북한의 근대계몽기 문학사 서술 비교 —<조선문학통사>와 <조선문학개관>을 중심으로

이길연 사단법인 한국평화연구학회 2008 평화학연구 Vol.9 No.2

In this study, I examined the aesthetic standards in the modern transitional period among literary history of North Korea, and studied the distinction between literary periods. As for the study on the modern transitional period, I used a multidimensional approach including literary histories, authors and literary theories. In the literary history of North Korean, it recognizes the literature from 1900 to 1910 as enlightenment literature of Joseon. An Outline of Joseon Literary History and An Introduction of Joseon Literature are mainly discussed in this study, and the two books were written with 27- year time gap. As for the authors, considering the controlled and uniformed system of North Korea, it is very interesting to discover that An Outline of Joseon Literary History was written by a group of co-authors from “Literary Institute of Social Science”, while An Introduction of Joseon Literature was written by two identified authors, Jeong Hong-gyo and Park Jeong-won. First, for the literary periods and aesthetic standards, it can be divided into two different periods from the point of Independence from Japan until before introduction of Juche literary theory (1966), and from the beginning of Juche literary theory to up until today. Before the Juche literary theory, North Korea’s literature was based on the orthodox Kafka’s literature, while the Juche literary theory emerged after the systematized Kim Il-sung Monotheism, or Juche Ideology. As for aesthetic standards of North Korea’s literature, progressism (progressive Romantic literature), realism (critical realism literature), patriotism (anti-Japan literature), enlightenment literature (bourgeois enlightenment literature) and People Orientation can be mainly considered One of the distinctive differences between them is that An Outline of Joseon Literary History followed the frame of History of Joseon Literature, while An Introduction of Joseon Literature regarded Lee In-jik as a pioneer of a new-style novel and representative writer. As for the description methods, in the An Outline of Joseon Literary History literary works are classified by prose and poem, but An Introduction of Joseon Literature applied more detailed classification according to themes, ideologies, contents etc. Therefore, we can find some writers and literary works in An Introduction of Joseon Literature, which were excluded in the "An Outline of Joseon Literary History" In case of South Korea’s history of literature, there are verities based on the authors viewpoints and intention, while North Korean books are maintaining the unity and objective views due to the influence of communist system and ideology. We can also notice that due to the communism, individual authors’ intention and views are strongly limited. 본고는 북한의 문학사 가운데 근대전환기에 관한 미학적 기준과 문학사 간의 차별성을 고찰하였다. 그동안 근대전환기에 관한 연구는 남북한 모두에서 문학사, 작가 및 작품론을 비롯한 다양한 각도에서 연구되어 왔다. 북한문학사의 근대전환기 인식은 1900년에서 1910년까지의 문학을 조선 계몽기로 보고 있다. 본고에서는 주로 『조선문학통사』와 『조선문학개관』을 논의의 대상으로 삼고 있는데, 이 두 문학사는 서술연대가 27년이라는 간격을 두고 있다. 저자에 있어서도 『통사』의 경우에는 사회과학원 문학연구소에서 단체 명의의 공동저작으로 이뤄졌는가하면, 『개관』의 경우에는 정홍교 · 박종원이라는 실명으로 간행된 점은 북한의 학문적 체제를 감안한다면 다소 특이한 현상이다. 먼저 시대 구분과 미학적 기준을 들어보면, 해방에서 주체문예론 대두 전(1966〜67)까지와 주체문예론의 등장에서 최근에 이르는 기간으로 구분할 수 있다. 주체문예론 이전의 북한문학은 카프문학의 정통성에 기초한 것으로 규정될 수 있는데 반해, 주체문예론의 대두는 유일사상인 주체문예론이 체계화되어 나타난 것이다. 북한문학사을 서술하는 미학적 기준은 구체적으로 인민성, 진보성(진보적 낭만주의 문학), 사실주의(비판적 사실주의 문학), 애국주의(반일애국문학), 계몽문학(부르조아 계몽문학) 등을 들 수 있다. 『조선문학통사』는 앞의 『조선문학사』 서술의 틀을 그대로 따르고 있으며, 『조선문학개관』에서는 이인직을 신소설의 개척자이며 대표적인 작가의 한 사람으로 보고 있는 것이 특징이다. 서술체계를 보면, 『조선문학통사』에서는 단지 장르간의 분류를 통해 산문과 시가로 간략히 구분하고 있는 반면, 『조선문학개관』에서는 특성에 따라 좀더 구체적으로 담겨진 내용이나 사상 그리고 작품의 성격을 규명할 수 있도록 세부적으로 분류하고 있음을 엿볼 수 있다. 이상에서 볼 때, 『조선문학통사』에서 논의에서 제외됐던 작가나 작품들이 『조선문학개관』에서는 다뤄지고 있음을 알 수 있다. 한편 남한의 문학사의 경우, 서술자의 의도에 따라 다양하게 논의되고 있음에 비해 북한의 경우, 그들 나름대로의 공동 체제와 이념을 염두에 두고 서술한 것으로 통일성과 객관성을 유지하고 있는 것 같으나 사회주의 이념의 미학에 기대어 서술자의 의도나 사고에 많은 제약을 받고 있는 것을 알 수 있다.

북한 『조선문학사』 서술의 역사

김성수 민족문학사연구소 2022 민족문학사연구 Vol.80 No.-

This article summarizes the history of North Korea’s ‘History of Joseon Literature’. Previous studies on the history of Joseon literature published in North Korea included “Joseon Literature Tongsa” (1959), “Joseon Literature History” (1977-81), Jeong Hong-kyo, Park Jong-won, “Joseon Literature Overview” (1986), Kim Ha-myeong, Ryu Man- et al., and “Joseon Literature History” (1991-2000). In this article, a total of 18 kinds of literary history texts were classified and analyzed by publication order and characteristics based on the results of previous studies that analyzed 3 or 4 types of literary history. In addition to the official history of literature planned by the Academy of Social Sciences and published by the Social Science Publishing Company, Kim Il-sung University, Kim Hyung-jik Normal University, and the history of lectures published by Kim. University Publishers, Educational Book Publishers, and Joseon Writers Alliance Publishers were expanded. As a result of analyzing 18 kinds of literary history published in North Korea in order of publication, it is possible to confirm the history of transformation from socialist realist literary history to Juche literary history before and after the establishment of Juche ideology(1967). The latter was described unilaterally as the “Juche Literature History” based on the discourse of Supreme leaders, the Juche view of history, and the discourse of Military first, so the diverse lives of North Koreans were not abundantly revealed. On the other hand, as a result of analyzing the characteristics and functions of 18 kinds of literary history, it can be classified into official literary history of the literary policy authorities, educational literary history of universities(textbooks), and popular cultural books for the general public. Based on the results of these discussions, I intend to embrace creative diversity as a pluralistic value by dismantling the canon of ‘The History of Joseon Literature’, which has been fixed as a unilinear history of Juche literature. To this end, we intend to reconstruct the history of North Korean literature, a part of Korean literature, through various approaches such as conceptual history, media theory, and realism theory.

일본 `한국문학사`에서의 한국고전문학사 인식과 서술양상

류정선 ( Ryu Jung-sun ) 경희대학교 비교문화연구소 2017 비교문화연구 Vol.48 No.-

본 연구는 일본에서 저술된 한국고전문학사를 중심으로 일본문학사와 남북한 문학사와의 문화횡단적 양상을 살핌으로써 한국문학사에 대한 인식과 서술양상을 규명하고자 했다. 그 분석대상은 일본인과 재일조선인을 대상으로 일본어판 『조선문학사』를 저술한 김동욱과 변재수이다. 일본문학과의 비교문학적 관점인 김동욱의 『조선문학사』(1974)와 재일조총련계로서 사회주의적 관점에서 저술한 변재수의 『조선문학사』(1985)는 자국문학사의 가치를 평가하는 기준과 인식이 서로 달랐다. 이것은 무엇보다 분단체제로 인한 남북한의 문학사가 이질적으로 전개되는 현실에서 그들의 『조선문학사』는 남북문학사의 균열상을 담아내고 있다. 하지만 그 한편으로 한문문학의 가치와 향가, 한글창제, 그리고 판소리의 독자성을 높이 평가하고 있으며, 한국문학으로서 한글문학과 한문문학이 서로 상호작용 했다는 것을 증명하고 있다는 점은 공통적이다. 뿐만 아니라 그들의 일본어판 『조선문학사』의 저술의의는 민족주의적 시각하에 일반적으로 한국문학을 중국문학의 아류라는 인식에서 벗어나 한국문학의 가치를 재정립시키고, 일본인에게는 한국문학의 우수성을 재일동포에게는 민족적 자긍심을 고취시키기 위한 노력이었다는 것을 확인할 수 있었다. The purpose of this study is to review two books on the history of Korean literature written in Japanese, taking special interest in ancient Korean literature, examining transcultural patterns between the history of North and South Korean literature and that of Japanese literature, and thereby identifying perceptions and description patterns of the history of Korean literature from the perspective of comparative literature. This study analyzes two books with the same title The History of Joseon Literature written in Japanese by Kim Dongwook and Byeon Jaesoo. The two books are not translations of Korean books but were written in Japanese for Japanese and ethnic Korean readers in Japan. The History of Joseon Literature (1974) by Kim Dongwook mainly compares Joseon literature with Japanese literature. The History of Joseon Literature (1985) by Byeon Jaesoo, an ethnic North Korean in Japan, was written from socialistic perspectives. The two books have different standards for evaluating value of the history of Joseon literature and different perceptions about it. Due to the division between North and South Korea, the history of literature is unfolding in different ways in the two Koreas, and the two books reflect such differences. However, they have several common features. For example, they highly regard the value of literature written in Chinese characters and originality of hangga (a folk song of Silla), Hangeul (the Korean alphabet), and pansori (a form of Korean folk music in which a singer accompanied by a supportive drummer sings and chants an epic story). In addition, they both demonstrated that literature written in Hangeul and that written in Chinese characters interacted with each other as the same Korean literature. When the two books were written, the history of Korean literature had been considered a subunit of the history of East Asian or Chinese literature. However, as this study found, Kim and Byeon wrote the two books from a perspective of departing from this view based on nationalism, re-establishing the value of Korean literature, promoting Japanese people`s understanding of the high quality of Korean literature, and imbuing ethnic Koreans in Japan with nationalistic pride.

특집 : 통일 담론과 남북한 문학사 소통방안

김성수 ( Seong Su Kim ) 민족문학사학회·민족문학사연구소 2014 민족문학사연구 Vol.56 No.-

이 글은 ‘우리’ 한국문학(사)의 타자이자 소수자라 할 북한문학(사)을 어떻게 볼것인가 하는 문제의식에서 출발한다. 북한문학은 언젠가는 재통합될 한반도 이북의 우리 민족의 문학이니 이념 차이 때문에 무조건 배제할 수는 없다. 북한문학도 문학이며 ‘우리문학’이기에, 궁극적인 통합을 위해서 원래 하나였던 것이 해방 직후 분단된 과정을 천착할 필요가 있다. 이에 백철의 『조선신문학사조사』, 조연현의 『한국 현대문학사』, 한효의 「현대조선문학사조」, 안함광의 『조선문학사 1900~』, 과학원 문학연구실의 『조선문학통사』 (하) 등을비교하였다. 그 결과 남북 학자들이 자기중심으로 현대문학사를 전유하고 상대를 배제하는‘뺄셈의 서술’을 통해, 자기 체제의 역사적 정통성을 확보하려 했음을 알았다. 나중에 승리한자가 이미 존재했던 역사적 실상을 왜곡, 재편하는 것이 공식 역사 기술의 당연지사겠지만,공식화와 정전화를 공고히 할수록 원래 하나였던 우리문학사, 민족문학을 결과적으로 영구분열시킬 수밖에 없었다. 즉, 자기중심적 정통성 담론은 기실 모국어의 분단을 공고화하는분단문학사의 출발일 뿐이다. 1950년대 이후 최근까지 남북한의 문학사를 통합 서술한 실질적인 성과는 거의 없다고 해도 과언이 아니다. 그 결과 최근 남북한의 현대문학사 서술은 완전히 다른 나라 것처럼 되었다. 가령 북한의 『조선문학사』 16(2012)는 ‘조선민족제일주의’와 ‘수령론’으로 점철된 ‘선군(先軍) 문학사’를 정초하고, 남한은 문학사 자체를 공식화하지 않거나 아예 해체하는 분위기이다. 그나마 민족문학사연구소의 『새민족문학사강좌』(2009)가남북문학(사)의 공존을 소수자담론으로나마 서술한 수준이다. 문학사적 분단의 재검토를통해 적대적이거나 무관심해진 북한문학과의 상호 이해와 교류, 통합방안을 다시 고민할 때이다. 북한문학의 실체를 인정하고 부단히 소통하며 남북 문학의 공존을 서술해야 우리 민족문학사의 재통합이 가능할 것이다. This study begins with the question of what perspective we should take towards the North Korean literature which has been regarded as the other party of Korean literature. The North Korean literature is the literature of the Korean race in the northern part of Korean Peninsula of the reunified Korea and therefore cannot be blindly rejected due to the difference of ideology. The North Korean literature is also a literature and the literature of Korean race. Thus, it is considered necessary to examine the period right after the nation’s liberalization from Japanese forced occupation, the starting period of the nation’s division. In relation to that, this study compared the Joseon New Literature History Survey by Baek Cheol, Korean Modern Literature History by Jeo Yeon-hyeon, Modern Joseon Literature History by Han Hyo, Joseon Literature History After 1900s by Ahn Ham-gwang, Comprehensive History of Joseon Literature by the Literature Lab of the Institute of Science, etc. The results showed that the scholars in the South Korea and the North Korea attempted to secure historic legitimacy of their regimes through the description of ‘subtraction’ aiming to appropriate the modern literature history in a self-oriented manner and exclude the counterparty. The self-oriented legitimacy discourse is merely the starting point of the literature history of the divided nation which signified the division of mother tongue as afact. There has been little outcome providing insight into the literature history of the South Korea and the North Korea through integrated approach until recently after 1950s. As a result, the modern literature history of the South Korea and the North Korea has been described as completely different history. For example, the no. 16 volume of Josen Literature History of the North Korea was based on the literature history rooted in the military-first principle oriented toward Joseon Race First Policy and Theory of Great Leader, while the South Korea dismantles the literature history itself. Fortunately, the New Race Literature History Lecture by Race Literature History Lab at least describes the coexistence of literature of the South Korea and the North Korea as minority discourse. The reintegration of literature history would be achieved only when the existence of North Korean literatureis recongized and the coexistence is promoted with communication.

『한국한문학사』와 『조선문학사』의 ‘문학’ 관념과 한문학사 서술방식

심경호 ( Sim Kyung-ho ) 연민학회 2017 淵民學志 Vol.28 No.-

근대 이전에는 ‘문’이라 하면 학술과 문학을 포괄했고, 협의의 ‘문’이라고 해도 순문학만이 아니라 공용문이나 실용문까지 아울렀다. 따라서 한문학을 그 광의의 의미에서 파악하고 한문학의 역사적 전개를 그 콘텍스트(context) 내에서 재구성하는 일이 지금 한문학 연구에 주어진 과제라고 생각하고 있다. 이러한 시기에 연민의 『한국한문학사』와 『조선문학사』의 ‘문학’ 관념과 서술방식이 새롭게 평가될 필요가 있다. 『한국한문학사』와 『조선문학사』는 이른바 정통 문언어법으로 창작된 한문학만이 아니라 ‘한문자(漢文字)를 이용하여 표현한 한자문학(漢字文學)’ 전체를 대상으로 삼았으며 양식ㆍ장르상의 전개 양상을 사조사와 연계시켰다. 또한 전통 한학의 인문학적 성격에 주목하고 한학의 방법을 근대 학문에 접목시켰다. 뿐만 아니라 한문이 정통 한문(고문)의 틀을 벗어나 민족적 사유 및 정서의 표현체계로서 독자적인 발전을 이루어 왔다는 사실을 살폈으며, 여성 작가, 가족에 대한 사랑, 민중적 저항과 관련된 시문 및 참요의 발달 등을 비중 있게 다루었다. 연민 선생의 『한국한문학사』와 『조선문학사』는 1960ㆍ70년대 비판적 지성들이 고전과 역사 속에서 내재적 발전의 힘을 확인하였던 연구 동향과 보조를 맞추면서 ‘우리 것’의 실체를 객관화해내었던 소중한 업적이다. 또한 앞으로 후속 연구가 이루어져야 할 방향을 직접 제시하였거나, 의도하지 않았으되 거꾸로 촉구하는 국면들이 있다. 『한국한문학사』와 『조선문학사』가 지닌 기술태도와 취재의 특색, 그리고 그 한계를 살피는 일은, 우리 시대에 새로운 민족문학사를 서술하고자 할 때 반드시 거쳐야 할 작업이라고 생각된다. The traditional meaning of the term ‘literature’ or ‘letters’ (文) in premodern Korea encompasses a wider scope than the modern concept of ‘literature’ (文學). It refers not only to refined writing in Literary Chinese, but also to more utilitarian public and private writings in Literary Chinese composed in the context of daily life. It is needed to understand the meaning of Sino-Korean literature in this broad sense to re-construct its historical development in its own context. In this reason, the concept of ‘literature’ suggested in Lee Gawon’s History of Sino-Korean Literature and History of Joseon Literature and their way of description should be reviewed and newly estimated. Lee Gawon, in his History of Sino-Korean Literature and History of Joseon Literature, analysed and criticized not only so-called ‘literary writings in standard literary Chinese’, but whatever literary writings written in Chinese letters including essays, funeral orations, exam literature etc. and related the phase of the development of literary genre and style to the history of thoughts. He deeply understood the humanistic properties of the traditional learning of Chinese classics as humanities and transplanted it into modern studies of classical Chinese literature. He also pointed out that Sino-Korean literature, separated from literary writings in standard literary Chinese, developed independently as a mean of expression of thoughts and emotions, and dealt with the works related to woman writers, popular movements, family affection etc. importantly. Lee Gawon’s History of Sino-Korean Literature and History of Joseon Literature is a monumental work that objectified the truth of what was regarded as ‘ours’. He in many points suggested the direction of succeeding researches, and there are also some unintended points that encourages our researches. It is needed to examine them thoroughly, including their tendency of collection of materials, their way of analysis and description, and their limitation, to describe a new history of Korean classical literature in our generation.

중국에서 저술된 한국근현대문학사의 문화횡단적 실천 - 남한문학사ㆍ북한문학사ㆍ자국문학사라는 세 겹의 프리즘 -

이선이 ( Lee Sun-yi ) 경희대학교 비교문화연구소 2017 비교문화연구 Vol.48 No.-

이 연구는 중국에서 저술된 한국근현대문학사를 남한문학사, 북한문학사, 자국문학사와 비교하여 서술 양상을 살핌으로써, 이들 텍스트에 나타난 문화횡단적 실천을 살피고자 하였다. 지금까지 중국에서 저술된 한국문학사는 약 25종이며, 이 가운데 한국근현대문학사는 약 16종이다. 저술 목적으로 볼 때, 연구용 문학사보다는 교재용 문학사가 압도적으로 많다. 시각과 서술내용으로 볼 때, 남한문학사를 수용한 경우와 북한문학사를 수용한 경우 그리고 남북문학사를 함께 수용한 경우로 나눌 수 있다. 각각의 대표적인 텍스트를 선정하여 그 인식과 서술 양상을 남한문학사, 북한문학사, 중국문학사와 비교한 후, 의미의 이동과 생성의 지점을 살펴보았다. 그 결과, 한국문학사 인식과 서술에 있어서 몇 가지 의미 있는 전언을 발견할 수 있었다. 첫째, 우리의 근현대문학사는 서양문학의 영향만을 강조함으로써 중국문학의 영향을 간과했다는 점에 대한 반성적 시각 둘째, 북한문학사를 주체적이고 객관적으로 인식함으로써 통일문학사 기술의 한 가능성을 제시한 점 셋째, 순수문학중심주의에서 벗어나 문학의 대중성에 대한 강조와 다양한 매체와 연관된 작품을 수용하는 시각 확장의 가능성을 열어준다는 점이 그것이다. This study compares the history of modern Korean literature written in China with the history of South Korean literature, the history of North Korean literature and the history of national literature, explores aspects of narrative and therefore examines transcultural practice presented in such texts. There have hitherto been approximately 25 works on the history of Korean literature written in China, and 16 of 25 works are on the history of modern Korean literature. Regarding their purpose, the number of pedagogical works outstandingly exceeds the number of research works. In terms of perspective and contents, it can be divided into three categories; one that only embraces the history of South Korean literature, another embracing the history of North Korean literature only and the other embracing the history of South Korean and North Korean literature. This study has selected representative texts from each category and compared recognition and narrative aspects to that of the history of South Korean literature, the history of North Korean literature and the history of Chinese literature. It further examines loci of definitions` transfer and formation as well. As a result, this study reveals valuable understanding of recognition and narration of the history of Korean literature. First, this study offers an introspective attitude, as the history of modern Korean literature accentuates influence of only Western literature, overlooking influence of Chinese literature. Second, this study proposes a new narrative perspective on the history of Unified Korean literature through independent and objective identification of the history of North Korean literature. Last, it emphasizes popularization of literature - aside from pure literary-centrism - and expands possibilities of embracing distinct works relevant to multimedia.

시선집 『靑丘詩鈔』의 편찬과 문학사적 의미

구지현,최재원 대동한문학회 (구.교남한문학회) 2023 大東漢文學 Vol.74 No.-

The main purpose of the present study is to elucidate the background and process in the compilation of selected poems, Cheonggusicho published by the Japanese Government-General of Joseon and its meaning in Korean Chinese literature history. Because Kim, Taejun made a diachronic study of Korean Chinese literature history to describe ancient parts of Joseon Chinese Literature History by using a lot of Cheonggusicho. The Competitive Exhibition of Local Products for the Fifth Anniversary of New Politics’ held by the Japanese Government-General of Joseon provided an occasion to publish Cheonggusicho. It was held to commemorate the fifth year of Japanese rule of Joseon and to make Joseon merged as a colony of Japan. Though Cheonggusicho was published to commemorate the fifth year of Japanese rule of Joseon, it was not a local product. It seems that its aim was for some Japanese to enjoy Korean folk culture, due to the words in the preface, “to give the books printed by the typographic culture of Joseon to the ‘persons interested in the same subject’”. It is doubtful why Cheonggusicho was taken to Joseon Chinese Literature History. Cheonggusicho consists of 176 poems stemmed from Gojoseon, the first Korean kingdom, to the Goryeo dynasty. Over 130 poems in it were recorded on Dongmunseon. The poems representing each historical era are arranged in chronological order with a poem a poet. It is different from other anthologies. So the origin of Joseon poetry dates back to the earlier era. According to the preface of Joseon Chinese Literature History, it does not belong to Chinese Literature because it is the translated Chinese character version of native Korean words. At that time when Kim, Taejun wrote Joseon Chinese Literature History, Samgukyusa(Memorabilia of the Three Kingdoms) began to spread and the literary approach to Hyangga(old Korean folk songs), Korean myths and folktales emerged in the academy. That Chinese Literature in Korea should belong to Joseon Chinese Literature History was under discussion. In conclusion, though Cheonggusicho was published for some Japanese to enjoy Korean folk culture, it is a clue to spread the origin of old Korean literature by Kim, Taejun at that time when the concept of literature began to change. 본 연구는 일본인에 의해 간행된 시선집 『靑丘詩鈔』의 편찬 배경과 그 특이성을 통해 한문학사적으로 어떤 의미를 지녔는지 살펴보고자 한 것이다. 1931년 김태준은 우리나라 한문학사를 통시적으로 체계화한 『朝鮮漢文學史』의 상대편을 기술하는 과정에서 『청구시초』를 상당 부분 활용하였기 때문이다. 『청구시초』가 발간된 계기는 조선총독부에 의해 개최된 ‘始政五年紀念 朝鮮物産共進會’였다. 공진회는 조선총독부의 5년간 新政 체제가 이뤄낸 실적을 대대적으로 선전하는 데 목적이 있었으며, 궁극적으로는 조선을 동화시키고자 하였다. 『청구시초』가 이러한 공진회를 계기로 만들어지기는 하였으나, 전시된 물품은 아니었으므로 정책상의 목적과 차별되는 점들을 찾아볼 수 있다. 단순히 조선의 활자로 찍은 책을 ‘同好’에게 나누어주기 위해 책을 간행했다고 서문에 밝혔으니, 조선의 물산을 내보이려는 목적보다는 소수의 일본인이 즐기기 위해 기획된 것으로 보인다. 이러한 지점들로 미루어볼 때, 왜 『청구시초』가 『조선한문학사』에 수용되었는가에 대해서는 의아하지 않을 수 없다. 시선집에 실린 시는 단군조선부터 고려까지 총 176수로 구성되어 있다. 130여 수 이상이 『동문선 』과 일치한다. 각 시대를 대표하는 시들이 시체의 구분 없이 시간 순서대로 나열된 형태를 띠고 있으며, 1인당 한 수의 시가 실려 있다. 이러한 형태는 이전의 시선집과는 다른 지점이다. 특히, 시가의 범주를 느슨하게 설정함으로써 역사서를 수용하는 동시에 한역시의 시대를 고증하여 시대순으로 정돈・배열하면서 조선 시의 기원을 기존보다 앞선 시대에서 찾고자 하였다. 『조선한문학사』의 서론에 의하면, 이는 본래 우리말로 되어 있던 것을 한역한 것이므로 한문학의 범주에 속하지 않는 시들이다. 고대 한문학이 아닌 고대문학으로 분류될 수밖에 없는 것들이다. 그러나 김태준이 『조선한문학사』를 저술하던 당시 교감본 『삼국유사』가 보급되어 주목받았으며, 향가나 신화, 설화에 대한 문학적 접근이 이루어지면서 조선문학사에 한문 문학을 포함해야 한다는 논의가 이루어지기 시작했을 때이다. 그러므로 상대편의 첫 장을 고대 한문학이 아닌 ‘고대문학의 감상’이라는 용어를 사용한 것이다. 요컨대 『청구시초』는 일본인 호사가들의 조선 취미를 위해 인쇄된 시선집이지만, 문학 개념이 변화되어 가는 시기에 김태준이라는 학자에게 주목받아 고대문학의 기원을 넓히는 하나의 단서로 작용하게 되었던 것으로 보인다.

桂奉瑀 『조선문학사』의 의미와 가치

조규익(Cho Kyu-ick) 국어국문학회 2010 국어국문학 Vol.- No.155

The purpose of this paper is to analyze and disclose the meaning of Gye, Bongwoo's 《History of Joseon Literature》. Gye was an enlightenment campaigner who wandered about from place to place in China and Soviet Union remote from his homeland in his 20s and died in difficulty of diaspora. In spite of his actions in Soviet Union, it is difficult to find out apparent materialistic conception of history. He said he wrote this book, because of dissatisfaction about An, Jasan's 《History of Joseon Literature》. However, I made sure Gye used An's book as a frame for his book. Not only the divided periods, but also his selection of literary works or division of genres correspond each other. Gye divided the literary periods into Bal-a-gi[period of sprouting], Saeng-yook-gi[period of growth and development], Jangseong-gi[period of maturity], Beon-yeong-gi[period of prosperity]. He assimilated the development of traditional literature to the process that a seed springs up and grows, in the point that he understood literature as a life, his idea communicates with Jo, Yoonje's 《History of Korean Literature》. Gye accepted An, Jasan's idea and showed the same aspect as Jo, Yoonje's viewpoint in endowment of meaning. Gye was a nationalist consistent in an edification movement. Of course, he might be received some influence from the aesthetics of social realism during his action in Soviet Union. Critical realism, viewpoint of class conflict, serious consideration of literature, etc. are the traces received influence from the aesthetics of social realism. Otherwise, his main concern was our own written letters. He insisted that possession of our own written letters is only a scale determining an identity of our literature, emphasizing that Jeong'eum munhak[literature written in Korean alphabets] is truly our own literature. Emphasis of Jeong'eum munhak[literature written in Korean alphabets] was continued to the criticism about toadyism of the ruling class, resulted to national self-reliance and emphasis of national self-respect. So, I think we can call his view of literary history as an independent view of national history. His independent view of national history might be shared with An, Jasan and Jo, Yoonje's nationalism. Especially, the vein of nationalism was succeeded from Dan Jae Shin, Chaeho to An, Jasan, the nationalism was able to bloom in a new appearance, continuing to Gye, Bongwoo who received an influence from social realism. The fact that a new level's achievement 《History of Joseon Literature》 succeeded An, Jasan's national view of history, and amalgamated a positivist Jo, Yoonje's national view of history was made by Gye, Bongwoo might be recorded as an event having a great meaning and value in the history of writing a literary history.

김태준(金台俊)의 학문연구 ― 일인학자 및 루쉰(魯迅)과의 학문적 교섭

홍석표 한국중국현대문학학회 2012 中國現代文學 Vol.0 No.63

Kim Tae-Joon became interested in traditional Chinese literature and other fields of fiction and drama centered on poetry and prose as a student in Kyongsong Imperial University while he was attending the Chinese Fiction and Drama course taught by the newly-appointed professor Karashima Takeshi. Moreover, he felt responsible as a Korean for cultivating Joseon Studies (Korean Studies) in a stand against Joseon Studies by the Japanese, and began to study the history of Joseon fiction from his second year as an undergraduate. Kim also felt that it was his academic task as a Chinese literature major to import and introduce China's new literature. He put this task into concrete action by having A View of Chinese Literature after the Literary Revolution published serially in the Dong-A Daily News. Although it was commonly viewed to be based on a thesis called Modern Literature of China by Senuma Saburo, it became known that Kim referred to many different materials, as Kim himself revealed. Kim Tae-Joon referred to the writings of Japanese writers Senuma Saburo and Seiki Masaru,and to the thesis of Korean writer Jeong Rae-Dong. He also consulted various materials from China: the works of literatury history by Hu Shi and Tan Zhengbi; criticism of Chinese New Literature by Qian Xingcun(錢杏邨), Chen Yuan(陳源), Yu Dafu(郁達夫), Xiang Peiliang(向培良), and Li Helin; and the anthology of Guo Moruo. While it is true that Kim actively referred to the contents of Senuma Saburo’s Modern Literature of China, we need not state categorically that he based it simply on Senuma Saburo’s thesis from the fact that Kim assessed the flow of China's new literature as the stages of Literary Revolution→Revolutionary Literature→Proletarian Literature. It was natural that Kim, who inclined toward a class concept of history, would form the conclusions as he witnessed the Chinese literary scene after the formation of the Chinese League of the Left-Wing Writers. There is no need to presume any one influence since it was the common perception of Korea, China and Japan in understanding of China's new literature around 1930. Moreover, Kim Tae-Joon, while making sufficient use of the academic results of Japanese and Chinese scholars, made diligent efforts to make his studies his own from the perspective of national literature such as working on “Joseon in the Chinese New Literature movement.”Kim Tae-Joon did not feel the need to actively refer to Lu Xun's A History of Chinese Fiction since he had accepted the current view held by China's Left-wing Critics in considering Lu Xun's work as no longer valid, but we can surmise from several circumstances that he would have pored over the book to add depth and breadth to his understanding of Chinese fiction history. As for the study of ancient fiction by Korea China and Japan, if Kim Tae-Joon consulted Lu Xun's A History of Chinese Fiction as Karashima Takeshi consulted Kim's A History of Joseon Fiction, we can take it to mean that Korea, China and Japan share the academic research results of East Asian ancient fiction, having followed a similar path of development. Kim's introduction of China's new literature and his narrative of the history of Joseon fiction was a work that amply absorbed the existing academic fruits of Korea, China and Japan. In particular, his A History of Joseon Fiction has a noticeable purpose of narrating within the entire composition of East Asian literature based on his understanding of the histories of Chinese fiction and Japanese fiction. To sum up, because Kim Tae-Joon's academic achievement has amply absorbed existing study results by China and Japan on a firm basis of his own system and contents, it is extremely significant in the aspect of academic exchange and discussion among Korea, China, and Japan.

중(中)·일(日) 한국현대문학사의 해방공간 서술양상과 그 의미

이선이 ( Lee Sun-hee ) 한양대학교 동아시아문화연구소(구 한양대학교 한국학연구소) 2018 동아시아 문화연구 Vol.74 No.-

여기에서는 중국과 일본에서 저술된 한국현대문학사의 해방공간 서술양상을 남북한문학사 및 자국문학사와의 시각과 비교하여 분석하였다. 분단 이후 남한과 북한은 해방공간에 대한 역사적 인식차로 인해 문학사 기술에 있어서도 극명한 차이를 드러내고 있는 반면, 남북을 비교적 근거리에서 조망하는 中·日 한국문학사에는 남북의 시각과 다른 지점들이 있어 주목을 요한다. 이를 위해 본 연구에서는 중국에서 저술된 김병민(金柄民) 외의 『조선·한국당대문학사』(2000)와 일본에서 저술된 사에구사 도시카쓰(三枝壽勝)의 ≪韓國文學を味わう≫(1997)를 분석대상으로 삼아, 이들 문학사가 우리의 해방공간을 서술하는 데 있어 드러내는 시각차를 분석해 보았다. 김병민의 경우, 해방공간에서 좌우익의 작가가 공통의 관심사를 가졌다는 사실에 착목하면서 이를 문학사 서술에 담아내고자 하였지만 실제 서술에서는 이러한 시각이 제대로 반영되지 못한 채 하나의 가능성으로 남고 말았다. 하지만 통합서술이 산술적 결합이 아니라 남북문학사의 접점을 모색하는 방향으로 나아가야 한다는 방향성을 제시했다는 점에서, 이 저술은 향후 민족문학 건설의 가능성을 타진하는 하나의 시각으로 의미를 갖는다. 사에구사 도시카쓰는 기존의 남북문학사와는 다른 방식으로 해방공간을 사유함으로써 민족문학의 외연을 확장하고 있다. 특히 쟁점 중심의 문학사를 서술하면서 이념과 인간, 상황과 인간, 작가의 윤리성 문제 등 보편적인 차원에서 해방공간의 문학적 주제에 접근하고 있어서 민족국가서사로서의 문학사를 넘어서는 지점을 선취하고 있다. 남북한 중 어느 하나의 시선에 포섭되거나 통합에 연연하지도 않으면서 의미 있는 주제를 포착해내는 사에구사 도시카쓰의 시각은, 한국문학사가 인간과 삶을 사유하는 성찰의 장으로서 재인식될 수 있는 가능성을 실험하고 있다. 남북관계가 화해분위기로 접어든 오늘날, 우리시대의 과제가 된 분단 너머의 문학사 서술은 상호적대성을 재생산하는 분단국가주의에서 벗어나 통일민족주의적 시각으로의 전환이 요구된다. 이는 기존 남북한문학사에 대한 비판적 인식을 바탕으로 할 때 가능한 시각이다. 이러한 시각을 만들어나가는 과정에서 中·日 한국현대문학사의 해방공간 서술이 담고 있는 가능성과 한계는 우리에게 시사하는 바가 크다. This paper compares and analyses the narrative aspects of the liberation period in the History of modern Korean literature written in China and Japan, with viewpoints of the History of North and South Korean literature as well as the History of Chinese and Japanese literature. After the division of Korea, two Koreas have had distinct differences in terms of describing the history of literature due to the differences in historical recognition of the liberation period. On the other hand, as China and Japan are able to overlook both Koreas in close distance, the History of modern Korean literature written in China and Japan have different perspectives compared to that of two Koreas, and therefore, deserve a particular attention. Hence, this study focuses on Bing Min Jin’s “The History of Joseon-Korean contemporary literature” (2000) written in China, and Toshikatsu Saegusa’s “Taste of Korean Literature” (1997) written in Japan, and analyses the differences in their viewpoints when describing the Korean liberation period. Bing Min Jin concentrates on the fact that both left and right-wing writers had common interest during the liberation period and attempts to include such fact when narrating the History of Korean Literature. Although Jin failed to demonstrate such perspective in the actual manuscript, his integrated narration has its own significance in terms of seeking the intersecting point between the History of South and North Korean literature. Toshikatsu Saegusa is extending the border of the national literature by discoursing the liberation period in a unique way. Saegusa demonstrates the literary history especially focusing on the controversies such as ideology and human, circumstance and human, or morality of the writer, and thereby approaches the literary topics of the liberation period in universal extent. Thus, Saegusa’s text is, in a sense, exceeding the literary history as the national state narrative. His perspective is not prompted nor attached to either South or North Korean point of view; however, it still succeeds to capture the meaningful topic as well as to examine the possibility of reevaluating the history of Korean literature as the discourse of human and life. As the recent historical events are ameliorating the relationship between two Koreas, the narration of the History of Korean Literature should be transformed into the notion of unification-centered nationalism as well, and such perspective is only possible when the critical viewpoint towards the current history of the South and North Korean literature is settled. In the process of building such critical stance, the limits and possibilities which the narrative aspects of the liberation period in the History of modern Korean literature written in China and Japan possess is influential.