서양고대의 역사서술과 수사학

• 영문명: Historiography and Rhetoricin the Classical Antiquity
• 발행기관: 한국사학사학회
• 저자명: 김경현(Kim, Kyung-Hyun)
• 간행물 정보: 『한국사학사학보』제13권, 77~117쪽, 전체 41쪽
• 주제분류: 인문학 > 역사학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2006.06.30

영문 초록

This paper discusses on whether and how the rhetorical techniques played, both theoretically and practically, in the classical historiography. While its primary concern lies in giving a diachronic synopsis of the relation between rhetoric and historical writing, the author also attempts to draw some conclusions therefrom that may be perceived as the generical traits of historical research and writing. The writers under consideration are mostly Greek, for Latin writers, whether they are historians or not, are unvaryingly stingy as far as theoretical reflections on the matter are concerned. The first chapter deals with the state of things in the classical period, when history(or historiography) emerged as a new genre of literature. It is argued that a paradox existed concerning the nature of history between historiographical practice and the epistemic reflections of that literary genre. While history was denied the status as an episteme, namely a systematic knowledge of the truth, and for that matter any relevance to the two adjacent epistemai(poietike and rhetorike), historical works like Thucydides' histories not only revealed philosophical nature, basically not different from that of poiesis in its generical purpose, but also employed some poetical techniquessimilar in its narrative. This paradox inherent in history-poetry or history-rhetoric relations are found to evaporate to a great extent as we proceed into the Hellenistic period literature, and the second chapter shows how and why this change ensued. The predominant place in the world of knowledge and education which the rhetorike succeeded in attaining throughout the period is an explanation. Like in other literary genres, the impact of rhetoric began to be felt strongly in history too: historians attempted to apply rhetorical arts of composition and aim at the immediate effects of the arts upon the audience or readership. One inevitable corollary was the conception of history as a kind of court of justice, where the writers were expected to sentence a moralistic judgement on historical figures in their works. Especially encomiastic and adulatory historical writings for reigning rulers constituted a trend. The third and final chapter is devoted to the exposition of the essay “How to write history”, the only remaining one from the ancient literature for historical criticism, written by Lucian, a sophist and prolific writer in the 2nd century C. E. The derogatory languages in the essay on the rhetorical or poetical histories contrast strongly with the respect he showed for Thucydides' aim and method in the histories. Yet, we may well regard Lucian's criticism as an exception that proves the rule: that rhetorical historiography was prevalent among his contemporaries. For conclusion ought to be added some remarks concerning the antipode of rhetorical historiography, namely Thucydides as the explicit model for Lucian and Polybios too as an implicit one. Their aims and methods seem incompatible by all means with the rhetorical historiography for their allegation that they wanted to show the truth of the past above all, and thus tried to be careful lest they should fall in temptation to comply to the demands and emotion of the present audience. Two points can be made out ofthis contrast. One is that the historians like them who placed absolute value on history's truth-seeking rather than pleasure and other immediate impacts upon audience were generally the products of the historical condition where the public sphere(polis or res publica) was substantially at work. Rhetorical historiography was thus reflecting the virtual disappearance of the public sphere in the age when it was produced. The second point to make is concerned with the typical argument found among truth-seeking historians that their history will prove to be true and useful among the posterity.

목차

1. 서 론. 문제의 성격

2. 고전기 그리스에서 역사서술의 지위

- 시학 및 수사학과의 관계.

3. 헬레니즘 시대의 역사서술

- 시적, 수사학적 역사서술.

4. 로마 시대의 수사학자 루키아노스(Lukianos)의 역사이론

5. 결 론

키워드

역사서술 수사학 시학 아리스토텔레스 투퀴디데스 폴뤼비오스 할리카르나쏘스의 디오뉘시오스 루키아노스 historiography rhetorike poietike Aristoteles Thucydides Polybios Dionysios of Halicarnassos Lukianos