글로버메뉴 바로가기 본문 바로가기 하단메뉴 바로가기

논문검색은 역시 페이퍼서치

인문논총검색

Seoul National University the Journal of Humanites


  • - 주제 : 인문과학분야 > 기타(인문과학)
  • - 성격 : 학술지
  • - 간기: 계간
  • - 국내 등재 : KCI 등재
  • - 해외 등재 : -
  • - ISSN : 1598-3021
  • - 간행물명 변경 사항 :
논문제목
수록 범위 : 28권 0호 (1992)

한국전쟁문학론 연구

오세영 ( Sae Young Oh )
5,900
키워드보기
초록보기
So-called war literature is literature on the theme of war, searching for humanity. In order to understand the essence of the war literature we must at first explain the concept of war. There exist many different points of view, but it is possible to say that war is armed conflict that arouses at the certain time to realize the intention of mass organizations or states to hold certain organization and appropriate territory through the submission of the rival. From this point of view is obvious that the historical event known as the disturbance or accident of the 25th June was an act of war. We call it Korean War. If we trace the origin of the war literature, in the case of Western literature we can reach the Greek Illiad or the medieval songs of the soldiers of the Cross. But as to the concept of genres, we can speak about war literature only from the 19th century. At the beginning of the 19th century in the period of Napoleon`s aggression to Germany rose the movement of so called "freedom literature" (Freiheitsdichtung) on purpose to protect the freedom of fatherland. Then experiencing the 1st World War the war literature developed into the anti-war literature. Even though we define this literature as the "literature searching for humanity through the war theme", the war-literature is not written with the only one goal-to support the humanism. Because there is also agitation and propaganda literature that is written for the purpose to encourage the victory and mobilize the nation. In the narrow sense, the war literature is the anti-war literature, reportages or documentary literature, literature about "going home", pure lyrical war literature etc. Whereas in the wide sense, the war literature means also the agitation and propaganda literature and other reportages and documentary literature that was not written on purpose to awake humanism, but rather to encourage people. Meanwhile there exist advocates of the opinion that the literature that was not written on the theme of the real war is not the war literature, but if we consider the fact that literature is basically fiction, such opinion is not persuasive. For the discussion on the war literature in Korean literary circles in the 50~60`s including the war period is characteristic that there does not exist almost any debate on the anti-war literature and that the majority considers only the matter of mobilization purpose of literature. Two possible of this fact are: 1/The majority of the contemporary theory of the war literature was limited by Korean Was hence the objective introspection at that time was impossible. 2/ In the situation of Korean War that was subject to the ideological cold war intellectuals could not criticize Korean War that had character of the war of ideologies. Consequently the critique of Korean War was convicted of pro-communism and that meant the deprivation of the right to live-such were circumstances in Korea. Good example is so-called "Theory of Construction of the Cultural Front". Korean War was not simply the war between South and North but the struggle of democracy with communism, and it means not only political and military confrontation, but also the cultural one. Cultural confrontation means the confrontation between Cominform/Communist Information Bureau/and the united front of free democratic culture, that was built to obstruct Cominform-the core of Soviet ideology. If we understand that Korean War was the international collision of the marxist and the democratic cultural front, the fact that the critique of war in the period when ideology of cold war was governing the society, was not allowed to the Korean intellectuals, is the matter of course. Theory of the war literature of that period is as follows. 1/ In the war time the literature mobilizes citizens to struggle through the groups of spiritual struggle. But this changed with the time and in the 60`s when the theme of war became more objective to certain level, the thesis that literature written on the theme of war can search for humanism reappeared. It means that the war-literature returned to its essential meaning. 2/ As was already shown, Korean War literature must construct the cultural front. 3/ In war is important agitation and propagandism and the writer`s personal experience is necessary on this field. 4/ Since the golal of war is victory, intellectuals must "promote friendship among soldiers as strong as iron and stone, and love towards fatherland, and exalt hostility like blazing fire." The research about war literature in the contemporary Korean literature was exceedingly indifferent. Till today the majority of theories are more or less limited to Korean War and almost all of them are not able to free themselves from the rationalizing the mobilizing literature. Therefore the Korean theory of the war lierature now must turn to the study of against-war literature or the literature written on the theme of postwar times study this literature systemically and deeply.
11,800
키워드보기
초록보기
This essay attempts to define what Italian, English, and French critics in the 16th and 17th centuries had made out of Aristotle`s Poetics, thus counting for their literary creed commonly known as neo-classicism. As neo-classicism differs from the actual doctrines of classical antiquity because of its imperfect assimilation of Aristotle`s Poetics, pseudo-classicism would be the better term. To make the matter worse, 16th-century Aristotelian critics in Italy overlooked one important fact; i.e. that Aristotle`s Poetics is descriptive, not prescriptive. Italian critics like Scaliger, Robortelli and Castelvetro pioneered for the first time in history at once translating into their own tongue and interpreting Aristotle`s work in question. They were largely and ultimately responsible for the neo-classical emphasis upon, and the rigid implementation of, either non-or pseudo-Aristotelian dramatic rules and precepts like verisimilitude, delightful instruction, decorum, and three unities. Sidney, 16th-century English critic, upheld Italian dramatic rules and precepts in their entirety, saying to the effect that Aristotle`s artistic pleasure should be accompanied by instruction, that decorum forbids kings and clowns to be mingled, and that the unities of time and place should be observed. He dismissed as ``mongrel`` tragi-comedy, which he said fails to achieve the effect of tragedy, i.e. ``the admiration and commiseration``. Jonson and Milton, Sidney`s literary successors, followed suit. 17th-century France like 16th-century England imported the Italian dramatic rules and precepts and saw them become far more rigid in the hands of critics like Chapelain, D`Aubignac, Racine, Rapin, and Dacier. Verisimilitude was to them the essence of the stage, and the unities became established as rules to be strictly kept, for their observance was believed to contribute decisively to verisimilitude. Moreover, they wanted to see ``Virtue Rewarded and Vice Punished`` implemented by all tragedies. This rigid type of French neo-classical formalism began to influence Restoration English stage. Dryden somewhat faithfully followed it for his own plays, but when it came to those of other dramatists like Shakespeare, he proved himself to be a flexible neo-classicist by preferring them to regular 17th-century French plays, unlike Rymer who with his ideas of poetical justice and decorum was ready to find fault with the English tragedies of ``the last age``. His ruthless attack on both Shakespeare and Fletcher was considered infamous and scurrilous even in his time. Dryden believed that Shakespeare should not be judged by the laws Shakespeare was ignorant of, and 18th-century Shakespearean editors like Rowe, Pope and Johnson were also of this opinion. When every thing is said and done, no one could possibly deny that neo-classical dramatic doctrines originated from the various misinterpretations of Aristotle`s Poetics on the part of 16th and 17th century European critics and writers. They had mistaken Aristotle for ur-Horace and Horace for the best interpreter of Aristotle, thus paying less attention to the text of the Poetics.

포스트모더니즘의 문법 -백남준의 예술을 중심으로-

이정호 ( Chong Ho Lee )
5,500
키워드보기
초록보기
The art of Nam June Paik deserves our special attention when we talk about postmodern art. His art defies and, at the same time, embraces main characteristics of postmodernism. He can be described as a postmodern artist in that in his art he freely uses postmodern elements as his material. In this respect, his video art is one of the most renovating art forms of the postmodern era. What makes him stand out, however, as one of the foremost postmodern artists is that in his video art, for which he has earned the reputation of being the first video artist in the world, he uses highly advanced and still developing high-tech computer technology. In this regard his video art will be expanding as long as electronics and computer science are developing in the future. Even though Paik is utilizing state-of-the-art computer technology in his video art, he refuses to recklessly borrow from or copy other artists. He is unique in the sense that while he takes advantage of Western technology in his video art, he freely uses Korean and Oriental motifs for his art. This is his grammar of postmodernism. As he once said, therefore, his video art will be ever new as long as he is ready to adapt ever-advancing computer technology to his art.
5,900
키워드보기
초록보기
In his essay, "Form and Intent in the American New Criticism," Paul de Man argues that the New Critics` rejection of "the principle of intentionality" has led their criticism to "a state of paralysis." They reject the authorial intention because it obstructs the critical objectivity, which they believe can be pursued only by the analysis of the language of a given text. De Man, however, argues that "the discrepancy between sign and meaning" makes it impossible for critics to attain such critical objectivity. For this reason, according to de Man, critics should get over the illusion of objectivity, admitting that "the exalted status [1iterature] claim [s] for its language [is] a myth." What de Man has in mind here is the strategy of deconstruction. That is, what the genuine critic should do is to locate the moment when a text violates the meaning it appears to set up objectively. The problem with de Man, however, is that it is he who rejects the very principle of intentionality. Note that, by attracting our attention to the meaning unintended by the author, but revealed through "the discrepancy between sign and meaning," he is indeed making the deconstruction a "new new criticism." We can detect the blind spot here, in spite of de Man`s insight into the nature of language. The problem of de Man`s argument is highlighted in Steven Knapp and Walter Benn Michaels`s essay, "Against Theory." In this essay, Knapp and Michaels show that de Man, as well as other theorists, "rest[s] on a single mistake, a mistake that is central to the notion of theory per se." In particular, Knapp and Michaels problematize the notion of intention and argue that intention cannot be separated from meaning "because meanings are always intentional." According to them, however, de Man subtracts intention while other theorists such as E. D. Hirsch, Jr. or P. D. Juhl adds it. Thus, they argue, "the whole enterprise of critical theory is misguided and should be abandoned." A close examination of Knapp and Michaels`s argument against de Man, however, reveals that their argument is also "misguided" and that intention can be still separated from meaning. For this reason, we might argue that theory itself, including de Man`s, cannot be abandoned. Curiously enough, the central thesis of "Against Theory" is itself theoretical. Knapp and Michaels`s argument, however, deserves attention, in that they have introduced a new strategy by which we can overcome not only the limits of essentialism evident in the New Criticism and other critical arguments but also those of de Man`s deconstructive critical thinking. Note, in this regard, that a kind of regressus in infinitum is inevitable for both, since essentialist argument always fosters another essentialist argument, and deconstruction always begets deconstruction. By adopting the strategy called against theory, they effectively enable critics to go beyond the regressus in infinitum. No doubt, Knapp and Michaels`s argument has its own limits, as mentioned above. But, just as the New Criticism and de Man`s deconstruction have exerted tremendous influence on the American critical scene with all their limitations, so their argument will exert influence on the future American criticism. Of course, it will not help set up a new critical school or sect that values a certain kind of theory. Rather, a tendency that centers on practice itself will be one of the main currents visible in the future American critical scene. As a matter of fact, we have already witnessed such a tendency. In addition to Knapp and Michaels, we may mention here Stanley Fish and Richard Rorty, to whom the term "New Pragmatism" is loosely applied. Led by these New Pragmatists, the American criticism will take the new road in which practice is valued against theory.

스땅달 일기 연구

원윤수 ( Yoon Soo Won )
서울대학교 인문학연구원|인문논총  28권 0호, 1992 pp. 101-115 ( 총 15 pages)
5,500
키워드보기
초록보기
Nous avons examine les traits caracteristiques du journal stendhalien sous ses divers aspects. Son journal relatait au jour le jour des faits de sa vie; mais ce qui etait le plus important pour Stendhal, c`etait de connaitre le moi. C`est-a-dire que son journal, d`abord simple enregistrement de petits faits vrais et quotidiens, prend tres vite un autre aspect et devient un moyen de connaissance de soi. Pour Stendhal, 《connaitre le moi》 au moyen du journal le mene a la creation de son style; ainsi est-il parvenu a avoir sa propre ecriture, et l`accomplissement de l`ecriture de soi signifie la formation de soi. A travers son journal, on peut lire tout le processus de la formation de Stendhal. Enfin il se creait en lisant, en pensant et en ecrivant. Le journal de Stendhal est un temoin fidele et sincere de sa formation psychologique et litteraire. Il faut donc, donner a son journal une autre signification litteraire, puisqu`il est le miroir de sa vie et de son reve. Et il serait bon de s`interesser a son journal pour bien saisir 1`idee du bonheur chez Stendhal.

"아리만과 오르므즈드 신화"와 보들레르

유평근 ( Pyung Kun Yu )
서울대학교 인문학연구원|인문논총  28권 0호, 1992 pp. 117-131 ( 총 15 pages)
5,500
키워드보기
초록보기
우리가 보들레르를 연구하면서 아리만과 오르므즈드 신화를 거론하게 된 까닭은 우선 시인 자신이 이 이란의 고대 신화에 대하여 언급하고 있을 뿐만 아니라, 우리 생각에도 그노시스 종파의 가장 오래된 이 신화가 그의 사상을 풀어줄 수 있는 확실한 실마리가 된다고 집착하였기 때문이다. 다시 말해서 일관성이 결여된 듯이 보이는 시인의 생각이 이 신화의 변모과정을 통해 검토될 때 보다 용이하고 체계적인 방식으로 설명될 수 있다는 것이 우리의 생각이다. 따라서 연구의 순서는 우선 주제의 타당성을 간단히 밝히고 나서, 이 신화의 본래의 모습과 이에 대한 보들레르 나름의 해석을 함께 검토하면서 시인의 생각을 얻고자 한다. 마지막 작업은 여기서 걸러진 시인의 생각이 그의 작품에 어떤 형식으로 반영되고 있는가를 살피는 일이 당연한 순서이지만 이것은 지면 관계상 다음 기회로 미루기로 하고, 여기서는 그 검토 대상을 보들레르가 구사한 예술비평론 중에서도 특히 그의 문학 비평 정신에 국한 하고자 한다.

카프카의 「유형지에서」 연구

박환덕 ( Huan Dok Bak )
서울대학교 인문학연구원|인문논총  28권 0호, 1992 pp. 133-150 ( 총 18 pages)
5,800
키워드보기
초록보기
Im Werk "In der Strafkolonie" wird die Spannungsbeziehung zwischen der europaischen Denkweise und der entgegengesetzten Denkweise, d.h., nicht-europaischen Denkweise, die als gleichberechtigt erscheint, dargestellt. ``Gleichberechtigt`` bedeutet. daß wie die eine Welt ihren Existenzgrund hat, auch die andere Seite der Welt ihren Existenzgrund besitzt. und daß auch in ihrem Existenzwert kein Unterschied zu erkennen ist. Man gerat in Verwirrung, wenn man dieses Werk nur von einer Seite aus, besonders von der Sicht des europaischen Sicht aus, liest. Wahrend das Denken des Forschungsreisenden von der europaischen Denkweise ausgeht, beruht das des Offiziers, ohne irgendwelche Beziehung zum europaischen Denken zu haben, auf einer ganz anderen Grundlage. Europaisches Denken ist nicht mehr als eine unter vielen Moglichkeiten des Denkens. Deshalb kann man nicht sagen, daß das eine human, das andere inhuman ist. Wenn es um Menschlichkeit geht, dann sind beide Einstellungen menschlich und gleichzeitig unmenschlich. Menschlich deshalb, weil dieser Begriff geschichtlich kulturell als relativer Wert gebraucht wird. Es passiert oft, daß das als unmenschlich verworfene Benehmen in einer Gesellschaft in einer anderen ohne irgendwelche Bedenken ausgefuhrt wird. Die Darstellungswelt dieses Werkes ist, wie ich oben ausfuhrlich geschrieben habe, ein Gegensatz der Welt. Beide Welten sind je autonome unabhangige Existenzen. Aber da sie gegensatzliche Eigenschaften haben, muß man, wenn man die eine ``Welt`` nennt, die andere ``Anti-Welt`` nennen. Beide Welten liegen in einer widerspruchlichen Beziehung, so daß sie in Widerspruch geraten, wo die eine die andere ausschließen muß. Aber wenn man es praziser betrachtet, sind die beiden Welten nicht unvereinbar, sondern auf einer hoheren Ebene verbunden. Als Vergleich kann ``eine Ellipse,`` die zwei Brennpunkte hat, dienen. Durch die Selbsthinrichtung des Offiziers und die Vernichtung der Exekutionsapparates wird die Maschine zerstort. Das heißt aber nicht, daß die absolute Gerechtigkeit der europaischen Einrichtung, die der neue Kommandant einfuhren will, garantiert wird. Zwar spricht sich auch der Forschungsreisende mit seiner europaischen Denkweise eindeutig gegen die Bestrafungsmethode des nicht-europaisch denkenden Offiziers aus, zeigt sich aber geruhrt von dessen ehrlicher Uberzeugung und hat auch eine Abneigung gegen das unverschamte Benehmen des Verurteilten und Soldaten. Der Forschungsreisende kann nicht mit der europaischen Denkweise zufrieden sein. Wenn man von der europaischen Perspektive ausgeht, muß man solche barbarisch brutalen Prozesse und Hinrichtungsprozeduren kritisieren. Er wollte wenigstens den Verurteilten und Soldaten uberzeugen. Das ist naturlich keine Kritik an den Mangeln der europaischen Einrichtung. Es kommt wahrscheinlich daher, daß die Realitat der nicht-europaischen Welt die Wurzel des europaischen Geistes zum Schwanken brachte. Kafka wollte hier die Bedeutungswelt dieses Vorgangs nicht durch die logische Erklarung mit Begriffen, sondern als eine lebendige Gestalt abgebildet zeigen. Kafka wollte seinen Standpunkt bestimmen. Nicht einen festen Standpunkt sondern einen Standpunkt, den man von beiden Seiten betrachten konnte, wollte er herausfinden. Ein Platz, wo Kafka als Autor seiner Existenz versichert sein ``konnte; und eben dort fand er seinen Platz und nirgendwo anders.
1