북한 고전문학사의 지향과 한계 -남북한 고전문학사 기술에서 동일한 지향이 가능한가?

Abstract

This article attempted to find an answer to the question of whether the same orientation is possible in the technology of classical literary history in North and South Korea by analyzing the 15 books published in North Korea, “The History of Korean Literature.” The transformation of the paradigm of world history caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early and mid-1990s widened the difference between the two Koreas in viewing literature. In South Korea, the tendency to reduce and dismantle the meaning of literary history has increased, while in North Korea, the importance of literary history has increased with the advent of “Juche Literature Theory.” In this situation, it has become even more difficult to prepare the same orientation in South and North Korean literature history technology. Nevertheless, raising these issues is because it is necessary to presuppose an understanding of the other party, not a justifiable answer such as a national historical task or the unification movement. Under this premise, this article reads two important points in the 15th volume collection of Korean Literature History, namely, the distinction of times and the characteristics of the describe system in connection with the guidelines of “Juche Literature Theory.” The period of literature history in the 15th volume is divided by century. It was primarily focused on the feudal society of North Korea’s historical and academic circles, but from a different perspective, it can be seen as deliberately excluding the usefulness of the period division in order to emphasize the value of revolutionary culture and arts suggested as a guideline in the “Juche Literature Theory.” The describe system was also based on the “Juche Literature Theory”, and the history of literature was composed of works that could deliberately reinforce the current dominance according to the principle of selection and exclusion. As a result, the subject works that could be handled were limited, and the number of contents excluded from the history of literature increased. This is the reason why distorted interpretations have increased in the history of literature in the 15th volume. In addition, the emergence of new materials that did not exist in previous literary history and interpretations that were different from before are the result of politicians’ involvement in literature. This aspect has made it difficult to find contact points in the history of literature between the two Koreas. Nevertheless, it is interesting that both South and North Korea have ‘human’ at the base of literary history. Of course, the difference is that North Korea pays attention to the social network as a person as a social being, while in South Korea, it puts weight on the natural value of human beings as a human being. Even so, the fact that there is a point of contact with human means that although it may be romantic, in the end, the axis of ‘human’ should act as the key to open the possibility of unified literature history. When the contact point of the history of literature between the two Koreas eventually spreads beyond literature to human problems, then communication between the two Koreas becomes possible.