반계가 바라본 명청 교체와 명 유민

손혜리 한국실학학회 2017 한국실학연구 Vol.0 No.34

본고는 磻溪 柳馨遠(1622~1673)의 『磻溪逸稿』에 수록된 명 유민에 관한 5수의 연작시를 검토한 결과 명청 교체와 명 유민에 대한 반계의 시선 즉 ‘喜悲’를 확인하였다. 현종 8년(1667) 복건성 출신의 林寅觀 등 95인이 제주도에 표류하였다가 청에 송환되는 일이 발생한다. 반계는 이들을 만나 명의 영력 황제가 살아있다는 소식을 듣고 명이 멸망한 현실과 조선이 청에게 무릎 꿇은 굴욕감을 되새긴다. 기쁨과 슬픔이란 이를 말하는 것이다. 결국 반계의 시선이 향하고 있는 곳은 ‘悲’로서, 이를 한마디로 표현하면 ‘腥膻何日掃’이다. 반계는 작금의 상황을 야만에 의한 문명의 전복으로 인식하고, 만청의 폭력적 중국지배는 문명적 위기라고 결론지었다. 그 결과 명이 멸망하고 國恥를 아직 씻지 못한 것을 한스럽게 여겨 항상 復讎 雪恥할 방책을 강구하였다. 그러면서도 국가개혁론을 독자적으로 마련하고 구체적 절목을 제시하였으니, 바로 이 점에서 한국 실학의 비조로 상정된 반계의 대명의리는 현실개혁론과 조화를 이루었다고 평가할 수 있다. This study reviewed five serial poems on Ming’s drifting people(明 遺民) included in Bangyeilgo(『磻溪逸稿』) by Bangye(磻溪) Yu Hyeong-won(柳馨遠, 1622-1673) and found out Bangye’s “joy and sorrow” about the Ming-Ching Transition and Ming’s drifting people. In the 8th year of King Hyeonjong’s reign (1667). 95 people including Lin Yin-guan from the Fujian Province had been adrift on Jeju Island and repatriated to the Qing Dynasty. Bangye met them, heard that Emperor Yongli of the Ming Dynasty survived, and ruminated on the reality of the collapse of the Ming Dynasty and the humiliation of Joseon’s kneeling down to the Qing Dynasty. “Joy and sorrow” refer to this. Bangye’s eyes turn towards “sorrow” in the end, which is, in short, ‘When would the barbarians smelling fish or mutton be rooted out?(腥膻何日掃)’ Bangye recognized the present situation as the overturn of civilization by barbarism and concluded the violent domination of China by the late Qing Dynasty as the crisis of civilization. Thus, he regretted the collapse of the Ming Dynasty and not wiping away the national humiliation yet and worked out a plan for Ultimate revenge on Qing(復讎 雪恥). In addition, he prepared the idea of state reform independently and presented the concrete subdivisions. In this sense, Bangye’s Loyalty to the Ming Dynasty(對明義理), presumed as the founder of Korean Silhak(Realist School of Confucianism) was harmonized with the idea of the reform of reality.

조선후기 관왕묘(關王廟)에 대한 인식의 전환과 그 의미

남호현(Nam, Ho-hyun) 한국역사연구회 2016 역사와 현실 Vol.- No.101

Examined in this article is how the general perception of the Gwan’wang-myo altars changed during the latter half of the Joseon dynasty period, and what is the meaning of that change. During the war with the Japanese, and especially during the second phase that began in the Jeong’yu-year(1597), the Ming army which came to help Joseon established Gwan’wang-myo altars here and there throughout the Korean peninsula. This was at the end of the 16th century, and later, coming into the 18th century the public’s view of these altars hugely changed. Before the establishment of these altars, the Joseon public only considered the Gwan’u figure as one that came out of history books, and did not think of him in any special meaning. During the war with the Japanese troops at the end of the 16<SUP>th</SUP> century, certain folk beliefs of this Gwan’u figure, which originated in China to revere Gwan’u as a god-like figure, had spreaded over to the Korean peninsula. Gwan’wang-myo altars were erected not only in the capital city but also in several local regions. They were never erected at the Joseon government’s will, and had nothing to do with the Joseon public’s stance toward him. Even in the second half of the 17<SUP>th</SUP> century, these altars were still perceived with an image associated with several unpleasant memories of the recent two horrific wars, as well as the unstable foreign conditions of the time. As a result, the Joseon leaders had fairly negative views of these altars. This kind of negative view began to change in the 18<SUP>th</SUP> century. Kings frequently visited these altars and paid respect, and the Gwan’wang-myo altar service itself was even added to the official roster of dynastic memorial rituals. This was primarily because the Joseon government needed them in their efforts to display its own resolve to maintain its very loyalty toward the fallen Ming dynasty, through their promotion of the Gwan’wang-myo altars which Ming troops had earlier established. The Joseon government also did so because it had to demonstrate its own will to stay true to the traditional Confucian notion of ‘inheriting the predecessor’s honorary task and succeeding the will behind it’ too[繼志述事] and the favor of rebuilding the country by Ming[再造之恩]. So, this sort of new promotion of the altars themselves were actually born out of the Joseon kings’ intentions to essentially rekindle the public’s memories of Ming. Ironically, their promotion of the Gwan’u belief was very much similar to how it was being done in Qing, the very aggressor which defeated Ming in the first place. In short, the Gwan’wang-myo altars were considered by the Joseon kings as a memorial ground for the fallen Ming dynasty. It was also viewed as an adequate place for them to hold memorial services, as the figure in question, Gwan’u, was sort of a symbolic figure of loyalty and the act of honoring him could create a certain political atmosphere that would be most helpful to the kings in solidifying their own authority and leadership.

고소설 향유자의 중국인식과 배경 왕조의 상관 -송․원 배경 작품을 중심으로-

주수민 한국문학치료학회 2019 문학치료연구 Vol.51 No.-

This study intends to reveal the correlation between the recognition of classical novel readers' Chinese background knowledge and the context of the works produced during the Yuan Dynasty and Song Dynasty. First, the different authorships in the Song and Yuan dynasties were identified by comparing <Janghanjeolhyogi> with <Jangwalyongeon> which is known for reformation of <Janghanjeolhyogi> . These novels present similar descriptions but differ not only in their background, but also in the setting of concrete figures and events. In addition, the writer’s thought about the Yuan and Ming dynasties in ‘Gundam’ were different in the two works. In other words, if the Yuan Dynasty of <Janghanjeolhyogi> was recognized negatively, the Ming Dynasty of <Jangwalyongeon> was regarded positively for its loyalty. This aspect was seen to arise from the different perceptions about the Yuan and Ming dynasties as a context for readers of late Joseon novels. However, this study aims to confirm that the versions of the <Hyeonsumunjeon> depict different worlds based on a specific background. To this end, it examines the figures of the emperor and the world of composition in the antecedent edition of <Hyeonsumunjeon> and <Hyunxiyangwoongxangrinki> known as the epic source of this work. Each of novels has a same background of the Song Dynasty. However, <Hyeonsumunjeon> is based on the Sin-jong era and <Hyunxiyangwoongxangrinki> is based on In-jong era. Therefore, each novels show different picture of the world regarding the Song Dynasty. And as a result investigating various editions of <Hyeonsumunjeon>, Some editions are based on Sin-jong era and others are not specified by era. So, this paper compared The“Gyeongpan edition” which is one of novel based on Sin-jong era and the “Park Soon-ho edition” which is not specified by era. The Park Soon-Ho edition was found to be more positive about the Song Dynasty than the Gyeongpan edition. This was attributed to Park Soon-ho edition having a limited background of the Song Dynasty and therefore no negative perspective on the Song Dynasty from the Sin-jong era. In addition, despite differences in perceptions about the Song Dynasty, both editions had a similar ending that Song Dynasty was not collapsed. It is different with the previous version, which reflected the Huaiguan(華夷觀) of the late Joseon Dynasty. 본고는 송․원 배경 작품들을 중심으로 고소설의 배경 왕조와 중국인식의 상관성을 밝히고자 한 것이다. 본고에서는 먼저 ‘송말원초’ 배경의 <장한절효기>와 그 개작으로 ‘명나라 성화 연간’을 배경으로 한 <장월용전>을 비교하여 살펴보았다. 두 작품은 서사적 유사성에도 불구하고 배경 왕조를 달리 하는 가운데 주요 인물 및 사건의 세부 설정에서 주목할 만한 차이를 보이고 있었다. 더불어 두 작품의 ‘군담’에 나타난 ‘원나라’ 및 ‘명나라’에 대한 작자인식은 명확한 차이를 보이고 있었는데, <장한절효기>의 원나라가 ‘충’의 대상이 될 수 없는 부정적 공간으로 설정된데 비해 <장월용전>의 명나라는 ‘충’의 대상으로 인식되고 있었다. 본고는 이러한 양상을 고소설 향유자에게 배경 공간으로써의 ‘원나라’ 및 ‘명나라’가 변별적으로 인식된 결과로 보았다. 한편, 본고에서는 <현수문전> 이본들을 중심으로 구체적인 배경 설정에 따른 작중 세계의 변모를 살펴보았다. 이를 위해 먼저 <현수문전> 선본과 본 작품의 서사적 원천이라 할 수 있는 <현씨양웅쌍린기>의 작중 세계를 비교하여 살펴본 결과, 둘은 각각 ‘인종’과 ‘신종’ 연간을 배경으로 상이한 송나라 천하를 그려내고 있었다. 더불어 본 작품의 이본들은 ‘신종 연간’과 ‘송나라’를 배경으로 하고 있었는데, 각각을 대표하여 ‘경판본’과 ‘박순호본’의 작중 세계를 비교해본 결과 박순호본은 경판본에 비해 송조를 보다 긍정적으로 묘사하고 있었다. 본고는 이러한 양상을 박순호본이 ‘송나라’만을 배경으로 취함으로써 ‘신종 연간’에서 오는 송조에 대한 부정적 인식을 제거한 결과로 보았다. 더불어 본고는 경판본과 박순호본이 송조에 대한 인식의 차이에도 불구하고 모두 선본과는 달리 송조가 유지되는 결말을 맺고 있다는 사실에 주목하였으며, 이를 조선 후기 화이관의 소설적 반영으로 보았다.

정체성이라는 전략: 조선후기 대명유민의 경우를 중심으로

유불란 서울대학교 통일평화연구원 2022 통일과 평화 Vol.14 No.2

In Korea, socio-political interactions have been complex among national policies, migrant groups, and the society itself since the Japanese invasions of Korea and the Ming-Qing transition period. Particularly, the Ming Loyalist Émigrés issue revealed the intricacies of socio-political integration in two ways. On a high-level, the issue included the entanglement of cultural assimilation and differentiation, preferential policies in the political scene and social discrimination in real life. On an individual level, the Émigrés claimed to be a true successor of the Ming dynasty by the family establishment. Ultimately, “we” is not a fixed entity created by the official immigration policies. “We” rather actively engage in political struggles over social approval and recognition among political groups in society. In this paper, I examine the implications of immigrant integration by analyzing the between-group competition strategies of the nine righteous literati’s descendants over the other Chinese Émigrés and families in power of Joseon. 임진전쟁 및 명·청 교체기 이래, 심지어 오늘에 이르기까지 이 땅에서의 국가정책과이주민 집단들, 그리고 조선·한국 사회 간의 정치적인, 그리고 사회적인 상호작용은 지극히 복잡한 양상을 노정해 왔다. 그리고 이와 관련해 대명유민 문제는 그러한 정치-사회적인 통합이 그저 일방적으로 진행되지 않았음을 드러내 보여준다. 즉, 한 편에는 융화와 차별화가, 정치적인 우대와 실제 삶 속에서의 차별이 있었고, 또 다른 한편에는 자신들이야말로 대명의리의 진정한 계승자임을 내세우려는 대명유민들 나름의 문벌구축 시도가 있었던 것이다. 결국 ‘우리’라 하는 것은 단순히 공식적인 통합정책에 의해 만들어지는 어떤 고정된 실체가 아니었다. ‘우리’란, 오히려 사회 내 제반세력들 사이의 적극적인 인정투쟁의 결과 비로소 쟁취되는 일종의 사회적인 승인 상태였던 것이다. 이에 본고에서는, 구의사 후예들의 여타 황조인 그룹에 대한, 그리고 조선쪽에 대한 대명의리의 가문으로서의 문벌 경쟁 전략을 분석해 봄으로써, 사회통합에서 ‘통합’이 갖는 실제 함의에대해 고찰해 보고자 한다.

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.

숙종의 대명의리와 문학적 형상화 시점

김덕수(Kim, Deok-su) 한국고전번역원 2022 民族文化 Vol.60 No.-

조선은 병자호란 이후 청나라와 군신관계를 맺고 사대 외교정책을 시행했으나 조선 국왕과 집권 사대부는 걸핏하면 명나라의 재조지은과 청나라에 대한 복수설치를 주장했다. 숙종 역시 예외는 아니어서 재조지은이야말로 조선이 영원히 견지해야 할 의리라고 생각했다. 북벌의 실천이 현실적으로 요원하다는 것을 숙종이 몰랐던 것은 아니지만 부단히 시문을 지어 존주대의와 복수설치의 의지를 형상화했다. 1720년(경종 1) 숙종 시문을 간행할 때 대명의리와 숭명배청 의식이 농후한 작품들이 비로소 『열성어제별편』으로 따로 묶여 간행되었고 이것은 『열성어제별편』 제작의 효시가 되었다. 숙종이 숭명배청 의식을 환기하고 관련 작품을 찬술한 시점은 특정 시간, 특정 공간, 특정 의물, 특정 상황으로 구분할 수 있다. 임진왜란, 병자호란, 명나라 패망을 기점으로 해당 연도의 주갑이 도래했을 때 으레 숭명배청 의식을 떠올리며 시문 제작을 통해 의지와 감회를 피력했다. 동짓날에 새해 책력을 보거나 신년에 새봄을 송축하는 시를 지으면서도 청나라 정벌과 명나라 재건을 고대했다. 숙종이 숭명배청 의식을 환기하며 시문을 찬술하던 공간, 혹은 시문의 소재가 된 공간도 청나라에 대한 복수설치와 관련된 곳들이다. 무안왕묘, 선무사, 대보단 등은 재조지은을 상징하는 곳이고 현절사, 쌍령 등은 병자호란과 관련된 곳이다. 명나라 황제가 보내준 곤룡포, 국새 인문 등 명나라 관련 의물을 매개로 하여 대명의리와 숭명배청 의식을 환기하기도 했다. 이밖에 명나라 황제 및 효종의 어제·어필 감상, 조선 충신의 서화 감상, 독서 체험, 청나라 첩보 접수, 조선 사신 전송 등의 상황에서도 북벌의 염원 및 존주양이의 뜻을 피력했다. King Sukjong of Joseon (肅宗) focused on recovering the tarnished authority of the royal family, wielding powerful royal authority for 46 years since the tender age 14, when he acceded to the throne. The need to manage the government during the sudden political transition(換局) presented an effective opportunity for strengthening royal authority and suppressing the ministers’ authority. However, Sukjong could not help falling into a dilemma as he faced the need to engage, again, the forces that he had purged during the sudden political transition. Therefore, Sukjong comforted Southerners(南人) and those of the Young Doctrine(少論) as well as Old Doctrine(老論) by creating poetry, as a form of book report, after reading the literary collections written by liege subjects. He even revealed his mistakes through his poems. Furthermore, he would reward examples of loyalty by granting his poems, as eoje(御製), to his liege subjects directly, while intending to require them to demonstrate the virtue of loyalty. His experience of reading the literary collections of his liege subjects had an effect on Sukjeong’s political decisions, and he would carry out his political will by setting forth his inspirations and intentions through his poems, both in and outside Seoul, the capital. In addition, Sukjong utilized his poems to call attention to the benefits or authority of the royal family, clarifying the principles of jaejojieun(再造之恩), or the rebuilding of the nation, and daemyeongeuiri(大明義理), the support of righteousness. King Sukjong was not satisfied with simply setting forth his personal feelings. His poems served not only as a channel to deliver his political intentions or decisions to his liege subjects, but as a means of consolation toward his liege subjects and reconciling clans or factions. In conclusion, compared with the motivations of other kings of the Joseon dynasty for creating poetry, Sukjong’s was different: his poetry was a kind of political activity.

번암(樊巖) 채제공(蔡濟恭)의 『재필록(載筆錄)』에 나타난 관풍(觀風)의 정조(情調)

김용주 ( Kim Yong-ju ) 한민족어문학회 2018 韓民族語文學 Vol.0 No.80

樊巖 蔡濟恭은 홍문관의 문관으로서 北評事의 임무(1753∼1754)를 수행하였다. 국왕의 신임으로 가끔 중요사안이 있으면 지방관으로 나아가기도 했는데, 이 北關行도 그 일환이다. 그는 임금의 출행을 보좌하는 史官이나 민간의 시를 채집하는 太師의 심경으로 북관에서의 경험들을 시로 썼다. 이에 번암의 시를 書劍感慨와 關防商量, 過看民情의 세 가지 범주로 나누어 분석하였다. 書劍은 義氣가 있는 선비를 이른다. 그는 임경업 등의 大明義理에 감정이입하기도 하고, 사방에 임금의 사신으로 가서 그 명을 욕되게 하지 않겠다는 각오를 품기도 한다. 그래서 오직 檀道濟처럼 입신하고 老萊子처럼 부모에 효도하는 忠孝兼全을 원했다. 이것이 그의 서검으로서의 의기이다. 그는 중화문화의 영역이 축소됨을 아쉬워하며 이적의 기세가 융성함을 안타까워했다. 이적을 극복의 대상으로 여기고 조선을 大明의 문화적 적통으로 생각했다. 그에게 있어서 국방은 문화적인 국방이며 尊王攘夷의 세계관이 저변에 깔려있다. 이것이 그의 관방인식이다. 또한 순행 중에 길옆에 펼쳐지는 이향의 풍속이나 민간의 질고를 나그네의 마음으로써 정서적 수용을 하였다. 번화한 원산항이며 수자리 사는 어린 병사의 망향심이며 인적이 드문 산촌 고을이며 군영의 사냥대회 등 민정과 풍속을 있는 그대로 받아들여 구체적인 시어로 사실적인 표현을 했으니 이것이 그의 民情 인식이다. 번암에게 있어서 觀風은 민간의 세세한 사정을 살피는 관풍이 아니다. 도성에서 관료생활을 하던 館閣文人이 북관 변방에서 느낀 지리적 역사적 문화적 충격을 자기 스타일로 정직하게 흡수한 일기장이라 할 수 있으니, 이것이 『재필록』의 관풍이다. 그리고 그의 시는 기상이 높아 장엄미가 있으며, 비분강개하는 비장미도 함께하고, 대청관계를 철저히 華夷의 개념으로 이해하였다. 또한 민정을 살핌에서는 매우 寫實的이고 土俗的인 모습을 보이기도 한다. Bun-am (樊巖, pen name) Chaejegong(蔡濟恭, 1720∼1799) carried out Bukpeungsa(北評事)’s duty as an official of Hongmungwan(弘文館). He won the king’s confidence to be assigned to a position in the provinces in case a significant issue arose, dispatching North border(Ed: unclear). He wrote of his experience at the North border in a poem as a historiographer who helps the tour of king(Ed: unclear) and a Taesa(太史), who collects poems among the people. Therefore the poems of Bun-am are criticized in three categories(Ed: confirm word choice), including, feeling of business trip as righteous official(書劍感慨), thinking of national defense(關防商量), and making a tour, inspecting peoples’ way of living(過看民情). He showed his feeling of loyalty to the Ming Dynasty(大明義理) as ImKyeungup(林慶業) and pledged allegiance to the king as an official of the provinces. Therefore he wanted to succeed in life as Dandoje(檀道濟) and to do filial duty as Nolaeja(老萊子). This is his righteous spirit as a government official. He regrets that Sinocentrism reduces the scale and barbarism flourishes. He thinks that barbarism is to be overcome, therefore the Chosun culture is to be Ming’s successor. He thinks that national defense is cultural defense. In other words, he respects Sinocentrism and overcomes barbarism. This is his recognition of national defense. He embraces other provinces’customs and people’s lives on the patrol as traveler’s feeling. He accepts folks’ emotions and customs as they are. For example, in bustling Wonsan harbor, the homesickness of a young soldier during military service, the desolate mountain village, the shooting meeting in the barracks. He expresses himself using concrete, realistic words in his poem. This is how he feels about people’s lives on the patrol. As for patrolling people’s lives(觀風), he did not watch individual people’s situations, specifically. As a bureaucratic writer who has lived in Seoul, he experienced geographical, historical, cultural shock and accepted them in his style. In his poem are the magnificence of a high spirit and the solemnity of resolute determination; he understands the relationship between Chosun and Qing(淸) as cultural to barbaric, too. With regard to how people lived, his poem assumed a realistic mood.

17,18세기 중화담론의 주체성 반성

이진경 ( Jin Kyung Lee ) 한국동서철학회 2016 동서철학연구 Vol.0 No.79

17,18세기의 조선중화는 청의 야만적 패권에 대항해서 생겨난 산물이다. 조선중화는 중화문화에 대한 문화적 자신감을 가지고 붕괴된 중화를 계승하는 주체로 자임하였다. 그러나 실제로 조선중화는 부조리한 세계 속에서 중화의 이상과 주체의 욕망을 재구성해낸 관념 속의 존재였다. 현실에서 조선은 중화문화의 주체도 될 수 없었고, 능동적으로 중화문화를 활용해서 자신을 실현해 나가는 주체성도 가지지 못하였다. 중화가 붕괴된 뒤에도 조선은 여전히 중화의 문화와 질서를 고수하였고 그것을 의리라고 생각하였다. 존주론과 대명의리론이 근거하는 춘추대의(春秋大義)는 존주양이(尊周攘夷)의 배타성과 위계성을 정명(正名)의 윤리로 보편화한 도덕논리였다. 조선중화주의는 중화를 절대적 표준으로 추종하면서 조선의 고유성이나 특수성을 억압하였고, 관념 속의 주(周)와 명(明)의 중화에 종속되었다. 조선중화는 중화문화를 수용한 조선을 의미한다기보다, 자신의 고유성마저 극복해야 할 이적의 흔적으로 여겨서 완전한 중화가 되기를 바랐던 기만적 주체였다. 사라진 중화에 대한 의리는 관념 속의중화에 충성하도록 하였고, 기만적 주체성은 현실에서 자기 자신과 주변 세계로부터 스스로를 소외시켰다. 조선중화 담론을 주도한 주체는 현실 속에 있는 권력이었다. 왕실과 노론은 정통성과 권력을 강화하는데 존주양이와 대명의리의 도덕의리를 활용하였다. The Sinocentrism of the Joseon Dynasty in the 17th and 18th century is a product of opposition to the barbaric hegemony of the Qing Dynasty. With cultural pride in the Chinese culture, ideologists of Sinocentrism in Joseon boasted that it inherited the collapsed the Chinese empire. But in actuality, Sinocentrism in Joseon was merely a concept that reconstituted the ideals of Sinocentrism and the desire of the subject in an irrational world. In reality, Joseon could not be a subject of Sinocentrism and did not possess the subjectivity factor to achieve self-realization by actively engaging in Sinocentrism. Even after the collapse of Sinocentrism, Joseon adhered to the former``s culture and order, and regarded this as loyalty. Chunchudaei(the confucian thought of righteousness), on which Jonjuron (respect for the Zhou Dynasty) and Daemyeongeuiri (loyalty to the Ming Dynasty) are based, was a moral logic that generalized the exclusivism and hierarchy of Jonjuyangi (the ideology that demands admiration to the Zhou Dynasty and ostracism of the barbarians) with the principle of Jeongmyeong (rectification of names). Sinocentrism in Joseon treated Sinocentric ideology as the absolute standard, suppressed the originality or the uniqueness of Joseon, and was subordinate to the Sinocentrism of the Zhou and Ming Dynasties. Sinocentrism in the Joseon Dynasty did not indicate Joseon embracing Sinocentric culture, but rather, implied that it was a deceptive subject that overthrew its own uniqueness and wished to be part of China. The loyalty to the disappeared Chinese empire made Joseon faithful to the notional China, and the deceptive subjectivity isolated Joseon from the actual Joseon and its neighboring world. It was the authorities in reality that led the Sinocentrism discourse. The royal family and Noron (ruling elites) used Jonjuyangi and Daemyeongeuiri to consolidate its power and legitimacy.

송시열 초상화의 제작과 ‘대현(大賢)’의 이미지 구축

이성훈 미술사와 시각문화학회 2020 미술사와 시각문화 Vol.26 No.-

Song Siyeol (1607-1689) is an eminent scholar who immensely influenced the political as well as the academic world in the late Joseon period. In 1680, he received several portraits of him from scholars Kim Jingyu (1658-1716) and Kim Changeop (1658-1721), and another portrait painted by the court painter Han Sigak (1621-?) in 1683. Portrait Sketch of Song Siyeol with a Square Hat, Portrait of Song Siyeol with a Square Hat, and Portrait of Song Siyeol Standing were presumably produced during that time or a little later than this. Song Siyeol’s students and disciples planned and executed the creation of his portraits in 1680 and 1683, when Song Siyeol was summoned to the capital city of Hanyang (present-day Seoul). Their purpose of producing the portraits was to preserve the appearance of their venerated teacher so that he could be forever remembered and cherished. Furthermore, it was also in preparation for hanging them inside Confucian shrines, which might be constructed when he died. Even Song Siyeol himself showed a strong interest in possessing his portraits. The Southern Song philosopher Zhu Xi (1130-1200), whom Song Siyeol revered most highly, had commissioned a number of portraits of him and wrote essays and poems for his portraits during his lifetime. In emulation of this, Song Siyeol commissioned his portraits and wrote texts about them already before the year 1680. In the portraits dated 1680 and 1683, Song Siyeol is shown wearing the clothes of a hermit featuring Confucian robes such as simui or po and bokgeon. At that time, this kind of attire was generally associated with Zhu Xi. In addition to that, such robes were also understood as a symbol of loyalty to the Ming dynasty, which collapsed in 1644. The Manchu Qing dynasty was established after the collapse of the Ming. Thus, the portrayal of Song Siyeol as a recluse can be interpreted as an expression of his philosophy and principles: continuing the teachings of Zhu Xi and following the wisdom of the Chinese sages, while living in the remote countryside with the desire for revenging on the Qing dynasty which ended the Ming. After Song Siyeol’s death, numerous copies of his original portraits were produced. Among those, there are portraits that were partially embellished upon request from his later followers. Portrait of Song Siyeol with a Square Hat is such a case. In this portrait, Song Siyeol is wearing a hat and a robe that are difficult to identify as a certain type of costume. His clothes are similar to those worn by historical figures or ancient Chinese sages depicted in Joseon narrative paintings and paintings of sages. Consequently, the clothing in these portraits of Song Siyeol shows his disciples’ intention to venerate him as a great sage who could be compared with ancient sages such as Zhu Xi. 송시열(宋時烈, 1607-1689)은 조선 후기에 정계와 학계에 지대한 영향을 끼쳤던 학자였다. 그는 1680년에는 김진규와 김창업으로부터, 1683년에는 화원 한시각으로부터 자신의 초상화를 그려 받았다. 〈송시열 초상 초본(방건본)〉(김진규본), 〈송시열 초상(방건본)〉(김창업 본), 〈송시열 입상〉(한시각 본)은 바로 이때 이 화가들이 제작한 초상화이거나 그것의 이모본이다. 송시열의 제자 및 문도들은 1680년과 1683년에 그가 상경했을 때 그의 초상화 제작을 계획하여 실행했다. 그들이 그의 초상화를 제작하고자 한 목적은 무엇보다 그들이 숭모하는 선사의 모습을 그림으로 남겨 영원히 그를 기억하고 추모하며 또한 그의 사후 건립될 수 있는 원사 내에 걸어 봉안하는 것에 있었다. 한편 송시열 또한 자신의 초상화를 가지고자 했다. 그는 자신이 가장 추앙했던 주자가 평생 여러 차례 초상화를 제작하고 관련 글을 남긴 것을 본받아 1680년 이전에 이미 자신의 초상화를 직접 주문하고 자신의 초상화 관련 글을 썼다. 1680년과 1683년에 제작된 송시열 초상화에서 송시열은 심의나 포, 복건 등 유복을 착용한 모습으로 재현되었다. 당대에 심의나 복건은 주자를 상징하는 옷으로, 아울러 심의·복건을 포함한 유복은 청나라가 명나라를 멸한 상황에서 대명의리를 상징하는 옷으로 이해되었다. 따라서 이때 제작된 초상화에서 유복을 착용한 모습으로 표현된 송시열의 이미지는 명나라가 멸망한 상황에서 초야에서 복수설치의 마음을 가진 채 주자의 학문을 계승하고 성현들의 가르침을 따르고자 했던 그의 철학과 신념이 투영된 것으로 해석될 수 있다. 송시열 사후에 그의 초상화는 이모의 방식을 통해 많은 복제본이 생산되었다. 그러나 이 중에는 〈송시열 초상(방건본)〉처럼 후대에 그의 문도들의 주문에 따라 부분적으로 윤색이 이루어진 초상화도 있다. 이 초상화에서 송시열은 그 복식 종류를 특정하기 어려운 건과 포를 착용하고 있다. 그런데 그가 입은 포는 조선시대 고사도나 성현도 등에 서 고사나 성현이 입은 것과 유사한 형태의 것이다. 따라서 이 복식은 송시열을 주자를 포함한 옛 성현에 비견되는 ‘대현(大賢)’으로 추앙하고자 한 그의 문도들의 의사가 투영된 것으로 볼 수 있다.

‘列聖御製別編’에 나타난 對明義理論의 전개

안장리 열상고전연구회 2014 열상고전연구 Vol.42 No.-

본고는 두 가지를 밝히려고 하였다. 첫째는 조선 역대 왕의 글을 모은 列星御製 에 別編이 존재하는 이유와 존재양상이며, 둘째는 열성어제별편에 표출된 대명의 리론의 국왕별 전개양상이다. 열성어제별편은 청나라에 저촉되는 글만 모아 진상․보관용으로 두고 반사하지 않았으며, 숙종, 영조, 정조, 순조, 익종 등 5명만 남겼다. 별편 시문의 분량을 보면 숙종은 시가 많고 문이 적으며 문은 숙종, 영조, 정조 순으로 확대되다가 순조․익 종 대에는 현격히 줄어들었는데 이는 대명의리론의 전개와 연계되어 있었다. 본고에서는 대명의리론의 전개를 왕대별로 형성기, 정립기, 확대기, 강화기로 각각 나누었다. 대명의리론 형성기의 숙종은 대명의리보다는 청나라에 대한 분노 와 북벌의지가 컸고, 명나라에 대해서도 再造之恩의 대상인 神宗을 제향하는 대 보단을 세우는 등 신종 중심의 어제를 남겼다. 대명의리론 정립기의 영조는 신종 뿐 아니라 명나라 마지막 황제인 毅宗 그리고 명나라 태조에 대한 의리를 강조하 여 대보단에 이 세 황제를 향사하게 함으로써 단순히 재조지은에 대한 감사가 아 니라 명나라 전체에 대한 의리를 강조하였다. 즉 이 시기에는 재조지은보다 尊周 大義의 이념이 더 중시되었다. 대명의리론 확대기의 정조는 조선을 존주대의의 정신을 이은 나라로 보고 더 나아가 존주대의의 혈통을 이은 명나라 후손을 표창 함으로써 대명의리론의 범주를 현저히 확대해 나갔다. 대명의리론 강화기의 순조 와 익종은 명나라 황제에 대한 불손한 언행을 징치의 대상으로 삼았다. 이 시기 대명의리론은 의심의 여지없는 당대 이데올로기로 강화된 것이다. This study aimed at examining two things. One is to find out why there is a separate publication to Yeolseongeoje, a collection of writings by the kings of Joseon Dynasty, and the status of the existence of the collection. Second is to examine how Joseon's loyalty to the Ming Dynasty developed by king's reign in Yeolseongeoje-byeolpyeon. Yeolseongeoje-byeolpyeon contains the writings of Kings Sukjong, Yeongjo, Jeongjo, Sunjo and Ikjong and says that writings unfavorable to the Qing Dynasty were separately published and then tributed to kings or kept instead of being distributed. As for poems and proses in Yeolseongeoje-byeolpyeon, the collection includes more poems by King Sukjong than his proses. The number of proses by kings in the collection topped in King Jeongjo's reign, followed by Yeongjo's reign and Sukjong's reign. The figure sharply decreased in the reigns of Kings Sunjo and Ikjong. In this study, the development of Joseon's loyalty to the Ming Dynasty is divided into four stages by king's reign: forming stage; establishing stage; expanding stage; and enhancing stage. According to Sukjongeoje-byeolpyeon, King Sukjong's reign was the period when resentment against the Qing Dynasty and the willingness to conquer the north were strongly prevailed. In addition, the view to regard the Ming Dynasty, specifically Ming emperor Sin-chong, as the one who saved Joseon from Japanese Invasion of Korea in 1592 appeared, resulting in the formation of Joseon's loyalty to the Ming Dynasty. In King Yeongjo's reign, such view was intensified, emphasizing loyalty to the entire Ming Dynasty including Taejo and the last emperor Uijong. That is, during this period, respect for Zhou Dynasty that represents sinocentrism was more emphasized than repaying the Ming Dynasty's help during the Japanese Invasion. This is the essence of the argument for Joseon's loyalty to the Ming Dynasty, so King Yeongjo's reign is considered as the period when Joseon's loyalty to the Ming Dynasty was established. King Jeongjo regarded Joseon as the nation that had inherited the spirit of respecting Zhou Dynasty that represents sinocentrism and commended the descendants of the Ming Dynasty who inherited the spirit of respecting Zhou Dynasty that represents sinocentrism, significantly expanding the scope of Joseon's loyalty to the Ming Dynasty. In the reigns of Kings Sunjo and Ikjong, Joseon's loyalty to the Ming Dynasty was enhanced as the absolute ideology of the time, and therefore insolent words and behaviors towards the Ming Dynasty were subject to punishment. This period, therefore, is considered as enhancing stage. In conclusion, this study showed through Yeolseongeoje-byeolpyeon that Joseon's loyalty to the Ming Dynasty initiated from resentment against the Qing Dynasty and then developed from the movement to repay emperor Sin-chong's help in the Japanese Invasion to loyalty to the entire Ming Dynasty based on the respect for Zhou Dynasty that represents sinocentrism. Joseon's loyalty to the Ming Dynasty was further intensified through the reigns of kings Jeongjo, Sunjo and Ikjong.