정인보와 동아일보 - 조선학을 둘러싼 접점

최선웅 (사)한국인물사연구회 2015 한국인물사연구 Vol.23 No.-

This research aimed at analyzing the theory of movement of Jeong, inbo and Dong-A Ilbo from 1920s to early and mid 1930, checking the agreement between the two, and investigating the development of Jeong, inbo's 'Joseonhak'(Joseon studies) movement therein. It was determined that Dong-A Ilbo and Jeong, inbo formed a steady bond of sympathy on national movement. That could be found in the fact that both of them asserted the development of independent national culture as an urgent problem of national movement, which took Joseon as the unit. In the point that the selected urgent problem was the development of independent national culture based on the same ideological foundation, nationalism, agreement of the two existed. Therefore, Jeong, inbo, who began to make relationship with Dong-A Ilbo from 1924, at the latest, clarified his political opinion through Dong-A Ilbo, as well, utilized it as the major stage of developing Joseonhak movement of 1930s. Jeong, inbo's study on Joseonhak was progressed by being interconnected with national culture enhancement planning of Dong-A Ilbo. Jeong, inbo serially published a bibliographical introduction of a classical work of Joseon in Dong-A Ilbo, and asserted historic place preservation such as Admiral Yi Sun-sin enhancement project, etc. by receiving Song, jinwoo's advice. Also, he serially published "Yangmyunghak-yeonron" in Dong-A Ilbo, one of his major achievement in 66 installments. In Dasan commemoration business, the opportunity of regular Joseon studies movement, Jeong, inbo published editorial and thesis in Dong-A Ilbo and conducted commemorative lecture. 'Eol-sagwan'(historical view by national spirit), peak of Jeong, inbo's Joseon studies research, was also published in Dong-A Ilbo. This way, Jeong, inbo's Joseon studies research was developed through the medium, Dong-A Ilbo. This proved that his Joseonhak movement was developed by being mutually closely interlocked with cultural movement theory of Dong-A Ilbo, accordingly, it is not valid to divide the two into compromise and non-compromise, or left/right nationalism.

정인보와 동아일보

최선웅(Choi, Sun-woong) 한국인물사연구회 2015 한국인물사연구 Vol.23 No.-

This research aimed at analyzing the theory of movement of Jeong, inbo and Dong-A Ilbo from 1920s to early and mid 1930, checking the agreement between the two, and investigating the development of Jeong, inbo"s "Joseonhak"(Joseon studies) movement therein. It was determined that Dong-A Ilbo and Jeong, inbo formed a steady bond of sympathy on national movement. That could be found in the fact that both of them asserted the development of independent national culture as an urgent problem of national movement, which took Joseon as the unit. In the point that the selected urgent problem was the development of independent national culture based on the same ideological foundation, nationalism, agreement of the two existed. Therefore, Jeong, inbo, who began to make relationship with Dong-A Ilbo from 1924, at the latest, clarified his political opinion through Dong-A Ilbo, as well, utilized it as the major stage of developing Joseonhak movement of 1930s. Jeong, inbo"s study on Joseonhak was progressed by being interconnected with national culture enhancement planning of Dong-A Ilbo. Jeong, inbo serially published a bibliographical introduction of a classical work of Joseon in Dong-A Ilbo, and asserted historic place preservation such as Admiral Yi Sun-sin enhancement project, etc. by receiving Song, jinwoo"s advice. Also, he serially published "Yangmyunghak-yeonron" in Dong-A Ilbo, one of his major achievement in 66 installments. In Dasan commemoration business, the opportunity of regular Joseon studies movement, Jeong, inbo published editorial and thesis in Dong-A Ilbo and conducted commemorative lecture. "Eol-sagwan"(historical view by national spirit), peak of Jeong, inbo"s Joseon studies research, was also published in Dong-A Ilbo. This way, Jeong, inbo"s Joseon studies research was developed through the medium, Dong-A Ilbo. This proved that his Joseonhak movement was developed by being mutually closely interlocked with cultural movement theory of Dong-A Ilbo, accordingly, it is not valid to divide the two into compromise and non-compromise, or left/right nationalism.

정인보의 학문 연원과 조선학 인식

이남옥 ( Yi Namok ) 충남대학교 유학연구소 2017 儒學硏究 Vol.38 No.-

본고는 정인보의 학문 연원과 조선학 인식에 대해서 살펴보기 위해 작성되었다. 정인보의 학문은 하곡학으로 대표되는 조선후기 전통적 학문체계 위에 중국유학 후 장병린 등에게 영향을 받은 근대학문의 방법론이 결합된 형태라 할 수 있다. 당시 한중일 삼국의 국학 운동의 흐름과 궤를 같이 한다. 정인보는 전통학문의 전승과정에서 가문의 배경과 함께 하곡학파의 적전을 이음으로써 일제강점기 조선학에 대한 권위자로서 인정받게 되었다. 그리고 1913년 상해에서 문일평을 통해 장병린의 국학운동에 대해 직간접적으로 영향을 받았기 때문에 일제강점기 국학운동의 중요성을 인식하고 이를 근대 학문체계로 설명하고자 하였다. 이후 그는 조선학에 관한 권위를 통해 일제강점기 조선학운동에서 이론을 제시하고, 해방 후에는 국학대학의 설립에 관여 하였다. 정인보는 조선후기 상황을 대체로 부정적으로 보았지만, 긍정적인 면도 찾아냈다. 그것은 바로 `구시지학(求是之學)`으로 표현되는 새로운 학풍이다. 정인보가 주장하는 `구시지학`의 핵심은 `역산(曆算)`으로, 김육·정제두·최명길·황운대 등은 로 당파도 다르고 시대도 다르며 각 인물별 특징이 있지만, `역산`에 조예가 깊었으며 이들이 각각 주장하는 것이 다르지 않다고 하였다. 역산을 공통분모로 하는 양명(陽明)·경제(經濟)·경세(經世) 이렇게 세 학풍이 전승되었는데, 이것이 정인보가 주목한 조선학이다. 또한 `역산`은 천문·지리·수학 등에 관계되는 것으로, 과학과 밀접한 관계가 있는 것이다. 정인보의 이러한 관점은 이후 `실학` 연구자들에게 선행연구로서 큰 영향을 미치게 되었다. This study is written to examine Jeong Inbo`s academic background and perception of Koreanology. The study of Jeong Inbo can be called a fusion of modern scholarship, was influenced by Jang Byeongrin, on the traditional academic disciplines of late Joseon Dynasty, is represented by Hagokhak. At that time, the flow of the National Studies Movement of Korea, China, and Japan was the same. He was recognized as an authority on Joseon dynasty during the Japanese colonial period. This is because in the process of succession of traditional scholarship, it is the successor of the Hagok School along with the background of the Soron(小論) scholars` family. In 1913, he was directly or indirectly influenced by Jang Byeongrin`s National Studies Movement in Shanghai through Moon Ilpyeong. So during the Japanese colonial period he recognized the importance of the National Studies Movement and explained it as a modern academic system. After that, he presented the theory of Joseon Studies Movement during the Japanese colonial period and after liberation he was involved in the establishment of Gukhak University. The following is the main thrust of the Joseon Studies Movement Jeong Inbo claimed. He saw the situation in the late Joseon period as negative in general, but found a positive side. It is a new academic style that is expressed as `Gusijihak(求是之學)`. The core of the `Gusijihak` claimed by Jeong Inbo is `Yeoksan(曆算)`. He said that Kim Yuk, Jeong Jedu, Choi Myeonggil and Hwang Undae were well aware of the `Yeoksan`, and what they claim is not different. They were different from faction and times were different. However, the reality that they insist is not different. Furthermore, in the late Joseon Dynasty, three kinds of scholarship were handed down as Yangmyeong(陽明), economy(經濟), and management(經世) with `Yeoksan` as common denominator. Also, `Yeoksan` are related to astronomy, geography, and mathematics, and they are closely related to science. This view of Jeong Inbo will have a great influence on the researchers of `Silhak(實學)` as a precedent study.

정인보의 『양명학연론』과 근대 양명학파 계보의 재구성

신현승 ( Shin Hyun Seung ) 한국사상사학회 2019 韓國思想史學 Vol.0 No.61

정인보(鄭寅普, 1893~1950, 납북)는 20세기 초반 동아시아 신유학(新儒學)의 한 축을 이루는 양명학의 역사에 관해 『양명학연론』이라는 제목으로 국내에서는 처음으로 저술하였다. 그것은 ‘한국 최초의 양명학사’ 이자 일본 양명학에 대한 서술이 빠져있기는 하지만, 동아시아 양명학사였다. 더 엄밀히 말하면 ‘한중(韓中) 양명학사’라고 해야 할 것이다. 그의 중국 양명학과 조선 양명학(하곡학파)에 대한 연구의 특징은 종국에 가서 국학에 대한 연구처럼 자신의 민족주의적 국학관(觀) 및 이분법적 역사관 안에서 논의되고 있다는 점이다. 따라서 이 논고는 본문의 첫째 장에서 이와 같은 『연론』의 이분법적 역사관과 학문관을 다루고 저작의 구성방식까지 우선적으로 검토하였다. 특히 『연론』의 머리말에 해당하는 저작의 동기이자 이유 등을 제시한 「1 논술(論述)의 연기(緣起)」와 맺음말에 해당하는 「후기(後記)」의 담론을 주요한 근거자료로 하여 정인보의 역사관과 학문관이 어떠한 양상이었는지를 살펴보았다. 이어서 『연론』의 구성방식은 물론이고 집필정신 및 그 사상사적 의의 등에 관해서도 검토하였다. 본문의 둘째 장에서는 『연론』을 ‘한중(韓中) 양명학사’로 규정하고 양명학의 창시자 왕수인 및 중국 양명학파의 계보에 관하여 어떻게 재구성했는지를 고찰하였다. 또 이 뒤를 이어서 『연론』의 가장 주목받는 내용이라 할 수 있는 조선 양명학파 계보의 새로운 구축 등에 관해서도 검토하였다. 이상의 논의를 통해 이 논고에서는 『연론』 다시 읽기 및 재조명을 시도하였다. 그 결과 『연론』은 넓은 의미로 근대 동아시아 양명학사, 좁은 의미로는 한중 양명학사라는 의미와 근대적 학술이라는 의의가 있음을 재확인하였다. 특히 정인보의 학파 분류법은 당시 중국과 일본의 학술 상황을 시야에 넣더라도 매우 창의적이고 독창적인 것이었음을 알 수 있었다. Jeong Inbo (1893~1950?) wrote the history of Yangmingism, which was an axis of East Asian Neo-Confucianism in the early 20th century under the title, Yangmyeonghak-Yeonron for the first time in Korea. It was the ‘Korea’s first history of Yangmingism’ and the ‘history of Yangmingism in East Asia’ despite it missed the description of Yangmingism in Japan. To speak more strictly, it should be called the ‘history of Yangmingism in Korea and China.’ His studies of Yangmingism in China and Yangmingism in Joseon are characterized by the discussion about them within his nationalist view of studies of Korea and dichotomous view of history in the end, like studies of culture and heritage of Korea. Thus, this study dealt with the dichotomous view of history and view of learning of Yeonron in the first chapter of the main body and first examined the method for the composition of the work. Especially, with the discourses in “1. Reason for discussion,” Preface, presenting the motive and reason for writing and in “Epilogue,” Closing Remarks of Yeonron as the main basic data, this study investigated the aspects ofJeong Inbo’s view of history and view of learning. Next, this study examined the writing spirit and the significance of historical thought as well as the method of the composition of Yeonron. The second chapter of the main body defined Yeonron as the ‘history of Yangmingism in Korea and China’ and discussed how it reorganized the genealogy of the founder of Yangmingism, Wang Shouren and Chinese Yangming School. Next, this study also examined the new construction of the genealogy of Yangming School in the Joseon Dynasty period, which is the content the most attention is paid in Yeonron. Through the above discussions, this study attempted the re-reading and reviewing of Yeonron. Consequently, it was reconfirmed that Yeonron has a significance as the history of Yangmingism in East Asia in the modern period in a broad sense and a significance as the history of Yangmingism in Korea and China and a modern study in a narrow sense. Especially, it was noted that Jeong Inbo’s method for the classification of the school was very creative and original, even if academic situations in China and Japan were included in the view.

근대 척독집의 변전과 그 의미 − 『新體美文 時文편지투』를 중심으로 −

홍인숙 동양고전학회 2015 東洋古典硏究 Vol.0 No.60

이 글은 지금까지 본격적으로 조명되지 않았던 근대 척독집 자료인 『신체미문(新體美文) 시문(時文) 편지투』에 대한 연구이다. 본고에서는 『시문편 지투』의 전반적인 자료 양상을 검토하고 근대 척독집으로써의 특이성을 분 석한 뒤 그 의미를 살펴 보았다. 1926년에 지어진 이 책은 1929년, 1937년에 4판 이상 출판되었다. 저자는 판본별로 ‘조용구(趙用九), 조선시문연구회(朝鮮詩文硏究會), 이명세(李明世), 윤종덕(尹鍾悳)’ 등으로 표기되어 있으며, 위당 정인보의 서문을 표지에서 강조하고 있다. 정인보의 ‘序’와 저자 서문 뒤에 241면의 본문이 4장의 구성 으로 실려 있고 뒤에는 35쪽 분량의 논설문 ‘서한문강화략초(書翰文講話略 抄)’와 편지 투식구가 첨부되어 있다. 본고는 『시문편지투』의 근대 척독집으로서의 특이성을 다음과 같이 지 적하였다. 첫째, 문체 면에서 『時文편지투』는 언문일치 경향의 ‘시문체(時文 體)’를 표방하면서 동시에 국한문체의 일정 수준을 유지한다. 둘째, 내용 면 에서 『時文편지투』는 ‘벗’과 ‘학교’를 중심으로 한 수평적 교유관계와 학 생의 일상문화를 주로 보여준다. 이는 근대 척독집이 주로 국한문체의 범주 안에서도 한문식 문체를 선호하는 점, 가족 위주의 수직적 질서를 중심으로 하는 점에 비해 매우 특이한 지점이다. 또한 본고에서는 『時文편지투』가 특유의 ‘청년 담론’을 통해 ‘독본(讀本)’ 적 성격을 강화하고 있는 텍스트라고 보고, 근대 청년의 이상적인 삶과 고 뇌를 서간문을 통해 보여줌으로써 그러한 정서와 태도를 학습시키는 기능 이 있다고 분석했다. 이러한 『時文편지투』는 대중적인 한문 글쓰기 규범의 변화의 폭을 크게 보여주는 자료이며 근대 척독집의 독본 및 강화류와의 교섭 양상을 짐작하게 해주는 자료라고 볼 수 있다. This paper is a research on 『Shinchemimun contemporary writings letter writing style(新體美文時文편지투)』, modern study materials for writing letters in Chinese, which has not regularly been studied so far. This research investigated the significance after reviewing overall material aspects of 『contemporary writings letter writing style(時文편지투)』and analyzing the peculiarity as the modern study materials for writing letters in Chinese. This book, written in 1926, was published over three editions in 1929, 1937, and 1938. The writer was written differently in each edition, i.e. 'Lee myeongse, Joseon contemporary writings research institute, Jo yonggu', and the characteristic is to emphasize forward of Jeong inbo on the cover. As the overall composition, Jeong, inbo's 'Seo(序)', the writer's 'Writer(著者)'s words are included in three pages and 2 pages respectively, the text is composed of 241 pages in 4 chapters. In the back, rhetorical writing in 35 pages and writing style phrases are separately attached as the appendix. This research investigated peculiarity of 『contemporary writings letter writing style(時文편지투)』as the modern study materials for writing letters in Chinese in two ways in respect of writing style and content. First, regarding writing style, 『contemporary writings letter writing style(時文편지투)』did not escape the style of Korean Chinese writing style, at the same time as claiming 'contemporary writings style(時文體)’ that has the identity of the written and spoken language. Second, in respect of content, 『contemporary writings letter writing style(時文편지투)』contained the content that emphasizes horizontal friendship based on 'friends' and 'school' and ordinary culture of characteristic students. This is a very peculiar point in respect that the modern study materials for writing letters in Chinese emphasized the expressiveness of Chinese writing style even mainly in the Korean Chinese writing style spectrum, which focused vertical order mainly with family. Also, this research analyzed 『contemporary writings letter writing style(時文 편지투)』changes to a direction that reinforces the characteristic of 'basic reader (讀本)' through characteristic 'young adults discussion'. This research suggested life and agony of ideal modern young adults through letter writing content and considered it has the function of enabling such emotion and attitude. This 『contemporary writings letter writing style(時文편지투)』is a material that shows width of popular Chinese writing standard change the most. Also, this text can be seen as the material that stands in the most extreme that can extend the spectrum of material group, modern study materials for writing letters in Chinese.

감통(感通)의 철학 : 위당(爲堂) 정인보(鄭寅普)의 『양명학 연론』과 F. 슐라이어마허의 『종교론』에 대한 현상학적 비교·연구

한상연(Sang-Youn Han) 한국현상학회 2019 철학과 현상학 연구 Vol.83 No.-

이 글은 정인보와 슐라이어마허가 의식과 존재에 대한 매우 유사한 관점을 지니고 있음을 드러내려는 취지로 작성되었다. 양자 모두 현상학적 성찰에서 출발한다는 뜻이다. 이 글의 논지는 다음과 같이 요약된다. 1. 정인보와 슐라이어마허는 현상학적 태도를 공유한다. 즉, 양자는 상습적인, 통상 당연한 것으로 여겨지는 이해의 방식들을 괄호치기한다. 2. 정인보와 슐라이어마허는 의식을 세계와 외적 대립의 관계를 형성하는 것으로 간주하지 않는다. 양자에게 우리의 의식과 세계 사이에는 객관적으로 실증될 수 있는 어떤 거리도 없다. 즉, 순수하게 내부적인 의식은 존재하지 않는다. 3. 정인보와 슐라이어마허는 일종의 지각현상학을 공유하는 바, 세계의 존재자들은 능동적 주체로서의 우리에 의해 지각되는 정적 객체들이 아니라는 성찰이 그 근본 출발점이다. 양자에 따르면 우리가 그 무엇을 지각하는 순간은 우리가 지각된 존재자들과 언제나 이미 감각적으로-정서적으로 통하여 함께 상응하게 되었다는 것을 알린다. 이것은 우리의 존재가 세계의 존재자들과 외적 대립의 관계를 형성하는 능동적 주체로서의 존재가 아니라는 것을 뜻한다. 양자의 관점에서 보면 우리는 세계와의 근본적 통일성인 그 자신의 존재에 반응하는 행위자로서 규정되어야 한다. This paper seeks to illustrate that Jeong Inbo and F. Schleiermacher have very similar viewpoints on consciousness and beings. They can be characterized as phenomenological. My arguments can be summarized as follows: 1. Jeong Inbo and Schleiermacher share a phenomenological attitude, which means that for both philosophers our habitual, taken-for-granted understandings are bracketed. 2. Jeong Inbo and Schleiermacher do not regard our consciousness as something that is opposed to the external world. For both philosophers there is no objectively verifiable distance between our consciousness and the world. Our consciousness is always already unified with the world, which means that there is no consciousness that is purely internal. 3. Jeong Inbo and Schleiermacher share a phenomenology of perception that denies that worldly beings are static objects perceived by us as active subjects. According to both philosophers, the moment that we are perceiving something indicates that we are always already sensually and emotionally corresponded with perceived beings. This means that we are not active subjects whose being is opposed with worldly beings, but rather agents whose being should be characterized by our responsiveness to the fundamental unifiedness of our being with the world.

정인보의 <오천 년간 조선의 얼>을 통해 본 ‘얼’의 사상과 ‘국어’의 사상의 관계

김병문(Kim, Byungmoon) 한국사회언어학회 2021 사회언어학 Vol.29 No.3

This article starts with a thought that the ideas of ‘Eol’(soul) and ‘Gugeo’(national language) presuppose each other. Given that ancient history was the place of struggle in which the desires of a modern nation-state were projected, national language was an important tool of the struggle for nationalist historians such as Shin Chaeho and Jeong Inbo, who attempted to reveal the reality of ancient history. At the same time, the history of national language could only be established based on national history. In order to take a critical look at this entangling of ‘national history’ and ‘national language’, this article analyzed Jeong Inbo s “Joseon s Eol of 5,000 Years”. Chapter 2 examines the specific aspects of the linguistic methodology Jeong Inbo used in “Joseon s Eol of 5,000 Years” and its status in his research on Korean history. Chapter 3 reviews Jeong Inbo s approach to describing ancient history, which introduced a linguistic methodology, in the academic context of the time and show that it was an important tendency of ‘Joseonhak’(Korean Studies) that sought to eventually find Something true to Korea. Chapter 4 examines the correlation between the ideas of ‘Eol’ and ‘Gugeo’, which originated from ‘Guksu’ and ‘Gukon’.

일제강점기 전통 지식인의 이중 언어 글쓰기

여희정(Yeo, Hee - jeong) 한국학중앙연구원 2015 한국학 Vol.38 No.3

『六書尋源』에 대한 近代漢文學界의 평가와 그 의미

김진균 영남대학교 민족문화연구소 2011 민족문화논총 Vol.47 No.-

In the 1939, Kwon Byeonghoon(權丙勳) published Yukseoshimwon(六書尋源). Yukseoshimwon was lexical writings dealing with the etymology of Chinese character. This book had referred to writings of Chinese studies succeeding Seolmunhaeja(說文解字), but the quintessence of this book was the Kwon Byeonghoon’s own inventive interpretations. Modern Sino-Korean literary men trumpeted him and his book. Modern Sino-Korean literary men emphasized the originality come from self-acquirement. So that they roll out red carpet for the originality of this book. Especially Jeong Inbo(鄭寅普) and Byeon Youngman(卞榮晩) gave this book a cheer as the originality come from self-acquirement. Jeong was a ultranationalist. He emphasized the national soul, and investigated national ethos. On the other hand, Byeon thought that the most important point in literature was self-acquirement. Accordingly, there was very clear distinction between two prefaces by two men. Their attitudes toward Sino-Korean literature of old civilization, and their request for Korean style of new civilization were not in agreement. But they agreed that Yukseoshimwon was a book of the originality come from self-acquirement. 1939년 權丙勳은 등사본 『六書尋源』 29책을 발표하였다. 이 『육서심원』은 漢字의 語源을 다루는 사전적 저술로서 許愼의 『說文解字』 이래의 漢字學 저술들을 참고하였지만, 기본적으로는 권병훈 자신의 독창적 해석이 주목되어 당대 근대한문학 지식인들에게 대서특필되었다. 한문학에서 중국중심주의를 도려내고 근대정신을 결합시켜서 자리를 잡으려는 근대한문학은 自得의 獨創性을 강조하였던바, 『육서심원』의 핵심을 이루는 독창성의 정신을 적극 환영했던 것이다. 근대한문학의 중심인물이었던 鄭寅普와 卞榮晩은 각기 『육서심원』의 서문과 「柬權惺臺」라는 편지를 통해 권병훈이 『육서심원』을 통해 보여준 자득의 경지를 높이 평가하였다. 이것은 그들이 근대의 시대에 근대적 국문체보다는 중세적 한자 한문의 세계를 중시하여 근대한문학의 장에서 근대와 중세를 넘나들며 문명적 사유를 펼친 결과 도달한 하나의 경지에서, 한자 한문의 세계에 대한 또다른 독자적 경지인 『육서심원』의 가치를 발견하였기에 가능했던 일이다.

1947년 아우내 만세운동기념비 건립의 역사적 의의

조한필 호서사학회 2022 역사와 담론 Vol.- No.104

On February 28, 1947, novelist Park Gyejoo’s ‘Virgin of Sunguk(殉國)’ was published as a special article for the March 1 Independence Movement. With the left and right wings holding separate ceremonies for the March 1 Movement for two years after liberation, the response to the article was great. In August, the formation of the Yu Gwansun(1902~1920) Memorial Association was promoted. Residents of Aunae (Byeongcheon, 竝川), Cheonan, the hometown of Yu Gwansun, led the commemorative project. In particular, the person from the same province with Yu Gwansun and the Goheung Yoo clan of the same clan were active. The association first pushed for the establishment of the Aunae Independence Movement Monument. Residents of the Byeongcheon area devoted themselves to collecting construction donations, building the site of the monument, and making access roads. The monument was used to grind and use the surface of the Japanese Imperial New People’s Monument. The Korean inscription written by Jeong Inbo was written by young calligrapher Kim Choonghyun in Gungche(宮體). The title of the Monument is ‘A heroic trail that occurred at Aunae during the Kimi(己未) Independence Movement’. With the first Hangul monument after liberation, residents regarded it as ‘Monument for battle victory’ established by expelling the Japanese Empire. Residents surveyed the reality of the independence movement 28 years ago and the deceased. In addition to Yu Gwansun, 19 people died at the scene. The contents of the survey were reflected in biograpy and film scenario of Yu Gwansun. The movie was filmed on-site for a month from the end of September. 3,000 residents gathered at the Aunae marketplace independence demonstration scene to surprise the photographers. As the official said, “It was touching for each cut, and it was tears for each scene,” actors, spectators, and photographers together formed a sea of tears. On November 27, the unveiling ceremony was also prepared by residents. They were responsible for the entire process of the event, including putting dozens of guests to sleep at the residents’ homes. In other words, residents lived in the memory of the independence movement in 1947. The residents of Byeongcheon area were active in the memorial projects to commemorate their neighbors who died miserably and to broadcast the Aunae independence demonstration to promote national unity. 1947년 2월 28일자 ≪경향신문≫에 소설가 박계주의 「「순국의 처녀」」가 3·1운동 특집기사로 실렸다. 해방 후 좌우익이 2년째 3·1운동 기념식을 따로 열고 있는 상황에서 기사에 대한 반향은 컸다. 8월 유관순기념사업회 결성이 추진됐다. 유관순의 고향 천안 아우내(병천) 주민들이 기념사업회를 주도적으로 이끌었다. 특히 유관순과 同鄕의 고흥 유씨 宗親들이 적극적이었다. 사업회는 아우내 독립만세운동記念碑 건립을 우선 추진했다. 병천일대 주민들은 건립 성금을 모으고, 기념비 터를 닦고, 진입로를 내는 데 심혈을 기울였다. 기념비는 일제의 황국신민서사비 표면을 갈아내고 사용했다. 정인보가 지은 한글 비문을 젊은 서예가 김충현이 궁체로 썼다. 비 제목은 ‘기미독립운동 때 아우내서 일어난 장렬한 자취라’. 해방 후 첫 한글비로 주민들은 일제를 쫓아내고 세운 戰勝碑으로 여겼다. 주민들은 28년 전 만세운동의 실상과 순국자를 조사했다. 유관순 외에 현장에서 19명이 사망했다. 조사 내용은 映畫 시나리오와 유관순 傳記에 그대로 반영됐다. 영화는 9월 말부터 한 달간 현지 촬영을 했다. 아우내장터 만세 장면에 주민 3000명이 모여 촬영진을 놀라게 했다. “커트마다 감격이요, 장면마다 눈물이었다”는 관계자 말대로 배우·관중·촬영진이 함께 감동의 눈물바다를 이뤘다. 11월 27일 제막식도 주민이 모두 준비했다. 수십 명 손님들을 주민들 집에서 재우는 등 행사 전 과정을 책임졌다. 주민들은 1947년 한 해, 만세운동 기억 속에서 산 셈이다. 병천일대 주민들이 기념사업에 적극적이었던 것은 참혹하게 순국한 이웃을 추모하는 동시에 아우내만세운동을 널리 알려 민족 단결을 꾀하려는 데 뜻이 있었다.