韓國近代文學의 傳統論議에 관한 硏究 = (A) Study on the traditional criticism for the modern Korean literature

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The elucidation of relations between the Modern Korean Literature and its tradition is the main problem for the under standing of the history of the Modern Korean Literature. The research, however, for tradition in the Modern Korean Literature, has been done only at the level of impressive popularity, not objective, analytical level of appreciation, until the present.
This fact expresses that the promising and desirable writing of the history of the Modern Korean Literature was not produced for the critical, independent appreciation of the literary works, written during the time of Japanese occupation.
This essay aims at the profound, analytical, objective appreciation on the problems of relations between the history of the Modern Korean Literature and its tradition as a basic study to solve these problems to understand the Modern Korean Literature. Firstly a deep survey to find the characteristics of the past traditional criticism, related to the Modern Korean Literature was performed. Secondly, the transplantation methodology of Lim Wha, Paik Chull aud Choe Hyon-Hion which is still popularly dominant for understanding the history of the Modern Korean Literature among critics until the present as a basic viewpoint, was surveyed, and also the relations between the history of the Modern Korean Literature, and its tradition are well analyzed and elucidated through appreciating those Literary critics 1 thoughts on tradition and their viewpoints of tradition, described in their writing of the history of literature.
A critical argument on tradition is related to the fact of understanding how to grasp the meanings of the past Korean Literature, and also how to develop the past Korean Literature in the literary Critical Situation is the Problem Of Self-awakening and decision.
Therefore, anyone whoever majors in Korean Literature expressed his opinion on tradition or has it presupposedly in his thought. But such arguments on tradition can indicate the characteristics that could not escape from being crippled, a$ the arguments itself was performed during the unfortunate period of Korean History. Consequently, the arguments on tradition has been stagnated on the level of schematic, garment-cutting-like phenomena or natural existence. Accordingly, even terminology related to the arguments on tradition was not settled. In the second chapter of this essay, these characteristics on the arguments on tradition as well as some basic conceptions in its relations were deeply examined. The attitude of literary transplantation is to be subjugated for understanding the history of the Modern Korean Literature as a basic theory of history of literature. Therefore, many critics has been claiming the subjugation of the Literary transplantationism, but they are still actually not out of the logics of literary transplantationism. Lim Wha was the very person who founded the basic stone of literary transplantationism. He claims the following six items such as "object", "base", "environment', "tradition", "good sense", "spirit" to be considered in the general history of literature, and he also expressed the actual history of Korean Literature has relations with Korean unique tradition. However, as the Modern Korean Literature followed the way of transplantation culture, those traditional elements could not become the subjective, original elements, or rather negative contents. He continued to claim that cultural relations are mediated through human behaviour, and the behaviour is performed on the base of material. But Korea could not practise her own minded modernization but only had it by the shock from the outside foreign. Thus, therefore, the foreign elements became the very core of literature, and naturally they appeared as the figure of the Korean Modern Literature.
The fact that Korean did not initiate the way to develop the Modernization was the result from the acceptance of the Asiatic stagnation. They accepted the viewpoints of Asiatic stagnation and heterogeneousness of colonial conception for Korea without efforts to separate the viewpoints. Thus, it brought the result of being mingled in the category of the colonial conception. This kind of their methodology in writing the history of Korean Literature is much in lack of describing the Korean traditional, characteristic elements without correction. Even if a thought could be given on their claims of .consideration on those problems, it can be said that they only prepared their minds to accept the foreign, imported culture. Therefore, their methodology was only to aim at understanding Korean culture belonging to the imported culture. Therefore, they neglected to survey the originally Korean tradition and culture, as they only pursued the new elements and phenomena of imported ores Iron the outside.
In case of new fictions, the form and structure were traditionally old. Those new fictions have the similar elements of the form and structure of the old tradition, but their literary elements were only emphasized as new ones. Thus, they only made efforts to pursue the new methodology for developing the idea of transplantationism for literature, and the result was the avoidance of traditional elements. Therefore, the negative literary viewpoint of transplantationism has put its root in the Modern Korean Literature.
People have been taken the literary attitude to advance the literary attitude which was brought about by such attitude as tranplantationism of Paik Chul and Lim Wha. They gave strong emphasis on accepting and accomodate the methodology of the history of literature by choosing the methology of the trend of literary thoughts to examine how much the Western trend of literary thoughts are contained in the Modern Korean Literature. Lim Wha claims the transplantation of literature for surface structure and base, but this is only some spritual parts of surface structure. Therefore, his attitude was very properly situated to develop the attitude of transplantationism for the Modern Korean Literature. There were no necessities to consider economic phenomena for Lim Wha, and therefore, in a way, he had a favourable situation for not being stuck to the idea of the historical colonialism. But in fact the literary Limit of Lim Wha was appeared enlargedly in various aspects in his book of history of literature. However, his negative attitude in view of the methodology of the history of literature is partly corrected later in 1950's by the appearance of traditionalism. After its literary current, in the corrected situation, the entire history of Korean Literature was written. The book was written in a great consideration on the traditional elements. But its careful consideration was only for supporting idea of the imitated history of literature from The Current History of Hew Literature. Accordingly he developed the idea of the revival of tradition. In such a situation, he claimed that the Modern Korean Literature had the character of imitation, and therefore Korean Literature could not be more than dwarfishness, and to overcome it, people must turn themselves to tradition. To develop the new idea of the revival of tradition, the book "The Steps of Literary Development" was published. Thus the Literary development was divided into three steps in its continuity, such as "Imitation Period," "Returning Period to Tradition," and "Advancing Period to the World Literature".
The idea of traditionalism of Paik Chulli, as above said, has only got on the common current of literary field, and there- fore it has shown some vague, abstract phenomena in the end of the book In such a way, the trend of literary thought on imitationism should be overcome, as it was negatively understood in relations between the Modern Korean Literature and its tradition. Choe Hyon-Hion, as well as the previously mentioned literary critics, expressed his viewpoint in transplantationism in the Modern Korean Literature. But he never claimed apparently the literary transplantationism as those two critics. But his "History of Literary Field as well as "History of Literary Forms", as the sorts of descriptive methodology of the history of literature, itself presupposes transplantationism in advance. People, who are involved in the western style literature, are creating literary works in the literary field of Korea. Many aspects and changes of literary works are the results, originated from the western influence in structure underneath ; that is no other than sort transptantationism. Such methodology for the history of literature as Cheer s is only to examine the history of literature in a chronological way. This is the result that was produced by the separator unreal description about the definite background of society,
Choe Hyon-Hion should not be intervened in talking about the arguments on literary tradition in terms of real participation of literary activities as he always tried to express his idea in viewpoint of pure literature. He referred only to tradition in a general meaning. But his generality in critical analysis on literary works exposed abstract possibility in logical approach, when in viewing his actual analysis of the literary works of Poet Suh Jung-Joo and Novelist Kim Tong-Ri.
In this essay, Chapter Ⅲ for Lim Wha, Chapter Ⅳ for Paik Chull, and Chapter Ⅴ for Choe Hyon-Hion were enclosed. This essay has contributed for the understanding the real critical elements of those critics' viewpoints to be the basic step-stone for studying the Modern Korean Literature.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 목차 = ⅰ
• 第1章 序論 = 1
• 第2章 韓國近代文學과 傳統論議 = 9
• 第1節 傳統論議의 特徵 = 9
• 第2節 傳統과 韓國 近代文擧 = 16
• 第3節 文擧史와 傳統 = 24
• 第3章 林 和의 文學史觀과 傳統問題 = 29
• 第1節 林 和의 傳統觀과 文擧史 記述 方法論 = 29
• 第2篩 文學史와 傳統 = 41
• 1) 文學史의 體系 = 41
• 2) 移植文學史로서 新文學史의 意味와 特殊性 = 45
• 3) 土臺標念 = 49
• 4) 傳統思想의 理解 = 56
• 5. 開化期 文學을 보는 視覺 = 63
• 第4章 思潮史에 있어서의 傳統問題 = 78
• 第1節 思潮史的 文擧史 記述 方法論의 의미 = 79
• 第2節 文擧史 記述의 실제 = 87
• 1. 文學史의 體系 = 87
• 2. 記述上의 특징 = 97
• 第3節 思潮論者의 傳統覲 = 102
• 第4節 文擧發展 段階論과 傳統 = 111
• 第5節 白 鐵의 近代文擧論 = 123
• 第5章 支壇史的 文擧史와 傳統意識 = 136
• 第1節 趙演鉉의 文學史詔述 方法論 = 137
• 第2節 韓國現代文學史의 記述體系 = 146
• 第3節 遊演鉞의 傳統觀 = 159
• 1) 傳統의 槪念 = 159
• 2) 傳統論 適用의 實際 = 171
• 第6章 1960年代 以後의 傳統論議 = 183
• 第一節 近代文擧史적 視角의 變化 = 184
• 第2節 韓國文擧通史의 諦圖 = 192
• 第3節 傳統論謠의 方向과 展望 = 198
• 第7章 結論 = 201
• 參考文獻 = 214
• ABSTRACT = 218