남북한 <사씨남정기> 연구의 경과와 전망

Progress of Studies in Sassinamjonggi in South and North Korea and Future Prospect

The purpose of this study is to examine a new direction of the future study in Sassinamjonggi based on variations and differences, successes and limits among studies of Sassinamjonggi in South and North Korea. The study looked into two periods of time, before and after the division of Korea. After the division, the studies of North and South Academia were examined. This study found out and analyzed some issues in these studies. The summaries are following. Sassinamjonggi had been studied from 1920’s. After the independence, the research　became in full scale. Academia in South and North succeeded the values of studis in Sassinamjonggi before the division. However, after the division, each had its own way of studying without any further communication between. As the result, the study of Sassinamjonggi in South and North academia had a gap in how to approach, to interpret and to evaluate Sassinamjonggi as big as one in system and ideology between South and North Korea. South academia has interests in an evaluation and appreciation of the work, the type, and the different versions; on the contrary, the North focuses on the work itself in order to lead the discussion within the frame of socialistic and subjective literary art. The South finds out about the concubinage, the fetters of paternalism, the familism, and the good and evil in Sassinamjonggi; yet, the North puts more value on the contradictions of feudal Confucianism, the depravity of YangBan class, and the corruption of the ruling class than on the concubinage and the paternalism. The differences in studies of South and North academics are resulted in a fact like a problem of the motive and the time of Sassinamjonggi, and a perception like the interpretation and evaluation of Sassinamjonggi. In order to prepare a sound nation’s literacy and art study on Korea’s unification, we need to think hard how to reduce the gap especially in relation to the perception. The different opinion regarding to the fact can be narrowed down through verifying the facts. The differences in the perception will not be easily diminished because of diversity of scholars’ beliefs and values. This diversity does not occur because of individual differences in belief and value. It is rooted in two totally different systems and ideologies. To settle the differences between South and North and to precede to further discussions in Sassinamjonggi, we need a honest understanding of the outcomes of studies done by both sides. Understanding others requires accepting other’s views and thoughts without insisting on own view’s and thoughts. Also, South and North ought to adapt a way to look at the literature because they perceive it differently. The South academics look at the literature for self fulfilling purpose, but the North ones consider the literature to be a means for reconstruction of a society and for teaching patriotism. This difference is basically related to a view what the literature is, so that it is not easy to say which is right or wrong. Before bringing up solutions regarding to the interpretation and evaluation of Sassinamjonggi, it is why we need to rethink the perception of how to look at the literature. The trend of the North academia shown in Sassinamjonggi is apparently presented in other classical literature studies.