죽음의 미화, 숭고의 미학 - 김응하 서사를 중심으로

김유진 국문학회 2012 국문학연구 Vol.0 No.25

The Simha-jeontu(深河戰鬪), the battle of Simha(深河) was a momentous incident that affected the relations of East Asian countries in the 17th century. The Joseon Dynasty dispatched 15,000 troops into the battle, but 9,000 people were killed in action. Besides the Simha-jeontu(深河戰鬪) was branded as a gruesome defeat, the only hero in the battlefield was Kim Eung-ha by his heroic death. Park Hui-hyeon, one of the literary men in the Joseon Dynasty created the Kimjanggun-jeon(「金將軍傳」). The Kimjanggun-jeon(「金將軍傳」), the narrative for Kim Eung-ha’s life is a text of the memory and testimony owned by the dispatched. Through the creative writing, Park Hui-hyeon figured Kim Eung-ha as a self-cultured and fighting man. Consequently Kim Eung-ha became a sublime hero by virtue of this work. An important point the Kimjanggun-jeon(「金將軍傳」) has is Sino-centralism that symbolized by aesthetic ideals. The death of Kim Eung-ha, a tragic event in itself takes on the sublime beauty through a process of aesthetic transition. It should be discussed with regard to the aesthetic category of the Kimjanggun-jeon(「金將軍傳」). Kim Eung-ha’s behavior was sublimated into an aesthetic ideology of Sino-centralism by the Kimjanggun-jeon(「金將軍傳」). It is an appropriate point of view that the Ming Dynasty’s request for additional troops could have been refused softly by the sublimed story of Kim Eung-ha. But the purpose of the Kimjanggun-jeon(「金將軍傳」) had been also to refuse the request of the Ming Dynasty might have something unreasonable. Paying due regard to such factors like that the generals who had surrendered have been condemned extremely more than the blame for the Later Jin Dynasty(後金), the target of the Kimjanggun-jeon(「金將軍傳」) might have been some insiders in the Joseon Dynasty. In this estimation, the target might be representatively the 15th king of the Joseon Dynasty, Gwanghaegun(光海君). The Chungyeol-rok(『忠烈錄』)- the records of devoted and faithful lists the Kimjanggun-jeon(「金將軍傳」) could be classified one of the publication that holds each other in check between the power of throne(王权) and the power of retainers(臣权). The subsequent writers had been affected by the text of the Kimjanggun-jeon(「金將軍傳」). The Chungyeol-rok(『忠烈錄』) had been published four times. And manifold literary men had left some kinds of the narrative for Kim Eung-ha. The 22th king of the Joseon Dynasty, Jungjo(正祖) who had published the Reprint of Chungyeol-rok(『重刊忠烈錄』) built an ideologic sublime of Sino-centralism. The series of the narratives for Kim Eung-ha shows three phases. That is ‘the pursuit of political subjectivity’, ‘the pursuit of facts’ and ‘the placation and consolidation of ideology’. Representing the loyalty to the Ming Dynasty, the narrative for Kim Eung-ha had been suffered the ups and downs of the noble ideals. 심하전투(1619)는 17세기 동아시아 각국의 세력 판도를 변화시킨 일대 사건이었다. 조선은 이 전투에 1만 5천여 명을 파병하였으나 9천여 명이 전사하는 처참한 패배를 경험하였다. 처참한 패배로 기록된 심하전투에서의 영웅은 단연 끝까지 항전한 김응하였다. 박희현은 <김장군전>을 지어 그의 죽음을 기렸다. <김장군전>은 走回人과 도망자의 기억과 증언으로 이루어진 텍스트이다. 박희현은 김응하에 대한 기억과 증언을 통해 그가 수양한 인물이자 항전한 인물로 형상화하였고 그 결과 그를 숭고화하는 데 성공했다. 이러한 <김장군전>에서 주목할 지점은 중화주의의 이념이 미학적으로 형상화된다는 점이다. 김응하의 죽음은 그 자체로 비장한 사건이었지만, 미적 전이 과정을 거쳐 숭고미를 띠게 된다. 이러한 과정을 통해 김응하의 죽음은 숭고한 것이 되고, 중화주의의 이념과 결합된다. 중화의 이념을 미적으로 승화시킨 <김장군전>이 당대에 끼친 영향은 역사적 맥락에 대한 고려를 통해 논의되어야 한다. 김응하의 항전이 명나라의 추가 파병에 대한 거절의 근거가 될 수 있었다는 지적은 일견 타당할 수 있으나, <김장군전>도 이러한 관점으로 보는 것은 무리가 따른다. 중화를 침범한 후금에 대한 비난보다, 항장에 대한 강한 비난이 감지되는 <김장군전>의 표적은 현실론을 펼친 광해군으로 보아야 합당하다. 광해군 대에 간행된 『충렬록』은 현실론을 주장하는 王權에 대한 臣權 차원에서의 견제로 작용했던 것이다. <김장군전>은 후대의 문인들에게 지속적인 영향을 끼친 텍스트이다. <김장군전>이 실린 『충렬록』은 총 4회 간행되었으며, 당색과 계층을 초월하여 다수의 문인들이 김응하에 대한 서사를 남긴 바 있다. 현실론을 펼치고자 했던 광해군과 달리, 정조는 『중간충렬록』을 왕명으로 간행하여 중화주의의 이념적 숭고성을 이룩했다. 김응하 서사의 다양한 양상은 ‘정치적 주관의 추구’, ‘사실 추구’, ‘이념적 포섭과 강화’의 3단계로 살필 수 있다. 김응하를 대표로 한 大明義理의 숭고한 이념은 부침을 겪으면서도 표면적으로는 강화된 것으로 보이나 이면의 균열적 면모도 찾을 수 있다.

김응하 『충렬록(忠烈錄)』 판본 변개 과정과 그 의미

이송희 ( Lee Song-hee ) 충남대학교 유학연구소 2019 儒學硏究 Vol.46 No.-

김응하(金應河, 1580-1619)는 오늘날에는 대중적으로 알려져 있지 않으나, 심하전투에서 항전하다 장렬히 전사한 까닭에 전사 직후부터 조선 후기까지 대명의리의 상징과도 같은 인물이었다. 김응하를 기념하기 위한 『충렬록』 간행 역시 광해조부터 정조조까지 무려 네 차례나 이루어졌으며, 현재까지도 여러 판본들이 전해지고 있다. 본고에서는 먼저 간행년도가 확실한 정조 22년의 『중간충렬록』을 제외하고 서발문을 비롯 완전한 체재를 갖춘 판본들을 A 계열로, 박희현의 「김장군전」과 유몽인·이염영의 후서(後敍), 그리고 김응하 만시들로만 이루어진 판본들을 B 계열로 분류하고, 이후 자체나 내용상의 차이에 따라 A’와 B’로 판본의 계열을 세분화했다. 그 결과 그간 학계에서 초간본으로 여겨지던 규장각본(규장각 古貴 923.55-G417c)은 A’ 계열에 속하며, 대신 고려대 화산문고본 등 A 계열의 판본이 이보다 앞선 판본으로 보인다는 점을 밝혔다. 한편 초간본(신유본)에는 이이첨을 비롯 인조반정으로 숙청된 인물들의 글이 상당수 수록되어 있음에도 불구하고 현종 연간까지 별다른 산삭 없이 수차례 간행되었음도 확인할 수 있었다. 반면 정조 22년 발간된 『중간충렬록』에서는 보다 방대해지고 체계적이 된 체재와 함께 북인계열에 속하는 인물들의 글을 「시문별집」으로 따로 분류했다는 점이 특징이다. 이러한 판본들간의 차이를 통해 우리는 김응하에 대한 현양사업이 초간 당시에는 대명 외교의 맥락에서, 정조 때에는 ‘중화회복’에서 ‘중화계승’으로 변화해간 조선 대명의식의 맥락에서 이루어지고 있음을 확인할 수 있다. 이에 따라 김응하에게서 북인의 색채를 탈색시키고 대신 노론계의 춘추의리 담론으로 포섭하는 일련의 시도가 포착된다. Kim Eung-ha, who died in the Battle of Sarhu, was a symbolic figure of loyalty to Ming Dynasty in late Choson Korea. Chungneyllok which was a memorial for Kim had published four times from from 1621-1796. This study reviews existing copies of Chungyellok, categorizes them in four groups, and speculates its publishing date and analyzes the differences of each edition. As a result, Chungnyellok seems published several times based on its first edition till late 17^th Century, regardless of the fact that the book contains writings and poems of “traitors” of King Injo’s Restoration (仁祖反正). Compared to the former editions, the last edition published in 1796 is much more sophisticated and completed one and removed the works of the politically problematic figures from its main text. By reviewing those copies, we can find out that the first edition had to published in the diplomatic situation after the Battle of Sarhu to enhance its relationship with Ming Dynasty because two other Choson generals chose to surrender to Manchurians. But the 18^th Century edition shows the tendency of changing identity of Choson as “little China (小中華)” after the fall of Ming Dynasty. Kim Eung-ha was also repainted as a loyal subject of Ming, rather than a guardian of Choson.

『金將軍遺事』연구 - 김응하 『충렬록』과의 관계를 중심으로 -

이송희 열상고전연구회 2019 열상고전연구 Vol.68 No.-

Commemoration of the loyalty became a “national” policy as well as family family business after two major wars in late Chosŏn. In the fiver of making war heroes, the case of General Kim Kyung-seo is interesting because he is the one who ignominiously surrendered to the army of Qing in the battle of Sarhu. Those who wanted to save him from the bad reputation had to explain and justify his choice. Kim-janggun-yusa(金將軍遺事), edited by Yi Sihang (李時恒, 1672-1736) and published in 1738 in Pyeong-yang is the key text used to vindicate and commemorate the general. This thesis read the memorial to Kim in the context of Sarhu narrative in Chosŏn Korea, especially regarding to Chungnyeollok for Kim Eung-ha, who represented Chosŏn’s loyalty to Ming China. Kim Eung-ha was made to be a heroic figure by Chosŏn court, in an urgent need to make a proper excuse for their surrender to Qing. By highlighting and commemorating Kim Eung-ha, who died bravely in the battle, Chosŏn could make those surrenders as betrayers to Ming, and to Chosŏn itself. As a result, Chungnyeollok for Kim Eung-ha became the center of narrative of Sarhu battle in Chosŏn, and thus other memoirs had no choice but to correspond to it to justify themselves. Kim-janggun-yusa was also written in the relation with Chungnyeollok, explaining, advocating and justifying Kim Kyung-seo against critical records about him in the previous documents. And it succeeded. 양란 이후 충신열사 현양사업은 국가적으로나 각 가문에게나 중요한 사업이었다. 경쟁적으로 이루어진 현양사업 가운데에서도, 김경서가 충신으로 현양되는 과정은 무척 흥미롭다. 김경서는 심하전투 당시 강홍립과 함께 투항한 인물이기 때문이다. 자연 그를 현양하고자 하는 측에서는 김경서의 행적을 정당화해야만 했다. 평양 출신의 이시항(李時恒, 1672-1736)이 편찬하여 1738년 간행된 『김장군유사(金將軍遺事)』는 이 과정에서 편찬된 핵심적인 자료이다. 여러 텍스트들에서 김경서가 어떻게 표상되는지 그 차이에 주목한 선행연구들의 성과 위에서, 본 연구는 『김장군유사』를 심하전투 담론의 핵심을 차지하고 있던 김응하의 『충렬록』과의 관계망에 두고 독해하고자 한다. 김응하는 강홍립이 금군에 투항한 일에 대한 알리바이가 필요했던 조선 조정이 내세운 인물이었다. 장렬히 전사한 김응하를 내세움으로써 조선은 투항한 강홍립을 배신자로 만들 수 있었고, 그 덕에 명에 대해서도 그리고 자신의 역사에 대해서도 변명할 수 있었다. 때문에 심하전투 서사들 가운데서 김응하의 『충렬록』은 중요한 하나의 축으로 존재하며, 여타의 심하전투 서사들은 『충렬록』과 대화적 관계를 맺고 있다. 항장인 김경서를 변명하기 위해 편찬된 『김장군유사』 역시 애초부터 『충렬록』과의 관계를 의식하고 서술되었다. 『김장군유사』는 『충렬록』에 나타나는 김경서에 비판적인 서술에 대해 설명하고 방어하며 또한 김응하를 수식하는 레토릭들을 빌리기도 하면서 김경서를 충신으로 만들어갔으며, 상당 부분 성공을 거두었다.

忠烈錄 소재 「贈遼東伯詔」의 위작 여부에 대한 일고찰

최혜미 우리한문학회 2019 漢文學報 Vol.40 No.-

This thesis examines Jeung-yodongbaek-jo (贈遼東伯詔) known as a certificates of appointment of Kim Eung-ha, Joseon general who died in the battle of Sarhu, as Lord of Yodong made by Ming Emperor Sinjong. The document was included in the book of Chungyeollok, a commemorative anthology for Kim Eung-ha published in 1612, regardless of the ongoing controversies surrounding its authenticity. After its publication, Song Si-yeol, one of the most influential politician-scholars of the period, advocated its genuineness in writing the general’s mortuary monument, but the debate continued because there was no official record on the certificates and its writing style was too shabby. Still, King Jeongjo himself declared its authenticity to finish the controversy, and the appointment of Kim as Lord of Yodong became official history afterward. Except the fact that there is no historical record or evidence to prove its genuineness, the document itself supports the possibility of forgery, because its literary is far below expectation on certificates of appointment given by the emperor, which should be written in strictly tuned style by high ranking erudite scholar-official. Firstly, the certificate was written outside the form of official document of Ming dynasty. Second, major part of the document is a kind of parody of Confucian classics, rather than elaborated literature. Thirdly, the sentences have a low standard of writing. The same vocabularies are repeated too many times and the sentence structure is too plain for certificates to grace someone with a title. As a conclusion, it is hard to believe this document is authentic. 본고는 명나라 신종 황제가 김응하에게 요동백을 증직하며 하사했다고 알려진 작품인 「贈遼東伯詔」를 고찰한 연구이다. 이 작품은 김응하의 功烈을 선양하기 위해 1621년에 편찬된 책인 『충렬록』에 수록되어 있는데, 당시부터 김응하의 요동백 증직과 「증요동백조」는 그 진위를 두고 논란이 분분했던 사안이었다. 이후 송시열이 ‘요동백 김응하’의 묘비를 작성하며 이 글을 진본이라고 언급하였으나 국내외의 공식 기록에 관련 내용이 전무하고 조문 자체의 수준이 매우 낮아 위작 의혹을 불식하지 못하였다. 정조 대에 들어 왕이 직접 「증요동백조」를 진본으로 공인하여 위작 논란을 종결지은 이후에야 김응하의 요동백 증직은 기정사실이 되었다. 한·중의 사료에서 관련 내용을 찾을 수 없다는 것 외에 「증요동백조」 위작론의 가장 확실한 근거는 작품 자체이다. 조령문은 대학사가 황제를 대신하여 엄밀한 형식을 갖춰 짓는 글인데, 이 작품은 그 기대 수준에 미치지 못하였기 때문이다. 첫째, 작품의 체제가 명대 관방 문서의 일반적인 형식에 부합하지 않는다. 둘째, 경서의 구절과 상황을 원용한 서술이 많아 문식을 가한 글이라 보기 어렵다. 셋째, 동일한 단어를 과도하게 반복 사용하고 어휘와 문장 구조가 지나치게 단순하여 행문의 수준이 매우 낮다. 이상의 정황을 토대로 본고에서는 「증요동백조」가 진본임을 확정할 수 없다는 잠정적인 결론에 도달하였다.

조선후기 김경서 현창의 추이와 당대사적 의미

장정수(張禎洙) 한국역사연구회 2020 역사와 현실 Vol.- No.115

Explored in this article is how Vice Commander(Bu-Weonsu) Kim Gyeong-seo, who joined the Shimha war only to be captured as a prisoner of war and later died in Hu-Geum, was commemorated posthumously, and why. At the Shimhar war, many Joseon soldiers were either killed or captured. However, while the former were hailed as loyal victims and commemorated in the name of loyalty and dignity[忠節], the latter were condemned as traitors[逆節]. Case of Kim Gyeong-seo belonged to the latter, as he was criticized –along with Do-Weonsu(Supreme commander) Kang Hong-rib- just for the reason that he was captured. Compared to the ongoing praise of Kim Eung-ha who was known to have valiantly struggled and then got killed, the evaluation of Kim Gyeong-seo was quite harsh. Then, later the fact that Kim Gyeong-seo was actually killed by Hu-Geum was revealed and disclosed to the public, so his honor was reinstated along with his earlier position, and a new title was even bestowed posthumously. It seemed like his name was being finally cleared from that of a ‘surrenderer.’ Yet in reality, for quite some time, his reputation remained somewhat murky, between ‘loyal’ and ‘disloyal,’ as there was an opinion –supported by many- which believed while his case certainly merited a sympathetic reevaluation, the fact that he surrendered could not be ignored. But in the latter half of the 18th century, the sense of obligation to ‘honor the true master race(in this case, the Chinese Ming dynasty)’ began to form rather dominantly, and a new effort to commemorate Kim Gyeong-seo was initiated. He was hailed as a “Loyal vassal,” and in the 19th century he was even cited as a symbol to propagate an agenda of the time, which was to ‘uphold a righteous cause,’ commemorating Ming. In the process of his being reevaluated and newly honored, the evaluation of Gang Hong-rib, who was known to have surrendered to Hu-Geum with Kim, deteriorated. Gang’s surrender was defined as an act following former king Gwang’hae-gun’s secret order, and the Shimha battle was redefined as a battle that cost many lives in the name of honoring the true legitimate (Ming) dynasty. Such definitions were meant to strengthen Joseon’s new identity as the bearer of the Sino-centric traditions, while the dynasty itself was being forced to serve the ‘barbaric’ Qing.

심하(深河) 전역(戰役)과 김장군전(金將軍傳)

이승수 ( Lee Seung-soo ) 동국대학교 한국문학연구소 2003 한국문학연구 Vol.0 No.26

A war destroys the world's order and peace of life suddenly and all at once. Terror, anxiety and fraction that are hard to manage may bear literature. All creatures have instinct to maintain calmness overcoming such a state. Literature governed by power creates heros through mythic lyrics and splendid rhetorics. In addition, literature hides the brutal reality of a war and tries to forget the responsibility of power. It promotes the reintegration and reunification of society, covering up contradiction and irrationality. Such direction of literature techniques exerts a symbolic influence to the reiteration of unhappy history. In this paper, I examined the correlations among war, literature and politics, focused on General Kim Story(金將軍傳), written after the Shimha War in 1619(深河戰役). General Kim Story can be found in the book, "Chung Yeol Rok(忠烈錄)" which is the collection of writings and drawings, as well as his great achievements in life time, in memory of a general named Kim Eung-Ha(金應河). However, the Story hides the reality and responsibility of the war and covers up an intention to facilitate ideological integration through great achievements of a figure. The image of Kim Eung-Ha is ideologically fixed, in line with the direction of political direction of power, and the experience of the war those days does not function as a beneficial memory to the following war. There is a proposition that the whole history is the history of the present times. General Kim Story has only focused on general Kim Eung-Ha's great achievements; thus, it blocked an opportunity to utilize the valuable experience of the war as historical assets. Here lies the reason why General Kim Story should be reviewed in a critical way today. To prevent the reoccurrence of painful history, we should thoroughly investigate the painful incident and conduct sincere reflection of it. To do so, we should avoid an attitude to conceal the reality behind the glory, and see objects without turning away from the wounds and scars of the painful history. In this manner, we could sever the repetition cycle of the painful history. Literature may be used as a tool to maintain power, and it can create a false image, relying on magnificent rhetorics, while turning away from the painful reality. Thus, literature may create an inertia that can reiterate mistakes without a notice, concealing irregularities and contradictions, as well as forgetting the responsibility of power. This is the very reason why literature cannot avoid the historical responsibility.

명,청 교체기(交替期) 조선의 대응과 『충렬록(忠烈錄)』의 의미

임완혁 ( Wan Hyuk Im ) 우리한문학회 2005 漢文學報 Vol.12 No.-

深河戰鬪의 名將 金應河와 『忠烈錄』 판화

유미나 원광대학교 인문학연구소 2011 열린정신 인문학연구 Vol.12 No.1

This is an art-historical look into the woodblock prints of the Chungnyeollok published in memory of Kim Eung-Ha who was killed in action in the Sarhu Battle against Later Jin(後金) in 1619. The first edition of Chungnyeollok was published in 1621 to justify the fact that Joseon had been reluctant in sending reinforcements to Ming, and to defend the fact that Joseon troops led by Kang Hong-Nip(강홍립) surrendered to Later Jin. Meanwhile, the second edition of Chungnyeollok published in 1798 was a full synthesis of the all the efforts throughout Later Joseon Period to praise Kim Eung-Ha.In fact, the praise for Kim Eung-Ha was in close connection with the Theory of Fulfilling the Obligation to Ming (對明義理論) the Theory of Zhou-centered World (尊周論), and coincided with the identity of Joseon since the 17th Century. It was an effort to stay faithful to the fallen Ming, former ally, and to maintain at least in spirit the Ming-centered cultural order in East Asia. In such an intention, Joseon continued to praise the war dead, the loyal retainers, and the patriots who were victimized in Imjinweran(壬辰倭亂) or in Byeongjahoran(丙子胡亂) war. That was because they were considered contributors to defending the regime and the state. Especially after the defeat in Byeongjahoran(丙子胡亂) and the humiliating incident when Joseon king surrendered to Qing, China, Joseon people began to raise voices for revenge against Qing. The death of Kim Eung-Ha in the Sarhu Battle who had fought against Later Jin(Qing), got to carry greater meaning.The first and the second editions of Chungnyeollok each contains a portrait of Kim Eung-Ha, and four pieces of woodblock prints describing Kim Eung-Ha’s military actions, which are noteworthy examples of war painting. The prints in the first edition of Chungnyeollok were designed after the Jeongchungnok, the book about the patriotic deeds of Yue-Fei (岳飛) of Southern Sung, China. The Jeongchungnok, which was published between 1522-1566 was imported to Joseon in 1584, and was republished in Joseon at the order of King Seonjo. Unlike the the books, Donggukshinsok Samganghaengsildo(東國新續三綱行實圖) or Hangeuishinpyeon (抗義新編) which also deal with the war veterans of Imjinweran, the fact that Chungnyeollok took Chungnyeollok as a model can be because they both praised the generalwho fought against the Jurchins.