著者

池 明観

出版者

東京女子大学

雑誌

東京女子大学附属比較文化研究所紀要 (ISSN:05638186)

巻号頁・発行日

no.48, pp.p135-160, 1987

---

Historiography in Korea was very much affected by Japanese colonial rule, 1905 to 1945. Some historians were inclined to describe the contemporary history of Korea using a kind of eye-witness report style. Others focussed on finding a glorious period of national history to maintain national pride. These historical writings could be regarded as nationalist histories. Shin Chai-ho and Choi Nam-sun devoted themselves mainly to Korean ancient history, tracing back to the mythological age of Dangun. Shin and Choi had in common the purpose of resisting the historiography of Japanese scholars writing about Korea who claimed that Korea had been under the sovereignty of China without having its own independence, and even that for some time in ancient times Korea had been ruled by Japan as well. Shin described Dangun as ancient kings who had also been priests. He said that the dynasty lasted about 1500 years and was followed by the Puyo dynasty, which ruled for another 1000 years. Geographically, these dynasties covered the north-eastern part of China and Korea. They kept their people in continuous struggle with the Chinese people. Shin declares that most of these historical facts were lost because the oldest history, the "Samkuk Sagi" was written in the 12th century by Kim Bu-shik, a Confucian and loyal to Chinese culture. Thus he eliminated and distorted many historical facts of ancient Korean times, according to Confucian principles. Shin attempted to document historical facts of ancient times, so as to maintain national pride, using fragmented records he found mostly in Chinese historical materials. In doing so, Shin interpreted Korean history in political terms. He hoped to strengthen the patriotism of the Korean people so that they might win their national independence. He was in exile from 1910 until 1936, when he died in a Japanese prison in Manchuria. On the other hand, Choi, who was ten years younger than Shin, inherited Shin's attitude towards Korean history, but he gradually tended to interpret Korean history in cultural terms. He remained in Korea, which was under the strict control of Japanese colonial rule, and therefore could not interpret Korean history in political terms. He hoped to search for national identity in Korean culture. This resulted in his claim that both Korean culture and Japanese culture shared the same roots in ancient times in Shinto, the religion of east Asia. Choi's original purpose was to maintain the cultural superiority of the Korean people over the Japanese, yet he compromised this stand under Japanese rule. He was made to stand trial in a Korean court after the war ended, which indicted him for his cooperation with the Japanese before 1945. We may say that the historiography of Shin and Choi demonstrates two ways of living and thinking during the dark times of modern Korea under Japanese rule. One view of history was written by a historian who was in exile-a political view that was hoped to be useful for the independence movement. The other was used by a historian who lived inside Korea and hoped to survive first and resist as much as possible within the parameters of a situation controlled by colonizers. It is unfortunate that both of them were forced to frame their historical thought largely in opposition to the interpretation of Korean history done by Japanese scholars, who based their interpretation on their discriminatory attitudes towards Korean people and on Japanese political motives. At the same time, it is a pity that under this situation, both of them overlooked many important historical truths which may be said to have been left for the next generation. It is noteworthy that at the present time in Korea, while engaging in the democratic movement, historians have adopted the nationalist history of Shin Chai-ho, hoping their historiography may cast some light on the present political dilemma.