Version classiqueVersion mobile

Encyclopédie des historiographies : Afriques, Amériques, Asies

 | 
Nathalie Kouamé
, 
Éric P. Meyer
, 
Anne Viguier

L

Literary Miscellany in Korea

Collections de notes littéraires diverses en Corée

John B. Duncan

Résumé

La notice commence par une brève introduction sur la nature des notes littéraires avec un aperçu également bref de la compilation des notes de lettrés en Asie Orientale avant que celle‑ci ne se développe en genre littéraire dans la Corée du Koryŏ et du Chosŏn. Elle donne ainsi une vue d’ensemble de la manière dont les notes de lettrés, en raison de leur caractère informel et non canonique, peuvent fournir aux historiens et aux spécialistes d’autres domaines des représentations d’aspects importants de la société et de la culture que ne traitent pas les sources plus formelles ou officielles comme les histoires dynastiques et les recueils de lettrés.

Texte intégral

  • 1 Egan, 1998, p. 12.

1The literary miscellany is, as the term suggests, a collection of various non‑canonical materials such as anecdotes, strange tales, and informal essays on such topics as poetry, music, painting and other arts. The genre first emerged in China in the third century C.E. and subsequently developed over several centuries to become a widely practiced form of writing among the literati of early modern China, Korea, Japan, and Vietnam. Its popularity notwithstanding, the miscellany did not occupy an honored position within the Sinitic literary tradition. It was not included in the 6th century Selections of Fine Literature (Wenxuan 文選), that famed Chinese collection of poetic genres, official edicts and memorials, discourses, prefaces, eulogies, and encomia that defined the canon. Rather, it was considered to be a somewhat frivolous form of writing of the same sort as narrative fiction and drama. Ironically, the exclusion of the literary miscellany from the canon was probably the major reason for its popularity. As Ronald Egan notes, the genre “served as an alternative to the classical commentary and the formal essay,” and allowed its writers “the opportunity to record their reflections or scholarly insights free of any commitment to a full-scale classical exegesis or, for that matter, to any elaborate and rigorously consistent intellectual stance.”.1 Such latitude was not only reflected in the types of topics included in the miscellany, but also in the lack of rigid topical organization of the majority of literary miscellany. Despite, or perhaps because of, the presumed frivolity of many topics and the typical absence of some sort of formal organization, the literary miscellany can be a valuable source for historians and other scholars looking beyond court-centered narratives to get some understanding of everyday life and of social culture in early modern East Asia.

The Literary Miscellany in China, Japan, and Vietnam

  • 2 Inglis, 2006, p. 107‑110.

2The literary miscellany originated in China, where it became known variously as biji 筆記 , zhaji 札記, suibi 隨筆, zaji 雜記, congtan 叢談, and zalu 雜錄 among other terms. Some scholars trace the origins of the literary miscellany to the xiaoshuo 小說 of the third century, while others date the rise of the literary miscellany to the Northern and Southern Dynasties (late 4th century through late 6th century). The genre developed during the Tang (618‑907) and came to flourish in the Song (960‑1279), Ming (1368‑1662), and Qing (1662‑1991) periods with writers coming from among both central officials and local literati. Several scholars have attempted to classify the Chinese literary miscellany in various subgenres, but suffice it to say here that typical themes found in the Song, Ming, and Qing periods included history, philology, daily life, the arts, local customs, science, strange/supernatural tales, and anecdotes about the behavior and character of individual persons.2 Some of the more noted Chinese authors of literary miscellanies include Shen Kuo 沈括 (1031‑1095), Gu Yanwu 顧炎武 (1613‑1682) and Qian Daxin 錢大昕 (1728‑1804).

  • 3 Chance, 1997, p. 46 & Carter, 2014)

3The literary miscellany also had a long history in Japan, where it is generally known as zuihitsu 隨筆. Most scholars trace its origins to the Pillow Book, a compilation of anecdotes, poems, and personal observations by lady Sei Shônagon 清少納言 (966‑1025). The genre began to develop during the years of the Kamakura shogunate (1185‑1333) and reached a peak of popularity during the Tokugawa period, when its practitioners included such luminaries as Motoori Norinaga 本居 宣長 (1730‑1801) and Matsudaira Sadanobu 松平 定信 (1759‑1829). Japanese literary miscellany of the Kamakura period tended to emphasize Buddhist themes, while those of the Tokugawa period discussed aspects of aristocratic life and social problems among other topics.3

  • 4 translated excerpts from both authors can be found in Dutton et al, 2012, p. 239‑252.

4Literary miscellanies were also compiled by scholars in Vietnam, where they were known as tuy but 隨筆 or but ky 筆記. There is no English‑language scholarship on Vietnamese literary miscellany per se, but known examples of the genre include the Tang thương ngẫu lục 桑滄偶錄, and Vu trung tuy but 雨中隨筆by Phạm Đình Hổ (1768‑1839) and the Phủ biên tạp lục 撫邊雜錄 by Lê Quý Đôn (1726‑1784).4 The Vietnamese literary miscellany, according to Alexander Woodside, appears to have followed the same general pattern of recording information in a conversational style without being fettered by conventional literary forms.

Literary Miscellany in Korea

  • 5 In Korea, the notion of “miscellany” refers to texts written in Chinese.
  • 6 Sin, 2004, p. 113‑116 & Im, 1984, p. 414‑415.
  • 7 Lee, 1989, p. 18‑42.
  • 8 Lee, 2006.

5The origins of the literary miscellany in Korea5, commonly known as chapki 雜記 but also as p’aesŏl 稗說, chapsŏl 雜說, mallok 漫錄, and chamnok 雜錄 among other terms, are usually traced back to the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries. Scholars of Korean literature in literary Chinese (hanmunhak 漢文學) have striven to place the literary miscellany as part of progressive of literary development within the context of interpretations of socio‑political and intellectual change. Some scholars contend that early forerunners of the literary miscellany can be found in the P’ahan chip 破閑集 of Yi Illo 李仁老 (1152‑1220) and the Pohan chip 補閑集of Ch’oe Cha 崔慈 (1188‑1260), noting that while those two works contain mostly literary criticism they also include some historical stories along with commentaries about customs of both Silla and Koryŏ, Buddhist monks and women. They contend that a step forward can be found in the Scribblings of Old Man Oak (Yŏgong p’aesŏl [alternatively Nagong pisŏl] 櫟翁稗說 of Yi Chehyŏn 李齊賢 (1287‑1367), a two volume work whose first volume deals with poetic criticism, but whose second volume is devoted to anecdotes about people, strange tales, descriptions of certain institutions, and commentaries on calligraphy, and painting. It should be noted that some of the Koryŏ literary collections, such as the Collected Works of Minister Yi of Korea (Tongguk Yi Sangguk chip 東國李相國集) of Yi Kyubo 李奎報 (1168‑1241) or the Collected Works of Yi Kok (Kajŏng chip 稼亭集) of Yi Kok 李穀 (1298‑1351), while comprised mostly of the authors’ lyric poetry and other formal literary genres, do contain some literary criticism as well as historical information and anecdotes of the kinds typically found in literary miscellanies. Thus, despite the argument - informed by the scholarship of both modern scholars and pre‑modern Chinese and Korean literati - that there is a clear distinction between literary collections and literary miscellanies, I contend that our understanding of this distinction should be conditioned by awareness that in many cases the boundary between the two types is ambiguous. Those scholars argue that it was only in the fifteenth century that the literary miscellany emerged as a separate and distinct genre in such works as the P’irwŏn chapki 筆苑雜記 of Sŏ Kŏjŏng 徐居正 (1420‑1488) and the Yongjae ch’onghwa 慵齋叢話 of Sŏng Hyŏn 成俔 (1439‑1504). Following the socio‑political interpretive thrust of mainstream South Korean historical scholarship, these scholars contend that Yi Illo and Ch’oe Cha were writing during the years of the Ch’oe House military dictatorship when the sadaebu 士大夫 (scholar‑official) class first emerged to challenge the old Koryŏ aristocracy, that Yi Chehyŏn was writing during the years when the sadaebu became a major political force, and that Sŏ Kŏjŏng and Sŏng Hyŏn were writing at the time when the sadaebu had become the unchallenged ruling class of Korea following the founding of the Chosŏn dynasty (1392‑1910) near the end of the fourteenth century.6 Other scholars, such as Yi Naejong, have linked the rise of the literary miscellany with the spread in Korea of Cheng‑Zhu Learning which subordinated literary endeavor to the Neo‑Confucian Way (literature as the vehicle of Way 文以載道), stressing that while early Chosŏn literati gave first priority to the study of the Classics, they still sought to find some space for the value of literary endeavor. At any rate, the literary miscellany developed as an important genre throughout the Chosŏn period, with many examples included in the Taedong yasŭng 大東野乘, a 1909 collection of various “unofficial” writings of the Chosŏn period. Peter Lee, in his introduction to the 16th century P’aegwan chapki 稗官雜記, identifies several major topics typically found in Korean literary miscellanies: poetry criticism; relations with China and depictions of Chinese envoys; individual personalities; non-elite social groups; Buddhism; and auto‑biographical vignettes.7 In another study examining how society was portrayed in early Chosŏn literary miscellanies, Lee lays out several major themes: educating literati; the world of the officialdom; the perfect gentleman; integrity and eccentricity; men, women, and romance; Buddhist monks and nuns; healers and merchants; blind men; slaves; and the supernatural.8

6There is some controversy about how to define the genre in Korea. Peter Lee emphasizes that “the literary miscellany is an anti‑genre that scoffs at the prescriptive conventions and stilted rhetoric of the formal prose genres,” and “attempts to disregard the hierarchy of relative importance among topics.” Lee continues,

  • 9 Lee, 1989, p. xi‑xii.

Although most writers of the literary miscellany were schooled in Confucian historiography and used its formulas and clichés in historical and biographical narratives, they turned to the literary miscellany for its freedom, spontaneity, and diversity. The form allowed the writer to view his tradition critically, question the stereotyped official view of experience, and adopt an open stance permitting a broader field of inquiry and a hermeneutic expansion of consciousness.9

  • 10 Ibid., p. 3‑56.
  • 11 King, 1991, p. 124.

7Lee goes on to give an extended introduction to the genre, focusing on such aspects as rhetoric and style, favored topics, value system, and self as subject.10 Ross King, on the other hand, gives us a somewhat different understanding of the literary miscellany. He argues that the literary miscellany actually comprised several different genres, “both literary and non-literary, ranging from the informational note, legend, and anecdote, to the more developed novella and essay” and goes on to take issue with Peter Lee’s argument that “the ‘literary miscellany’ was a vehicle for the ‘presentation of the self’,” contending that at least some authors of literary miscellanies were not consciously concerned with that issue.11

8For historians, however, the issue is less one of literary genre or with literary miscellanies as expressions of self - however interesting those issues may be - than with what those writings, however we define them, can tell us about society, thought, culture, and even institutions. We historians of Korea have produced our own pictures of social structures that may serve our purposes for constructing macro‑interpretations of historical change, but we have little idea as to how people actually interacted with each other, either within any given social stratum or across different strata. We have the one-dimensional depictions of upright Confucian literati contained in histories, literary collections, epigraphy, and other formal forms of writing that are difficult to reconcile with, for example, the memorial steles those presumably “Confucian” literati composed for deceased Buddhist monks that contain fantastical stories of the monks’ births and supernatural powers. For once instance of this, see the 1125 memorial stele composed by the presumably stalwart Confucian Kim Pusik 金富軾 (1075‑1151) for the Buddhist monk Taegak kuksa Ŭich’ŏn 大覺國師 義天 (1055‑1101). We tend to celebrate the artifacts of higher culture, such things as dynastic histories, poetry, philosophical treatises, legal codes, or official geographies, and to draw conclusions about the cultural life of a period without considering how cultures were experienced and reproduced in everyday life - not just the culture(s) of the of the literate elites but also those of the non‑literate lower social groups. We base our understandings of institutions on the formal descriptions given in histories, legal codes, and other such sources without any sense of how people worked and lived within (and without) those institutions. And finally, we have little insight into the mindsets, values and behavior of historical actors, relying as we do largely on their formal writings as preserved in their literary collections, in their memorials to the court, and on their actions as described in the histories. Literary miscellanies not only free us of many of the constraints of the canon but also provide a relative wealth of material that can allow us to see behind the curtain of the formal sources and get some sense of how people may have actually experienced their lives.

9The proclivities of historians notwithstanding, the late Koryŏ and Chosŏn literary miscellanies can be valuable sources for investigating areas that are neglected by official histories and other formal genres. For example, valuable insight how such key late Koryŏ institutions as the privy council (Todang/To p’yŏngŭisa sa 都堂/都評議使司) operated on a daily basis from the account in Yi Chehyŏn’s Yŏgong p'aesŏl. If we are curious as to how early Chosŏn kings like Sejong 世宗 (r. 1419‑1450) and Sejo 世祖 (r. 1455‑1468) could maintain their faith in Buddhism in the face of what appears, from the histories and literary collections, to have been almost monolithic hostility toward the religion on the part of the literati, we can find in the Yongjae ch’onghwa fascinating details about the persistence of Buddhist beliefs and practices among the elites of the capital decades after the founding of putatively Neo-Confucian Chosŏn. There is no doubt that historians, as well as scholars of music, art history, folklore and performing arts among other disciplines, will find Korean literary miscellanies to be valuable aids to their research.

Bibliographie

Books

Carter Steven, 2014, The Columbia Anthology of Japanese Essays: Zuihitsu from the Tenth of the Twenty-First Century, Columbia University Press, New York, 540 p. [9780231167710]

Chance Linda H., 1997, Formless in Form – Kenko, Tsurezuregusa and the Rhetoric of Japanese Fragmentary Prose, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 343 p. [9780804730013]

Egan Ronald, 1998, Qian Zhongshu, Limited Views: Essays on Ideas and Letters, Harvard University Asia Center, Cambridge MA, 483 p. [0674534115]

Inglis Alister D., 2006, Hong Mai’s ‘Record of the Listener’ and Its Song Dynasty Context, Suny Press, Albany, 252 p. [9780791468210]

Lee Peter H., 1989, A Korean Storyteller’s Miscellany: The P’aegwan chapki, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 336 p. [9780691067711]

Papers and Contributions to Books

Im Hyŏngt’aek (임형택), 1984, “Yijo chŏn’gi-ŭi sadaebu munhak” (李朝前期의 士大夫 文學) [The literature of the early Chosŏn sadaebu], in Han’guk munhaksa-ŭi sigak (한국 문학사의 시각) [Perspectives on Korean literary history], Ch’angjak‑kwa pip’yŏngsa (창작과 비평사), Séoul.

King J. R. P., 1991, “Review of Peter H. Lee, A Korean Storyteller’s Miscellany: The P’aegwan chapki of O Sukkwon”, Literature and History, Second Series (2:1), King Alfred’s College, Winchester.

Lee Peter H., 2006, “Images of Society in the Early Chosŏn Literary Miscellany”, The Sungkyun Journal of East Asian Studies 6‑2, Sungkyunkwan University Press, Séoul.

Sin Sangp’il (신상필), 2004, “15 segi p’ilgi-esŏ-ŭi sŏsa suyong yangsang” (15세기 필기에서의 서사 수용 양상) [Aspects of the acceptance of narration in 15th century literary miscellany], Han’guk Hanmunhak yŏn’gu 33 (Journal of Korean Literature in Hanmun), Han’gukhak munhakhoe, P’aju.

Yi Naejong (이래종), 1987, “Yongjae Sŏng Hyŏn-ŭi munhangnon” (慵齋 成俔의 문학론) [Yongjae Sŏng Hyŏn’s Literary Theory], Hanmunhak nonjip 5 (한문학논집), Tan’guk Hanmun hakhoe (단국한문학회), Séoul.

Notes

1 Egan, 1998, p. 12.

2 Inglis, 2006, p. 107‑110.

3 Chance, 1997, p. 46 & Carter, 2014)

4 translated excerpts from both authors can be found in Dutton et al, 2012, p. 239‑252.

5 In Korea, the notion of “miscellany” refers to texts written in Chinese.

6 Sin, 2004, p. 113‑116 & Im, 1984, p. 414‑415.

7 Lee, 1989, p. 18‑42.

8 Lee, 2006.

9 Lee, 1989, p. xi‑xii.

10 Ibid., p. 3‑56.

11 King, 1991, p. 124.

Auteur

Le texte et les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont sous Licence OpenEdition Books, sauf mention contraire.

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search