워싱턴대 아시아학과 한국.디지털인문학 담당교수 조희경이 편집한 한국문학 학술서는 750쪽에 달하는 방대한 편집본으로 전세계 방방곡곡의 한국학자들이 집필한 37편의 글꼭지가 실려있다. 한국학 연구자의 필독서다
하버드 동아시아문명학과 전근대 한국문학 담당교수 박시내(구비문학, 야담연구)의 글이 흥미롭다
국가출판(관판)=인쇄, 사적출파=필사본이라는 이분법에서 국가권력이 사적출판을 억누른다는 주장을 비판하며 사적출판에서도 목판본(판각)도 있었으며 state vs private의 대립이 아니라 국가주도출판이 사적출판의 모델이자 활성화의 원천으로서 한국도서사의 결핍이 아니라고 주장한다.
특히 기존 논의가 구텐베르크의 인쇄혁명에 대한 연구를 동아시아 맥락에 맹목적으로 소환하는 경향에 대해 각기 다른 역사 속의 도서문화를 톺아보는 대신 유럽경험을 보편화한다고 비판한다. 이런 선행연구조차도 유럽인쇄혁명 이전의 필사본전통을 간과하고 발명 후 4세기 동안 필사본이 광범위하게 사용되었음을 지적한다
https://www.academia.edu/59909655/_Book_Chapter_Manuscript_Not_Print_in_the_Book_World_of_Chos%C5%8Fn_Korea_1392_1910_2022_?email_work_card=title
The trouble here is that the focus on the state’s dominant role in publishing is misleading, as it was
not a situation unique to Korea but a general trait of the book world of East Asia. “A central issue in
the history of the book in East Asia . . . is the relation between books and the state, or between books
and political power,” because the preservation of knowledge and the canon pertained to governance
(Kornicki 2005:11) while the trajectory of the development of printing in Europe was primarily a
commercial afair (McDermott 2015:105). Moreover, while Kang (2014) envisions an opposition
between state and private publishing, and the dominance of state publishing as a suppressive force
on private publishing, Lucille Chia (2020) reminds us that ofcial editions provided commercial and
private publishers with “exemplars of new or previously rare books.”
Still, the more serious issue here is the invoking of Gutenberg’s printing to understand the signifcance of the Korean experience. Doing so perpetuates a “tendency to universalize the European
experience” at the expense of viewing the trajectory of diferent book cultures in history in their
own terms (Blair 2011:359). Importantly, the view of Gutenberg’s invention as an “agent of change,”
frst put forward by Elizabeth Eisenstein (1979), has been rethought in a number of ways, especially
due to its tendency to exaggerate print’s capacity to impose textual fxity, neglect scribal practices as
antecedents of printing, and underemphasize the continued use of manuscripts for at least “the frst
four centuries” after the arrival of Gutenberg’s printing press in Europe (Chartier 2007). Such comparative insights makes clear the need to refne generalizations about the Chosŏn state’s dominant
role in printing the history of the book in Korea as a huge case of a lack and failure.