1940년대 ‘5⋅4’신문학 계승의 의미와 가치― 중일전쟁 시기 北京 평론가 楚天闊, 上官箏을 중심으로 (The implications of succession of the May Forth new literature in the 1940’s Sino-Japanese war period: Focused on the Beijing critics Chu Tiankuo and Shang Guanzheng)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국중국현대문학학회
· 수록지 정보 : 중국현대문학 / 80호 / 221 ~ 250페이지
· 저자명 : 이윤희

초록

The purpose of this thesis is to shed light on the literary critics 楚天濶 and 上官箏’s recognition of the ‘May fourth new literature’ during the 1940's Sino-Japanese War period in the Japanese conquered Huabei area, which included Beijing. As the Sino-Japanese War came into full scale, considerable number of writers headed for the KMT-controlled areas or liberated area, outside the Japanese ruled area. Those writers who remained in the Japanese conquered area, however, had different experiences according to their situated location which included the North-East area, the Huabei area, and the Shanghai area. Specifically, the Huabei area writers could enjoy relatively free speech atmosphere compared to other occupied territories due to its rich cultural tradition. The Beijing literary circles which had been in a downturn for about two years after the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, so called ‘7.7’ incident, began to regain its vitality with vibrant argument of ‘construction of new literature’ in 1939, and was able to enjoy a revival period after several literature arguments until 1944. 楚天濶 and 上官箏, representative critics of Beijing at that time, asserted the succession to the tradition of ‘May fourth new literature’ with vibrant participation on the literary criticism.
Those two critics viewed the ‘May fourth new literature’ as a realism literature which pursued human dignity and liberation of individuality with new style and form, contrary to the traditional old-style literature. They emphasized that the ‘May fourth new literature’ should be succeeded in order to develop the Beijing literary circles. Of particular note in their recognition of ‘May fourth new literature’ was that they defined the proprietary classes as the principal agent of the ‘May fourth new literature’. In this regard, 楚天濶 pointed out that ‘May fourth new literature’ could not achieve genuine literary popularization. As a solution of succeeding spirit of the ‘May fourth new literature’ and popularizing literary arts, 楚天濶 proposed the absorption and transformation of the excellent tradition of the old literature. As for 上官箏,  he emphasized the spirit of ‘May fourth new literature’, which was  embodied in the local literatures at the time. The only solution to the correction of the decadent literacy tendencies, according to 上官箏, was the successful inheritance of the ‘May fourth new literature’. Their opinions were differentiated from the literary popularization theory or the rural novel theory of the leftist writers. Those two critics, in particular, emphasized that the literature should describe the reality with free and individual spirit, against the subordination to both the political ideology and the formalized style. This was another manifestation of the spirit of ‘May fourth new literature’, which was liberated from feudal and repressive institutions and culture, in pursuit of free humanity.
The claim of 楚天濶 and 上官箏's ‘May fourth new literature’ succession could not be continued after 1944 because of the tumultuous history. Their argument of succession to the ‘May fourth new literature’, which was brought forward half a century ago, reminds us that there was an alternative view to ‘May fourth new literature’ in the literary circle before the integration by the strong political power.

영어초록

The purpose of this thesis is to shed light on the literary critics 楚天濶 and 上官箏’s recognition of the ‘May fourth new literature’ during the 1940's Sino-Japanese War period in the Japanese conquered Huabei area, which included Beijing. As the Sino-Japanese War came into full scale, considerable number of writers headed for the KMT-controlled areas or liberated area, outside the Japanese ruled area. Those writers who remained in the Japanese conquered area, however, had different experiences according to their situated location which included the North-East area, the Huabei area, and the Shanghai area. Specifically, the Huabei area writers could enjoy relatively free speech atmosphere compared to other occupied territories due to its rich cultural tradition. The Beijing literary circles which had been in a downturn for about two years after the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, so called ‘7.7’ incident, began to regain its vitality with vibrant argument of ‘construction of new literature’ in 1939, and was able to enjoy a revival period after several literature arguments until 1944. 楚天濶 and 上官箏, representative critics of Beijing at that time, asserted the succession to the tradition of ‘May fourth new literature’ with vibrant participation on the literary criticism.
Those two critics viewed the ‘May fourth new literature’ as a realism literature which pursued human dignity and liberation of individuality with new style and form, contrary to the traditional old-style literature. They emphasized that the ‘May fourth new literature’ should be succeeded in order to develop the Beijing literary circles. Of particular note in their recognition of ‘May fourth new literature’ was that they defined the proprietary classes as the principal agent of the ‘May fourth new literature’. In this regard, 楚天濶 pointed out that ‘May fourth new literature’ could not achieve genuine literary popularization. As a solution of succeeding spirit of the ‘May fourth new literature’ and popularizing literary arts, 楚天濶 proposed the absorption and transformation of the excellent tradition of the old literature. As for 上官箏,  he emphasized the spirit of ‘May fourth new literature’, which was  embodied in the local literatures at the time. The only solution to the correction of the decadent literacy tendencies, according to 上官箏, was the successful inheritance of the ‘May fourth new literature’. Their opinions were differentiated from the literary popularization theory or the rural novel theory of the leftist writers. Those two critics, in particular, emphasized that the literature should describe the reality with free and individual spirit, against the subordination to both the political ideology and the formalized style. This was another manifestation of the spirit of ‘May fourth new literature’, which was liberated from feudal and repressive institutions and culture, in pursuit of free humanity.
The claim of 楚天濶 and 上官箏's ‘May fourth new literature’ succession could not be continued after 1944 because of the tumultuous history. Their argument of succession to the ‘May fourth new literature’, which was brought forward half a century ago, reminds us that there was an alternative view to ‘May fourth new literature’ in the literary circle before the integration by the strong political power.

참고자료

· 없음