단재 신채호의 자료 발굴 및 원전 확정 연구

김주현(Kim Ju-hyeon) 한국현대문학회 2006 한국현대문학연구 Vol.0 No.20

This paper is to unearth Shin, Chae-ho's works and to establish his authentic text in the Daehan Maeil Sinbo(大韓每日申報) which published at Seoul from 1904 to 1910. It is known in general that Shin, Chae-ho wrote many works on that newspaper as the chief editor. But we have not made any detailed discussion on that problem so far. Recently, the program ‘Nggimpyo’ of MBC reported that Shin, Chae-ho wrote the article, 〈Siilyawubangsengdaegok(是日에 又放聲大哭 : it means, we wail loudly again on this day〉. That article is an editorial, which was carried in the editorial column of the Daehan Maeil Sinbo on December 28, 1905. This paper especially focuses on the issue of who the real author of the article is. Shin, Chae-ho served at the Daehan Maeil Sinbo as the chief editor from November 6, 1907. The article, 〈Siilyawubangsengdaegok〉 was published in the newspaper of December 28, 1905. At that time, Shin, Chae-ho was not a chief editor of the Daehan Maeil Sinbo. The chief editors were Park, Eun-sik, Yang, Gi-tak and Ernest Thomas Bethell. So Shin, Chae-ho cannot be author of the article. Because the style and idea of the article are the same as those of Park, Eun-sik's, this paper argues that the real author of the article is Park, Eun-sik. In addition, the complete works Shin, Chae-ho include 3 works, which were carried in the reader's column of the Daehan Maeil Sinbo in 1908 and 1909. At that time, Shin, Chae-ho served as the chief editor in that newspaper. So it is obvious that he did not write those works in the reader's column. Those works were surely written by anyone, who did not work for that newspaper. So, we regard those works as not belonging to Shin, Chae-ho's complete works. And we need to reexamine the complete works of Shin, Chae-ho more accurately in the future.

北韓 소장 미공개 申采浩 遺稿의 현황과 성격

박걸순 한국근현대사학회 2016 한국 근현대사 연구 Vol.79 No.-

Shin Chae-ho was a representative Korean independence activists during the Japanese Colonial Period of Korea. He left numerous articles in various fields, including history. His posthumous work is currently possessed by Democratic People's Republic of Korea(DPRK). In the meantime, booklets of Shin Chae-ho has been published in Republic of Korea(ROK). However, the content of these booklets is limited to partial materials transferred via an unofficial route, because access to the posthumous work of Shin Chae-ho was strictly restricted by DPRK. In 2006, while the complete collection of Shin Chae-ho was under way for publication, the list and some photos of his posthumous works had been obtained during the contact process with DPRK. According to this information, it is confirmed that Shin Chae-ho’s posthumous works are at least 53 books with more than 4,979 pages. According to the list of his posthumous works, it is apparent that his publication was much more extensive than what was originally thought. In addition, it enables to properly understand his writing styles and his original form of his posthumous works can be recovered. His unpublished posthumous works suggests a new milestone of research regarding Shin Chae-ho. Shin Chae-ho and a German playwright, Bertolt Brecht have much in common in numerous ways. In the era of German division, Brecht’s complete collection had been led by both German – West and East by collecting Brecht’s individual work since 1983. In 1999, after 17 years of hard effort, the enormous complete collection was accomplished. In the meantime, both German became unified. Shin Chae-ho is an important figure as influential as Brecht in terms of his scholarly multidimensionality and modern intellectual history. In the era of Korean division, compiling his posthumous work by both Koreas (South [ROK] and North [DPRK]) is an important process mediated by scholarly effort. It is believed that when the division of data is overcome, the unification is possible too. 1928년 신채호가 일제에 피체되어 수감된 후, 그의 많은 유고는 천진에서 독립운동을 펼치고 있던 박용태에게 일시 맡겨졌다. 그런데 이후 신채호 유고는 해방 후 북경 주재 북한대사관을 통해 북한으로 유입되어, 현재 평양 인민대학습당에 보관되어 있는 것으로 알려져 있다. 그간 남한에서 신채호자료가 집성된 바 있다. 그러나 북한이 자신들이 소장하고 있는 신채호 자료를 공개하지 않았기 때문에 간접적으로 전해진 일부 자료를 제외하고는 수록할 수 없었다. 그런데 신채호 전집 발간을 추진하던 2006년, 신채호 유고 수집을 위한 북한과의 접촉과정에서 유고 목록과 일부 사진을 확보할 수 있었다. 이를 통해 북한이 소장하고 있는 신채로 유고가 최소 53건 4,979쪽 이상임을 확인할 수 있게 되었다. 필자가 북한과의 접촉과정과 목록을 공개하는 것은 그 사실을 공론화함으로써 더 이상 북한이 민족의 자산인 신채호 유고를 감춰두지 말기를 바라는 마음에서이다. 북한이 제시한 신채호 유고 목록만 가지고 그 구체적 내용과 성격을 파악하기는 어렵다. 그러나 이 목록만 가지고도 그의 저술 세계가 지금까지 알려진 것보다 훨씬 광대했음을 명백히 알 수 있다. 또한 그의 글쓰기 방식을 올바로 이해할 수 있고, 그의 저술 원형을 복원할 수 있는 가능성을 시사한다. 신채호의 미공개 유고는 그에 대한 연구의 새로운 이정을 제시해 준다. 신채호와 독일의 극작가 베르톨트 브레히트(Bertolt Brecht)는 여러 면에서 공통점을 지니고 있다. 분단시대 독일은 1983년부터 동서독이 함께 브레히트의 저작을 모아 공동으로 전집을 편찬해 나갔다. 독일은 1999년, 17년의 대장정 끝에 31권에 달하는 방대한 전집 편찬의 결실을 맺었고, 그 도중에 통일을 맞이하였다. 신채호는 학문적 다변성과 근대 지성사에서 브레히트에 뒤지지 않는 인물이다. 분단시대 남북한이 그의 유고를 모아 공동으로 전집을 편찬해 내는 것은 학문적으로 통일의 물꼬를 여는 중요한 작업이다. 자료의 분단이 극복될 때 통일도 가능할 것이다.

1920년대 申采浩와 梁啓超의 역사연구방법론 비교 : E. 베른하임을 참고하여

박찬승(Park, Chan-Seung) 한국사학사학회 2004 韓國史學史學報 Vol.0 No.9

'Introduction' of the book 'Korean ancient history' written by Shin Chae Ho was highly influenced by Liang Qichao's(1873~1929) book 'The methodologies of Chinese history'. Shin Chae Ho borrowed many ideas and most of the organizational framework of his 'Introduction' from Liang Qichao. Shin Chae Ho dealt with the same themes that was found in 'The methodologies of Chinese history' but discussed it in terms of historical documents or events in Korea. Since Liang Qichao referred to 'Introduction to history' written by Ernst Bernheim when he wrote his book, it can be assumed that modern methodologies of western history was adopted by Shin Chae Ho in his 'Introduction'. Shin Chae Ho believed that history is a document of mental activities that develop both spatially and temporally. He emphasized the importance of objective descriptions of historical facts. He also knew the importance of explanations for causal relationship in writing history and of studies of historical records. All these reflect the influences of Liang Qichao and Ernst Bernheim on Shin Chae Ho. However, Shin Chae Ho had his uniqueperspectives as well. For example, he said that history is a struggle between 'me'(or 'us') and 'others'. He also emphasized the importance of specificities and uniqueness of each nation(Minjok). These are indications of his own 'nationalistic history'. In summary, Shin Chae Ho adopted modern methodologies in Western history from Liang Qichao and Ernst Bernheim and developed a new methodology of his own. We now call it methodology of nationalistic history.

신채호의 무정부주의

신복룡(Shin Bok-ryong) 한국동양정치사상사학회 2008 한국동양정치사상사연구 Vol.7 No.1

이 글은 단재(丹齋) 신채호(申采浩: 1880-1936)를 통하여 식민지 시대의 이 땅에 파종된 무정부주의의 모습을 천착(穿鑿)하고자 한다. 그가 기초한 『조선혁명선언』과 그 주체인 조선의열단의 노선, 그리고 1927년을 전후하여 그가 마지막 의지처로 생각했던 동방아나키스트연맹에서의 언행과 저작을 통하여 일제 치하에서의 한국 무정부주의의 현실과 이상을 살펴보고자 하는 것이 이 글의 의도이다. 신채호의 무정부주의에는 당시 식민지지배 아래서의 지식인들이 공유하고 있는 사상적 습합(習合)의 양상이 나타나고 있다. 이를테면 그의 사상은 당시 한국에 유입된 양계초(梁啓超)의 영웅주의, 크로포트킨(Count Kropotkin)의 민중주의적 연민과 상호부조론, 고도쿠 슈스이(幸德秋水)의 폭력혁명론, 이석증(李石曾)의 생물학적 진화론 등을 융합한 것이었다. 그런 점에서 볼 때 식민지 시대의 무정부주의가 매우 정치(精緻)하고 논리적으로 완성된 것이라고 보기는 어렵다. 학통으로 보면 고토쿠 슈스이를 잇는 것으로 볼 수 있는 신채호의 폭력혁명론은 그의 사상을 평가하는 과정에서 업장(業障)처럼 따라 다니고 있다. 식민지 시대에 독립을 쟁취할 수 있는 여러 가지 방법이 좌절된 후 최후의 방법으로 폭력 또는 테러리즘의 길을 걷게 된 것은 잘못된 일도 아니고 비난 받을 것도 아니다. 그럼에도 불구하고 폭력 투쟁에 대하여는 곱지 않은 시선을 보내는 것이 한국인의 보편적 정서이다. 신채호의 무정부주의가 사회주의 또는 공산주의와 어떻게 연계되어 있고 어떻게 다른가에 대하여는 당사자인 신채호도 혼동하고 있고 후세의 평가도 각기 다르다. 신채호도 계급 투쟁이나 평등과 같은 사회주의적 입장을 밝힌 바 있고, 당시 무정부주의자들은 사유 재산을 부정하고 계급 철폐를 주창하는 등 사회주의적 요소를 표방하는 일이 흔히 있었다. 이러한 현상은 당시의 무정부주의가 사회주의와 혼재ㆍ혼용되고 있음을 의미한다. 위와 같은 여러 가지 상황을 고려할 때 식민지시대의 한국의 무정부주의는 일본제국주의에 대한 거부와 혐오감이 그 본질을 이루고 있는 것이지 정확히 권력이나 또는 정치(정부ㆍ국가)에 대한 거부나 혐오가 아니다. 그런 점에서 신채호를 비롯한 한국의 무정부주의는 정통 논리로부터 다소 빗겨 서 있었다. This paper was written to depict the reality and idea of Korean anarchism under the Japanese rule through Shin Chae-ho's writings such as the Declaration of Korean Revolution, his political line presented at the Korean Gallant Party(Chosun Uiyuldan), and his dialogues and activities at the East Anarchist Union. Shin Chae-ho's anarchism shows the ideological fusion as a means of independence movement. So as to say, he accepted and reconstructed the heroism of Liang Chi-chao, populist sympathy and mutual assistance theory of Count Kropotkin, theory of violent revolution of Kotoku Shushui and biological evolutionism of Lee si-zheng. In this respect, anarchism under the colonial rule, especially in case of Shin Chae-ho, was neither accurate nor logical. While evaluating Shin Chae-ho's theory of violent revolution, which was connected with Kotoku Shusui, it was a karma given to him. When all kinds of ways to win their independence under the colonial rule were frustrated, violence or terrorism as a last resort was not immoral. In spite of that, Korean historiography was not favorable to his theory of violent struggle. How was Shin Chae-ho's anarchism connected with socialism or communism? Not only Shin himself but also scholars of his ideology were confused in understanding them. Shin had urged such a socialist concept as class struggle and equality, and anarchists at that time often refused private property system and class discrimination. It means that anarchism of the time was mingled with and misused as socialism. Considering the above facts, Korean anarchism under the Japanese colonial seizure was essentially not composed of reluctance to the power such as government or state but to the Japanese imperialism. In this respect, anarchism of Shin Chae-ho was slightly deviated from the orthodox anarchism.

신채호의 이순신 연구와 현대적 함의

김강녕(Kim, Kang-nyeong) 순천향대학교 이순신연구소 2020 이순신연구논총 Vol.- No.32

본 논문은 단재 신채호의 ‘이순신전’을 분석하기 위한 것이다. 이를 위해 신채호의 생애·연구업적 및 이순신전 발간, 신채호의 이순신전의 개요 및 평가, 신채호의 이순신 연구의 특징과 현대적 함의를 살펴본 후 결론을 도출해본 것이다. 신채호는 국권을 침탈한 일본에 대해 적개심과 필승의 신념을 불어넣어줄 수 있는 국난극복의 군사영웅전으로 ‘수군제일위인 이순신전’을 1908년 대한매일신보에 연재한 후 발간하여 독립운동 고취 등 적지 않은 영향을 미쳤다. 신채호는 임진왜란 당시 해전에서 연전연승한 이순신을 나폴레옹전쟁 당시 해전의 영웅 영국의 넬슨과 비교하여 공통점과 차이점을 분석·평가하였다. 그는 이순신이 국내외적으로 타의 추종을 불허하는 탁월한 능력과 품성의 소유자임을 잘 분석·평가하였다. 현대적 관점에서 볼 때, 향후 이순신 연구는 이순신의 카리스마(charisma)요인뿐만 아니라 불패의 승리를 가능케 한 정신자세, 이러한 승리를 뒷받침해준 민족의 저력요인, 그리고 오늘날 이순신 후예들이 이순신을 벤치마킹할 수 있는 가능성을 포괄하는 과학적·종합적 접근이 함께 고려될 때 보다 더 큰 민족발전의 원동력이 될 수 있을 것이다. This paper is to analyze the biography of Yi Sun-sin of Danjae Shin Chae-ho. To this end the paper is composed of 5 chapters titled introduction; Shin Chae-ho s life and research achievements and the publication of Yi Sun-sin s biography; overview and evaluation of Yi Sun-sin s biography of Shin Chae-ho; the characteristics and modern implications of Shin Chae-ho s Yi Sun-sin study; and conclusion. Shin Chae-ho published The Biography of Yi Sun-sin, the Great Master of the Navy, in 1908 in the Korean Maeil Shinbo as a military hero who can instill a sense of hostility and a belief of victory over Japan, which invaded the nation s sovereignty, and had a significant impact on the promotion of the independence movement. Shin Chae-ho analyzed and evaluated the similarities and differences between Yi Sun-sin, who won consecutive victories at the naval battles during the Japanese Invasion of Korea in 1592, and Nelson, the hero of the naval battle during the war in Napoleon. He analyzed and evaluated Yi Sun-sin as an unrivaled holder of outstanding ability and character at home and abroad. From a modern point of view, future research on Yi Sun-sin could be a driving force for greater national development, given not only his charisma but also his mental posture that enabled him to win an undefeated victory, the nation s strength factors that supported his victory, and the scientific and comprehensive approach that encompasses the potential for Yi s descendants to benchmark him today.

신채호의 ‘민족’과 ‘민중’에 대한 이해

주인석,박병철 한국민족사상학회 2011 민족사상 Vol.5 No.2

Danjae Shin Chae-ho was a historian, patriotic enlightenment activist and revolutionist who devoted his whole life to the construction of a state ‘of the nation, by the nation and for the nation’ in the environment of pre- and post-colonial Korea. In his life, he recognized contemporary circumstances of rampant imperialism and by connecting this to the tasks of the nation, suggested a method of self-strengthening and independence. During the last phase of the Korean empire and Japanese occupation, his thoughts and practices formed on the basis of practical living for the independent nation revealed a variety of traces including patriotic enlightenment, nationalism, people's direct revolution, anarchism, etc. Especially, the nationalism as a pivotal thought of his sets the survival of the Korean nation and construction of its independent state as the supreme task when Korea lost its sovereignty and suffered under the Japanese imperialism. His nationalism was a significant system of ideas supporting diverse independence movements waged during the colonial period. This paper analysed changes in the driving force and methods of the national liberation movement as well as shifts in Shin Chae-ho's recognition of the contemporary circumstances. Shin Chae-ho's thoughts on independence changed from nation to general public in the main agent of history and from nation's self-strengthening to people's violent revolution in the way of struggle. This resulted from Shin Chae-ho's thoughts since he regarded people as the main force for the restoration of Korean sovereignty and independence and tried to build an ideal nation through people's determination and revolution. The thoughts of Danjae Shin Chae-ho are reflections on the tasks emerged in given circumstances of the period and significant as they suggested a national and people's way to deal with the contemporary tasks. 단재 신채호는 한민족의 식민지 전후 환경 속에서 ‘민족의, 민족에 의한, 민족을 위한’ 국가건설에 일생을 바친 행동하는 역사가이자, 애국계몽가이며, 혁명가였다. 그는 일생동안 제국주의가 발호하는 현실적 상황을 인식하고, 이를 민족과제에 연계시켜 민족자강과 독립을 위한 방법론을 제시하였다. 한말시기와 일제식민지 동안 독립된 민족을 위한 실천적 삶을 토대로 형성된 그의 사상과 실천은 애국계몽사상, 민족주의, 민중직접혁명, 무정부주의 등 다양한 궤적을 보여주었다. 특히 그 사상의 중심에 놓여 있는 민족주의는 일본 제국주의에 의해 나라가 멸망하고 식민지지배를 받고 있던 한민족의 생존과 독립국가 건설을 지상과제로 설정하였다. 그의 민족주의는 식민지 시대에 전개되었던 다양한 독립운동을 뒷받침해주는 중요한 이념 체계였다. 본 논문은 시대적 상황변화에 대한 신채호의 인식의 변화와 민족독립을 위한 투쟁주체와 투쟁방법에 있어서의 변화를 분석하였다. 신채호의 독립사상은 역사주체에 있어 민족에서 민중으로, 투쟁방법에 있어 민족자강에서 민중폭력혁명으로 변이하였다. 이는 민중을 일제에 저항하고 조선의 국권회복과 독립을 쟁취하기 위한 주체세력으로 보고, 민중의 각오(覺悟)와 민중에 의한 혁명을 통해 이상적인 국가건설을 추구하였던 신채호의 사상적 귀결이었다. 단재 신채호의 사상은 ‘주어진’ 시대적 상황이 제기하는 과제에 대한 성찰로서, 당대가 제기하는 시대적 과제에 대한 민족적․민중적 방안을 제시하였다는 점에서 의미가 매우 크다.

이순신 소재 역사소설에 나타난 전통의 전유방식과 타자인식 -신채호와 이광수를 중심으로-

신선희 ( Sun Hee Shin ) 한민족어문학회 2015 韓民族語文學 Vol.0 No.71

This paper is aimed to study how to create the identity of Korean(ChoSeon-In) through biographies at the Early Modern Korea. The texts analyzed are “the greatest naval commander Lee soon-shin (水軍 第一偉人 李舜臣)” serialized in 『Daehan maeil shinbo(Korean Daily News Paper)』 (1908.5.2.~8.18) by Shin Chae-ho and “Lee Soon Shin (李舜臣)” in 『Dong-A Ilbo(East Asia News paper)』(1931.7.16.~1932.4.3) by Lee Kwang-soo. These works deserve attention in terms that they could be regarded as an extension of the intellectual discourses attempting to create the identity of Cho Seon and ChoSeon-in by focusing on Tradition in the patriotic enlightenment era and Japanese colonial era. With the purpose of edifying the modern national characteristics(國性) and patriotism, Shin Chae-ho attempted the modern conversion of Tradition to inbreathe ‘Sate-spirit = National spirit’. On the other hand, Lee Kwang-Soo reflected the 1920s`` cultural nationalism in his work. Eschewing the traditional research approaches classifying and examining the works by the genealogy of Korean literature, this study examined two from the viewpoint of the history of culture. Also this paper focused on how Shin Chae-Ho and Lee Kwang-soo appropriated Tradition in their works, embodied Chinese of Ming Dynasty and Japanese during Japans Invasion of Korea in 1592 and through this, delineated ChoSeon-in.

「“단기고사” 중간서」의 저자 문제

김주현 ( Ju Hyeon Kim ) 한국문학언어학회( 구- 경북어문학회) 2008 어문론총 Vol.48 No.-

This study is formed as part of a study on the unearthing of Shin Chae-ho`s works and the establishment of his authentic text. I tried to make clear in this study who the real author of "Preface to Republication of Danggigosa"(檀奇古史重刊序) was. It was included in Danjae Shin Chae-ho`s complete works. So I made a scrutiny in its style, form, and etc. The preface was written in Andong China in 1912. At that time, Shin Chae-ho lived in Vladivostok of Russia and shouldn`t go Andong. And its style is different from his. Besides he had not mentioned Danggigosa(檀奇古史) in any his books. When Lee Hwa-sa edited Danggigosa in 1949, he involved the preface in it. In the preface, Danjae told that he wrote it upon his friend, Lee`s request when he went to Andong. Lee, editor of Danggigosa knew who the preface wrote. Firstly, 1 elucidated the preface should not be Danjae`s by revealing differences between his works and the preface. Secondly, I compared the preface with Lee``s book, for exemple Uiyoungshilgi(義勇實記) and Eonhaengnok(言行錄). Lee had probably met Danjae in 1914, owing to an affair of Gwangbokhoi(光復會). He read many Danjae`s works and accepted Danjae`s thought and style. Eventually he wrote the preface by taking a page from Danjae`s books, especially "the relationship between history and patriotism", "Gwangbokhoi``s announcement." Therefore, the preface is not Danjae`s but Lee`s. Now we regard this work as not belonging to Shin Chae-ho`s complete works. And we need to reexamine the complete works of Shin Chae-ho more accurately in the future.

신채호 소설에 나타난 영웅의 변모양상 연구

김현주(Kim Hyun-ju) 한국어문학회 2009 語文學 Vol.0 No.105

This study examines the way Shin, Chae-Ho’s works are transformed into anarchism through the images of the heroes that appear in his works. After laying down the foundation for discovering anarchic public in his historical-biographical novels, Shin, Chae-Ho then moves on to the deepening of anarchism that searches for the resistance to all powers and authorities, and escape. Unlike other heroes who save the nation state, Gungae who appears in the 〈An iron hammer of the King Ilmok〉 is deficient in terms of the physical and mental aspects. He is a hero that goes against the textbook definition of a hero who abuses his power with the self-ego. Shin, Chae-Ho is warning against violent power through the Gungae that is heading towards ruination. In the 〈The fierce strife between two dragons〉, the anti-heroic Miri ruins, while Dragon, the autonomous hero of the people emerges. Miri and Dragon refers to the two faces of the public, and the fight between them translates into the conflict and antagonism amidst the existence of the independent being that oversees everything and the non-ego of the people. Wishing that the people in the world can destroy this repressive system, Shin, Chae-Ho is approaching the world of anarchism. Heroes change into different forms, but they are continuing to be born and to ruination based on the realities of the era. This also addresses the flexibility of the Shin, Chae-Ho’s ideology that resists violence of the caution. This study is significant in the sense that it examines the consistency of Shin, Chae-Ho’s literature from the anarchic perspective and that it expanded the direction of study on his works.

이순신 서사에 나타난 明(人) 인식 — 신채호의 이순신전과 이광수의 이순신을 중심으로

이경재 서울대학교 인문학연구원 2020 人文論叢 Vol.77 No.1

This article examines the perception of the Ming Dynasty and Ming people as shown in Shin Chae-ho’s Lee Sun-shin and Lee Kwang-soo’s Lee Sun-shin about Lee Sun-shin. The work also aims to look at the mechanism of exclusion and solidarity through the national heroism narrative that emerged during the period of nation building. Although the two works are set against the backdrop of the Japanese Invasion of Korea, China and Japan, previous discussions did not pay much attention to the perception of the Ming Dynasty shown in these works. The mechanism of exclusion and solidarity that occurs during the course of the formation of a nation-state is not only between Joseon and Japan, but also strongly manifested between Joseon and China. If Shin Chae-ho wanted to form a community based mainly on hostility toward Japan, it could be said that Lee Kwang-soo wanted to form a community based on his disdain for China rather than Japan. Lee Kwang-soo’s Lee Sun-shin follows Lee In-jik’s novel in terms of his portrait of China and Japan. The novel is a work set during the Sino-Japanese War, also called the First Korean War. Lee In-jik’s excessive (Japan-oriented) modern orientation has transformed Japan into a civilized country and inferiorized China into a barbaric country by using the universal law. After about a generation, Lee Kwang-soo also displayed his distorted political consciousness by staging another international war between Korea, China and Japan called Japanese Invasion of Korea in 1592. The difference also stems from the authors’ basic world view, but it appears to be closely related to the situation of the time when two newspaper serials were created. Shin Chae-ho’s Lee Sun-shin was written in protest against the current of the era when imperialistic forces began to invade Joseon, as it appeared in his works. On the other hand, Lee Gwang-su’s Lee Sun-shin was written during the Wanpaoshan Incident, during which antipathy against the Chinese was at the height of his fever and during the Manchurian Incident and Shanghai Incident. The period when Lee Gwang-su’s Lee Sun-shin was written is an exhibition of Joseon, which was a Japanese colony, and this exhibition gave rise to an excessive degree of discrimination and contempt for people. 이 글은 우리 민족의 대표적인 영웅인 이순신을 다룬 신채호의 이순신전 과 이광수의 이순신 에 나타난 明(人)에 대한 인식을 고찰하고자 한다. 이러한 작업은 민족국가가 형성되던 시기에 나타나는 민족영웅 서사를 통해 배제와 결속의 메커니즘을 살펴보는 일이기도 하다. 두 작품은 한중일이 모두 참여한 임진왜란을 배경으로 하고 있음에도, 기존 논의에서는 이들 작품에 나타난 明(人)에 대한 인식에는 별다른주목을 하지 않았다. 민족국가가 형성되던 과정에서 발생하는 배제와결속의 메커니즘은 조선(인)과 일본(인) 사이에서만 발생한 것이 아니고, 조선(인)과 중국(인) 사이에서도 강력하게 드러난다. 신채호가 주로일본(인)에 대한 적개심에 바탕해 공동체를 구성하고자 했다면, 이광수는 일본(인)보다도 중국(인)에 대한 멸시를 바탕으로 공동체를 구성하고자 했다고 볼 수 있다. 이광수의 이순신 은 중국과 일본에 대한 형상화라는 측면에서, 이인직의 「혈의 누」( 만세전 , 1906)에 이어지는작품이다. 「혈의 누」는 제1차 조선전쟁이라고도 불리는 청일전쟁을 배경으로 한 작품이다. 이인직의 과도한 근대지향성(일본지향성)은 「혈의 누」에서 만국공법을 매개로 하여 일본을 문명국으로 이상화하고 중국을 야만국으로 열등화하였다. 「혈의 누」로부터 약 1세대가 지난 후에, 이광수도 임진왜란이라는 또 다른 한⋅중⋅일의 국제전을 무대로하여, 자신의 왜곡된 정치의식을 드러낸 것이라고 볼 수 있다. 이러한차이는 작가들의 기본적인 세계관에서도 비롯되는 것이지만, 두 편의신문연재소설이 창작되던 당대의 상황과도 밀접하게 연관된 것으로 보인다. 신채호의 이순신전 은 작품 속에도 나오는 것과 같이 제국주의세력의 조선 침탈이 본격화되는 시대적 조류에 항거하며 쓰여졌던 것이다. 이와 달리 이광수의 이순신 은 만보산 사건으로 배화열(排華 熱)이 극에 달하고, 만주사변과 상하이사변이 발발하던 시기에 쓰여진작품이다. 이광수의 이순신 이 쓰여지던 시기는 일본의 식민지였던 조선의 전시라고 할 수 있으며, 이 전시라는 상황은 과도할 정도로 명(인) 에 대한 차별과 멸시의 시각을 낳았다고 볼 수 있다.