한자·한문을 기반으로 한 구문명 전통은 근대에 청산되었다. 근대문명의 입장에서는 한자·한문의 외래성을 공박하며 한문학 유산을 타자화하여 한학으로 지칭하다가, 해방 이후 민족 고유의 측면에서 조금씩 접근하며 한문학 전통을 국문학 연구 대상으로 포섭하여 한국한문학의 명칭을 부여하기에 이르렀다. 그러나 근대 이후 한자·한문의 전통속에서 창작 향유된 근대한문학은 최근까지도 연구의 대상에 적극적으로 포섭되지 않았던바, 본고는 근대한문학에 접근하는 한 경로를 근대의 질문에 대한 한문학의 대응을 중심으로 파악해본 것이다. 근대한문학에서 한문학의 외래성을 인정하면서도 동서양 문명에 대한 등거리의 시선을 확보하고, 민족 고유의 측면에서 적극적으로 한문학 유산을 활용하려던 시도를 확인함으로써, 근대한문학의 연구 의의를 모색하였다.

In the modern period, the traditional civilization that was based on Sino-Korean literature and Chinese characters has gone into liquidation. Modern civilization`s perspective, Chinese characters and traditional Sino-Korean literature were fron the exterior or China, so ultranationalists called those Chinese studies. Afterwards, nationalistic scholars found the national characteristics in the Chinese studies, so they called that traditional Sino-Korean literature. But the Modern Sino-Korean literature was ignored until quite recently. This paper aimed to explain the Modern Sino-Korean literature`s value. Byeon Young-man thought that the most important point in literature was self-acquirement. He maintained that, to write the best composition, every writer should acquire his own words pulled up from the inner world, and only this writing became a model of literature. From the view-point of literary impression, if a writer is faithful to his own circumstances, he can write a true composition and it can give universal impression to its readers. On the other hand, Jeong In-bo was a ultranationalist. He emphasized the national soul, and investigated national ethos. Accordingly, there was very clear distinction between two prefaces by two men. Their attitudes toward Sino-Korean literature of old civilization, and their request for Korean style of new civilization were not in agreement. But they were great masters of the Modern Sino-Korean literature.