I can't copy the lit review word for word, but the same basic ideas apply to both papers.
As scientiffikk says, and you imply by the need/ability to divide the one paper into two, there must be something fundamentally different about the two papers. You say the same "basic" ideas apply, and I'm sure you're right. But the devil (or angel, in this case) is in the details.
Given that the purpose of the lit review is to situate the paper in the existing literature, and the two papers are (apparently) closely related, sure, you'll cite many of the same works. But presumably the two papers are filling different gaps in the existing body of knowledge. Focus on that difference to tailor each lit review to its respective paper. Also, consider your audience. If you have different journals in mind for the two papers, are there any difference in the readerships? Will one group of readers be more familiar with
these journals and books, while the other is more familiar with
those? Finally, I'm assuming that your conclusions section in the two papers will differ. Thus, the "set-up" provided by the lit review might need to be different. That difference should also help you to focus each lit review and make it different from the other.
Good luck--and congratulations on your two-fer!
