During this time, neither Idu (吏讀), which was found in Silla's Hyangga literature, nor Hangeul, introduced after the Joseon Dynasty, was commonly used as a means of expression.
The overall characteristic of historical and literary thought in this period lies in the gradual shift from a Chinese-centered perspective to a Korean-centered one, as people became increasingly aware of national independence.
Among them, Kim Bu-sik's Samguk sagi (三國史記) (comprising 50 volumes), compiled in the 23rd year of King Injong (1145), is the longest of the Korean history books still in existence.
[3] Through many passages in the Samguk sagi, Korea's historical narrative remains China-centered, leading to criticism that it lacks sufficient national independence.
The national consciousness to protect the Korean people in the face of Mongol military and political oppression was reflected in historical descriptions.
[10] During the early Joseon Dynasty, the historical editing consciousness was strong, with an emphasis on moral instruction and the promotion of national ethos.
For instance, Yang Seong-Ji's selection of important historical texts during King Sejo's reign underscored the commitment to both Korean and Chinese history.
From the 18th century onwards, as Western studies and new perceptions of Qing dynasty culture emerged, ideas began to deviate from Confucianism.
[18] Influential scholars who impacted their work included Lee Ik (李瀷), Lim Sang-Deok (林象德), Yoon Seong-sang (尹衡聖), Lee Deok-mu (李德懋), Cho Gyeong-nam (趙慶男), Yoo Deuk-gong (柳得恭), Hong Yang-ho (洪良浩), Hong Seok-ju (洪奭周), and Jeong Yak-yong (丁若鏞).
[20] Additionally, Lim Sang-Deok's Dongsa Hoegang (東史會綱) and Yoon Seong-sang's Joya Cheomjae (朝野僉載) are considered Yasa (野史), and Yoo Deuk-gong established a personal view on the history of Balhae (渤海), founded by migrants from Goguryeo.
Their methods and attitudes were further developed by scholars such as Lee Geon-chang (李建昌), Park Eun-sik (朴殷植), Shin Chae-ho (申采浩), and Jang Ji-yeon (張志淵).
[23] Additionally, scholars such as Choi Nam-seon (崔南善), Lee Neung-hwa (李能和), and Jeong In-bo (鄭寅普) also belong to this group.
For example, Kim Taek-young(金澤榮), Hyunchae(玄采), and Jang Ji-yeon(張志淵) sought to reform historical thought through Silhak (practical learning).
Park Eun-sik(朴殷植) and Sin Chae-ho addressed issues that Silhak could not resolve, thereby completing modern Korean history.
In this way, in the 5th year of Gwangmu (1901), Kim Taek-young(金澤榮), Hyunchae(玄采), and Jang Ji-yeon(張志淵) published or expanded practical books.
These translation activities were based on the common view of the literate stratum at the time that they should know how to resist imperialism, and interest in methodologies for historical descriptions also developed.
He also emphasized the nation as the subject of history and placed the people at the forefront of historical events, which reflected his vivid modern consciousness.
He also harshly criticized the two methods that had been employed thus far to build the Japanese Empire: the independence movement through diplomatic strategy and the theory of preparation.
Korea's modern history emerged from the contradictory relationships of internal social conflicts and struggles against Japan, and through this, civic awareness and solid nationalist ideals were formed.
At this time, professionally trained historians emerged, displaying distinct historical perspectives in response to rapidly changing social ideologies.
[38] In the realm of ethnic history, Choi Nam-sun, who held a different position from Shin Chae-ho, lost a consistent historical spirit and reverted to encyclopedic knowledge reminiscent of the Silhak era.
Choi Nam-sun's most notable contributions to Korean literary history are best represented in his thesis, Bulham Munhwaron [ko] (不咸文化論).
Ahn Chai-hong (安在鴻), who authored Joseon SanggosaGam [ko] (朝鮮上古史鑑), and Mun Il-pyeong (文一平) also emerged around the same time as Jeong In-bo.
Mun's Hoamjeonjip [ko] (湖岩全集) presents a new form of historical description, focusing on popularizing history and enlightening the public.
[39] Son Jin-tae [ko] (孫晋泰) and Lee In-young (李仁榮) were active in the 1940s, carrying forward this academic tradition while attempting to challenge Japanese colonial historiography.
Jeong In-bo was dissatisfied with Japanese scholars, as he sought to uncover national historical truths omitted from the existing literature.
Positivists attempted to understand general historical trends through specific studies, but they were criticized for lacking a cohesive view of history.
From the late 1920s to the 1930s, the rise of socialism and labor movements, in response to heightened colonial exploitation and economic depression, influenced the field.
The monistic law of historical development, which he accepted as an alternative to colonial and nationalist views—what he termed the "special view"—was based on the principles of materialism.
Paek argued that the development of world history was based on the European historical trajectory, as evidenced in his treatment of the "Asiatic mode of production."