高麗末期 官僚制 運營의 禮的 原理

都賢喆(Do Hyeon-Chul) 한국사연구회 1998 한국사연구 Vol.101 No.-

고려후기 성리학 도입에 관한 제설의 검토와 김구의 역할

도현철(Do, Hyeon-chul) 역사실학회 2016 역사와실학 Vol.59 No.-

고려시대 성리학의 수용에 관한 연구를 살펴보는 가운데 김구의 역할을 살펴보는 것이 본고의 목표였다. 고려시대에는 초기 이래의 유학의 내재적 성장과 함께 송나라 유학의 수용을 통하여 유학이 발전하였다. 『중용』과 『주역』 연구가 심화되고 이를 통하여 心性化 경향이 강하고 경학이 발달하였다. 또 북송대 문물제도가 수용되었고, 특히 『太平御覽』·『資治通鑑』 등 당대 최고 수준의 신지식, 신문화이 들어왔으며, 사마광과 왕안석의 정치사상이 이해되었다. 고려후기 성리학 수용에 관한 최근 연구의 논점은 몇 가지로 구분된다. 외래사상인 성리학의 발원지인 송 원의 성리학과 관련성 문제, 성리학의 수용 배경 그리고 성리학의 고려에서의 활용문제가 그것이다. 지포 김구는 대몽전쟁이 끝나고 개경환도가 이루어지는 시기에 뚜렷한 국가의식을 바탕으로 문한 외교 활동 전개하여 고려의 체제 안정에 기여하였다. 그는 사장학에 뛰어났고 몽골과의 외교문서를 담당하여 고려 유학의 계승과 전수에 공헌하였다. 이때 그의 외교문서 작성은 문치사회를 활성화하는데 기여하였다. 외교 문서는 상대방을 인정하고 글로서 협력을 구하는 것이다. 대몽항쟁기 고려는 몽고를 가장 흉악한 오랑캐로 인정하고 전쟁 상태에 있었다. 하지만 평화 교섭이 진행되는 과정에서 몽고를 천자국으로 인정하고 이를 바탕으로 외교 문한 활동을 전개하였다. 문치는 인간의 도덕적 신뢰를 바탕에 두고 대화, 설득, 자각을 통한 합리적이고 이성적인 도덕사회를 지향하는 것인데, 김구는 원과의 상호 교섭을 통하여 평화 공존의 가능성을 열었고, 그런 점에서 김구의 활동은 문치 사회를 이루는 데 기여한다고 할 수 있다. 김구는 고려의 예제 정립 유학 본래의 선왕의 제도를 고려의 예제로 확립하는데 기여한다. 원종 14년 지공거일 때 홍자번과의 예제 논란에서, 지공거로서의 선왕의 제도를 존중함으로써 신권 중심의 유학의 예제를 존중하는 입장을 취하였다. 김구의 이러한 행동은 성리학은 익히지 않았지만 원시 유학 이래의 유학 본래의 문제의식에 충실함으로써 장차 성리학을 수용할 수 있는 사상적 배경을 마련하고 있었다. The objective of this article is to examine previous studies that had dealt with Goryeo Confucianism, as well as to discuss the role played by a renowned scholar/official named Kim Gu, who held a special status in the history of Korean Confucianism during the Goryeo period. During the Goryeo dynasty period, the general public’s level of Confucian understanding continued to rise, and it grew more developed with the embracement of Sung Confucianism. Kim Gu was a scholar and politician, who served the government in the capacity of literary writing during the Military regime period as well as subsequent periods under Yuan’s intervention. His contributions around the cease-fire in 1259 and the government’s return to Gae-gyeong city are particularly noteworthy, as he was able to serve the country well with his diplomatic writing, which was based upon firm determination to protect the dynasty’s interests. He excelled in original writing, which was a gift highly esteemed in the Goryeo Confucian environment, and also contributed to the preservation of Goryeo Confucian studies which had to be relayed to the next generation. Diplomatic communiques, which are usually drafted based upon an acknowledgement of the legitimacy of one’s opponent, with the intention of proposing mutual pursuit of cooperation, were sorely needed in the aftermath of the prolonged war with the Mongol invaders. During this period, the Goryeo people had no choice but to consider the Mongols as the most ruthless and savage enemy they had ever encountered, but when the war ended, negotiations for peace had to ensue, and the Goryeo government had no other options but accepting the Mongols as the new winner in Asia, and proceed accordingly, with people like Kim Gu as one of the point men to see the task through. Kim Gu also integrated Goryeo traditions as part of Goryeo ritual protocols. In the 14th year of Weonjong’s reign, when he was named supervisor of the dynastic exam, he had a discussion with Hong Ja-beon over the issue of ritual protocols, and in those talks he took the stance of honoring past traditions, preferring Confucian institutions that favored the idea of vassals’ taking lead in such matters. He was not trained in Neo-Confucian studies, but his attitude was of one respecting old Confucian teachings, so he was able to lay down the groundwork for embracing Neo-Confucianism.

일반논문 : 안축의 대책문과 이민족 대책

도현철 ( Hyeon Chul Do ) 한국사상사학회 2011 韓國思想史學 Vol.0 No.38

안축(1287-1348)은 1324년 원 제과에 합격하였고, 『근재집』에는 그때의 답안지로 알려진 대책문이 실려있으나, 분석 결과 대책문은 원의 殿試 문제가 아닌 모의문제로 판단된다. 그렇기는 하지만 대책문은 당시 유교지식인들에게 광범위하게 읽혔을 뿐 아니라 유교의 이민족 대책과 유교 교화에 대한 모범 답안의 성격을 가진 것이라는 점에서 원과 고려 사상계의 동향을 알려주는 귀중한 자료로서의 가치는 결코 반감되는 것은 아니다. 대책문은 원의 이민족 대책과 유교 교화를 주제로 한 것으로, 토번이 『시경』·『춘추』·『예기』를 요구하던 동일한 상황에서, 漢나라는 책을 주지 않았고 唐나라는 주었는데, 그 대응 방법이 달랐던 이유를 설명하라는 것이었다. 안축은 토번에서 요청한 유교 경전이 家道를 바르게 하고, 忠信禮義를 진작시키며 오랑캐를 교화시킬 것이라고 전제한다. 따라서, 한나라때 유교 경전을 이민족에게 주지 않은 것은 결국 경전의 大義를 알지 못하고 군사를 쓰는 전략과 교묘한 책동의 말을 만들어 선을 행하는 마음을 막는 처사였다고 비판하였다. 반면에 당나라의 경우는 책을 주어 忠信禮義를 들어 大議를 세우고 임금의 덕화가 모든 곳에 미치게 하였으니 도의 근본을 안다고 평가하였다. 吐蕃이 선을 쫓을 마음이 있다면 경전을 보고 중국을 사모하고 존경하는 마음을 갖게 될 것이고, 혹 다른 마음이 있다면, 경전에서 오랑캐를 무력으로 쳐서 응징한다는 말을 보고 복종할 것이라는 것이다. 이 글은 五經을 통하여 유교의 도를 확립하고 풍속을 변화시켜 세상을 교화시키는 교화론을 제시하고 있다. 교화를 실현하는 방법은 오랑캐의 마음을 움직여 감화시키는 것과 인의의 군대를 사용하여 이민족을 무력으로 굴복시키는 방법이 있다. 고려후기에는 성리학이 수용되면서 유학 본래의 문제의식을 궁구하게 되고, 유교 경전인 五經의 의미에 근거하여 이민족 교화를 주장하게 되는데, 안축의 대책문은 바로 그러한 사상사적 맥락에서 유교 경전과 이민족 대책에 대한 상관관계를 잘 보여주는 사례라고 할 수 있다. An Chuk(1282-1348) was a Goryeo scholar who successfully passed the Yuan Imperial state examination in 1324. The answer he submitted to the examination board contained valuable information, as we can see what kind of thoughts the intellectuals of both Goryeo and Yuan actually had at the time. As we all know, the Yuan empire fully embraced Confucianism, and made it a general policy to pursue traditional Chinese ways, in all aspects of its governance. In reflection of such policy stance, the official question that was announced to the applicants of the 1324`s Jeonshi/殿試 examination asked the students to bring forward their opinions regarding what kind of direction the imperial government`s policy should take in the future in terms of foreign tribes, and regarding the issue of ``enlightening`` them with pure Confucian teachings. The basic setting of the question was this: "Tibet requested that China provide them with 『Shi``gyeong(The Book of Odes)』·『Chun``chu(The Book of History)』 and 『Ye``gi(The Book of Ritual protocols)』, but the Han/漢 dynasty denied such request, while Dang/唐 granted it." The students were asked, why the Chinese dynasties responded very differently. Facing such question in an imperial examination, An Chuk first defined the ``Confucian classics`` that Tibet had requested as ``important material,`` which could correct and rectify the formerly loosened rules inside individual houses, which could strengthen the people`s investment in concepts like loyalty, filial piety, adherence to protocols and dedication to righteousness, and which could greatly promote their faith in them so that they could eventually enlighten the the ``barbarians.`` Regarding the reasons behind Han dynasty`s denial of such request, An Chuk defined it as a clear error which only showed that the Han leadership, blatantly unaware of the essence of Confucian teaching, obstructed the barbarians` intentions to pursue goodness out of a petty intention based upon military tactics and elaborate words of instigation. On the other hand, he praised Dang for remaining true to the ``Way of the World,`` as they gave the requested books to the Tibetans and allowed the enlightenment of the emperor to flow into those regions. An Chuk argued that if Tibet wanted to pursue goodness they would have felt extremely grateful and respectful to China for the provision of those books, and even if they initially wanted to do otherwise, they would have been persuaded not to do so anyway, after reading the contents of the books which dictated that barbarians be defeated. The intention inside his answer is firmly based upon an argument of enlightenment, which suggests that the ways of Confucianism should be established and the world`s culture and practices should be bettered, by consulting the teachings of the Five Classics(五經), with such task conducted by either a provision of cultural inspiration or a military force with a righteous banner. In the latter half of the Goryeo dynasty, people who embraced Neo-Confucianism came to learn the original questions and answers of Confucianism, and they usually argued that foreign tribes should be enlightened based upon the Five Classics. An Chuk`s voice was one of them, and his answer shows us how the classic Confucian texts were related with the foreign tribe policies.

정도전의 정치체제 구상과 재상정치론

도현철(Do Hyeon Chul) 고려사학회 2000 한국사학보 Vol.- No.9

정석해의 교유관계와 연희대학교

도현철 ( Do Hyeon Chul ) 연세사학연구회 2019 學林 Vol.44 No.-

본고는 정석해의 교우 관계와 교육 행정 활동을 살펴봄으로써, 정석해 개인뿐만 아니라 해방 직후부터 1960년에 이르기까지 연희대학의 역사와 대학 교수의 현실 인식과 사회적 실천 활동을 파악하려는 것이다. 정석해는 동료 교수들 간의 네트워크를 형성하며 사적인 유대감과 함께 학교와 사회의 대소사를 논하고 진실의 구현, 정의의 실천에 앞장섰다. 그는 동료 대학교수들과 4·19 혁명과 6·3 한일협정 반대 시위 그리고 연세대학의 학원 자율화, 민주화에 참여하였다. 특히 그는 연희대학의 학원의 자율화와 민주화를 추구하여 권위적이고 비합리적인 태도를 수정해갔다. 그의 이러한 지식과 행동은 연세대학의 학교 운영이나 후배 교수의 교육 연구 활동에 큰 영향을 주었다. This paper aims to apprehend not only Professor Tseung Suk Hai individual but also the history of Yonhi University and the real-life awareness and social practice activities of university professors from the Independent to the 1960s by looking at Professor Tseung Suk Hai’s friendly relationship and educational administration activities. Forming a network between his fellow professors, Professor Tseung discussed the great affairs of university and society, and took the lead in the realization of truth and the practice of justice, with a private bond. He participated in the April 19 Revolution and 6.3 protest against the treaty between Korea and Japan with fellow professors, as well as liberalizing and democratizing campus at Yonsei University. In particular, he had modified the authoritative and irrational attitude of the university administration and professors in pursuit of liberalization and democratization of academies at Yonsei university. His knowledge and behavior have greatly influenced the management of Yonsei University and the education research activities of junior professors.

『삼봉집』과 권근의 역할

도현철(Do, Hyeon-chul) 한국고전번역원 2012 民族文化 Vol.- No.40

본고는 모두 3차례 즉 우왕11-13년 혹은 태조 6년의 2권의 초간본과 성종 18년의 8권의 중간본, 정조 15년의 14권으로 간행된 『삼봉집』의 성종본과 정조본을 비교하고, 『삼봉집』의 완성에 크게 간여한 권근의 역할과 역사적 의미를 살펴보려는 것이 목표였다. 성종본과 비교하여, 정조본은 새로 찾은 시문 자료를 3권에서 4권으로 늘리고, 『조선경국전』과 『경제문감별집』을 상?하로 나누었으며, 『불씨잡변』을 1권으로 독립시켰고, 陣法, 습유, 부록을 따로 2권으로 마련하면서 14권으로 늘어나게 되었던 것이다. 아울러 내용상의 세밀한 고증을 통해, 성석린의 ‘批’, 權近의 ‘訂’과 ‘註’ 등 조력자와 그 역할을 명기하였고, 『불씨잡변』과 『경제문감별집』은 細註로 그것의 전거를 밝혀 놓았다. 명종 2년에 간행된 『입학도설』에는 『삼봉집』에 있는 「心問天答」과 「心氣理三篇」이 실려 있는데, 이는 초학자를 위하여 유학의 기본 원리를 도설로 설명하는 과정에서 『입학도설』의 취지에 어느 정도 부합했기 때문이다. 그런데 『삼봉집』과 『입학도설』에는 「心問天答」과 「心氣理三篇」에 대한 권근의 주석 방법이 다르게 표시되어 있다. 전자에는 권근이 주석한 사실이 애매하게 표시되어 있고, 정도전이 저술한 부분과 권근이 주석한 부분의 구분이 명료하지 않다. 그러나 명종 2년에 간행된 『입학도설』에 권근이 주석한 사실이 細註로 표시되어 있어 이를 통해 정도전이 저술한 부분은 선언적인 몇 句에 불과하고, 권근이 주석한 부분이 주요 내용을 이루고 있다는 사실이 분명하게 드러나고 두 작품은 결국 권근의 저술이라는 것을 암묵적으로 보여준다.결국 정조본과 성종본 『삼봉집』을 비교해 보고, ?입학도설? 안에 있는 「心問天答」과 「心氣理三篇」을 분석해 볼 때, 『삼봉집』의 편찬에는 권근이 절대적인 참여가 있음을 알 수 있다.

려선교체기(麗鮮交替期) 『동헌집(桐軒集)』 복원(復元)과 자료(資料)의 특징(特徵)

도현철 ( Hyeon Chul Do ) 연세사학연구회 2007 學林 Vol.28 No.-

조선초기 단군 인식과 삼국유사 간행

도현철 ( Hyeon Chul Do ) 연세대학교 국학연구원 2013 동방학지 Vol.162 No.-

최근 조선초기에 간행된 것으로 추정되는 파른본 『삼국유사』가 소개되었다. 유교 국가 조선에서 불교사 입장에서 정리된 『삼국유사』를 간행한 이유가 무엇인지를 살펴보는 것이 본고의 목표였다. 고려후기에 몽골의 침입으로 국가적위기를 맞았고, 『삼국유사』와 『제왕운기』를 통하여 국가의 시조로 단군을 인식하게 되었다. 『삼국유사』와 『제왕운기』는 고조선을 상정하고 단군을 우리역사의 시조로 설정하였다. 『삼국유사』는 고조선에서부터 시작하여 삼한과 삼국, 고려로 이어지는 역사 계승을 제시했다. 당초 단군은 평양과 황해도 구월산 지역의 민간 신앙적 수호신으로 이해하다가, 국가시조, 역사공동체의 시조로 인식하게 되었다. 고려후기에 단군을 역사의 시원으로 파악하기는 하지만, 신화적이고 설화적인 내용을 사실을 받아들이지 않는 유교의 합리사관으로 인하여 유학자들은 단군을 사실로 인정하는데 주저하였다. 유교 국가인 조선은 나라의 시조인 단군에 대한 이해를 바탕으로 단군부터 조선에 이르는 역사를 서술하고 왕조의 정통성을 확립하고자 하였다. 이를 위해서 유교사관에 의한 연구를 통해 단군을 역사상의 인물로 재발견하였고, 『동국사략』과 『삼국사절요』를 완성하였다. 이 과정에서 『삼국유사』의 간행이 필요했다. 역사서를 편찬하기 위해서는 근거가 되는 기본 자료의 확보가 필수적이기 때문이다. 그리하여 『삼국유사』는 태조 3년 무렵에 『삼국사기』와 함께경주에서 간행되었을 것으로 추정된다. 말하자면, 조선왕조는 단군 인식과 한국상고사 인식의 확대로 고조선으로부터 조선에 이르기까지 한국 역사를 계통적으로 이해하는 통사체계를 구상하였고 이 과정에서 『삼국유사』를 간행하였던 것이다. Recently, a new edition of Samguk Yusa, which is believed to have been printed and published during the early days of the Joseon dynasty period, was presented to the academic community. This article examines why a Confucian state like Joseon bothered to publish Samguk Yusa, a history book which was written from a Buddhist perspective. In the latter half of the Goryeo period, Mongol forces invaded the Korean peninsula and the following dynastic crises prompted the Goryeo people to a new interest in historical entities such as Dan`gun (perceived as the one and only founder of the people of the peninsula) which is reflected in the publication of history books like Samguk Yusa and Je`wang Wun`gi. The people`s new appreciation of certain historical figures eventually led to a formation of a national pride. Goryeo, which was being forced to establish a new kind of relationship with the Mongol Yuan Empire, a relationship which was quite different from its former relationships with the Chinese dynasties, and the Goryeo dynasty and its people were in need of a new identity, and also a new historical perspective from which to view their relationship with the Mongol Empire. Samguk Yusa and Je`wang Wun`gi describe the history of Gojoseon and establish Dan`gun as the person who literally began the history of the Korean peninsula. Samguk Yusa explains that Korean history began with Gojoseon, which was followed by "Sam Han" (``the Three Hans``), the Three Dynasties, and finally Goryeo. Previously, Dan`gun was believed in folklore to have been just a kind of regional deity from the Pyeong`yang area and the Mt. Guweon-san area of what is now Hwang`hae-do province, but he later came to be worshipped as the ``founder of the state,`` and the originator of the historical community in which the Goryeo people lived. Even in the latter half of the Goryeo period, when Dan`gun gained this new status as the founder of the Goryeo people, Confucian scholars, who believed in reasoning and did not embrace folklore-based stories with mythical properties, hesitated to accept Dan`gun as a historical figure and as a person who really existed. Based upon their understanding of Dan`gun, the people of the Confucian state of Joseon recorded the history from Dan`gun to Joseon, and in doing so tried to validate and justify the relatively young dynasty`s foundation. Using Confucian-based studies and analysis, they tried to discover the true nature of Dan`gun as a real person, and as part of this effort, Joseon writers completed Dong`gukSa`ryak and Sam`guk-sa Jeol`yo. Samguk Yusa was needed, as it was vital to secure basic primary data for historical compilation. It is presumed that Samguk Yusa was published in the Gyeongju area around 1394, in the third year of King Taejo`s reign, along with Kim Bu-shik`s Samguk Sagi. In other words, the people of Joseon imagined a Korean history that began with the time of Dan`gun and continued through to the time of Joseon, and published Samguk Yusa as part of the effort to prove this. The establishment of Dang`un as the founder of the Korean people was only possible because of the people`s already widened understanding of Dan`gun and the ancient history of the Korean peninsula.

조선 건국 과정에서 역사 기록의 상이한 평가와 해석

도현철(Do, Hyeon-chul) 역사학회 2020 역사학보 Vol.0 No.248

Chae Hong-cheol made his efforts to carrying forward the land and census project, whose efforts were praised in his epitaph but were devaluated in the Koryosa. Yi Saek, who wanted to maintain the dynasty, affirmed Chae’s project, whereas Jeong Do-jeon, who attempted to open a new dynasty, tried to create a new legal system through denying the project. In other words, the differences of viewpoint over reality reform in the later Koryo dynasty were expressed in the divergent evaluation of Chae Hong-cheol. There is a kind of ambiguity related to the reference of quotation expressions in Jeong Do-jeon’s Kyongjemungams . It is important to note that there are not a dew references to Shih-kung chih-hsueh(사공학) in the Kyongjemungams . It is recognized that Shih-kung chih-hsueh criticized Neoconfucianism which was the mainstream political theory during the founding of the Joseon Dynasty. However, Shih-kung chih-hsueh, which put emphasis on the system and legislation was more required than Neo-confucianism which emphasizes the discipline of the mind the during change of dynasty. Thus Jeong Do-jeon had to bring Neo-confucianism to the fore, but inwardly invoke Shih-kung chih-hsueh that emphasized the system and legislation. This is why a kind of ambiguity related to the reference of quotation expressions is found in Jeong Do-jeon’s Kyongjemungams .

李穡의 隱仕觀

都賢喆(Do Hyeon-Chul) 한국사연구회 2006 한국사연구 Vol.133 No.-

The inclusion of the character eun(隱) in ones pen name was a very popular practice during the latter half of the Goryeo dynasty. In this regard. Yi Saek's penname was Mogeun(牧隱), and the un character was based on Yi's own interpretation of the term. This study attempts to identify the reasons why members of the sadaebu class either decided to serve as public figures or to live in seclusion during this period. by conducting a review of the standards which Yi Saek himself employed to classify the concepts of seclusion (eundun, 隱遁) and participation(chulsa, 出仕) in worldly affairs. Yi Saeks perception of Neo-Confucianism was heavily influenced by the notion of sugichiin(修已治人), the governance of the self and of others). In addition, Yi was also an adherent of the seonghak(聖學) school who regarded the observance of kyeong(敬) as the most favorable way to cultivate ones mind. Yi Saek also adhered to the standards laid down by Confucius when it came to the division of the notion of seclusion and participation in worldly affairs. Confucius once stated that a human could not live with birds and animals, and that as such he should live with other humans. He also stated that while one should serve in the government when the state to which he belonged was guided by the Way(道), one should seclude himself from worldly affairs when a state was not guided by the Way. Moreover, he also asserted that being rich and high-classed in a state which was not guided by the Way was just as humiliating as being poor and lowly in a state guided by the Way(道). Confucius then went on to state that although the Way of the Sage could not be brought about if one completely withdrew from reality, a wise man should base his decision as to whether or not to seclude himself from worldly affairs, or participate therein, on the nature of the prevailing circumstances. Yi greatly respected Confucius teachings. He believed that because a sage was an enlightened individual, he would know whether it was right to accept a government post or seek seclusion from the world. This was because a sages decision to pursue seclusion or participation was inherently based on the achievement of the Way. However, actual circumstances did not unfold as Yi Saek had intended. The new reality was one in which the ruling class was increasingly becoming lethargic and divided, political discipline was slipping, and social insecurity and turbulence reigned as a result of invasions by Red Turbans and Japanese marauders. This deepening political insecurity meant that a career as a government official was no longer a stable option. As such, although one intended to actively participate in the real world in order to bring about the Confucian Way, the possibility that he would be excluded from a government position, whether it be of ones volition or not, was now greatly heightened. Yi Saek made his position vis-a-vis the sensitive and dangerous political issues which emerged during the reigns of King Gongmin and King Wu very clear. To this end, he voiced his support for the rise to the throne of King Wu's son, King Chang: aired his position on land reform: and directly petitioned the Ming dynasty to come to the aid of the royal family of Goryeo against Yi Seonggye. Yi subsequently refused to take up a government post following the foundation of the Joseon dynasty. Under his pen name. which as mentioned above included the character eun, Yi Saek actively expressed his opinions on various worldly matters. This course of action was in great part the result of the fact that Yi regarded the notions of seclusion and participation as essentially the same action. and as being based on the same logic. As such. a sage could help bring about the Way through either seclusion or participation in worldly affairs Yi Saeks thought, which was exposed through his pen name that contained the character un, and which was based on his belief that a sage could choose seclusion or participation