조선시대 贓吏 처벌의 推移

吳洙彰(Oh Soo-chang) 역사학회 1998 역사학보 Vol.157 No.-

IVC의 비참조 P 프레임을 위한 Lagrange 계수 선택 기법

오수창(Soo-Chang Oh),양안나(Anna Yang),김재곤(Jae-Gon Kim) 한국방송·미디어공학회 2014 한국방송공학회 학술발표대회 논문집 Vol.2014 No.11

오늘날의 역사학, 정조 연간 탕평정치 및 19세기 세도정치의 삼각대화

오수창(Oh, Soo-Chang) 역사비평사 2016 역사비평 Vol.- No.116

The core principles of modern historiography do not appear to have been fully reflected in some studies of the late Joseon period’s political history. There is still a tendency to extract lessons based on superficial similarities between past and present. This cannot be the main purpose of modern historiography. It is possible to find a category mistake on what the politics is now and then. The priority for political historians is not the restoration of superficial phenomena but the explanation of historical causation through political forces and political system. Politics in the late 18th and in the early 19th century were closely connected, despite sharp contrasts in their appearances. The dominance of Royal In-Law Families in the 19th century was the legacy of politics throughout the whole of the late Joseon period. King Jeongjo’s reign was the inevitable and essential link in that historical connectivity. The ancient regime of the Joseon state was bound to collapse in spite of King Jeongjo’s desperate efforts to reinvigorate it.

조선의 통치체제와 춘향전의 역사적 성취

오수창(Oh, Soo Chang) 역사비평사 2012 역사비평 Vol.- No.99

The subject of Chunhyangjeon is scrutinized only in the historical context in this paper. 14 versions of the novel from around the 19thcentury are examined. Thecriminal code of the Joseon state stipulated illegality of a magistrate’s sleeping with a Gisaeng or female entertainer and designated punishment accordingly, although this was all but always ignored in everyday life. Because Chunhyang’s defiance of her magistrate’s order to serve him was legitimate by both the law and people’s consciousness, it cannot be said that Chunhyangjeon put forward a new social order to replace the old status system. Chunhyang claimed her right to choose her lover and maintained her chastity. However, the social ideology of Neo-Confucianism in the Joseon period had already acknowledged that all people could realize human virtues loyalty, filial piety, and chastity. So neither can it be said Chunhyang’s dignity opened a new horizon never trodden before. The features of oppression and corruption fade out from the magistrate in the last version of the novel examined in this paper and the existence of state power behind the official becomes obvious for both the authors and readers. The confrontation of Chunhyang against the magistrate turns out to be one against not an evil official but the state power itself. Nevertheless, the cause of the resistance was not a new one, as confirmed by the fact that Chunhyang relied upon the king of the Joseon dynasty. The progressiveness of Chunhyangjeon toward the new era is found in the vivid description of Chunhyang’s confrontation against the magistrate who is a representation of state power.

18세기 조선 정치사상과 그 전후 맥락

오수창(Oh Soo-Chang) 역사학회 2012 역사학보 Vol.0 No.213

The 17th century of the Jeseon Dynasty saw the establishment of the politics by multiple political factions. Despite its political accomplishments, the factional politics came to an end by the end of the century with the severe struggles and conflict between rival political parties. A scholar named I Ik recognized the nature of the conflict among political factions. But he failed to initiate a new order that could successfully deal with the political competitions and struggles, and rather turned back to the old idea of reducing the number of people qualified to participate in politics. Kings in the 18th century such as Yeongjo and Jeongjo tried to utilize Politics of Impartiality, the main idea of which was the king to be a unique and absolute ruler. Although they achieved much in many areas of state governance, their policy denied the traditional political idea that kings and their subjects had to obey common principles in governing the state. In addition, Politics of Impartiality could not be succeeded by later kings because it could be successfully executed only by heroic kings of super talent. The following main issue in the politics was the confrontation between people and the state. Such conflict were reflected in novels like Chunhyangjeon and in the rebellions and uprisings led by commoners in the 19th century. The Politics by In-Powers at the time was a supplementary phenomenon compared to the confrontation between people and the state.

正祖 연간과 『日省錄』을 향한 ‘下而上’의 역사 탐구

吳洙彰(OH, Soo-chang) 한국고전번역원 2016 民族文化 Vol.47 No.-

『日省錄』 정조대 부분이 모두 번역됨으로써 사회과학자를 포함한 다양한 분야의 연구자들이 조선시대 연대기들을 더욱 자유롭게 이용하게 되었다. 한국사 연구자들이 연구 시각과 영역을 확대하여 정조 연간의 자료를 좀 더 체계적으로 검토하고, 다른 분야 연구자들의 노력과 상승효과를 누릴 방안에 대해 방법론적인 검토를 강화하여야 할 때이다. 과거에서 현재로 시간이 흘러온 방향을 上에서 下쪽이라고 할 때, 지금까지 한국 역사 서술은 주로 ‘上而下’의 방식을 선택해 왔다. 학자들이 연구 주제를 선택한 다음에는 대개 앞선 시대의 상황이 시간의 흐름에 따라 어떻게 변해갔는가 하는 데 초점을 맞추어 온 것이다. ‘上而下’의 역사 연구는 과거의 상황을 재현하는 데 충실하지만 과거 역사가 오늘날의 삶과 어떤 관계에 있는지에 대해 적극적으로 이해하는데 불리하다. 거기에 비해 ‘下而上’의 방법을 쓴다면 연구 주제의 설정은 물론 최종 결론을 맺기에 이르기까지 역사 연구자가 놓여있는 현실의 문제의식과 시각을 더욱 적극적으로 반영할 수 있다. 특히 18세기 후반 정조연간은 군주의 치밀한 국정운영과 『일성록』 등의 방대한 자료 위에서 ‘下而上’의 방법이 가장 큰 성과를 올릴 수 있는 시기라고 생각한다. 이 논문에서는 대한민국의 현행 헌법, 특히 ① 전문 ② 제1장 총강 ③ 제2장 국민의 권리와 의무의 각 조항에서 출발하는 시선과 문제의식에 주목하고자 한다. 조선시대 교육사의 사례를 검토해 볼 때 지금까지의 한국사 연구가, 헌법의 교육 관련 조항에 반영된 오늘날의 절실한 문제의식과는 매우 동떨어져 있음이 확인된다. 구체적으로 헌법에 규정된 ① 主權者 ② 軍의 정치적 중립성이라는 두 주제에 대해 조선시대의 기본질서를 점검하고 정조연간의 역사상을 재검토하였다. 헌법의 문제의식을 바탕으로 새로운 각도에서 조선시대 특히 정조연간에 접근할 때, 지금까지의 통설과는 다른 방향에서 그 시대를 설명하고 평가하게 된다는 사실을 확인하였다. 한편 오늘날 가치와 규범으로 과거에 접근할 때 마주치게 될 왜곡의 위험성 등, ‘下而上’의 역사 탐구에 내재된 문제점을 점검하고 한층 깊은 역사 이해에 도달하기 위해 비교사가 필요하다는 사실도 확인하였다. Now that a Korean translation of the parts of the Ilseong rok pertaining to King Jeongjo is now available to scholars, Korean historians should consider conducting cross-disciplinary studies with their colleagues. The author employs a “counter-temporal” (下而上) approach which is adapted from the idea of Jeong Yagyong. This approach views the history of the Joseon period from the contemporary perspective of social issues; this is in contrast to the conventional research tendency of Korean historiography, which focuses on the historical past and its change over time. Specifically, the author proposes to project principles and values reflected in the current ROK constitution into the historical study of King Jongjo’s era and its records, such as the Ilseong rok. This paper deals with two main issues. The first is the concept of sovereignty. Many incidents and institutes during the Joseon period, including the royal household, queen mothers, and the King Jeongjo’s policies begin to show entirely new aspects when the modern concept of sovereignty is applied to the past. The second is the principle of military neutrality. Both the Joseon state and society kept military men from intervening politically to an extent that was rarely accomplished previously in the pre-modern era. King Jeongjo’s military policies, which had been characterized by their progressiveness, can be interpreted anew as a retreat from the military’s political neutrality. Risks and problems inevitably arise when we consider contemporary issues in the historical past. Still, for historians who stand in the present and look into the previous world, it is their duty to be alert to the risks of distortion and misunderstanding. King Jeongjo’s reign made great political and cultural changes and yielded vast numbers of historical records incomparable to those of any other period. The adoption of the counter-temporal method in the study of Korean history will reward us with a lot of new information and interpretations, especially with regard to King Jeongjo’s reign and its records.

병자호란에 대한 기억의 왜곡과 그 현재적 의미

오수창(Oh, Soo-chang) 한국역사연구회 2017 역사와 현실 Vol.- No.104

Examined in this article are some distorted recollections or improper understanding of facts related to the “Byeongja Horan” war with the Manchurian troops, which we can find from the Joseon people’s own records such as the Royal edict of “Boycotting peace negotiations,” and memories of the “Three scholar-officials.” This royal edict, issued in March of the 14<SUP>th</SUP> year of king Injo’s reign(1636), was in fact not an elucidation that the Joseon government would sever all diplomatic relationships with Hu-Geum, nor a declaration of an impending retaliatory strike against it. It was an order clarifying why the Joseon government refused to receive the diplomatic communique from Hu-Guem, while also urging the society to prepare itself for a war, that may or may not break. Similarly misunderstood were the circumstances surrounding the Three scholar-officials. Considering the fact that they were handed over to the enemy by their own government, the atmosphere of honoring them should be understandable, but a blind commemoration of them, based upon a black or white perspective that usually lacks sufficient appreciation of all the nuances and subtle details, will not only lead us to microscopic distortion of facts, but also lead us away from an objective and comprehensive review of the war itself. The history of the time should be reviewed with all the exaggerations and distortions filtered out, and examined with the Joseon society’s own internal situations in mind. Only by doing so the 500 years worth of peace and warfare of Joseon could be objectively reviewed and appropriately analyzed.

17세기 집권층의 (執權層) 평안도민에 (平安道民) 대한 인사정책 (人事政策)

오수창 ( Soo Chang Oh ) 진단학회 1995 진단학보 Vol.- No.80

조선왕조 개창의 형식과 논리 - 선양론(禪讓論)과 추대 사실의 검토

오수창 ( Oh Soo-chang ) 연세대학교 국학연구원 2016 동방학지 Vol.176 No.-

오늘날 1392년 이성계의 즉위, 즉 조선왕조 개창이 공양왕의 선양으로 이루어졌다는 설명을 쉽게 찾아볼 수 있다. 조선시대에도 공양왕이 이성계에게 선양했다는 기술이 없었던 것은 아니며 공양왕이 왕위를 양보한 듯한 인상을 주는 서술도 많다. 하지만 고려말의 정국과 이성계의 즉위 과정에서 공양왕의 선양 행위가 끼어들어 갔을 여지는 없다. 선양했다는 자료도 물론 확인되지 않는다. 공양왕은 죄인으로 폐출되었던 만큼 그에게서 왕위를 물려받는다는 것은 논리적으로도 정당화될 수 없었다. 공양왕이 선양하였다는 소수의 기록은 개인적 수준의 역사왜곡이거나 시간이 오래 지난 후 빚어진 조선왕조 건국에 대한 미화였을 따름이다. 조선시대 인사들이 태조의 왕조 개창을 논의할 때 중심을 이룬 것은 인심과 천명이 다한 고려의 마지막 왕을 이성계가 추방했다는 사실이었다. 세종은 태조의 행적을 정벌이라고 규정했고, 영조와 신하들은 정벌을 강조하지는 않았지만 조선왕조 개창이 ‘자립’이었다는 데 인식을 같이하였다. 이성계의 즉위 및 조선왕조 개창은 ‘추대’의 형식으로 이루어졌으며, 왕실의 교체가 정당하다는 근거를 근원적으로 인심의 향배에서 찾았다. 이후 두 차례의 반정에서 다시 확인되듯이, 신하들이 국왕을 추대하고 이념과 체제에 어긋나는 국왕을 교체할 수 있다는 논리는 조선의 정치현실 그 자체였다. The prevailing current explanation is that King Taejo(Yi Seong-Gye. 1335∼1408 r 1392∼1398), founder of Joseon dynasty, came to the throne when the last king of Goryeo dynasty abdicated, regardless of whether it was by his own accord. However, this was not the case. There was no time for a rite of resignation and succession, and no records have been found referring to the abdication of Goryeo``s king. The last king of Goryeo was deposed as a criminal and expelled from the capital, so it was not justifiable for the Joseon dynasty to inherit the Goryeo crown. Politicians and intellectuals of the Joseon period believed that King Taejo vanquished the last king of Goyeo, who had lost both his people``s support and the mandate of Heaven. As for the logic and form of the founding of Joseon dynasty, it was through the selection and support of the new king by the powerful elite. It was the political reality of the Joseon period that subjects could have someone found a new dynasty and replace a king who did not follow their political system.

19세기 초 중국 팔괘교란(八卦敎亂)과 비교한 홍경래란(洪景來亂)의 정치적 특성

오수창 ( Soo Chang Oh ) 성균관대학교 대동문화연구원 2006 大東文化硏究 Vol.56 No.-