심포지움: 치주치료의 장기적 예후 : 치근 절제술의 예후

계승범 ( S. B. Kye ) 대한치주과학회 2009 대한치주과학회 학술대회자료집 Vol.2009 No.1

일반논문 : 계해정변(인조반정)의 명분과 그 인식의 변화

계승범 ( Seung B. Kye ) 경상대학교 남명학연구소 2008 남명학연구 Vol.26 No.-

임진왜란 중 조명관계의 실상과 조공책봉관계의 본질

계승범(Kye, Seung-Bum) 한국사학사학회 2012 韓國史學史學報 Vol.0 No.26

임진왜란 때 명이 참전하고 조선의 내정에 간섭함에 따라 조선의 위상은 크게 낮아졌다. 조선은 작전･지휘권도 없이 일방적으로 명에게 휘둘렸으며, 강화협상 과정에서도 배제되었다. 세자의 책봉 주청도 전쟁 중에 세 번이나 거절되었고, 끝내 책봉을 받는 데 실패했다. 조명관계와 관련해 그동안 학계에서는 조선 국왕이 비록 명 황제에게 조공을 바치고 책봉은 받았으나 내정간섭은 거의 없었으므로 조선은 자주국이었다는 해석이 통설처럼 되어 있었고, 따라서 상기한 사례들을 전쟁이라는 특수한 상황에서 발생한 예외적인 것으로 간주하는 경향이 강했다. 그러나 이 논문에서는 이런 통설에 이의를 제기하고, 전쟁 중의 사례들이 군신관계로 설명되는 조공책봉관계에서는 언제라도 일어날 수 있는 일로 해석한다. 이를 위해 먼저 전쟁 중에 명이 일방적으로 행사한 작전·지휘권 문제를 살피되, 명과 조선 사이에 형성된 상하관계에, 특히 상명하복 관계에 중점을 두어 고찰한다. 다음에 조공책봉관계의 핵심이라 할 수 있는 책봉 문제를 다루되, 전쟁 중에 조선의 세자 책봉 주청을 명이 계속 거절한 사실을 조공책봉관계의 본질과 관련해 분석하고 해석한다. 이런 작업을 통해 조선과 명 사이에 형성된 조공책봉관계 곧 군신관계가 단지 의례적이거나 형식적인 관계가 아니라, 현실에서 그 함의 그대로 작동하고 있었음을 밝힌다. With emphasis on the issues of the operational command authority and the investiture of the crown prince of Chosŏn during the war, this paper examines Ming-Chosŏn relations in connection to the so-called tribute system imposed by the Ming. On entering the war in Chosŏn against Hideyoshi, the Ming established operational command of the Chosŏn military, as the Chosŏn court had little option but to provide provisions and deploy its army as commanded by the Ming. By bypassing the King of Chosŏn, some Ming high officers discretionally summoned Chosŏn officials and officers and even punished them for failing to provide provisions in time. The Ming court also repeatedly refused to recognize and confer investiture on the crown prince of Chosŏn, who had already been installed and declared as crown prince by the King of Chosŏn. While Korean scholars tend to regard such situations as exceptional cases under the duress of war, this paper, however, argues that such experiences were common under the tribute system, or the lord-subject relationship between the Ming and the Chosŏn.

의병의 개념과 임진의병

계승범(Kye Seung Bum) 서강대학교 인문과학연구소 2012 서강인문논총 Vol.0 No.33

이 논문에서는 임진전쟁(왜란) 중에 봉기한 의병의 정확한 개념이 무엇인지 분석하되, 단지 전쟁 시기에 사용된 용례의 분석을 통한 단편적인 개념 정리를 지양하고, 조선왕조 500여년에 걸쳐 사용된 전체 용례를 분석함으로써 거시적이고도 통시적이면서도 동아시아적인 의미를 추적한다. 조선사회에서 사용한 의병은 천자를 중심으로 동심원 구조로 구축된 유교적 천하질서라는 큰 틀에서만 제대로 이해할 수 있으며, 조선에서 사용한 의병의 의미도 그런 틀에서 벗어나지 않았다. 실제로 임진전쟁 중에 봉기한 의병들의 목표는 단순히 조선의 강토를 지키는 데 그치지 않고 궁극적으로는 명나라가 주도하는 중화질서를 위협하는 이적을 물리쳐 중화문명을 수호하는 데 있었다. 따라서 국가의 도움 없이 자발적으로 봉기한 군병을 의병으로 부른 전쟁 중의 사례는 조선왕조의 전체 틀에서 보면 오히려 매우 예외적인 것으로, 조선시대에 통시적이고도 보편적으로 쓰인 의병의 개념과는 달랐다. 요컨대, 의병의 개념은 바로 유교국가 조선이 추구한 춘추의리에 뿌리를 둔 것으로, 동아시아라는 전체 틀에서 보아야 제대로 이해할 수 있다. In a Confucian society, the word ?i means righteousness, loyalty or fidelity to the righteous monarch. In Chos?n Korea, a Confucian society to the core, ?i indeed functioned as the critical basis of governance in foreign affairs as well as domestic affairs because Chos?n survived under the ‘Confucian’ international order dominated then by Ming China, also a Confucian society. Among current Korean scholars who have made this matter an issue or theme, however, the meaning of ?i has confined to the boundary of Chos?n Korea: it is hard to read an article that approaches this theme from the larger context of East Asia. By analyzing the meaning of ?i, this article examines the concept of ?iby?ng, literally meaning righteous army, comprised of voluntary Korean guerrilla soldiers who fought against the Japanese regular army during the Hideyoshi invasion of Korea in the 1590s. The meaning of ?iby?ng during the Hideyoshi invasion of Korea, in fact, never deviated from the original, universal meaning of ?i. The ultimate goal of the Korean guerrillas was indeed not only to protect their monarch from the ‘barbaric’ Japanese but also to defend the universal Confucian values promoted then by Ming China from barbarians and the international order imposed by Ming China. In one good example, the Korean court officials argued in the front of the throne, “It would be much better to be accused by the Son of Heaven than the king of Choson.” The supreme goal of the Korean guerrillas was not confined to the protection of their monarch and their own country but also the defense of the Confucian order and values initiated and propagated by Han-Chinese China. That is the very reason why the Korean guerrillas were called ?iby?ng in Ming China as well as Chos?n. For this reason, in short, the Korean term ?iby?ng must be understood in the larger context of East Asia.

임진왜란 초기 倡義명분과 조선왕조의 正體性

계승범(Kye Seung Bum) 서강대학교 인문과학연구소 2016 서강인문논총 Vol.0 No.47

임진왜란 의병의 倡義명분은 鄕保와 勤王두 가지로 보는 것이 통설이다. 이 중에서도 영남의병은 향보에, 호남의병은 근왕에 방점을 찍어 이해하는 경향이 지배적이다. 그렇지만 창의 당사자들이 자신들의 생각을 잘 정리한 격문이나 통문 또는 초유문의 내용을 살피면, 그런 통설은 일부 조정이 필요하다. 영남 의병도 거병의 제일 명분을 군신의리에 기초한 근왕으로 천명했기 때문이다. 전쟁 초기의 불리한 전황으로 인해 어쩔 수 없이 향촌 인근에서 의병 활동을 전개할 수밖에 없었을 뿐이지, 영남의병이라고 해서 창의거병의 명분 자체가 鄕保에 치우친 증거자료는 사실상 없다. 또한 근왕의 대상인 국왕 입장의 창의 독려 명분에도 주목할 필요가 있다. 지금까지 학계에서는 의병장과 鄕民의 입장에서만 창의 명분을 고찰했을 뿐, 전쟁 초기에 의병을 가장 절실하게 독려한 핵심 인물 국왕의 입장에 대해서는 거의 관심을 두지 않았다. 국왕 선조는 勤王忠義외에도 자신만의 독특한 명분을 하나 더 강조했는데, 그것은 바로 명나라 천자를 중심으로 구축된 중화질서의 수호라는 명분이었다. 향촌의 선비들이 대체로 국내 차원에서만 군신의리를 강조한 데 비해, 국제무대에서 천자와의 관계를 극히 중시하던 조선 국왕이 생각한 군신의리는 명나라 천자와 자신[제후]이 맺은 군신관계를 의미하였다. “종사가 망하고 신민을 잃을지언정” 군신[천자-제후]간의 의리를 저버릴 수 없다는 국왕 선조의 천명이야말로 이를 여실히 보여준다. 이는 바로 자신이 다스리는 조선이 중화의 藩屛이자, 자신 스스로 藩王곧 제후임을 현실 그대로 인지한 결과였다고 볼 수 있다. 이것이 바로 당시 동아시아 국제무대에서 조선왕조가 갖고 있던 정체성의 일면이었던 것이다. It is a common view to understand the causes for the Korean voluntary army (lit. righteous army, ŭibyŏng) as rural defense and loyalty to the throne: in the southeast province (Yŏngnam) they stood against the Japanese invaders to defend their own prefectures, while in the southwest (Honam) they rallied under the banner of loyalty to the throne. This common view, however, needs to be reconsidered because according to a number of primary sources such as official/private manifestos, circular letters among voluntary army leaders, and royal messages, the voluntary army of the southeast province made clear that they rose up against Japanese invaders to save their king from adversities. In the early phase of the war, in which the war was going against Chosŏn, the voluntary armies in the southeast province had little option but to fight against the Japanese in or near their own prefectures. In the context of the Chosŏn dynasty or the Korean peninsula, the key object figure of such universal loyalty was definitely King Sŏnjo (r. 1567- 1608). Korean scholars, however, neglected it and rather tended to unilaterally praise Korean voluntary armies from a nationalistic perspective. King Sŏnjo, however, was a subject of the Ming emperor on the international stage of the time, which means that King Sŏnjo, the key object of loyalty in the peninsula, had an obligation to serve the Ming emperor as a subject, or the most beloved child, whose duty was to demonstrate his ultimate loyalty all the time. With emphasis on the role of the Chosŏn king, a subject of the Son of Heaven (Ming emperor) resided in Beijing on the international stage in East Asia in the 1500s, this paper examines the main causes for the Chosŏn voluntary guerilla army in the larger context of the East Asian world order of the time.

해외파병 논쟁으로 본 조선과 대한민국

계승범 ( Seung Bum Kye ) 한국정치평론학회 2010 정치와 평론 Vol.7 No.-

With a focus on a series of court debates on the Ming/Qing Requests for Choson Troops in the 1400s to 1600s, this article examines the Choson elites` view of ``China`` in connection with the replacement of the Ming order with the Qing order in the 1600s and compares it with contemporary Korean views of the United States and the People`s Republic of China, two powers that have potential to change the existing international order. In the 1400s, sadae, literally meaning serving the great, suggested a sort of utilitarian and contractual relation with the Ming, implying that the suzerain state could be replaced anytime depending on the situation. In the 1500s, however, this concept shifted towards an immutable, sacrosanct union based on Confucian moral values in which the Koreans viewed the Ming as a ritual father as well as the suzerain: obedience to the Ming was regarded as natural law, like the yin-yang and father-son relations. This new Korean view of Ming China became a snare to the Choson dynasty in the early 1600s, in which the Manchu launched a series of military campaigns against Ming China. In an attempt to extricate Korea from this paradoxical crisis, the king rejected the Ming demand for Choson troops and communicated directly with the Manchu, while his court officials were eager to line up more closely with the Ming against the Manchu. These opposing attitudes could not be compatible with each other theoretically or practically, as any friendly approaches to the Manchu would inevitably undermine the existing relationship with the Ming. The debate, therefore, was not merely on the matter of diplomacy but a matter of national identity, the very raison d`etre of the Choson dynasty in the ``Sino-centric`` East Asian world order. This article correlates such Korean experiences in the 1600s with the contemporary Korean attitudes between the United States and the rising PRC and diagnoses the nature of the current debates on the American requests for Korean troops in Iraq and Afghanistan as disputes on the national identity and the raison d`etre of the Republic of Korea, established under the American Occupation(1945-48), protected by the Americans during the Korean War(1950-53), and secured under the US umbrella during the Cold War(1954-89).

조선 전기 홍경주(洪景舟)의 정치활동

계승범 ( Kye Seung Bum ) 한국계보연구회 2021 한국계보연구 Vol.11 No.-

중종반정(1506)에서 핵심 역할을 담당한 홍경주는 이후 출세 가도를 달렸다. 종종 양사의 탄핵에 시달렸지만, 중종의 신임을 받으며 마침내 정1품에까지 올랐다. 또한 기묘사화(1519)의 발발 과정에도 깊숙이 개입하였다. 막후에서 국왕까지 움직여 정국공신 개정을 막았으며, 조광조 등의 과격한 사림을 숙청하는 데에 결정적으로 공헌하였다. 학계에서는 기묘사화를 누가 주도했는지를 놓고 의견이 갈린다. 공신 세력을 대표하는 홍경주를 꼽는 견해가 있는가 하면, 중종을 지목하는 주장도 있다. 주요 사료와 정황 등을 두루 참조하여 이 논문에서 새롭게 밝힌 내용은 이렇다. 심야에 무인들의 수상한 움직임을 중종에게 급보함으로써, 홍경주는 또 다른 무력 정변에 대한 중종의 불안심리를 증폭시켰고, 중종이 조광조 등의 사림을 숙청하기 위한 비상조치를 내리던 ‘그날 밤’부터 줄곧 중종의 곁을 지키며 사태를 주시하였다. 조광조가 이끄는 사림의 과격한 간쟁에 이미 싫증을 느끼던 중종은 홍경주의 급보를 받고 사태의 심각성을 깨닫고는 무인들을 달래기 위해 조광조 등 사림을 숙청하는 일련의 비상조치를 하달하였다. 일을 애초에 추동한 이가 홍경주라면, 중종은 홍경주와 뜻을 같이하여 기묘사화 전반을 이끈 주동자였다고 할 수 있다. Hong Kyǒngju played a major role in the course of the palace coup, called Chungjong Restoration, in 1506, and quickly climbed the career ladder up to the highest rank in the governmental hierarchy. At the time of the purge of 1519, he also maneuvered behind the scene, driving the throne to take the lead of the literati purge. There have been some debates in Korean academia on who actually started the purge of 1519. Some named Hong and his supporters in the royal court such as Nam Kon and Kim Chǒn, but others did Chungjong, the throne himself. After closely examining related primary sources and circumstances, this article provides a new interpretation as follows: By reporting an urgent message at night, Hong made King Chungjong have feeling of uneasiness and drove him to take an emergency measure of arresting censorate officials led by Cho Kwangjo then. Prompted by Hong, King Chungjong, who had been already tired of censorate officials’ excessive remonstrances and ceaseless impeachments against high officials, also sided actively with Hong and led the purge of 1519.

같은 전쟁 다른 기록 - 병자호란 초기 홍타이지의 국서와 조선의 국가정체성 문제 -

계승범(Kye, Seung Bum) 동양사학회 2019 東洋史學硏究 Vol.147 No.-

By checking the records of the dynastic annals of Chosŏn Korea against those of Qing China, this research article is aimed to prove that the Korean compilers of the annals intentionally modified the contents and context of the official messages Hong Taiji sent to the Chosŏn king in the early phase of the Manchu invasion of Korea in 1637. Regarding the causes of the invasion, indeed, there are some big and important differences in the Korean and Manchu sources. Written in two languages such as Manchu and Chinese, Qing sources are full of derisive warnings to realize the new situation in which the Manchu empire pacified the Mongols and Hong Taiji received the Mandate of Heaven. It signifies that the reason for Hong Taiji’s military campaign against Chosŏn was because of the sheer folly of Injo who refused to acknowledge the realities of the world. In comparison, Chosŏn sources emphasizes that Chosŏn was invaded because Chosŏn remained loyal to Ming China to the last. Finding out more differences, this paper interprets them with respect to the national identity and the raison dêtre of the Chosŏn dynasty on the international stage in the course of the Ming-Qing transition in the early 1600s.

조선후기 중화론의 이면과 그 유산 : 명.청 관련 호칭의 변화를 중심으로

계승범(Kye, Seung Bum) 한국사학사학회 2009 韓國史學史學報 Vol.0 No.19

With emphasis on Korean consciousness of themselves and others, this article looks at the two-sided consciousness of Little China, which flourished among Korean elites in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. By examining what situational factors made the consciousness of Little China a mainstream political ideology in Chosŏn society, this article also examines the real concept of culture, which the elites stressed as evidence for Korea’s Chineseness (hence, ‘Little China’). In doing so, this article employs a methodology in which the Korean designations of the Qing Manchus are compared with those of the Ming Chinese. In a sense, the Ming-Qing change provided Korean elites with a good opportunity to break from the conventional Sino-centrism and develop their own self-consciousness. In the course of the Ming-Qing transition, in fact, the Korean elites attempted to do so by refusing psychologically and ideologically to participate in the new Sino(Manchu)-centric world order in the East Asian sphere. Up to this point, few differences are found in the cases of Japan and Vietnam of the time, which underwent the same international situation in which the Ming Empire was ended and replaced by the Manchu Qing Empire. The question, then, is this: What would fill the ideological vacuum caused by the disappearance of Ming China? Unlike the Japanese and Vietnamese elites who generally made efforts to fill it with their own selves, the Korean elites wanted to fill it with the old China, or the Confucian civilization of the ethnic Han Chinese. In other words, by identifying themselves with the deceased father (the fallen Ming), they were eager to maintain their cultural and national identity, which was not be tarnished with the barbaric Manchu culture. In short, the Korean elites developed their self-consciousness not by relativizing China objectively, but by internalizing it subjectively. By doing so, they sought to overcome the ideological and psychological crisis caused by the new Manchu dominance. The more eagerly they pursued a break from the new Manchu China, therefore, the more tightly they were tied to the old Ming China. This intellectual trend subsequently served as an ideological and practical obstacle to cope more effectively with the new order, which, led by the industrialized imperial powers, infiltrated the East Asian sphere on the threshold of the so-called modern period.

「양반전」을 통해 본 18세기 조선의 사회신분 질서

계승범 ( Kye Seung-bum ) 한국한문학회 2021 韓國漢文學硏究 Vol.- No.81

이 연구에서는 「양반전」을 통해 18세기 조선의 신분 질서를 조명하였다. 먼저 18세기 조선사회의 신분 질서와 관련하여 「양반전」을 해석한 기존 학설을 비판적으로 검토하였다. 「양반전」은 18세기 조선의 신분 질서가 동요하고 붕괴하던 정황을 잘 보여주는 증거물로 널리 회자하였다. 일부 반론이 제기되기는 했지만, 조선 후기 신분 질서의 와해라는 인식 틀에는 큰 변화가 없었다. 그러나 「양반전」의 내용만으로는 그런 해석을 도출할 수 없다. 오히려 당시 양반이 주도하던 신분 질서가 꽤 강고했음을 보여준다. 「양반전」에는 가난한 정선 양반 외에도 다양한 양반 군상이 등장하는데, 사회 지배층으로서 그들이 현실에서 누리던 신분적 지위는 매우 확고하였다. 가난한 양반을 당시 조선을 대표하는 양반으로 일반화해서는 안 된다는 것이다. 그렇다면 해방 후 반세기가 지나도록 학계에서 「양반전」을 전통적 사회신분제 철폐를 주장한 작품으로 파악한 이유는 무엇이었을까? 여기서는 해방 이후 1980년대까지 국내 역사학계의 통설처럼 군림하던 일부 학설을 「양반전」 이해를 방해한 주요인으로 꼽았다. 자본주의 맹아론의 허구성, 납속의 실상에 대한 오해, 신분제 ‘동요’론의 허점, 신분의 개념 문제 등 크게 네 가지로 나누어 살폈다. With emphasis on the social status system of Joseon Korea in the mid-18th century, this paper reexamines Yangban-jeon, a satirical short story written by Pak Jiwon in the 1740s, to understand the fact that Pak neither criticized the social status system nor described the reality in which the system was in decline due to the new phase of the socioeconomic development of the time. Many an existing study on the historical meaning of Yangban-jeon never hesitated to accept Yangban-jeon as a literature showing the collapse of the social status system in the eighteenth century despite some criticisms. The content of Yangban-jeon, however, vividly shows that the social status system of the time was working well without serious challenge. A number of diverse ruling yangban elites appears in the story of Yangban-jeon. Many of them still enjoyed their social status as yangban, although some suffered from economic hardship as seen in the case of poor yangban in the Jeongseon prefecture. It is not reasonable to generalize a certain yangban in poverty as if he represents the whole ruling yangban class. Misinterpretations of Yangban-jeon was a product of historical interpretations, prevalent in the 1960s through 1980s, such as the theory of bud of capitalism, misunderstanding of the grain contribution policy and the hereditary social status system, and the ambiguous concept of the social status, among others.