이야기, 문학, 역사

Abstract

The researchers in the fields of history and literature had developed their original works under the belief that scientific method could be applied to these fields. This trend brought the result of confining the characteristics of narrative only to the object of academic interest in literature. Although it can be said that narrative is still the subject of literary researches mainly, it has also become a focus of academic attention from other fields since the late twentieth century. In 1979 Lawrence Stone said that the movement to narrative by the "new historians" marks the end of era: the end of the attempt to produce a coherent scientific explanation of change in the past. The belief in the scientific history still seems to remain quite firm among historians. Many literary researchers also seem to believe that fiction is a better tool to convey truth than telling facts. Besides, literature and history exist as independent departments in the university academism and this makes a clear distinction between them. However, this distinction between literature and history is not so much clear when it comes to the level of actual research. It is so ambiguous that sometimes such notions as ‘history representing fact’ and ‘literature representing fiction’ cannot simply be applied. And it will get more and more difficult to define literature and history in such simple ways. In the field of literature, it has mainly been the researchers of modern literature who have shown interest in this problem, but I think it is also necessary for the researchers of classic literature to have interest in this problem. In this paper, I introduced some of the works that stand on the borderline of literature and history, and emphasized the necessity of precise and detailed analysis of the narratives. I introduced four pieces as examples. First, I mentioned Yongbieocheonga(龍飛御天歌) as to show that editing a history book began with collecting stories. Second, Im gyeongeop-jeon(林慶業傳). This is a piece, which was published in the 1780’s and researchers consider it as a literary work i.e. novel nowadays. However, I think that people at the time regarded it as an actual biography of Imgyeongeop rather than as a fiction. Third, Sol Ingui-jeon(薛仁貴傳). This is a piece, which was translated from Chinese novel Xue Rengui's Campaign to the East(薛仁貴征東). It is a story of General Xue Rengui of Tang(唐) defeating Yeongaesomun of Koguryo(高句麗). Here, I ask the meaning of the debate revolving around the ‘fact’ that such story was actually popular in Choseon. Last, I raised a question of how to interpret action such as putting the names of fictional characters of late Choseon dynasty novel Koryobogam(高麗寶鑑) onto actual genealogy book. Such simple way of categorizing, i.e. ‘fact and fiction’, is not enough to answer to these questions. In order to solve this problem, I think that it is necessary to call on long-standing tradition of narrative in literature and history. And also, it is necessary for us to think about the requirements for analyzing narrative.