한국 통사로 보는 ‘실학’의 지식사 시론 (An Essay on the history of historical Knowledge “Silhak(實學)” in the textbooks on history of Korea)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 서울대학교 규장각한국학연구원
· 수록지 정보 : 한국문화 / 88호 / 209 ~ 253페이지
· 저자명 : 노관범

초록

This paper examines the formation and development of the historical knowledge called “Silhak(實學)” with Korean textbooks on history of Korea published in the 20th century. In particular, 30 kinds of textbooks are reviewed, starting with the Dongguk Saryak(東國史略) (1906) of Hyeon Chae(玄采) as the first book to have a modern table of contents, ending with the Guksa Sinron(國史新論) of Yi Kibaek(李基白) as the first book to reflect the academic achievement in the field of Korean history after liberation from Japanese colonial rule. As a result, the following facts are found.
First, the historical knowledge of “Silhak” was built on the basis of the general view of cultural development during the reign of Yeongjo(英祖) and Jeongjo(正祖). In most cases, the textbooks presented “Yeongjo and Jeongjo(英正)” and “Korean culture(文化)” as key keywords for reading the latter half of the Joseon Dynasty.
Second, the historical knowledge of “Silhak” was built on the notion of confrontation between “Neo-Confucianism” and “Culture” in Joseon Korea. The textbooks highlighted the evils of Korean Neo-Confucianism and the consequent constraints on the cultural development of Korea, or stressed the extreme cultural regression as the result of the respect for Chinese civilization inherent in the Korean Neo-Confucianism itself.
Third, the historical knowledge of “Silhak” was first systematized in Choe Namseon(崔南善)'s monumental work 「Joseon Yeoksa Ganghwa(朝鮮歷史講話)」 (1930). “Silhak”, as he meant it, was Korean Learning(朝鮮學) in essence, and distinct from Neo- Confucianism and Western Learning. Choe gave birth to "Silhak" that was at odds with Neo-Confucianism by noting the idea of “self(自我).” Fourth, the central point of historical knowledge called "Silhak" was moved from Korean Learning to Western Learning(西學) and Qing Learning(淸學) after liberation of 1945. The textbooks shared the view that the first phase of “Silhak” was formed by the influence of Western Learning and the second phase Qing Learning. Yi Byeongdo(李丙燾) asserted that Korean “Silhak” caused by the influence of Qing Learning could be compared to the Renaissance in Western history. Yi Inyeong(李仁榮) considered “Silhak” in terms of the world history in valuing the influence of the Western Learning and Qing Learning.
Fifth, for the conceptual understanding of the historical knowledge of “Silhak”, various keywords were invented. The turbulence of keywords in the textbooks actually shows considerable vulnerability to the internal convergence of the historical knowledge “Silhak”. It means that there is no agreement whether it is essentially Korean Learning, Western Learning or Qing Learning.

영어초록

This paper examines the formation and development of the historical knowledge called “Silhak(實學)” with Korean textbooks on history of Korea published in the 20th century. In particular, 30 kinds of textbooks are reviewed, starting with the Dongguk Saryak(東國史略) (1906) of Hyeon Chae(玄采) as the first book to have a modern table of contents, ending with the Guksa Sinron(國史新論) of Yi Kibaek(李基白) as the first book to reflect the academic achievement in the field of Korean history after liberation from Japanese colonial rule. As a result, the following facts are found.
First, the historical knowledge of “Silhak” was built on the basis of the general view of cultural development during the reign of Yeongjo(英祖) and Jeongjo(正祖). In most cases, the textbooks presented “Yeongjo and Jeongjo(英正)” and “Korean culture(文化)” as key keywords for reading the latter half of the Joseon Dynasty.
Second, the historical knowledge of “Silhak” was built on the notion of confrontation between “Neo-Confucianism” and “Culture” in Joseon Korea. The textbooks highlighted the evils of Korean Neo-Confucianism and the consequent constraints on the cultural development of Korea, or stressed the extreme cultural regression as the result of the respect for Chinese civilization inherent in the Korean Neo-Confucianism itself.
Third, the historical knowledge of “Silhak” was first systematized in Choe Namseon(崔南善)'s monumental work 「Joseon Yeoksa Ganghwa(朝鮮歷史講話)」 (1930). “Silhak”, as he meant it, was Korean Learning(朝鮮學) in essence, and distinct from Neo- Confucianism and Western Learning. Choe gave birth to "Silhak" that was at odds with Neo-Confucianism by noting the idea of “self(自我).” Fourth, the central point of historical knowledge called "Silhak" was moved from Korean Learning to Western Learning(西學) and Qing Learning(淸學) after liberation of 1945. The textbooks shared the view that the first phase of “Silhak” was formed by the influence of Western Learning and the second phase Qing Learning. Yi Byeongdo(李丙燾) asserted that Korean “Silhak” caused by the influence of Qing Learning could be compared to the Renaissance in Western history. Yi Inyeong(李仁榮) considered “Silhak” in terms of the world history in valuing the influence of the Western Learning and Qing Learning.
Fifth, for the conceptual understanding of the historical knowledge of “Silhak”, various keywords were invented. The turbulence of keywords in the textbooks actually shows considerable vulnerability to the internal convergence of the historical knowledge “Silhak”. It means that there is no agreement whether it is essentially Korean Learning, Western Learning or Qing Learning.

참고자료

· 없음