본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기
22대 대한민국 국회 국회정보길라잡이 국회의원검색
회원가입 로그인
HOME

정보검색

소장정보 검색

국회도서관 홈으로 정보검색 소장정보 검색
결과 내 검색 동의어 포함
결과 내 검색 동의어 포함

-

목차보기

표제지

목차

ABSTRACT 5

1. 서론 9

1) 연구목적 9

2) 선행연구 검토 10

3) 연구범위 및 연구방법 12

2. 체제의 변화 양상 15

1) 異蹟의 약화로서의 '補' 16

(1) '補' - 有 18

(2) '補' - 無: 대상인물에 대한 시각의 차이가 없는 경우 21

2) 기타 체제사항의 변화 23

(1) 편 구성 23

(2) 인물배열의 순서와 상·하 분권 28

(3) 주석의 사용 31

(4) 서발문의 양상 32

3. '補' 의 유무에 따른 작품의 실제 51

1) 홍만종본 『海東異蹟』 에 대한 비판적 시각으로서: '補' 가 있는 예 53

(1) 불가적 이인·이승의 신선화에 대한 비판: 〈補檀君〉 53

(2) 이인의 신선화에 대한 비판: 〈補玉寶高〉 63

(3) 도가적 방술·방사의 신선화에 대한 비판: 〈補蔣道令〉 72

2) 홍만종본 『海東異蹟』 에 대한 동의 및 강화로서: '補' 가 없는 예 84

(1) 유학자적인 면모 강조: 〈金時習〉 84

4. 결론: 유학자적 시각으로 본 이인의 계보 93

참고자료 및 문헌 99

초록보기

The purpose of this study is to investigate the compilatory aspects and significance of Haedong Ijeok 'Bo' (『海東異蹟』'補') written by Ijae Hwang Yun-seok (黃胤錫, 1729-1791), through analyzing it in comparison with Haedong Ijeok (『海東異蹟』) written by Hong Man-jong (洪萬宗, 1643-1725). The primary concerns of this article are "What are the purpose and significance of Haedong Ijeok 'Bo' written by Hwang Yun-seok, a Confucian scholar in the late Joseon dynasty? And how did he reveal them in the book?"

To look at the title of the book alone, it is read as supplementing Hong Man-jong's book; however, the two books show great differences in overall formats and contents. This article assumes that the most striking characteristics of Haedong Ijeok 'Bo' lie in its differences from Hong Man-jong's book, and comparatively analyzes the formats and contents of the two books, with the objects of analysis being limited to figures in Chapter 29 (Haedong Ijeok 'Bo') whom the two books deal with in common. This article is largely composed of the aspects of changes in formats, the comparative analysis of the works, and discussion about the literary characteristics and limitations of Haedong Ijeok 'Bo'.

The changes in formats of Haedong Ijeok 'Bo' are examined in terms of 'Bo' and other items separately. In Haedong Ijeok 'Bo', Hwang Yun-seok uses the character of 'Bo' as a format by adding it to the title of each chapter or in front of an additional paragraph. The use of 'B' seems to be a feature of the format and also an index that reveals contents and a theme. Therefore, the aspects of the use of 'B' are examined, and significance attached to 'B' by Hwang Yun-seok is discussed.

Next, the aspects of changes, which occurred while of Hwang Yun-seok supplemented Haedong Ijeok, in chapter organization, the order of figures arrangement, the separation of volume 1 and volume 2, the use of connotation, and prologue & epilogue are examined successively. The concern of this article does not lie in literature review or bibliography review. Rather, this article pays attention to Hwang Yun-seok's author consciousness revealed from such changes in formats.

After examining the above aspects of changes in formats, actual four works are comparatively analyzed. This article pays attention to differences in viewpoints on figures between Hwang Yun-seok and Hong Man-jong, for it is supposed that such differences in viewpoints can be the important reason that Hwang Yun-seok supplemented Haedong Ijeok.

Prior to the analysis of the work, 11 chapters, to which Hwang Yun-seok added 'Bo' due to differences in viewpoints on target figures between him and Hong Man-jong, were examined, and the two authors' viewpoints on the target figures were compared. As a result, it was found that Hwang Yun-seok's criticism of Hong Man-jong's attitude does not deviate from the following three subjects. Therefore, three representative works revealing the subjects are selected and are analyzed in comparison with Hong Man-jong's book.

The first is Bo Dangun (〈補檀君〉) that contains Hwang Yun-seok's criticism of making Buddhist i-in (lit. Hermit-Stranger) a Taoist hermit. Hwang Yun-seok does not deny the sanctity of Dangun, the symbolic origin of Korean people. But he attributed unacceptable unreliability to quoted data, and wrote 'B' to criticize the Buddhist attitudes displayed by the quoted data and source data of Hong Man-jong's Haedong Ijeok.

The second is Bo Ok Bo-go (〈補玉寶高〉) that contains criticism of the attitude that makes i-in's ability Taoist hermit's one. Hong Man-jong was inattentive to the achievements of Ok Bo-go, a geomungo virtuoso, but only highlighted the fact that Ok Bo-go mastered the Taoist hermit's Tao through geomungo. In contrast, Hwang Yun-seok reveals the genealogy of geomungo music through historical research on Ok Bo-go's achievements. As such, Hwang Yun-seok criticizes the attitude towards making figures Taoist hermits who showed miracles through emphasizing only specific areas.

Third, 'Bo' of Bo Jang Doryeong (〈補蔣都令〉) criticizes making Taoist hermits out of Taoist bangsul and bangsa like dosul and sihae in Jangsaeng of Hong Man-jong's book. Hwang Yun-seok treats Jangsaeng as Jang Doryeong, another type of narrative transmitted at that time, and describes him as a mere literary man who lived long. This shows the treatment of a figure's miracle within a scope acceptable to Confucian scholars.

Lastly, as a figure having no addition of 'Bo' Kim Si-seup (〈金時習〉) was analyzed. Kim Si-seup is the only figure whose contents are different between the two books though 'Bo' was not added to him. While Hong Man-jong deals with Kim Si-seup as a Confucian scholar, monk, and Taoist hermit, Hwang Yun-seok focuses on and reinforces only the aspect of a Confucian scholar. It can be seen that if the viewpoint on the target figure is the same, Hwang Yun-seok expanded and emphasized the viewpoint without adding Bo, though he gave a different description on the figure from Hong Man-jong's.

After analyzing actual works as well as the aspects of changes in formats of Haedong Ijeok 'Bo' by Hwang Yun-seok, this article looks for the literary characteristics and limitations of the book. It may be said that Haedong Ijeok and of Haedong Ijeok 'Bo' are works of distinct authorial orientation. In that sense, it is supposed that the starting point of Hwang Yun-seok supplementing Haedong Ijeok by Hong Man-jong is critical mind towards Taoist orientation shown by Hong Man-jong's Haedong Ijeok. Hwang Yun-seok criticizes Hong Man-jong's Taoist orientation, and revealed his own Confucian orientation, using Bo as a means of historical research on Hong Man-jong's writings. Hwang Yun-seok deals with target figures with a historical and empirical attitude, reinforcing data sources, the genealogy of figures, and chronology. As a result, it is deemed that Hwang Yun-seok's writings showed evident and consistent themes in every chapter, but weakened exciting properties revolving around figures' miracles and the coherence of narrative structure.

However, Hwang Yun-seok makes a genealogy of i-in different from Hong Man-jong's by transforming i-ins dealt with by Hong Man-jong into i-ins acceptable within Confucian viewpoints, or adding new figures extensively. That is, the characteristics and significance of Haedong Ijeok 'Bo' can be found in that it supplements Hong Man-jong's Haedong Ijeok with a positive, explanatory, and historical attitude, and compiles a genealogy of i-ins from the position of a Confucian scholar, not a genealogy compiled from the viewpoint of a heresy.

추천서가 (다양한 추천 자료를 만나보세요)

권호기사보기

권호기사 목록 테이블로 기사명, 저자명, 페이지, 원문, 기사목차 순으로 되어있습니다.
기사명 저자명 페이지 원문 기사목차