http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
김대중 우리한문학회 2022 漢文學報 Vol.46 No.-
This paper focuses on the discourse on the use of bricks in the middle period Joseon under the question of how different the theory of Bukhak, a representative discourse of intellectual history of late Joseon, can be from discourse of the early and middle period Joseon. Since various topics are covered in Bukhak theory, this paper first focuses on the discourse on the use of bricks, which is one of its main theories. Before examining the discourse on the use of bricks in the middle period Joseon, I examine the discourse on the use of bricks in the early Joseon Dynasty. On this basis, this paper analyzes the discourse on the use of bricks by Ryu Seong-ryong(柳成龍, 1542-1607), Lee Hang-bok(李恒福, 1556-1618), Park Nae-seong(朴乃成, ?~?), and Lee Jeong-gui(李廷龜, 1564-1635). These discourses in the mid-Joseon Period were not limited to the introduction of advanced Chinese culture. They contemplated the production and use of bricks in the realistic context of actual Joseon society. And their discussion of brick use was based on a sense of urgency about the nation's survival. Their discussion was based on the actual experience of brick production and use in Joseon while referring to Chinese documents and examples, and partially reflected the voices of the people mobilized for brick production. It embodied the concern of brick production and use in the real context of Joseon society. It was based on Chinese literature and examples. After examining the discourse on brick use in the mid-Joseon Dynasty, the pros and cons of Bukhak theory in the late Joseon Dynasty are coldly examined by comparing the discourse on brick use in the early and mid-Joseon Period with the theory of Bukhak. 본 논문은 조선 후기 지성사의 대표적인 담론인 북학론이 과연 얼마나 조선 후기 이전과의 변별성을 가질 수 있는지를 검증하고자 하는 문제의식 하에 조선 중기 담론에 주목한다. 일단 본고는 북학론의 주요 각론 중 하나인 벽돌 사용론을 논의 대상으로 삼는다. 우선 본 논문은 조선 중기의 벽돌 사용 담론을 살펴보기에 앞서 조선 전기의 벽돌 사용 담론을 살펴본다. 이런 토대 위에 본 논문은 조선 중기 柳成龍(1542~1607), 李恒福(1556~1618), 朴乃成(?~?), 李廷龜(1564~1635) 등의 벽돌 사용 담론을 분석한다. 조선 중기의 벽돌 사용론은 다음과 같은 점에서 그 성취를 인정할 수 있다. 첫째, 단지 중국의 선진 문물을 도입하자는 차원에 머무르지 않았다. 둘째, 실제 조선 사회의 현실적 맥락에서 벽돌 생산 및 사용에 대한 고민을 구체화했다. 셋째, 국가의 존망에 대한 절박한 위기의식을 수반했다. 넷째, 중국의 문헌과 사례를 참조하면서도 조선 내 실제 벽돌 생산 및 사용 경험을 토대로 했다. 다섯째, 벽돌 생산에 동원된 인민의 목소리를 일부 반영했다. 이렇게 조선 중기의 벽돌 사용 담론을 살펴본 뒤에 본고는 조선 전기·중기의 벽돌 사용 담론을 ‘시좌’로 삼아 조선후기 북학론의 벽돌 사용론을 비평적으로 조망하여 그 장단점을 냉정하게 따진다.
김대중 한국현대영어영문학회 2022 현대영어영문학 Vol.66 No.3
This study aims to genealogically investigate the history of utopia in English/American fictions by employing spatial theory and closely reading three fictions: Thomas More’s Utopia, Edward Bellamy’s Looking Backward, 2002-1887, William Morris’s News From Nowhere. Those fictions represent utopias differently in terms of space, social institution and ideology. Thomas More’s Utopia, a harbinger of utopian ideas and imagination, represents utopian space as an insulated space where equality dominates and people work collectively and live together. The space in Utopia contains the idea of flawless society which resembles no less socialist’s space than communist’s one. The tradition of utopia develops via several thinkers’ ideas and practices including Charles Fourier, Charles Henri de Saint-Simon, and Robert Owen. Those thinkers from France and England share the ideas of syndicalism, socialism, and in some cases anarchism. Influenced by More’s Utopia and those Utopian socialists, Bellamy and Morris represent their ideas of utopia in opposite direction. Bellamy describes vividly the future society in the U.S. where national party dominates the whole economic and political instutitions centralizing power for absolute equality and welfare of laborers. In opposite, as a response to Bellamy’s industrialized utopia, Morris represents pastoral and anarchistic utopia which is built upon long history of struggle between the have and the have-not.