이 글은 도남 조윤제의 『조선시가사강』과 이를 전후한 조선 시가에 관한 연구들을 통해서, 도남이 구성하고 있는 조선 시가사의 원리를 살펴보고자 했다.
그는 조선 시가사를 관통하는 원리이자 조선 시가의 현상을 추동하는 이념으로서 형식을 설정했고, 그것은 향가의 분석에서 찾아진 2구와 반절성이었다.
그는 향가라는 기원형식에서 출발하여 시조와 가사에 이르는 과정 속에 변하지 않고 존재하는 형식을 설정하고 이를 역사적으로 고찰함으로써 형식을 역사화한다. 동시에 이 형식은 민족의 고유성이자 조선적인 것의 기원으로서, 역사의 흥망성쇠의 과정 속에서도 불변하는 것으로 존재한다는 점에서 불변하는 이념적 형식과 일치한다. 그는 이 지점에서 시가사의 이념을 민족사의 이념과 일치시킴으로써 역사를 형식화한다.
그러나 그의 서술에서 이념형은 수많은 조선 시가의 현상을 증명하는 데에는실패한다. 즉 그의 이념형은 현상들의 생성과 소멸과정 속에서 그 부재성만이증명될 수 있는 것이라는 점에서, 이념형의 역사화 자체는 저항된다. 그리고그런 차원에서만 역설적으로 이 무수한 충돌의 흔적들, 도남이 결국에는 설명하지 못했던 수많은 현상 자체가 자기를 역사적으로 제시하고 있는 것이다. 여기에서 드러나는 것은 2구와 반절성이라는 이념의 이면에 있는 근대문학사가로서의 조윤제의 이념, 즉 시와 가의 구별이라는 근대문학의 이념이다. 이 지점에 조윤제가 1930년대에 조선 시가사를 구성하고자 했던 근본적인 동인이자리한다. 그것은 조선 시가를 ‘문학적 현상’으로서 증명하고자 했던 혹은 해야만 했던 것, 즉 자기 자신의 증명인 것이다.
This paper examines the principles underlying Jo Yunjae’s discussions on the history of Korean poetic song (Joseon Sigasa) by analyzing his studies of premodern Korean poetic texts, as developed in his monograph, Principles of Korean Poetic Song (Joseon Sigasagang), and in his other work. For Jo, the most important principle governing traditional Korean poetic writing was form. His understanding of form was distilled from his analysis of Hyangga (the extant poetic genre from the ancient Silla period of Korea), and it has a dual character. He considered form as the most essential poetic attribute, and believed it had been preserved substantially intact during the modal changes from Hyangga to Sijo and to Gasa. In Jo’s discussion of this continuity of form throughout history, poetic form is historicized, becoming deeply intertwined with the origin of Korean-ness (i.e. of Joseon), and provides a steadfast anchor for the unchanging Korean character through the course of Korean history. Thus, Jo created a vision of history which identified and synthesized the ideas governing both the history of poetry and that of the Korean nation. However, Jo’s theory of form fails to explain various features of premodern Korean poetry. His ideal form is profoundly difficult to establish, in the sense that its absence in history can be confirmed, rather than its existence, and the historical manifestation of Jo’s vision is unconvincing. To literary historians in modern Korea, Jo’s ideas simply cannot supply a useful framework for understanding the history of Korean poetic song throughout premodern Korea. Indeed, a better interpretation of Jo’s work would emphasize his unconscious desire to prove himself as a Korean literary historian through his blind insistence upon form.
This paper examines the principles underlying Jo Yunjae’s discussions on the history of Korean poetic song (Joseon Sigasa) by analyzing his studies of premodern Korean poetic texts, as developed in his monograph, Principles of Korean Poetic Song (Joseon Sigasagang), and in his other work. For Jo, the most important principle governing traditional Korean poetic writing was form. His understanding of form was distilled from his analysis of Hyangga (the extant poetic genre from the ancient Silla period of Korea), and it has a dual character. He considered form as the most essential poetic attribute, and believed it had been preserved substantially intact during the modal changes from Hyangga to Sijo and to Gasa. In Jo’s discussion of this continuity of form throughout history, poetic form is historicized, becoming deeply intertwined with the origin of Korean-ness (i.e. of Joseon), and provides a steadfast anchor for the unchanging Korean character through the course of Korean history. Thus, Jo created a vision of history which identified and synthesized the ideas governing both the history of poetry and that of the Korean nation. However, Jo’s theory of form fails to explain various features of premodern Korean poetry. His ideal form is profoundly difficult to establish, in the sense that its absence in history can be confirmed, rather than its existence, and the historical manifestation of Jo’s vision is unconvincing. To literary historians in modern Korea, Jo’s ideas simply cannot supply a useful framework for understanding the history of Korean poetic song throughout premodern Korea. Indeed, a better interpretation of Jo’s work would emphasize his unconscious desire to prove himself as a Korean literary historian through his blind insistence upon form.
