조선 전기 귀신 담론 연구 : A Study on the Guishin Discourse of the Early Joseon Dynasty
- 발행기관 서강대학교 대학원
- 지도교수 송효섭
- 발행년도 2007
- 학위수여년월 2007. 8
- 학위명 박사
- 학과 및 전공 국어국문
- 식별자(기타) 000000104461
- 본문언어 한국어
목차
본고는 우리 문학과 사상사에서 중요한 역할을 하는 귀신에 대한 담론을 연구하는 것을 목적으로 한다. 보다 구체적으로, 사상사의 일대 전환이 일어난 조선 전기의 귀신 담론이 어떠한 체계와 내용을 가지고 있었는가를 연구하는 것이 본고의 주요한 목적이다.
귀신담론은 귀신 이야기와 귀신론이라는 두 개의 커다란 축을 중심으로 이루어진다. 이는 조선 전기의 특징적 면모이다. 조선 이전, 즉 삼국 시대나 고려 시대를 대상으로 한 자료에서도 많은 귀신 이야기와 귀신에 대한 논의들이 발견되지만, 조선시대는 유학자들이 의도적으로 귀신론을 써 내고 귀신 이야기들을 수집하였기 때문이다. 따라서 이 시기에 이루어진 귀신담론은 조선 후기 혹은 현재까지도 귀신 담론을 생성해내는 중요한 기반으로 작동하고 있다는 것이 본 연구의 대 전제이다.
귀신 이야기와 귀신론은 매우 밀접한 상관관계를 가지고 담론을 형성해 낸다. 귀신론은 귀신에 대한 철학적이고도 이론적인 논변들로써, 유학자들이 의식적으로 논쟁을 벌여 이루어낸 결과물이다. 귀신 이야기는 귀신론과는 상관없이 오래전부터 전승되어 온 이야기들이기도 하고, 조선 전기라는 당대 사회속에서 수집된 것들이기도 하다. 이러한 귀신 이야기들은 이론적이기 보다는 삶의 경험에서 귀신과의 직접적 조우를 기록한 것이다. 이 두 가지 담론의 기본 체계는 상호 보완적인 측면을 가지고 결합하기도 하고, 서로 배척하고 경쟁적인 관계를 형성하기도 한다. 이들 귀신론과 귀신 이야기의 관계에 따라 조선 전기의 귀신 담론은 구체적인 방향성을 가지게 된다.
이러한 연구 작업을 하기 위해, 본고는 먼저 귀신 담론이 형성되는 시대적 조건으로서 조선 전기라는 특정한 사회적 상황에 주목하고자 한다. 앞서 언급했듯이, 조선이라는 새로운 시대는 성리학적으로 모든 사회의 사상이 집약되는 대단히 중요한 사상적 전환을 보여주는 시기이다. 그 중 가장 중요한 사상적, 지적 변화는 바로 귀신과 관련된 생명 사상에 대한 일대 전환이었다. 조선조는 새 왕조의 개창과 더불어 기존의 왕조에서 주류 사상을 형성했던 불교와 완전히 단절할 것임을 공개적으로 선언하였다. 이와 같은 사상적 단절은 기존의 사회를 비판하고 새로운 사회를 열어야 하는 지배층들에게 매우 중요한 과제였다. 따라서 사대부들은 성리학을 중심으로 불교 및 무속, 도교등 기타 사상들을 철저히 배재하면서 자신들의 사상적 우위를 확보하고자 하였다. 또한 성리학적으로 삶과 죽음의 근본적 원리를 설명하면서, 성리학이 단순히 윤리나 정치적 문제에만 효과가 있는 것이 아니라, 자연 현상 전반을 설명하는 거대한 사상 체계임을 내보이고자 하였다.
이러한 의도는 지배층의 구체적 언어 활동을 통해 극대화된다. 조선 시대는 언어를 통한 사상적, 학문적 활동과 담론의 형성이 어느 시대보다 활발히 전개된 시대였다. 이 당시 조선의 사배부, 왕족등 지배층들이 가지고 있었던 언어관은 바로 언어가 사실 혹은 진실을 정확히 전달해야만 한다는 것이었다. 모든 말들은 진리를 실어야만 하며, 헛된 망상이나 꾸며낸 말들을 가지고 진실을 호도하는 일이 없어야 한다는 것이 당대의 주요한 언어관이었던 것이다. 이러한 언어관은 사대부들의 모든 창작 활동과 담론의 실천에 영향을 미쳤다. 따라서 귀신과 같이 당장 눈에 띄지 않는 영혼의 활동을 논하는 것일지라도, 그 언어는 진실된 언어로서 신뢰할 수 있어야만 한다. 이러한 언어 활동의 기본전제 속에서, 사대부들은 귀신에 대한 논의와 이야기들을 중심으로 귀신 담론을 형성해 가게 된다.
위와 같은 귀신 담론의 전제 조건을 바탕으로 하여, 본격적인 귀신 담론의 체계분석은 귀신론과 귀신 이야기의 대화구조를 분석하면서 시작된다. 모든 담론은 대화를 기본으로 하고 있다. 대화적 체계속에서 담론은 사건을 중심으로 하여 형성된다. 사건은 담론이 형성되는 기반이며, 또한 텍스트를 해석하는 기반이 되기도 한다. 먼저, 귀신론에서는 논쟁적 사건이 벌어지고 있음을 확인할 수 있다. 귀신론의 대화는 스승과 제자들의 질의- 응답형식으로 이루어지기도 하고, 저술자 스스로가 던지는 의문과 그에 대한 해답을 중심으로 이루어지기도 한다. 어떤 경우에든 의문과 그에 대한 해답이라는 형식이 귀신론의 중심적 대화 구조가 된다. 이러한 구조내에서 가장 중심적인 질문은 과연 ‘귀신이 있는가, 없는가’ 하는 점이다. 이 질문이 가장 일차적인 질문이고, 이 질문의 응답여부에 따라 다른 질문이 이어지게 된다. 유학자들은 1차적 질문에 대해 ‘귀신은 있다.’는 결론을 내리고, 귀신이 어떻게 존재하게 되는지에 대한 존재론적 해명을 하고 있다. 또한 귀신이 어떤 자질을 가지고 있으며 인간과 어떤 관계를 맺고 있는가가 2차적 질문의 주요한 내용이다. 성리학자들은 섬겨야 할 귀신과 그렇지 않은 귀신을 명확히 구분하며, 인간과 귀신의 도리에 대해 말하고 있다.
이를 통해 형성되는 귀신론의 지식은 이론적이고 선험적인 지식이다. 이는 의심할 수 없는 진리로 받아들여진다. 귀신론의 진실성을 확충하기 위해, 많은 성리학자들은 중국의 성인들이 한 ‘말’에 기대고 있다. 기존의 권위를 이용하고 이를 전폭적으로 수용함으로써, 귀신론의 대화는 대체로 ‘동의’의 대화 형태를 가지게 된다.그러나 이와 같은 성리학적 체계 내에서도 소수자들에 의한 변화는 감지된다. 성리학적 기호들을 사용하면서도 주류 성리학의 체계를 벗어난 ‘경계적’ 말하기는 귀신론의 다양성을 담보하고, 다양한 목소리들을 담아내는 역할을 하고 있다. 한편, 귀신 이야기에서 가장 중요한 대화는 귀신과 인간의 만남에 의한 인간- 귀신의 직접적 대화이다. 즉, 귀신의 생생한 ‘말’과 인간과의 관계 맺음이 귀신 이야기에서 가장 중심적인 사건을 이루고 있다. 또한 이야기에 삽입된 논평들을 통해 귀신론과는 다른 경험적 이치들이 형성되고 있다. 본고에서 다루는 귀신 이야기들은 모두 조선 전기의 잡기에 실려 있는 것들로서, 이 이야기들은 모두 사실성을 강조하는 지표들을 사용하고 있다. 즉, 귀신 이야기들은 일종의 사실, 혹은 경험으로 믿어지고, 그렇게 때문에 이야기와 논평을 통해 형성되는 지식 역시 믿을 만한 지식으로 간주된다. 다만, 귀신론과는 달리 귀신 이야기의 지식은 그 자체가 확고한 진리를 구성하기 보다는, 유동적이고 가설적인 지식으로 여겨진다. 이는 귀신 이야기가 가지는 맥락의 중요성 때문이다. 따라서 귀신 이야기에는 귀신론에서 담아낼 수 없었던 다양한 목소리들이 공존하고, 배재의 법칙 보다는 공존과 수용의 법칙이 주요하게 작동한다. 따라서 공적인 공간에서는 이단으로 배척되는 이야기들도 대담하게 수용되고 있다. 따라서 귀신 이야기에서 형성되는 담론은 일종의 상호 담론으로, 성리학적 경계를 벗어나는 일탈적인 말들이 주류를 이루게 된다.
이러한 귀신론과 귀신 이야기의 체계는 상호 연관을 맺으며 구체적인 담론의 체계를 형성하게 된다. 귀신론은 귀신에 대한 존재론적 해명과 자연 철학적 논리를 제공하고 있다. 이에 의해 귀신은 합리적이고 이론적인 지식으로 이해 가능한 존재가 되었다. 또한 인간과 귀신의 구체적 관계를 성리학적으로 제시함으로써, 많은 귀신 이야기들이 귀신론에 의해 해명되고 이해되기에 이른다. 특히 조상 귀신의 이야기와 퇴치 가능한 악귀의 이야기들은 귀신론에서 밝힌 논리에 의해 해명되는 이야기들이다. 이를 통해 형성되는 것은 일종의 공적이고 지배적인 귀신담론이다. 이는 성리학적 경계를 굳게 지키며, 성리학의 종교성과 이데올로기성을 강화하는 역할을 한다. 반면 귀신 이야기들 중 어떤 귀신론의 원리로도 설명되기 어려운 이야기들이 있다. 이는 주로 악귀 이야기에 해당하며, 귀신론이 만들어낸 체계를 무너뜨리고, 당대 사회의 문제점을 폭로하는 역할을 하고 있다. 이와 같은 비공식적인 귀신 담론은 지배체제에 대한 문제 지점을 포착하고 지배 질서를 전복하는 일종의 전복적 담론으로 기능하고 있다. 여기서 귀신 이야기는 귀신론과 관련 없이 독자적으로 존재할 수 있다. 또한 이러한 유형의 담론에서 귀신론은 주류에서 벗어난 소수자들의 견해이다.
이와 같은 이중적인 담론 체계는 조선 사회 전반에 적용될 수 있다고 본다. 조선 후기에 이르러서는 야담등 다양한 이야기들이 활발히 수집되고 창작되며, 귀신론도 좀 더 다양한 면모를 보인다. 조선 전기 이후의 귀신 담론이 어떻게 전개되는가 하는 점, 그리고 그것이 현대 사회의 수 많은 귀신 이야기나 귀신론과 어떤 관련을 맺는가 하는 점은 이 논의를 기점으로 하여 차후에 논의할 과제가 될 것이다.
목차
This study focuses on the research of the discourse of Guishin (Korean ghost) which plays an important role in the Korean literature and history of thoughts. Among them, the study has the more deep investigation of the Guishin discourse of the early period of the Joseon Dynasty when the history of thoughts experienced dramatic change, especially, of what systems and contents the discourse had.
The course of Guishin is mainly comprised of two axes of Guishin stories and the theory of Guishin, which represents the characteristics of the early period of the Joseon Dynasty. Discussions about such stories and theory are frequently found in many documents of the times of the Three States and Goryeo respectively, both all before the Joseon Dynasty, but in the era of the Joseon Dynasty Confucian scholars wrote intentionally the theory of Guishin and also collected relative stories. From this, in this study the primal proposition lies in that the discourse of Guishin formed at that time is greatly contributed as a basis for creating Guishin discourse, still available from the later period of the Joseon Dynasty until the present.
The Guishin stories and theory are closely correlated and form a discourse. Guishin stories are philosophical and theoretical debates about Guishin, which is the result from the arguments consciously made among Confucian scholars. On the hand, Guishin stories, regardless of the theory of Guishin, has long been transmitted from generation to generation and collected in the early period of Joseon Dynasty. Such stories show a record of direct encounter with Guishin that happened in the real life experience of people, rather than theoretical. A basic system of the two discourses of Guishin stories and theory exists itself in combining them in complementary aspect, or in sometimes getting involved in competition and exclusiveness each other. The relations between the theory of Guishin and their stories make the Guishin discourse of the early Joseon Dynasty have a concrete direction.
To that end, as a time condition necessary for the formation of Guishin discourse, I focus on the early time of the Joseon Dynasty in particular. As mentioned before, Joseon has seen a very important transition in ideology by integrating all the social thoughts into Sung Confucianism. Among them, the most important ideological and intellectual change was a radical conversion of the thought of life related to Guishin. From the very outset, the Joseon Dynasty publicly pronounced that it will completely break off from the Buddhism which was served as a dominant ideology in the former Goryeo. Such an ideological break was a very important task to the ruling groups who were supposed to criticize existing society and open a new one. Therefore, the gentry tried to establish firmly their ideological superiority while excluding Buddhism, shamanist practices and Taoism. In addition, by explaining a basic principle of life and death with Sung Confucianism ideology, they tried to show that the ideology was an effective solution to ethical and political difficulties and was also a great system capable of explaining natural phenomena comprehensively.
This intention is maximized through the concrete language activities of the ruling groups. The language played more vital role in forming not only ideological and academic activities but discourse during the Joseon era than any other times before. The ruling classes such as the gentry and royal families at the time strongly believed that the main function of language is to accurately deliver only truth or facts, far away from faked or delusional words. And the viewpoint of language has influenced all creative activities and the practice of discourse of the gentry. So, even when invisible Guishin''s activities were discussed, the language describing that should be reliable and true. Under the proposition, the gentry have started forming Guishin discourse, based on discussions and stories of Guishin.
The analysis of the discourse system starts with the analysis of the dialogue structure of the theory and stories of Guishin. All discourse is fundamentally based on dialogue. A discourse is formed centered on any event in the dialogue system. Events are the basis in the formation of discourse and also are served as a foundation interpreting texts as well. In the theory of Guishin, it could be confirmed that argumentative events take place. The dialogue of theory of Guishin consists of questions and answers between teachers and students, or answers and questions issued by writers themselves. And whatever cases, the structure of questions and answers to them was a central dialogue in the theory. Under the structure, the most important question is to ''whether Guishin exists or not.'' As the primary question, it determines to go to the next step or not by answering ''yes'' or ''no.'' When asked this question, most Confucian scholars concluded that Guishin exists and then sought possible reasons of how Guishin exists. And the second important question is about what qualities Guishin has and how Guishin gets relation with human beings. The scholars clearly distinguished Guishin favorable to humans from evil one and also mentioned duties that should be observed by men and Guishin respectively.
The knowledge of the theory of Guishin through this is theoretical and transcendental one, which was accepted as an unquestionable truth. In order to expand the credibility of the theory of Guishin, many Sung Confucianism scholars depended on ''talk (Mal in Korean)'' spoken by the Chinese saints. The scholars used existing authority and accepted it down the line so the dialogue of the Guishin theory has nearly almost maintained a sort of ''consent'' dialogue.
Under such ideological system, however, some changes by minorities are seen. The minorities used Sung Confucianism symbols, but their ''boundary'' talk, being away from the main stream of Sung Confucianism, guaranteed the diversity of the theory and was contributed to acquiring various opinions of the theory.
On the other hand, the most important dialogue in the Guishin stories is a direct dialogue between a man and a Guishin by the meeting of both of them. That is to say, making a relation between a vivid ''talk'' by the evil and the man is the key event in the stories. Along with this, Experimental reasons, different from the theory of Guishin, are formed through comments which are inserted on the stories. All the stories of Guishin shown on this study are from miscellanies published in the early Joseon Dynasty, all of which use indicators that emphasize truth. In other words, it means that such stories are believed as facts or experiences so that the knowledge made by stories and comments is also recognized as trust-worthy. But on the contrary to the theory of Guishin, the knowledge of the stories is not itself a firm element of truth, rather considered variable and hypothetical one, which is caused by the context that Guishin stories get. Therefore, the Guishin stories have various opinions which are not included in the theory of Guishin, and the law of co-existence and acceptance rather than exclusion mainly works. In that sense, just even stories which are excluded as heretical in public place are accepted dauntlessly. So, the discourse formed in the stories could be told a kind of mutual discourse, where talks away from Sung Confucianism boundary have formed a mainstream.
The stories and theory of Guishin have a correlational system and form a concrete discourse one. The theory provides the explanation of the existence of Guishin as well as natural philosophical logic. Through this, Guishin becomes entities that could be understood through reasonable and theoretical knowledge. Additionally, being explained of a concrete relation between Guishin and humans by using Sung Confucianism logic and ideology, a great deal of the Guishin stories ultimately got to be elucidated and understood with the help of the Guishin theory. In particular, the stories of ancestral Guishin and vulnerable evil spirits are explained by the logic of the theory, which strengthens somewhat a public and dominant discourse of Guishin. And it in turn helps the boundary of Sung Confucianism much stronger and also reinforces the religious and ideological characters of Sung Confucianism. However, it is true that there are some of the stories of Guishin that could not be utterly explained by any Guishin theory. It accounts for mainly evil spirit stories and is responsible for breaking down the system made by the Guishin theory and revealing problems facing the society at that time. Such unofficial discourse of Guishin has functions of catching problems of the ruling groups and overthrowing the dominant order they keep. Here, the Guishin stories could remain independently irrespective of the Guishin theory. And in the circumstances of such discourse, the Guishin theory is an opinion of minorities who are not part of the mainstream.
It could be judged that such a double standard-discourse system is applied on the comprehensive society of the Joseon Dynasty. During the later Joseon Dynasty, various unofficial historical tales and other stories were created and collected and the Guishin theory also had more changed. In closing, the development process of the Guishin discourse during the later Joseon Dynasty and what relations this has with many a modern Guishin stories and its theory would be discussed henceforth.
[Abstract]
A Study on the Guishin Discourse of the Early Joseon Dynasty
This study focuses on the research of the discourse of Guishin (Korean ghost) which plays an important role in the Korean literature and history of thoughts. Among them, the study has the more deep investigation of the Guishin discourse of the early period of the Joseon Dynasty when the history of thoughts experienced dramatic change, especially, of what systems and contents the discourse had.
The course of Guishin is mainly comprised of two axes of Guishin stories and the theory of Guishin, which represents the characteristics of the early period of the Joseon Dynasty. Discussions about such stories and theory are frequently found in many documents of the times of the Three States and Goryeo respectively, both all before the Joseon Dynasty, but in the era of the Joseon Dynasty Confucian scholars wrote intentionally the theory of Guishin and also collected relative stories. From this, in this study the primal proposition lies in that the discourse of Guishin formed at that time is greatly contributed as a basis for creating Guishin discourse, still available from the later period of the Joseon Dynasty until the present.
The Guishin stories and theory are closely correlated and form a discourse. Guishin stories are philosophical and theoretical debates about Guishin, which is the result from the arguments consciously made among Confucian scholars. On the hand, Guishin stories, regardless of the theory of Guishin, has long been transmitted from generation to generation and collected in the early period of Joseon Dynasty. Such stories show a record of direct encounter with Guishin that happened in the real life experience of people, rather than theoretical. A basic system of the two discourses of Guishin stories and theory exists itself in combining them in complementary aspect, or in sometimes getting involved in competition and exclusiveness each other. The relations between the theory of Guishin and their stories make the Guishin discourse of the early Joseon Dynasty have a concrete direction.
To that end, as a time condition necessary for the formation of Guishin discourse, I focus on the early time of the Joseon Dynasty in particular. As mentioned before, Joseon has seen a very important transition in ideology by integrating all the social thoughts into Sung Confucianism. Among them, the most important ideological and intellectual change was a radical conversion of the thought of life related to Guishin. From the very outset, the Joseon Dynasty publicly pronounced that it will completely break off from the Buddhism which was served as a dominant ideology in the former Goryeo. Such an ideological break was a very important task to the ruling groups who were supposed to criticize existing society and open a new one. Therefore, the gentry tried to establish firmly their ideological superiority while excluding Buddhism, shamanist practices and Taoism. In addition, by explaining a basic principle of life and death with Sung Confucianism ideology, they tried to show that the ideology was an effective solution to ethical and political difficulties and was also a great system capable of explaining natural phenomena comprehensively.
This intention is maximized through the concrete language activities of the ruling groups. The language played more vital role in forming not only ideological and academic activities but discourse during the Joseon era than any other times before. The ruling classes such as the gentry and royal families at the time strongly believed that the main function of language is to accurately deliver only truth or facts, far away from faked or delusional words. And the viewpoint of language has influenced all creative activities and the practice of discourse of the gentry. So, even when invisible Guishin''s activities were discussed, the language describing that should be reliable and true. Under the proposition, the gentry have started forming Guishin discourse, based on discussions and stories of Guishin.
The analysis of the discourse system starts with the analysis of the dialogue structure of the theory and stories of Guishin. All discourse is fundamentally based on dialogue. A discourse is formed centered on any event in the dialogue system. Events are the basis in the formation of discourse and also are served as a foundation interpreting texts as well. In the theory of Guishin, it could be confirmed that argumentative events take place. The dialogue of theory of Guishin consists of questions and answers between teachers and students, or answers and questions issued by writers themselves. And whatever cases, the structure of questions and answers to them was a central dialogue in the theory. Under the structure, the most important question is to ''whether Guishin exists or not.'' As the primary question, it determines to go to the next step or not by answering ''yes'' or ''no.'' When asked this question, most Confucian scholars concluded that Guishin exists and then sought possible reasons of how Guishin exists. And the second important question is about what qualities Guishin has and how Guishin gets relation with human beings. The scholars clearly distinguished Guishin favorable to humans from evil one and also mentioned duties that should be observed by men and Guishin respectively.
The knowledge of the theory of Guishin through this is theoretical and transcendental one, which was accepted as an unquestionable truth. In order to expand the credibility of the theory of Guishin, many Sung Confucianism scholars depended on ''talk (Mal in Korean)'' spoken by the Chinese saints. The scholars used existing authority and accepted it down the line so the dialogue of the Guishin theory has nearly almost maintained a sort of ''consent'' dialogue.
Under such ideological system, however, some changes by minorities are seen. The minorities used Sung Confucianism symbols, but their ''boundary'' talk, being away from the main stream of Sung Confucianism, guaranteed the diversity of the theory and was contributed to acquiring various opinions of the theory.
On the other hand, the most important dialogue in the Guishin stories is a direct dialogue between a man and a Guishin by the meeting of both of them. That is to say, making a relation between a vivid ''talk'' by the evil and the man is the key event in the stories. Along with this, Experimental reasons, different from the theory of Guishin, are formed through comments which are inserted on the stories. All the stories of Guishin shown on this study are from miscellanies published in the early Joseon Dynasty, all of which use indicators that emphasize truth. In other words, it means that such stories are believed as facts or experiences so that the knowledge made by stories and comments is also recognized as trust-worthy. But on the contrary to the theory of Guishin, the knowledge of the stories is not itself a firm element of truth, rather considered variable and hypothetical one, which is caused by the context that Guishin stories get. Therefore, the Guishin stories have various opinions which are not included in the theory of Guishin, and the law of co-existence and acceptance rather than exclusion mainly works. In that sense, just even stories which are excluded as heretical in public place are accepted dauntlessly. So, the discourse formed in the stories could be told a kind of mutual discourse, where talks away from Sung Confucianism boundary have formed a mainstream.
The stories and theory of Guishin have a correlational system and form a concrete discourse one. The theory provides the explanation of the existence of Guishin as well as natural philosophical logic. Through this, Guishin becomes entities that could be understood through reasonable and theoretical knowledge. Additionally, being explained of a concrete relation between Guishin and humans by using Sung Confucianism logic and ideology, a great deal of the Guishin stories ultimately got to be elucidated and understood with the help of the Guishin theory. In particular, the stories of ancestral Guishin and vulnerable evil spirits are explained by the logic of the theory, which strengthens somewhat a public and dominant discourse of Guishin. And it in turn helps the boundary of Sung Confucianism much stronger and also reinforces the religious and ideological characters of Sung Confucianism. However, it is true that there are some of the stories of Guishin that could not be utterly explained by any Guishin theory. It accounts for mainly evil spirit stories and is responsible for breaking down the system made by the Guishin theory and revealing problems facing the society at that time. Such unofficial discourse of Guishin has functions of catching problems of the ruling groups and overthrowing the dominant order they keep. Here, the Guishin stories could remain independently irrespective of the Guishin theory. And in the circumstances of such discourse, the Guishin theory is an opinion of minorities who are not part of the mainstream.
It could be judged that such a double standard-discourse system is applied on the comprehensive society of the Joseon Dynasty. During the later Joseon Dynasty, various unofficial historical tales and other stories were created and collected and the Guishin theory also had more changed. In closing, the development process of the Guishin discourse during the later Joseon Dynasty and what relations this has with many a modern Guishin stories and its theory would be discussed henceforth.
