주체 사관에서 인민과 민족의 자리

홍종욱 역사문제연구소 2022 역사비평 Vol.- No.140

Paik Nam-un’s Marxist historiography during the colonial period clarified it’s character of anti-colonial historiography by pursuing the universal subject of the nation. North Korean historiography succeeded in the tradition of anti-colonial historiography and attempted to prove that the universal law of world history was also carried out in Korean history by completing the historical narrative based on the theory of internal and unilinear development. The direction of North Korean historiography was consistent with the theory of immanent development established in the study of Korean history in South Korea and Japan in the 1960s and 1970s. Marxist historiography of the periphery, aimed at national liberation and socialist construction, sought to harmonize the class and national perspectives. This has been declared as the principle of party character and the principle of historicism in North Korean historiography. As the Juche ideology was supported as the only ideology and the Kim Il-sung autocracy was strengthened, North Korean historiography made a new search by presenting the pedigree ethnic concept and paying attention to the struggle of the masses beyond economic determinism. In this direction systematized as the Juche historiography, the specificity of colonial-periphery historiography and the contemporaneity with critical histories of other countries are confirmed. North Korean historiography and Juche historiography existed in the flow of modern Korean historiography in that they pursued the universal subject of the nation. However, the Juche historiography denied the reason for the existence of historiography by ignoring evidence and emphasizing only the ideology of the nation, going through the Dangun nationalism and Daedong river civilization theory. The journey of anti-colonial historiography since the colonial period ended in anti-historiography. 식민지 시기 백남운의 마르크스주의 역사학은 민족이라는 보편적 주체를 추구함으로써 반식민주의 역사학의 성격을 분명히 했다. 북한 역사학은 반식민주의 역사학의 전통을 이어 일국사적 단선적 발전단계론에 입각한 역사 서술을 완성함으로써 세계사의 보편적 발전법칙이 한국사에도 관철됨을 보이고자 했다. 북한 역사학의 방향은 1960~70년대 남한과 일본의 한국사 연구에서 정립된 내재적 발전론과 상통하는 것이었다. 민족 해방과 사회주의 건설을 지향한 주변부 마르크스주의 역사학은 계급적 관점과 민족적 관점의 조화를 꾀했다. 이는 북한 역사학에서 당성의 원칙과 역사주의 원칙으로 천명되었다. 주체사상이 유일사상으로 떠받들어지고 김일성 유일 체제가 강화되는 가운데, 북한 역사학은 혈통적 민족 개념을 내세우고 경제 결정론을 넘어 인민대중의 투쟁에 주목하는 새로운 모색을 한다. 주체 사관으로 체계화되는 이러한 방향에서는 식민지-주변부 역사학의 특수성과 함께 비판적 역사학의 국경을 넘는 동시대성이 확인된다. 북한 역사학과 주체 사관은 민족이라는 보편적 주체를 추구한 점에서 한국 근대 역사학의 흐름 속에 존재했다. 그러나 주체 사관은 단군 민족주의, 대동강 문명론을 거치면서 사료와 실증을 경시한 채 민족이라는 이념만을 앞세움으로써 역사학의 존재 이유를 스스로 부정했다. 식민지 시기 이래 이어온 반식민주의 역사학의 여정은 반역사학으로 귀결되어 버렸다.

반(反)식민주의 역사학에서 반(反)역사학으로 ― 동아시아의 `전후(戰後) 역사학`과 북한의 역사 서술

홍종욱 ( Hong Jong Wook ) 역사문제연구소 2014 역사문제연구 Vol.18 No.1

I named the series of historiographies in east asia, which have advocated the independence of former colonies referring to the historical materialism, as `post-war historiography`, and understood the historiography of North Korea in the context of it. From the first stage of nation building, North Korea started writing the history of Korea newly to overcome the historiography of colonialism as the theories of stagnation and heteronomy. And North Korea succeeded in establishing the development stage theory of national history by publishing the revised edition of Joseon Tongsa(History of Korea) in 1962. We can consider it as the important achievement of anti-colonialism historiography, which followed in an authentic way the tendency of the post-war historiography of east asia. But if we supposed the world composed of countries which have developed in no relation with others, it would be meaningless to criticize imperialism or colonialism, because there is only competence among ideally equivalent `universal subject`. Then the agenda of anti-colonialism also lost its ground. It might be an immanent contradiction of the development stage theory of national history which started as anti-colonialism historiography. The long journey for the universal subject has led to an denial of colonial rule not a criticism on it. As the fact of Han-sa-gun(漢四郡) and Mongol`s rule on Goryeo(高麗) dynasty were denied, Korea was able to appear as a pure subject. As for Japanese rule on Korea, the desire of denying it also surpassed the criticism on it. At the same point of denying all the relation and exchange, the subject became solid and the history made a stand. The anti-colonialism historiography converted to the anti-historiography.

『東國通鑑』 史論 분석

兪英玉 부산경남사학회 2003 역사와 경계 Vol.48 No.-

In historical writings, the historiography(史論) shows a historical view of the historiographer at first hand. Dongguktonggam was compiled in the middle of Seongjong(成宗) era, when Sarim(士林) had repulsed the royal merits relatives(勳戚). It can be said that Dongguktonggam is the thesaurus of historiographies since it collected 181 volumes of old historiography(舊史論) and 204 volumes of new historiography(新史論). Of these, new historiography illustrates very sharply the historical episteme of Sarim in that time because it was forged by the historiographers of Dongguktonggam and they were affiliated with Sarim. This essay examined the historiography of Dongguktonggam focusing on new historiography and came to the following conclusions. Firstly, new historiography is dependent on the problematic affairs, but it does not overlap with old historiography and compensates for the omissions of old historiography. Secondly, new historiography consists of the general survey(總評論), the investigation(考證論), and the praise and censure(褒貶論). Especially, 4 volumes of the general survey review one by on each kings unlike old historiography. Thirdly, a great proportion of new historiography is the praise and censure which amounts to 188 volumes. The praise and censure is again subdivided into the loyalty(節義), the justification(名分), the legitimacy(正統), the expostulation(諫言), the exclusion of heterodoxy(闢異), the relationship to the stronger neighbors(事大交隣). These sub-articles is included into old historiography, but distinguish distinctly from it in terms of intensity of writings. Fourthly, new historiography underscores particularly the expostulation, even though any neo-confusianist(性理學者) had attached grat importance to it. This implies the political intentions of Sarim in Seongjo era who had repulsed the royal merits relatives through three Sa(司) of speech(言論). Fifthly, the core theme of new historiography is the principle of moral justification(義理名分論) and the legitimism(正統論), that is, the fundamental social ideology of Neo-Confusianism(性理學). On the one hand, if he acted contrary to the legitimacy and the justification, he is subject to the praise and censure. On the other hand, if he kept to the loyalty, he is the loyalist. It is this point that new historiography put great emphasis on and separated new historiography from old one. This emphasis was simultaneously the ideological base by which Sarim attacked the royal merits relatives who had involved themselves in coup d'etat of Sejo(世祖) and the political self-confidence in their innocence.

북한 역사학 형성에 소련 역사학이 미친 영향

홍종욱 ( Hong Jong-wook ) 서울대학교 인문학연구원 2020 人文論叢 Vol.77 No.3

초기 북한 역사학은 소련 역사학을 적극적으로 수용했다. 1930년대 이래 형성된 스탈린주의 역사학은 사적 유물론을 기본으로 삼고러시아 민족주의를 존중하는 소련 국민사였다. 소련 역사학의 이념과 방법은 반식민주의 기치 아래 우리 민족의 역사를 발전적으로 그리려는 북한 역사학의 목표와 일치했다. 1955년 『력사과학』 창간은 북한 역사학의 새로운 출발이었다. 새롭게 만들어갈 북한 역사학의 이념이 민족주의였다면, 주된 방법은 집체 연구 특히 ‘비판과 자기비판’ 문화였다. 1953년 스탈린 사망 이후 해빙을 맞은 소련 역사학과 연동하면서 북한 역사학계에도 ‘비판과 자기비판’ 문화가 자리를 잡았다. 1956년 ‘8월 전원회의 사건’과 같은 해 가을 헝가리 사태를 겪으면서 북한과 소련의 역사학은 나란히 경직되어 갔다. 리청원에 대한 비판과 숙청은 북한 역사학의 정치화를 상징한다. 1960년 북한 역사학의 이념으로서 당성 원칙과 역사주의 원칙이 확립되었다. 북한 역사학은 소련 역사학을 비판하면서 그와 거리를 두고자 했지만, 이는 동시에 소련 역사학을 내면화하는 과정이었다. 1960년대 북한 역사학은 노예제 논쟁, 근현대 시기구분 논쟁을 거치면서 일국사적 발전단계론을 달성했다. 북한 역사학계의 여러 논쟁의 전개와 귀결에는 소련 역사학계의 영향이 짙게 확인된다. Early North Korean historiography actively embraced Soviet historiography. Stalinist historiography, formed since the 1930s, was a national history of the Soviet Union respecting Russian nationalism based on historical materialism. The ideologies and methods of Soviet historiography were consistent with the goal of North Korean historiography to develop the history of the nation under the banner of anti-colonialism. The publication of History Science in 1955 was a new beginning for North Korean historiography. While the core content of North Korean historiography was nationalism, the main form of it was collective research, especially the culture of “criticism and self-criticism”. Linking with the historiography of the Soviet Union, which had melted after Stalin’s death in 1953, the culture of “criticism and self-criticism” was created in North Korean history academia. The historiography of North Korea and the Soviet Union became rigid side by side as they experienced the Hungarian crisis and “August Plenary Meeting” in Pyongyang, 1956. Criticism and purging of Lee Cheong-won symbolize the politicization of North Korean historiography. In 1960, the Party-sprit principle and Historicism principle were established as ideologies of North Korean historiography. North Korean historiography criticized Soviet historiography and tried to distance itself from it, but this was a process of internalizing Soviet historiography. In the 1960s, North Korean historiography achieved the theory of developmental stages of national history through the debate on slavery and the time frame of modern and contemporary times. The development and consequences of various debates in the North Korean historiography are strongly influenced by the Soviet historiography.

한국사학계 반식민 역사학 정립 과정에서 실증사학의 위상 변화

김종준 ( Kim Jong Jun ) 역사문제연구소 2014 역사문제연구 Vol.18 No.1

To summarize home and abroad criticism and required matters with respect to Positivist historiography by point at issue, they are as follows. Originally, the reason Ranke historicism gets to show types of Positivist historiography is that it tends to respond against external demand. It implies that historical studies can come into scientific existence, while it could protect the identity by maintaining the inherent nature of historical studies. External demand for historical studies came from especially national power. Similarly with the West and Japan, Korean Positivist historical studies also face such an aspect and our situation is characterized by that the national power appears as abnormal shapes such as dictatorial power, colonial power, etc. In addition to that, from the outside of academicism, the criticism of nationalistic historians; or the criticism from historical philosophers, scholars of Korean literature and materialistic economical scholars, who can not be said the mainstream of historical studies, though they belong to academicism, proposed problems in respect to effectiveness of substantiation from the present standpoint. In this case, though there is a difference in that these studies demand scientific laws escaping substantiation or pursue for the racial/national profits, there exists a common point that they bring politicization of historical studies. Positivist historiography have responded to the internal and external demand as they are. The position of Positivist historiography varies with the times, but no one can deny that Positivist historiography have been the mainstream of Korean historiography since 1930s. The position of Positivist historiography in Korean historical studies world is being discussed. By the way, The part that can`t be overlooked in this discussion is that evaluation of Positivist historiography is to be made in relation to Japanese Colonial Historiography. The relation between such Positivist historiography and colonial historiography has been actively discussed among various discourses of Korean historical studies world in 1930s and 1970s. This paper generally introduced a part of such discourses and proved the necessity for relevant studies objectively. Accordingly, in the future, it is considered necessary for more detailed consideration to continue by individual researcher and by the situation of the times.

북한 역사학의 학문체계와 연구동향

이영화(Lee, Young-Hwa) 한국사학사학회 2007 韓國史學史學報 Vol.0 No.15

This study is about the system and a research trend of the North Korea historiography. This paper was composed of two fields on a large scale all. First, it is an analysis on the external formation and a contents composition of North Korea historiography. Secondly it is an analysis on change of North Korea historiography which relates with the social political fluctuation of North Korea. The North Korea historiography is including a folklore, an archeology, an anthropology, a science of religion and a science of old Korean classics. The category of North Korea historiography is wide. It is a difference of South Korea historiography. And it handles Revolutionary history of the anti- Japanese armament fight of Kim Il-Song in field of separate way. Revolutionary history is history which records Kim Il-Song and his family. When the juche ideology was reflected to a modern history, it became independent the field which is a revolutionary history from general history. The north korea historian researched the history of medieval most plentifully. And order of it was ancient tims history, modern history and primitive history. When the division of history in South Korea and itcompares, the dissertation ratio which corresponds to the ancient times history of South Korea 53% of the whole all. And Joseon dynasty was researched most plentifully from North Korea. The North Korea historiography had the change of two orders. It is a latter half of 1960's and a latter half of 1980's. Kim Il-Song got off 5.25 instructions at 1967. After 5.25 instructions, the North Korea historiography Korea was again composed of the juche history. North Korea indigenous executes the hazard the juche ideology which takes the route from dispute of China and the Soviet Union, it means that also the North Korea historiography receives an effect. 1980's the latter half ruin of Soviet Union and the Eastern Europe Bloc were started. Kim Jeong-Il advocacied Joseonminjokjeiljui, it changed the history of ancient times on a large scale. Specially `Tangunlung' was excavated ad ancient times history was changed big jump. The North Korea historiography changed and in compliance with the social political fluctuation and a necessity of North Korea continuously it came. Currently the difference of North Korea historiography and South Korea historiography grows. The hazard which overcomes like this difference there is a necessity which will understand the situation which the North Korea historiography which stands is placed.

로마공화정 말기의 역사서술과 수사학

김기훈(Kim, Ki-Hoon) 한국서양고전학회 2016 西洋古典學硏究 Vol.55 No.1

이 글은 로마공화정 말의 수사학과 역사서술의 관계에 대한 보다 유력한 해석을 내놓고자 한 것이다. 요컨대, 제대로 된 로마 역사서는 ‘로마 광장’으로 비유되는 수사학과 연설가가 맞게 된 정치적 위기와 급변 속에서 본격적으로 태동했다. 이러한 현상은 키케로와 살루스티우스를 통해 드러나는데, 이 글에서는 통상적인 평가와는 달리, 당시 정세와 수사학의 위기, 역사서술의 긴요함 등에 대한 키케로의 판단이 살루스티우스에 의해 수용되었거나 변용되었음을 밝히고자 했다. 물론 살루스티우스의 역사서술이 전적으로 키케로의 수사학으로 환원되거나 반(反) 키케로적이라고 평가될 수는 없다. 그러나 이 두 인물이 로마 역사서술의 역사에 있어서 중요한 것은 말할 것도 없다. 우선 키케로의 역사서술에 대한 입장이 여실히 드러나는 주요 문헌들을 분석해, 로마공화정 말 위기 속에서 연설가이자 정치가인 브루투스의 세대에게 키케로가 일종의 실천적 지혜로서 분별력을 요구하고 있음을 읽어냈다. 동시대인 살루스티우스가 분별력을 발휘해 택한 것은 역사서술이었다. 또한 키케로가 시급한 것으로 생각했던 것 역시 역사서술이었다. 또한 살루스티우스의 첫 역사서 『카틸리나 전쟁』은 키케로의 바람처럼 연대기적 방식이 아닌 단일주제서 형식으로 쓰인, 그리고 키케로가 지적하고 강조했던 “장식적 서사”를 갖춘 것으로 키케로의 역사서술론을 반영한 작품이다. 키케로 자신이 요구 받았고 또한 그가 연설가의 과업이라고 강조했던 것이 역사서술이었다. 그것은, 로마공화정의 위기 속에서 그 설 자리를 잃어버린 연설가가 이용할 만한 새로운 수단이자 위험한 기회였다. 이렇게 키케로와 살루스티우스를 통해, 단순 사실 기록 대신 로마 역사서술은 수사학으로부터 근사(近似)한 것 혹은 개연적인 것을 기술하는 서술 방법론을 받아들일 수 있었다. 또한 로마공화정의 연설가와 수사학의 정신은, 특히 소(少) 카토라는 인물을 통해 역사 속에 부분적으로 계승되었다. The purpose of this paper is to offer a more valid interpretation of the relation between the historiography and rhetoric in the late Roman Republic. In short, full-fledged Roman historiography originated in the crisis of the rhetoric and the forum Romanum. Cicero and Sallust are the representative of this phenomenon. Differing from the conventional estimation, this study aims to show that Cicero’s thoughts about political situation at that time, the crisis of rhetoric and the necessity and requirements of historiography, must have been accepted or modified by Sallust. Of course, Sallust’s historiography cannot be reduced to the rhetoric of Cicero, nor can it be considered completely anti-Ciceronian. However, it seems to be clear that these two figures are significant in the history of Roman historiography. By studying and interpreting Cicero’s some texts, which are especially related to historiography, first of all, it is shown that the generation of M. Brutus (and Sallust), as orator, was expected to exploit certain practical wisdoms, i.e. prudentia in the crises in the late Roman Republic. Sallust chose the writing of history as a way of life by prudentia; and the historiography is a difficult but urgent work as Cicero’s diagnosis. Likewise, Sallust’s first historiographical work Bellum Catilinnae reflects the views of Cicero as well: its genre is not annalistic but historical monograph as Cicero’s wish; above all, Sallust’ narrative in Bellum Catilinae is fairly equipped with narratio ornata which, according to Cicero, was lacking in Roman historiography. Historiography was the one of the orator’s tasks which Cicero had emphasized on and he had been also called on but had never accomplished the task; at the same time he had often asked someone to take the writing of history. It was, so to speak, a new means and dangerous opportunity for the orator to exploit whose main place had been lost in crises of the Roman Republic. In this way, passing through Cicero and Sallust, the Roman historiography absorbed the narrative method of narratio ornata/verisimilis from the rhetoric, instead of coarse recording tradition (monumenta). And, if partly, the spirit of the orator and rhetoric in Roman Republic could be preserved in the history, especially through the symbolic figure of Cato the Younger.

식민주의 역사학 연구 시론

윤해동 한국민족운동사학회 2015 한국민족운동사연구 Vol.0 No.85

1961년에 발표된 이기백의 『국사신론』 「서론」은 한국사학계 최초의 본격적인 ‘탈식민주의선언’이었다. 이후 식민사학 극복 논의의 전형적인 방식은, 역사 왜곡의 지표를 설정함으로써 식민사학의 내용을 규정하고, 다시 이를 거울과 같은 방식으로 역으로 투사함으로써 민족주의 역사학을 구성하는 것이었다. 이런 방식의 식민사학 연구를 쇄신ㆍ탈피하기 위해서는 식민주의 역사학이라는 개념을 사용하여 ‘식민사학 극복’을 위한 새로운 길을 모색할 필요가 절실하다. 식민주의 역사학이라는 개념은 식민주의 이데올로기를 기반으로 근대역사학적 인식론과 방법론을 수용한 역사학이라고 할 수 있다. 일본 제국주의의 식민주의 역사학은 ‘이중의 굴절’을 통해 형성되었다. 서구의 근대역사학이 일본을 거쳐 한국으로 이입되는 과정은 두 번의 굴절을 거치는 과정이었다. 게다가 이 과정에서 식민주의 역사학은 제국주의 이데올로기와 결합하면서, ‘일선동조론’과 ‘만선사관’이라는 두 가지 유형의 논리를 만들어내었다. 한일합병 전후 시기 식민주의 역사학은 제도화의 길을 걷게 되었는데, 여기에 토대를 제공한 것은 제국대학의 3사과 제도 정착이었다. 이후 식민주의 역사학은 일본과 조선 내에서 여러 계열로 나뉘어 체계화되고 확산되는 과정을 밟게 되었다. 일본 내에서는 제국대학 내의 국사, 동양사 연구를 중심으로, 고고학과 사회경제사 연구자들이 가담하여 활기를 띠게 되었다. 반면 조선 내에서는 관방사학과 민간사학으로 나뉘어 식민주의 역사학 연구가 정착ㆍ확산되는 과정을 밟게 되었는데, 그 과정에서 가장 중심적인 역할을 수행한 것은 조선사편수회 계열과 경성제대 계열의 연구자들이었다. 이들은 함께 청구학회를 결성하여 활동함으로써 명실상부한 식민주의 역사학 연구의 중심이 되었다. 조선 내의 재야 민간사학도 언론ㆍ출판활동에 종사하던 재조선 일본인들에 의해 활발하게 추진되고 있었으며, 이들은 상당한 대중적 관심을 받고 있었다. 식민주의 역사학의 이데올로기는 식민주의와 근대주의가 결합함으로써 정체성론이라는 전형적인 이론을 생산할 수 있게 되었고, 이런 근대주의 이데올로기는 식민지의 근대주의적 개발 이데올로기로 활용될 수 있었다. 다른 한편 식민주의가 국민주의적 통합 이데올로기와 결합하여 타율성과 관련한 다양한 논리적 근거를 생산해내게 되었으나, 조선사의 역사적 소속에서조차 일치된 견해를 끌어내는 데에는 어려움을 겪을 정도였다. 조선사는 일본사의 지방사인가 아니면 중국사의 부속사로서 동양사로 보아야 할 것인가? 식민주의와 결합하여 일찍부터 강력한 이데올로기로 부상했던 제국주의적 이론체계 즉 일선동조론이나 만선사관은 제국주의의 붕괴와 동시에 종말을 고했다. 이제 국민주의와 근대주의가 서서히 종말을 고하는 것처럼 보이는 시대가 되었다. 국민주의와 근대주의가 쇠퇴해가는 시대의 식민주의는 어떻게 될 것인가? 이제 식민주의가 근대역사학과 이별해야 할 시점이 아닐까? The preface to A New Theory of Our Nation written by Ki-baik Lee in 1961 was the first distinct ‘declaration of postcolonialism’ by a Korean historian. Since then, discourses about overcoming Korean colonial history(식민사학) have typically been focused on establishing a set of indicators of historical distortion, defining what constitutes colonial history, and reversing that definition to construct a nationalist history. The concept of the ‘historiography of colonialism’(식민주의 역사학) may be useful in reforming this predominant approach and offering a new perspective on the colonial history of Korea. The historiography of colonialism concerns colonialism as an ideology while also based on the epistemological and methodological developments of modern historiography. The historiography of colonialism during the Japanese imperial rule was characterized by a double refraction, due to Western modern historiography first being introduced to Japan before being brought into Korea. Furthermore, in this process, two lines of thought based on the ideology of imperialism were formed: the Japan-Joseon Common Ancestry Theory and the History of Manchuria and Joseon as One. Around the time of the annexation of Korea, the historiography of colonialism became increasingly institutionalized, largely based on Imperial University’s division of its history department into three sections: National (Japanese) History, Occidental History and Oriental History. Subsequently, the historiography of colonialism within Japan and Korea followed the path of systemization and expansion, with ‘history’ being divided into several categories. In Japan, there was a significant boost in historical research, mostly on national history and oriental history, led by Imperial University, with added participation by archaeologists and social and economic historians. Meanwhile, in Korea, the historiography of colonialism was becoming expanded and stabilized at the same time, with a divide between civil history and official history. This development was led by academics affiliated with the Joseon History Compilation Committee, as well as those affiliated with Keijō Imperial University, who together formed and operated the ‘Cheonggu Academic Association.’ Research on the civil and unofficial history of Korea was also being actively pursued by Japanese academics in Korea who were involved in the press and publications, and their activities were viewed with much interest by the masses. In the historiography of colonialism, colonialism was merged with modernism, giving rise to the theory of stagnation, which became the key idea behind the modern development of the colonized Joseon. On the other hand, colonialism was also combined with the nationalist ideology of unity, providing various logical grounds for heteronomy. However, differences remained as to where Joseon belonged among the many categories of history. Was Joseon history a regional history of Japan or an oriental history attached to China? The imperialist theories that quickly emerged in conjunction with colonialism such as the Japan-Joseon Common Ancestry Theory and the History of Manchuria and Joseon as One signalled the demise and, ultimately, end of imperialism. Now that we've reached an era when nationalism and modernism are seemingly declining, what will happen to colonialism? Isn't it about time that colonialism parted ways with modern historiography?

실증사학의 ‘이념’ — 식민지 조선에 온 역사주의

홍종욱 서울대학교 인문학연구원 2019 人文論叢 Vol.76 No.3

Ranke’s historicism criticized the universal development law of positivism and noted the singularity of the individual. But historicism, like positivism, put forward historiography as science and emphasized strict criticism of historical material. That is why historicism has been called positivist historiography. Positivist historians pursued fact-finding and value- judgment at the same time. Since the 19th century, the ideology of positivist historiography has been the nation. Chin-Tan Society, led by Lee Byeong-do in colonial Korea, aimed at combining science and nation. It aimed at establishing a Korean national history against the national history of Japanese positivist historiography. Both colonialism historiography and Lee Byeong-do’s historiography were positivist historiographies. The positivist historiography that came to be established in East Asia has taken on the role of national history, side by side, in each country and region. The ideology of the nation that had been latent during the colonial period was embodied in the description of national history when Korea became the historical subject with liberation. A just assessment of the ideology of nation that has been maintained by positivist historiography could be a starting point for the formation of a sustainable historiography in the 21st century. 랑케의 역사주의는 실증주의 역사학의 보편적 발전법칙을 비판하고개체가 지닌 고유성에 주목하였다. 그러나 역사주의는 실증주의와 마찬가지로 과학으로서의 역사학을 내세우고 엄밀한 사료 비판을 강조하였다. 역사주의 역사학이 실증사학으로 불리게 된 이유이다. 실증사학은 사실 파악과 가치 판단을 동시에 추구하였다. 19세기 이래 실증사학의 이념은 국가와 민족이었다. 식민지 조선에서 이병도가 이끈 진단학회는 과학과 민족의 결합을 지향했다. 일본 실증사학의 국민사에 맞서한국의 국민사를 세우고자 한 것이다. 식민사학과 이병도의 역사학은모두 실증사학이었다. 동아시아에 온 역사주의 실증사학은 각 나라와지역에서 나란히 국민사 역할을 떠맡은 셈이다. 식민지기 잠재되어 있던 민족이라는 이념은 해방과 더불어 민족사 서술로 구현되었다. 실증사학이 견지해 온 민족이라는 이념에 대한 정당한 평가는 21세기 지속가능한 역사학을 구성하기 위한 출발점이 될 수 있을 것이다.

식민지기 지방사 편찬을 통해 본 지방 구현과 식민주의 역사학의 전개 - 『평안북도사(平安北道史)』(1938)를 중심으로

정상우 동북아역사재단 2023 東北亞歷史論叢 Vol.- No.79

Historiography of Colonialism, whose invasiveness have been highlighted, is simultaneously defined in two factors: One is Japan’s invasion to the continent. The other is the establishment and spread of modern historiography of Japan. In particular, academic organizations which was established by Japan in Joseon such like Keijo Imperial University(京城帝國大學), Society of Joseon History Compilation(朝鮮史編修會) and Cheonggu Association(靑丘學會), submitted their achievements in the 1930s. These, as well as continental invasions, were driving changes in historiography of colonialism. Therefore, in order to understand historiography of colonialism, it is necessary to consider its invasiveness and character as modern historiography at the same time. History of North Pyongan Province(『平安北道史』) commissioned and compiled by the North Pyongan Province Office(平安北道廳) to Inaba Iwakichi(稻葉岩吉) in 1938, is a booklet that intersects Japan’s invasion to the continent, History of Manchuria-Joseon(滿鮮史) which is one of the main discourses of historiography of colonialism, and academic institutions which is necessary for maintenance and spread of modern historiography. History of North Pyongan Province was a history book that summarized the history of North Pyongan Province in relation to the continent, and this historical story was supported by Joseon History compilated by Society of Joseon History Compilation in historical materials. In this sense, it can be seen that as the historical description of historiography of colonialism fortifies its attributes as modern historiography, North Pyongan Province has degenerated into a local history that fades without considering the continent. 사관을 중심으로 침략적 속성이 조명되었던 식민주의 역사학은 일본의 대륙침략만이 아니라 근대 역사학의 성립·확산이라는 두 가지 요소에 동시적으로 규정된다. 특히 1930년대, 제국 일본이 조선에 설치한 근대 역사학의 전개에 필요한 학술기구들(경성제국대학, 공문서관으로서 조선사편수회, 청구학회 등의 학회)은 그 성과물들을 본격적으로 제출했다. 대륙침략만이 아니라 이러한 것들 역시 식민주의 역사학의 변화를 추동하는 것이었다. 그렇기 때문에 식민주의 역사학을 이해하기 위해서는 그것이 지닌 침략성과 근대 역사학으로서의 성격을 동시에 고려해야 한다. 1938년 평안북도청에서 이나바 이와키치에게 의뢰하여 편찬한 『평안북도사』는 제국 일본의 대륙침략, 식민주의 역사학의 주요 담론 중 하나인 만선사, 근대 역사학과 그 유지·확산에 필요한 학술기구 등이 교차하는 책자이다. 『평안북도사』를 검토한 결과 이 책자는 평안북도의 역사를 대륙과의 관계 속에서 정리한 역사서였으며, 이러한 역사상은 식민지기 중앙의 역사편찬사업인 『조선사』에 의해 사료적으로 지지되었다. 이러한 의미에서 식민주의 역사학의 역사 서술이 근대 역사학으로서 속성을 더해갈수록 평안북도는 대륙을 고려하지 않으면 그 의미가 퇴색하는 지방의 역사로 전락했음을 확인할 수 있다. 이와 같이 북방의 역사가 대륙사의 일부가 된다는 것은 한국사의 왜소화를 의미하는 것이기도 했다.