상세검색
최근 검색어 전체 삭제
다국어입력
즐겨찾기0
커버이미지 없음
KCI등재 학술저널

1920년대 申采浩와 梁啓超의 역사연구방법론 비교

A comparison of historical methodologies of Shin Chae Ho and Liang Qichao in 1920s

  • 586

'Introduction' of the book 'Korean ancient history' written by Shin Chae Ho was highly influenced by Liang Qichao's(1873~1929) book 'The methodologies of Chinese history'. Shin Chae Ho borrowed many ideas and most of the organizational framework of his 'Introduction' from Liang Qichao. Shin Chae Ho dealt with the same themes that was found in 'The methodologies of Chinese history' but discussed it in terms of historical documents or events in Korea. Since Liang Qichao referred to 'Introduction to history' written by Ernst Bernheim when he wrote his book, it can be assumed that modern methodologies of western history was adopted by Shin Chae Ho in his 'Introduction'. Shin Chae Ho believed that history is a document of mental activities that develop both spatially and temporally. He emphasized the importance of objective descriptions of historical facts. He also knew the importance of explanations for causal relationship in writing history and of studies of historical records. All these reflect the influences of Liang Qichao and Ernst Bernheim on Shin Chae Ho. However, Shin Chae Ho had his uniqueperspectives as well. For example, he said that history is a struggle between 'me'(or 'us') and 'others'. He also emphasized the importance of specificities and uniqueness of each nation(Minjok). These are indications of his own 'nationalistic history'. In summary, Shin Chae Ho adopted modern methodologies in Western history from Liang Qichao and Ernst Bernheim and developed a new methodology of his own. We now call it methodology of nationalistic history.

1. 머리말

2. 『조선상고사』『총론』과 『중국역사연구법』 體裁의 비교

3. 歷史觀의 비교

1) 역사의 의의

2) 객관적 역사서술론

3) 역사와 인간

4. 歷史硏究方法論의 비교

1) 인과관계론

2) 사료의 수집과 선택

5. 歷史敍述 구상의 비교

6. 맺음말

로딩중