http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : 盧鏞弼(Noh Yongpil) (검색결과 3 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
-
盧鏞弼(Noh Yongpil) 한국사학사학회 2010 韓國史學史學報 Vol.0 No.22
Moritani Katsumi(森谷克己,1904-1964) is one of the scholars in the socio-economic historical-science(materialism economic historical-science) who left substantial academic achievement while serving in the Gyeongseong Imperial University between 1927 and 1945. Moritani was quite proud of having deeply influenced by Fukuda Tokuzo(福田德三,1874-1930), who had been the great authority in the socio-economic historical-science of Japan. Moritani was a hard-working scholar who authored many books, including translations, with sincere intention to succeed and advance the academic tradition. There are two characteristics in the researches of Moritani. First, he worked very hard to secure the firm theoretical bases. It is quite clear that he obtained such theoretical bases from the publications he had translated. Second, he had deep interest in the present. Therefore, he even interpreted the past facts to match with explanation on the present. On the other hand, it is possible to criticize Moritani in following three aspects. First, Moritani was quite short of historical knowledge and he was not professional in the interpretation of historical knowledge. Second, he attempted to interpret the Asian society through the application of historical science of Karl Marx and Wittfogel; however, he always and thoroughly regarded Japan as an exception. Third, his academic attitude was not objective and he did not make fair assessments. He made thorough subjective interpretation based on the 'Greater East-Asia Co-prosperity Zone' theory of Japanese Empire. He accepted the theories of Marx and Wittfogel to firmly secure the theoretical bases. Since he had more interest in the present than the past and he interpreted the past facts based on such interest in the present so that the past facts would fit with the explanation on the present. Consequently, his research works contributed in the implementation of 'Greater Area Policy Theory' of the state policy of Japanese Empire during the Pacific War. Therefore, he ended up a representative socio-economic historical-scientist supporting colonialism.
-
韓國에서의 歷史主義 受容 : 특집기획논문 : 李基白 韓國史學硏究의 礎石
盧鏞弼(Noh, Yongpil) 한국사학사학회 2011 韓國史學史學報 Vol.0 No.23
이기백은 한국사 연구를 진행해 나가면서, 베른하임ㆍ크로체의 사학사 및 헤겔ㆍ랑케ㆍ마이네케 등의 역사이론서들을 읽고 영향을 받았다. 이들의 저서들을 이기백이 일본유학 시절에 흥미롭게 읽은 이후 내내 소장하고 있으면서 틈틈이 참고하였을 뿐만이 아니라, 자신의 일부 논문에서 직접 인용하기도 하였음은 물론, 특히 베른하임의 국역본 『역사학입문』의 경우에는 역사학도들에게 읽기를 즐겨 권하기도 하였다. 그러므로 역사주의를 적극 수용했을 뿐만 아니라 초석으로 삼음으로써 한국사학을 발전시킨 대표적인 역사학자의 하나로서 이기백을 최우선으로 꼽아 마땅하다고 생각한다. 이기백은 어떠한 역사이론일지라도 적극 수용하여 그 토대를 마련해야 한다고 여겼는데, 이러한 그의 지론은 일본 와세다대학 유학시절에 공부하기 시작하여 지니게 된 역사주의를 위시한 여러 역사이론에 대한 지식과, 그 자신이 간단없이 역사를 연구하면서 지속적으로 해온 깊은 통찰의 산물임은 두말할 나위가 없다. 그 결과 헤켈과 마이네케의 역사 해석을 종합하여, 그는 역사 자체가 발전하는 것이며, 그 발전과정의 사실들을 시대적 상황 속에서 상대적으로 평가해야 한다는 생각을 지니고 있었다. 결국 그의 한국사 발전 사관에는 헤겔의 역사철학에 나타난 발전 사관과 마이네케의 상대적 평가 사관의 영향이 융합되어 깃들었음은 재론의 여지가 없다고 하겠다. 하지만 그는 역사주의의 이론을 수용해서 극력 연구함으로써 한국사학을 발전시켰으되, 학자들에 의해 가지각색으로 쓰이고 있으므로 사용을 피하는 게 좋겠다는 의견을 경청하여 학술용어로서는 ‘역사주의’를 전혀 사용하지 않았다. 이 역시 참으로 이기백, 과연 그다운 역사연구 및 서술방식의 일단이었다고 하겠다. Conducting a study of Korean history, Ki-beak Lee read Bernheim and Croce’s books of history of historical studies and Hegel, Ranke and Meinecke’s books of historical theories etc. and was affected by them. Ki-beak Lee not only referred to their books from time to time owning them all the time after reading them interestingly while studying in Japan, but also cited them directly in some of his articles. And in particular, in the case of Bernheim’s Introduction to historical studies translated in Korean he also recommended students studying history to read it. Therefore, in my view it is so natural to regard Ki-beak Lee as one of the typical historians who developed Korean history by laying the foundation stone of historicism as well as accepting it actively. He thought that the foundation had to be laid by accepting it aggressively whatever historical theory it is. It needs hardly to be said that this philosophy of his is a product of his knowledge of a variety of historical theories including historicism which he came to know starting to study it while learning in Waseda University, Japan, and of deep insights which he could obtain keeping studying history for himself. As a result, putting together Hegel and Meinecke’s interpretation of history, he thought that history in itself develops, and facts in the process of development should be evaluated relatively in situations of the times. Ultimately, it is unquestionable that in his view of development of Korean history, the influences of a view of developing history reflected in Hegel’s historical philosophy and Meinecke’s view of history of relative evaluation are mixed. However, he developed Korean history by intensively studying theories of historicism accepting them but he never employed ‘historicism’ for a scientific term listening to an opinion that it would be better to avoid using it as it was used by scholars in diverse way. It can be said that this is also Ki-beak Lee’s own unique way of historical research and narrative style.
KCI
스콜라연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
