근대개혁기의 역사서술과 변법론 = HISTORIOGRAPHY IN THE MODERN REFORM PERIOD AND PYONBOP RON

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The field of modern Korean history had to overcome premodern perspectives and systems of historiography as well as the colonial historiography from the Japanese colonal period. It attempted to discard chronologies and other earlier methods of historiography for narratives that were oriented more towards human relationships where the nation and people were the subject of history. Those peopie the base of modern historical studies were ‘reformed Confucianists’ (kaesin yuhak cha) who were active during the time of the Great Han Empire.
Their modern reform theories could be called pyonbop ron(變法論) or legal reform theories. They attempted to modernize by adopting modern political theories that they then applied to a foundation based on traditional culture informed by Confucianism. In this respect,although they were inclined towards complete Westernization, their ideas of modernization differed from other enlightenment theories Their compromise between new learning and old learning, which formed the basis of their reform ideas, also attached great importance to the writing of history.
At the time, this system of modern historiography was presented as ‘new history’(sinsa).They pointed out the deficiencies of historical methods as they compiled numerous histories written by Japanese. The Japanese perspective on Korean history permeated these works. Advocates of pyonbop theories who believed in the need for a nationalist approach to historical writing were harshly critical of this aspect and instead turned their focus to the historical studies of sirhak (‘practical learning’) scholars. Critical of Sino-centric approaches to history, they stressed ‘national history’ (kuksa) and carried on a tradition of evidential analysis using primary documents.
The kyemong enlightenment movement that unfolded after 1905 was a movement that targeted serf-strengthening and the reclamation of national rights. Although education and industrial development was deemed necessary for self-strengthening, they also emphasized mental and spiritual elements, such as concepts of a fatherland (choguk chongsin), national spirit (kukhon), and national characteristics (kuksu). They attempted to develop national spirit and patriotism through the writing of national history, a kind of historiography that was spearheaded by none other than pyonbop theorists such as Pak Un-sik(朴殷植, 1859-1925), Sin Chae-ho(申采浩, 1880-1936) and others. Criticizing the historical writing that held China in such high esteem, they promoted the importance of national history, with particular emphasis its heroes and historical writing about heroes who triumphed over foreign invasion.
By 1910, the limitations to self-strengthening and productivity theories were increasingly apparent, causing a rift within the enlightenment movement itself. Among those, Pak Un-sik and Sin Chae-ho arrived at their own distinct interpretations of the true nature of Social Darwinist theories and the despotic nature of imperialism, and came to view the new citizen (sin kungmin) and the people (kungmin) as the subjects of history. While also pointing out the mistakes of Confucianism, upon which they had been dependant, they instead emphasized Tangun and traditional religions that put forth a new historical paradigm centered on Tangun, Koguryo and Parhae. Actively pursuing such historical research in the 1910s, they presented nationalism in terms of preservation of national characteristics while they groped for new alternatives to the national movement.
Into the 1920s, as theories of national spirit and national characteristics were fused together with new concepts, a modern nationalist historiography emerged. Stressing humanism and equality among citizens, they viewed the masses as a solution to the national problem. Even though Pak Un-siks The Bloody History of the Korean Independence Movement(『韓國獨立運動之血史)), written in 1920, continued to advocate national spirit, after World War I and the Russian Revolution, his historical writings focused increasingly on worldwide changes and the issue of nation and the people. Sin Chae-ho also presented a historical theory based on the struggle between the self(我) and the non-self(非我), claiming that indigenous morals was a foreign concept and arguing that the national problem had to be understood from the perspective of the masses. This ultimately formed the foundation of modern Korean historiography.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 머리말
• Ⅱ. ‘新史’의 모색과 실학파 역사론의 계승
• 1. ‘新史’의 수용
• 2. 變法論의 형성과 實學派 역사론의 계승
• Ⅲ. 계몽운동기 애국주의 역사론과 ‘民族主義’
• 1. ‘祖國精神’과 애국주의 역사론
• 2. ‘民族主義’와 『讀史新論』
• Ⅳ. 1910년 전후 國粹保全論의 발전
• 1. 新國民과 國粹保全論
• 2. 단군 중심의 역사론의 발전
• Ⅴ. 맺음말