근대역사학과 식민주의 역사학의 거리 -이마니시 류今西龍가 구축한 조선의 歷史像-

Abstract

In the present paper I examine two public institutions that supported the development of colonial history, the Korean History Compilation Committee and the Keijō Imperial University, focusing on the research of Korean history by Imanishi Ryu, who worked at both institutions. The paper considers the ambiguous relationship between modern history and colonial history. Korean history studies in postwar Japan and in post-liberation Korea constructed their identities through removing the history of their colonial past, defining themselves through its otherness. In other words, colonial history was discarded from the territory of modern history; but can we actually draw a line between these two terrains? This is the basic question addressed by this paper. For example, Hatada Takashi, who revived Korean history studies in postwar Japan, pointed out that the major flaw of pre-war Korean history studies was the lack of “love for its object of study”, and he stressed that the mission of researchers in Korean history from that moment onwards was to eliminate colonial “distortions” from the “pure territory of scholarship”. Yet “distortion” and “love” are not opposed elements but rather each is part of the structure of the other; consequently, without “distortions” there would not be “pure scholarship”. This paper analyzes Imanishi Ryu´s research on Korean history from this point of view. In short, it examines the layers of relationships that exist between modern history and colonial history through the works of Imanishi. Imanishi, who thought of himself as “a son of Korea” and wrote in many places, “I love Koreans”, made ancient Korean history the main theme of his research. In Imanishi´s ancient history, the Korean people (from Silla, Baekje and Gaya) and the Japanese people joined hands, competing over and over against the powerful northern peoples (from Goguryeo). He called this association a community of nations. This community of nations operated as a scheme that fixed and explained, back to its origins, the present historical state of colonial government. Imanishi tried to establish this scheme as the key element of a general history of Korea. Through the writing of general history in this way, Imanishi could arrange the events of the past in the form of a chronicle that extended to the present, laying the foundations of a Korean history that could unify the Korean and the Japanese people. What Imanishi repeatedly stressed here was the “love” from the Japanese towards the Korean people, and this was how he validated from the distant past the roots of his own feelings. Imanishi worked hard to oust Dangun´s legend, a northern peoples´ myth, from the foundations of his work. At the time, Dangun was erupting as the new national and historical subject of the Korean people and his rejection by Imanishi was, needless to say, plain colonialism. However, in this way Dangun became a “vanishing mediator”, acting as an intermediary between modern history and colonial history. This was somewhat paradoxical, since Dangun´s rejection played an important role in the establishment of modern history in colonial Korea. Incidentally, the inscription on the Gwanggaeto stele, while supporting some of Imanishi´s theories, also helped them to collapse. It was like a bone struck in the throat; that is to say, it was an external existence that troubled Imanishi but one which he had to swallow against his will. This is perhaps one metaphor against modern history. May we not have a glimpse of those colonialist actions, so frequently occurring in the discipline of history, that swallow the other into oneself?