• Cross-Cultural Studies
• /
• v.48
• /
• pp.1-30
• /
• 2017

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.

• Cross-Cultural Studies
• /
• v.52
• /
• pp.223-251
• /
• 2018

This paper comparatively considered how Korea and Japan address the concept of 'postwar' in descriptions of their literary history. In Japan, 'postwar' refers to the period after World War II (Asia-Pacific War). This word implies a variety of contexts such as collapse, poverty, confusion, calendar reform, reconstruction and restoration as well as a series of historical events such as war, war defeat, and American occupation; and so it has been treated in Japanese society a significant period. In the history of Korean literature, it is after national liberation that the word 'postwar' appeared; however, it has usually indicated 'the period after the Korean War.' The question is that although the term of postwar refers to periods after different wars, Koreans used the term of postwar also in the same way as Japan, and their concept of postwar overlaps with the concept of prewar or postwar used in Japan, and accordingly, side effects are produced that fail to grasp properly the independent characteristics and significance of the Korean War. In conclusion, the Korean War brought about contrasting effects on the history of Korean and Japanese literature. While the Korean War meant a start after the war in Korean literature, it became a turning point marking the end of postwar in Japanese literature. Such different perceptions on postwar also have major implications in that perceptions represent postwar discourses in today's Korea and Japan.

• Cross-Cultural Studies
• /
• v.48
• /
• pp.31-66
• /
• 2017

This study examines ways of recognizing and aspects of describing Korean modern literature revealed by each literary history from the viewpoint of 'transculturation', focusing on Lim Jeon-Hye's "History of Korean Literature in Japan until 1945", Shirakawa Yutaka's "Footsteps of Korean Modern Literature", and Saegusa Toshikatsu's "Taste of Korean Literature" from the history of Korean literature written in Japan. First, Lim Jeon-Hye periodically examines Korean literature written in Japan, focusing on literary activities of Korean students in Japan and the proletarian literature movement, and addresses points of active cultural negotiation, mutual understanding and political solidarity between Korea and Japan. Shirakawa Yutaka focuses on the concurrency and connection of Korea, China, and Japan in the process of modern literary formation, covering Japanese language literature and pro-Japanese literature with great care, and describes the middle-layer position as a mediating researcher in the conflicting boundaries between Korea and Japan. Saegusa Toshikatsu provides interesting transcultural momentum in exploring internal logic and denotation of Korean literature via comparative literature review encompassing East Asia, implementation of literary forms and themes connecting tradition and modernity, and an out-of-boundary point of view to overlook 'pro-Japanese literature', etc. Transcultural aspects in this literary history to examine are as follow. First, the history of Korean modern literature based on 'national literature history' is catabolized in the magnetic field of the 'colonial experience' and 'national nationalism' and considered in multifaceted context. Second, they provide the possibility of three-dimensional and micro-narrative description of literature that complement the narrative aspect of existing Korean literature history. Third, they provide an opportunity to expand and open the description of literature history through acceptance of comparative literary perspectives encompassing East Asia. Fourth, through discovery of Korean-Japanese literature and Japanese language literature, they contribute to broadening the history of Korean modern literature and enriching foundations.

• Cross-Cultural Studies
• /
• v.52
• /
• pp.133-164
• /
• 2018

This purpose of this paper is to focus on anti-Japanese literature and pro-Japanese literature skills among Korean literary history written in Japan, and to observe the differences between Korean and Japanese perception surrounding anti-Japanese and pro-Japanese literature. Analyzed texts are "Taste Korean Literature" by Saegusa Dosikatsu and "The Footsteps of Modern Literature of Chosun" by Shirakawa Yutaka, the earnest modern Korean literary historians written from the perspective of Japanese writers, and though there's no overall written history of literature, they were seen through with the perspective of Omura Masuo, at the forefront of Japanese researchers in modern and contemporary Korean literature. The main results of the review are as follow: First, In Korean literary history by Japan, the frame "pro-Japanese literature" is clearly embedded. It is clearly distinctive from the aspect of China or North Korea, and though it follows the narration system of South Korean literature, it also forms the breaking (turning) point of anti-Japanese and pro-Japanese literature relative to anti-Japanese and pro-Japanese literature. Second, even if it follows the narration system of South Korean literature, that question was constantly raised on existing Korean academic evaluation of anti-Japanese and pro-Japanese literature, and different interpretations of reading were practiced. For example, Korean academic circles highly regard literature of writers such as Kim, Jong han or Lee, Seok hoon, while Korean academics do not place much importance on Lee, Gwang Soo's pro-Japanese elements that are important. The third point is that generous marks are credited to writers with outstanding Japanese or to Japanese creative writing. As a result, they dissolve internal logic in different pro-Japanese collaborators such as Chang, Hyuk Ju, Kim, Sa Ryang, Lee, Seok hoon, or Kim, Yong Jae by melting the same "Japanese literature" in a cage. The last point is reading different inner thoughts of Kim, Jong-han or Lee, Seok-hoon unlike outspoken pro-Japanese collaborators such as Lee, Gwang soo, Jang, Hyuk Joo or Kim, Yong je. These points require more in-depth analysis, and will be continued in follow-up tasks.

• Journal of Korean Classical Literature and Education
• /
• no.39
• /
• pp.221-246
• /
• 2018

In this text, the author examines the aspects and characteristics of the three forms that were created and enjoyed when the upper-class nobles of Japan "combined(混淆)" waka(和歌) and Chinese poetry(漢詩) between the 10th and 17th centuries. The three forms are the "Collection of Japanese and Chinese poems for singing"(和漢朗詠), "A collection of Japanese and Chinese poems" (詩歌合), and the "Renku renga"(聯句連歌). "Collection of Japanese and Chinese poems for singing" appeared in the 10th century, "A collection of Japanese and Chinese poems" appeared in the 12th century, "Renku renga" appeared in the 14th century, and all three continued to influence the history of Japanese literature after that time. As the combination of literary Japanese and Chinese progressed, the gap between waka and Chinese poetry decreased until they finally combined to create a single work. That is, waka and Chinese poetry converged in one place in multiple ways: as a work that was appropriate to be recited("Collection of Japanese and Chinese poems for singing"), facing each other work against work in a competition("A collection of Japanese and Chinese poems"), and, in the end, they reached the point where they were interchangeable as lines making up long poems(長詩)("Renku renga"). The combination of literary Japanese and Chinese can be said to be the Japanese version of the common movement in East Asian literary history during the Middle Ages to make songs from one's own language flawless in Chinese poetry. Meanwhile, by examining the status changes that appeared as Chinese poetry paralleled, fought with, replaced, and combined with waka, we can find clues to explain the attitudes of the Japanese people on Chinese poetry during the period when the three forms existed, as well as the characteristics of Japanese Chinese poetry that appeared in response to that. The preferences not of "myself" but of the "audience," content and expressions that revere the period rather than the inner self of the poet, and the fact that it is a means for enjoyable pleasure rather than having the original characteristics of lyrical poetry for self-expression are all characteristics of Chinese poetry in Japan during the early and late Middle Ages period. These characteristics can be said to be the current that flows in the underbelly of the history of Chinese literature in Japan. This author believes that the key to discussing the history of Chinese literature in Japan during the Middle Ages period from the perspective of East Asian literary history can be found here.