단의 종주였던 이제현의 역할이 매우 컸다. 그가 원나라에 머물면서 송도를 그리워하며 〈憶松都八詠〉을 지은 것을 시작으로, 安軸은 관동지방의 관리로 나갔다가 〈三陟西樓八詠〉을 지었고, 李穀과 李達衷이 그 시에 차운하였다. 또 안축은 경상도의 여덟 경치를 〈東南八景詩〉로 읊었다. 이색은 자신의 고향을 대상으로 〈韓山八詠〉을 지어 자부심을 드러내는 한편, 간신 廉興邦을 위해 〈金沙八詠〉을 지어주기도 하였다. 고려 후기 팔경문학의 한 특징으로 寫景詞의 창작을 들 수 있다. 이제현이 원나라 문사들과 교유하며 詞를 익혀 독보적인 솜씨를 보였는데, 巫山一段雲으로 〈소상팔경사〉와 〈송도팔경사〉를 지었다. 그의 영향 아래 鄭誧가 〈蔚州八景〉, 陳義貴가 〈淸安八景〉, 安魯生이 〈寧海十二詠〉 등을 차례로 지었다. 모두 귀양지에서의 閑適한 삶을 무산일단운으로 읊은 것이다. 무산일단운이 유행한 것은 이제현에 의해 새로 전해진 詞調인데다, 오언과 칠언의 조합으로 상대적으로 짓기가 쉬웠기 때문이다. 한편 고려시대 팔경문학의 올바른 이해를 위하여 기존연구의 몇 가지 오류를 바로 잡을 필요가 있다. 특히 진화의 소상팔경시 저작시기, 김극기의 문학사적 위치, 虔州八境 및 東吳八景의 소상팔경과의 관계, 봉산십이경의 대상 등에 대해서는 재고할 여지가 있다. This study is about observation of how the eight-view literature in the Goryeo period has been evolved. Goryeo writers made and quoted a poem based on the eight views of Xiaoxiang of China. Also, they appointed a certain area and space as the eight views and studied the process of literature activity focusing on the purpose of writing and effect relationship. Especially they tried to understand the development process by splitting into a poem on the eight views of Xiaoxaing, Korea eight-view poem, the eight-view poem and cí (詞). The first painting/poem on eight views of Xiaoxiang in Goryeo period was produced by an order from the king, Myung-Jong (明宗). A poem on eight views of Xiaoxiang by a writer, Lee, In-Ro (李仁老) was written in this period and it is known as the oldest existing poem. This became a role model for the later poem of eight views. Following his poem, there were 6 poems from Lee, Gyu-Bo (李奎報), and 1 poem from Jin-Hwa (陳澕). At that time, it was popular among bureaucrats, writers, and monks to make and rhyme a word [character] of a poem on eight views of Xiaoxiang but the type of poem was not in popular in the late Goryeo. There was only one poem left from Lee, Je-Hyun (李齊賢). Instead, Lee, Saek (李穡) wrote a poem on the eight-view and twelve-view poem about other magnificent views in China, not the Xiaoxiang. That is, a subject and a form of poem were varied. On the other hand, Goryeo writers customized the eight views on Xiaxiang in Korean way and created the unique style of a poem on eight views Kim, Geuk-Ki (金克己) travelled eight places in Gangneung and left the very first poem on eight views in Korea history. It is distinctive that he set a sub-heading using the real view and quoted a related history and legend. Lee, Gyu-Bo wrote two Korea eight-view poems, not for his enjoyment but for someone else. From the late Goryeo, the Korea eight-view poem started to be written in earnest. It was mainly because of the influence of Lee, Je-Hyun, the leader of the literary world at that time. Following the eight-view poem that he wrote during his stay in Yuán (元) with heart missing Songdo (松都), Ahn, Chuk (安軸) made a poem on eight different views in Samcheok in Gangwon-do, and Gyeongsang-do. Lee, Saek wrote a poem about his hometown so he showed pride, and he even wrote a poem for his disloyal subject. One of characteristics of eight-view literature in the late Goryeo is a creation of Sa-gyung cí (寫景詞; cí to describe the view). Lee, Je-Hyun associated with writers in Yuán learned cí and showed the distinctive skill. He wrote Xiaoxiang and Songdo eight-view cí with Moosanildanwoon (巫山一段雲). Under his influence, many writers wrote the eight-view cí such as Jung, Po (鄭誧), Jin, Ui-Gui (陳義貴), and Ahn, No-Saeng (安魯生). They all wrote the cí about the lonely life using Moosanildanwoon. The fame of Moosanildanwoon was because it was the new form of literature introduced by Lee, Je-Hyun and relatively easy due to the combination of five words and seven words

18세기 소론계 문인들의 윤두서서화 수장

차미애(Cha Mi-Ae) 고려대학교 한국학연구소 2011 한국학연구 Vol.37 No.-

본 논문은 18세기 초 恭齋 尹斗緖(1668-1715)書畵에 대한 관심을 점검해 보고, 윤두서서화를 소장하고 향유한 小論系 서화감상우들의 인적 구성과 역할, 그리고 그들의 윤두서서화의 수장 양상을 조명하는 데 목적이 있다. 18세기 초 서화고동취미 풍조의 확산과 맞물려 서화애호가들 사이에 윤두서서화에 대한 수장에 대한 관심이 급증하였다. 윤두서의 서화 애호층이 등장한 동인은 다작을 하지 않아 희소성의 가치가 높았던 점, 상대할만한 뛰어난 화가가 없어 당시 화단의 제1인자로 급부상한 점, 이전 시기의 화풍과 뚜렷한 차이를 보이는 새로운 회화를 추구한 점 등이다. 여러 문헌들을 검토해 본 결과 윤두서의 西人系 서화감상우의 인적 구성은 李夏坤(1677-1724), 柳澔(柳竹?), 李師亮(1660-1719), 閔龍見(혹은 閔龍顯, 1668-1723), 沈齊賢(1661-?), 李明弼(1664-?) 등으로 파악된다. 이들은 윤두서가 46세(1713)까지 한양에 살았던 시기에 긴밀하게 교유했던 인물들로 서인 중에서도 소론 출신이다. 문헌 기록에 따르면, 유호가 윤두서서화를 가장 많이 소장하였으며, 이사량, 이하곤, 민용현은 윤두서서화를 각각 서너 첩 이상을 수장하고 있는 점이 확인된다. 이들이 소장한 윤두서 그림들은 함께 예술 활동을 펼쳤던 李淑(1662-1723), 李萬敷(1664-1732) 등 근기남인 서화가들, 가족과 친인척들에게 그려준 그림의 수량보다 훨씬 많다. 윤두서의 서화를 가장 잘 이해하고 애호했던 인물은 이하곤이다. 1708년-1710년 사이에 윤두서와 교유했던 그는 윤두서의 산수인물도, 노승도, 말 그림을 수장하였다. 평생토록 가장 뜻이 맞는 친구였던 유호는 서인계 감상우 가운데 윤두서의 그림을 가장 많이 수장한 인물이었으며, 사대부들은 그를 통해서 윤두서의 풍류가 또한 평범하지 않음을 알게 되었다. 조선 후기 서화평론가 이하곤과 李龜命(1693-1737)은 유호 집안에 소장된 《尹孝彦扇譜帖》을, 趙裕壽(1663-1741)는 《恭齋扇譜冊》을 완상하고 각각 제발을 남겼다. 이사량과 민용현은 사돈지간이다. 이사량은 윤두서와 20년 동안 교유한 서화감상우였으며, 민용현과 그의 장남이자 윤두서의 족질인 민창연도 윤두서의 그림을 수장하였다. 강경파 소론의 영수인 심수현의 동생 심제현과 서예를 잘 했던 이명필은 단짝이었는데, 이들도 윤두서와 서화모임을 빈번하게 가지면서 윤두서로부터 그림을 얻으면 보배로 여겼다고 한다. 윤두서는 감식안이 높은 소론계 서화감상우들과의 예술적 교유를 통해서 그의 명성이 세상에 알려지게 되면서 18세기 초 화단의 제일인자의 위치를 확보할 수 있었다. This study aims to identify enthusiasm to collect paintings and calligraphic works by Yun Du-seo(尹斗緖, 1668-1715) in early 18th century, personal composition and roles of the Soronn(小論) people who gathered to appreciate Yun Du-seo’s paintings and calligraphic works, and aspects of collection. Along with expansion of the trend to encourage panting and calligraphic works in early 18th century, Yun Du-seo’s devotees were enthusiastic about collection of his paintings and calligraphic works. The reasons why such enthusiasm increased rapidly were as follows: his works were rare, he was considered as the most outstanding painter in painting circles of that time, and he pursued for a new painting style which was distinctively different from the previous painting styles. The people from Seoin Party who liked his paintings were Lee Ha-gon (李夏坤, 1677-1724), Yu Ho(柳澔), Lee Sa-rang(李師亮, 1660-1719), Min Yong-hyun(閔龍見 or 閔龍顯, 1668-1723), Shim Je-hyon(沈齊賢, 1661-?) and Lee Myeong-pil(李明弼, 1664-?). Most of them belonged to Soron(小論) Party of Seoin Party who were friends with Yun Du-seo when he lived in Hanyang(漢陽). According to Nam Tae-ung(南泰膺), Lee Sa-ryang, Lee Ha-gon and Min Yong-hyon collected more than three or four packs of Yun Du-seo’s paintings and calligraphic works, which were more than the works Yun Du-seo gave to painters and calligraphers in Geunkinamin(近畿南人) including Lee Seo(李淑, 1662-1715) and Lee Man-bu(李萬敷, 1664-1732) and his family members and relatives. Lee Ha-gon understood and loved Yun Du-seo’s paintings and calligraphic works the most. He made a friend with Yun during 1708 and 1710 and collected paintings with mountains, rivers and persons, an old monk and horses. Yu Ho, the best friend for his whole life, collected the most paintings by Yun Du-seo among members of Seoin Party and noblemen realized Yun Du-seo’s art was not usual through Yu Ho. Lee Ha-gon and Jo Gwi-myong(趙龜命), critics of paintings and calligraphic works in late Joseon period, admired 《Yunhyoseonbochop(尹孝彦扇譜帖)》 collected by Yu Ho and Jo Yu-soo admired and recorded 《Gongjaeseonbochaek(恭齋扇譜冊)》 in an official report. Lee Sa-ryang and Mim Yong-hyon were related by marriage. Lee Sa-ryang was a friend with whom to appreciate artistic works with Yun Du-seo for 20 years and Min Yong-hyon and his eldest son and Yun Du-seo’s nephew Min Chang-yeon collected Yun’s paintings. Sim Je-hyon, a younger brother of Sim Su-hyon who was a head of Soron Party, and Lee Myeong-pil were close friends, and they had painting gatherings with Yun Du-seo. Through artistic relations with the people of Seoin Party who had good eyes to judge artistic works, he became famous to the world and considered as the best in painting circles of early 18th century.

14세기 전반기(前半期) 글쓰기 양상(樣相)의 한 국면(局面)에 대하여

원주용 ( Ju Yong Won ) 근역한문학회 2012 한문학논집(漢文學論集) Vol.34 No.-

It is not easy to conceptualized one`s literary feature specifically through a recent way of looking at a prose. Therefore, these days people generalize from distinct feature to describe. This study also considerate prose of Choi hae, Lee gok and Lee Je-hyun who was Shinheung-sadaebu in the first half of the 14th century and had a profound knowledge of prose. I want to give a hand to relight prose history as highlighting features out of many. Choi hae made sharp criticisms on the frivolous customs and government systems. Lee gok criticize something gone wrong at that time, ranging from severe punishment to political corruption concisely and clearly. and Lee Je-hyun usually describe history. Since he had negative attitude in a too much accessory in writing, he used pyungpoziksoe style which write in plain words.

『益齋集』의 사료적 가치와 詩文 제작시기

이정호(Lee Jung-ho) 고려사학회 2013 한국사학보 Vol.- No.52

Lee Je-hyun(李齊賢) is the one of the representative politician and historian at the period of Mongol Domination. His political activities and literary works provide many useful materials for studying on that time. His literary works were gathered and published as book named Ikjae-Nan-go(益齋亂藁). Although these works are individual records, they have a lot of values as historical materials. For example Kimgong Haengkungi(金公行軍記) and Chungheon-wang Sega(忠憲王世家) are regarded as important records to know the relations between Goryeo and Mongol. And many articles of his works, such as the records of the individual life are quoted in Goryeosa Yeoljeon(高麗史 列傳) with almost same contents. But it is necessary for literary works to use as historical data that these works are compared with the other records such as Goryeosa(高麗史), Goryeosa-jeolyo(高麗史節要), memorial inscription(墓誌銘) etc, because in some cases the errors of miswriting of the facts are found. And also it is needed to know the writing year of the literary works in order to use them as historical data. Most of the works in Ikjae-Jip(益齋集) are arranged in chronological order of writing year. Especially Lee Je-hyun(李齊賢) have written works during escorting Chungseon-ang(忠宣王) who was sightseeing the many areas of china and have published the literary works books named as Seojeong-rok(西征錄) and Hu-Seojeong-rok(後西征錄). Such an experience provide the chance to arrange the works in orders before publishing Ikjae-Jip(益齋集). In this survey it was found that he wrote some works under the relations with his political circumstances. For example Kimgong Haengkungi(金公行軍記), Chungheon-wang Sega(忠憲王世家), and Yeok-ong Paeseol(?翁稗說) have something in common that he wrote them when he was retired or in trouble with the political difficulties. It is assumed that these works are related with his efforts to overcome the such difficulties and get self-justification by writing the history-related works.