• Cross-Cultural Studies
• /
• v.48
• /
• pp.107-133
• /
• 2017

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.

• Cross-Cultural Studies
• /
• v.48
• /
• pp.67-106
• /
• 2017

This study focuses on two specific history of Korean literature in Chinese: the outline of The History of Joseon Literature (2010) by Li Yan and The History of Joseon Literature (1988, 2008) by Wei Xu-sheng; it was conducted to compare narrative viewpoints to the history of South and North Korean literature and therefore identify distinguishable characteristics. As a result, the following was concluded. First, The History of Korean Literature by Cho Dong-il and The History of Korean Literature in North Korea (15 volumes) include thorough discussions on division of historical eras, concept of genres as well as individual literary works and applied such discussions on writing literary history. However, Wei Xu-sheng and Li Yan's The History of Korean Literature did not illuminate theoretical discussion of South and North Korea. Li Yan's outline of The History of Joseon Literature was published in 2010 and the first edition of Wei Xu-sheng's The History of Joseon Literature was published in 1986 and later was published as revised editions in 2000 and 2008. Regarding published dates, it is a matter of course to reference Cho Dong-il's The History of Korean Literature, published in the 1980s, or The History of Korean Literature in North Korea (15 volumes), published in the 1990s; nevertheless, neither Wei Xu-sheng nor Li Yan used those texts in their works. Their works were heavily influenced by the narrative tradition of the history of national literature and therefore, entailed unsophisticated discussion on the division of historical eras or the concept of genres. Second, those two texts also emphasized external factors such as politics, society, economy and culture and explicitly mention these factors in historical overview of each chapter. Such an approach is commonly used in narratives of literary history under socialist regimes, including The History of Korean Literature in North Korea (15 volumes). Accordingly, evaluations based on 'political standards' - stress of people, nationality, practicality and so forth - in main texts are particularly accentuated, akin to narratives of literary history under socialist regimes. Finally, since those two Korean literature history works are written by Chinese scholars, they focus on correlation between Chinese literature history and Korean literature history. However, several genre-related terminologies such as Xiaopin (a kind of essay), Yuefu (a kind of popular song/poem), Yuyan (fable), Shuochang (telling of popular stories with the interspersal songs), Shizhuan (biography or/and memoirs in history) were adopted directly from Chinese literature. In analyzing Korean literature using terminologies introduced from Chinese literature, differences between original and alternative definitions were not examined in detail. While some terminologies and concepts were adopted directly without further consideration as to state of the two nations, it is also interesting to note that dichotomy, mainly used in Korean literature history, was used to discuss the genre of Cheonki (romance tale), relevant to Suyichon and Keumosinhua, rather than follow traditions of Chinese literature history.

• 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.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.34
• /
• pp.149-191
• /
• 2017

This study examines Korean language translations of traditional Chinese hansi in the 1910s and 1920s. In the $20^{th}$ century, many poets translated Chinese and Korean traditional hansi into Korean. In the early $20^{th}$ century, Korean language began to be used as a national public language. At that time, not only hansi but also poetry from several other languages had been translated into Korean. Choi Nam-sun in the 1910s and Kim So-woel, Kim Eok, and Lee Kwang-su in the 1920s translated Chinese traditional hansi, focusing on famous Dang dynasty poetry from Tu Fu and Li Bai, etc. Choi Nam-sun's translation in the 1910s aimed to consider poetry as a written literature. On the contrary, Kim So-woel, Kim Eok, and Lee Kwang-su believed that Korean modern verse literature should be songs as well as poetry, and their translations in the 1920s aimed to create songs as spoken literature by focusing on orality and universality. Though Korean is now the language, the literary history of hansi continues in modern poetry.