‘節義’와 ‘節義之士’ 그리고 ‘杜門洞 72현’

김병인 ( Kim Byoung-in ),이성원 ( Lee Sung-won ) 전남대학교 호남학연구원 2020 호남학 Vol.0 No.68

‘절의(節義)’는 “신념을 굽히지 않는 꿋꿋한 태도와 사람으로서 마땅히 지켜야 할 도리”를 뜻한다. 고려말 조선초 절의의 상징적 인물은 이색, 길재, 정몽주 등이며, 이들을 ‘절의지사(節義之士)’라고 부른다. 그런데 고려시대 ‘절의’의 용례를 살펴보면, 이런 뜻으로 사용된 경우를 찾을 수 없다. 고려시대 ‘절의자’는 ‘절부(節婦)’와 ‘의부(義夫)’의 합성어로서, 국왕의 진휼 대상이었다. ‘절의지사’는 조선 초 권근이 태종의 정치적 입장을 반영하여 새로운 인재 등용을 위해 ‘절의있는 선비’를 추숭하면서부터 등장한다. 당시 태종의 입장에서는 신왕조 개창에 참여하지 않았지만, 자신을 도와줄 수 있는 새로운 인재가 필요하였다. 이에 ‘불사이군’을 내세워 은둔해 있던 고려왕조의 신료들을 자신의 세력으로 포섭하기 위하여 그들을 ‘절의지사’로 격상함으로써 괸직에 진출할 수 있는 명분을 제공한 것이다. ‘두문동 72현’은 “고려가 멸망하고 조선이 건국되자 끝까지 관직에 나가지 않고 충절을 지킨 72인의 고려 유신”을 뜻한다. 두문동 72현이 세상에 구체적 모습을 드러내며 ‘역사화’ 된 것은 조선후기 영조 16년(1740)이다. 이때 ‘경신처분’으로 정국을 주도하게 된 영조가 ‘의리명분’을 강조하여 왕권을 강화하고 세력을 규합하기 위한 방편으로 ‘두문동 72현’을 ‘절의를 지킨 인물’로 추앙하면서 역사적 존재로 등장하게 된 것이다. ‘72현’은 ‘공자 제자 72현’처럼 상징적인 것이며, 이에 대한 구체적인 명단은 처음에는 존재하지 않다가 조선 후기에 이르러 자신의 조상을 72현의 명단에 넣으려는 후손들의 노력으로 만들어졌다. ‘두문동 72현’의 명단과 관련해서 다양한 문헌 자료가 존재하는데, 이것은 자신의 선조를 ‘절의지사’로 추앙함으로써 현실적인 이익을 취할 수 있는 당파, 가문, 후손의 영향력이 작용한 것이다. ‘Jeolui (integrity)’ means “a strong attitude that does not bend the convictions and the moral principles that a person should keep as a person. The symbolic figures in the late Goryeo dynasty and the early Joseon dynasty were Lee Saek, Giljae, and Jeong Mong-ju, and they are called ‘Jeoluijisa’ meaning a scholar of integrity. However, when we examine the usage of ‘jeolui’ in the Goryeo Dynasty, we cannot find a case where it was used in this way. In the Goryeo Dynasty, ‘jeoluija’ was a compound word of ‘Jeolbu (faithful wife)’ and ‘Uibu (faithful husband)’, and was the subject of the relief from the king. The word of Jeoluijisa’ appeared in the early Joseon Dynasty when Kwon Geun praised a ‘scholar of integrity’ to recruit new talents, reflecting the political position of King Taejong. At that time, in his position, King Taejong needed new people with talents who could help him even though they had not participated in the opening of his new dynasty. Accordingly in order to attract the officials of the former dynasty who had been secluded with the principle called ‘Bulsaigun (meaning refuse to serve two kings)’, he praised them by elevating to ‘Jeoluijisa’, which gave them a justification for the political position. “Dumundong 72Hyun” means “72 Goryeo officials who kept their integrity for the former king without going to the new dynast until the end when Goryeo dynasty fell and Joseon was founded. It was in the 16th year of King Yeongjo (1740) in the late Joseon Dynasty that Dumundong 72Hyun became “historical” by revealing their concrete appearance to the world. At this time, King Yeongjo who led the government through the ‘Gyeongsin-cheobun’ strengthen the royal power by emphasizing ‘Uiri-myeongbun (loyalty and justification)’, and prased ‘Dumundong 72Hyun’ calling ‘those who keep their integrity’, which was a way to attract his power group. As a result, ‘Dumundong 72Hyun’ came to appear as historical. 72Hyun is symbolic like ‘72 Hyun of Confucius’ disciples’, and its specific list did not exist at first, but in the late Joseon Dynasty, it was created with the efforts of descendants who wanted to put their ancestors on the 72 Hyun list. In relation to the ‘Dumundong 72 Hyun’ list, there are lots of literature sources, as there exist various influence by the factions, families, and descendants who want to make realistic profits by honoring their ancestors as ‘Jeoluijisa’.

조선 節義論의 전개 양상

강민구 동방한문학회 2023 東方漢文學 Vol.- No.97

조선은 개국과 왕위 다툼․사화․전쟁 등을 겪으면서 節義라는 가치의 중요성을 때때로 자각하였다. 조선 전기에 절의를 규정하고 정리한 대표적 인물은 崔溥이다. 그는 史論인 「新羅節義」에서 국가의 흥망과 원인을 궁구하고 기술하는 역사가의 관점을 적용하여 ‘절의’가 국가의 흥망과 가장 밀접한 관계가 있다고 주장하였다. 조선 중기에는 이황과 같은 성리학자가 절의의 가치와 효용에 대해 근본적 考究를 하였으니, 그 직접적 요인은 朱子語錄 탐독에 있다. 주자가 후한 시대 절의의 문제점을 거론하였기 때문이다. 조선 중기 절의에 관한 의식의 전형은 羅世纘의 「崇節義論」과 權好文의 「節義天下之大閑」에서 볼 수 있다. 다만 「崇節義論」은 왕에게 보이기 위해 지은 글이므로 논지의 전개가 한정적이며, 절의가 천성에 내재하는 것이라고 주장하면서도 왕이 솔선하여 숭상하고 포양하여 불시에 쓸 수 있도록 대비하여야 한다는 논리가 다소 혼란스럽고 모순된 점이 있다. 「節義天下之大閑」은 賦라는 형식을 채용하였기에 논리를 정연하게 전개하기에는 한계가 있지만, 절의의 윤리적 가치와 정치적 효용의 상관성을 유기적으로 구성하였다. 조선 중기의 지식인들은 이전 시기에 경험한 端宗의 축출과 점철된 士禍로 인해 신념과 처세 사이에서 괴리감을 느끼지 않을 수 없었다. 이에 이전 시기의 막연했던 절의에 관한 견해가 이론화되었다. 조선 중기부터 후기에 이르기까지 절의론의 향배는 士禍 및 黨爭과 밀접한 관련을 맺는다. 대표적 사례는 중종 때, 이전 기묘사화의 무고를 바로잡고 희생자를 伸冤하는 과정에서 절의론이 거론된 것이다. 조선의 절의론에서 가장 극적인 것은 鄭介淸의 절의론을 둘러싼 사건이다. 정개청은 서인의 영수로 기축옥사를 처결하던 鄭澈 등으로부터 ‘排節義論’을 작성했다는 비난을 받았고, 鄭汝立의 모반 사건에 연루되어 죽었다. 그의 절의론은 원제목인 「東漢節義晉宋淸談說」보다 ‘排節義論’이라는 이름으로 전해지면서 사후에도 오랫동안 논란이 되었다. 조선 후기 절의론의 향배를 분명하게 보여주는 인물은 金壽恒이다. 김수항은 安邦俊이 주장하는 ‘절의’란 무엇인지 반문하는 과정에서 세 가지 주장을 전개하였다. 첫째, ‘벼슬을 하지 않는 것이 모두 옳고 벼슬에 나아가는 것이 모두 그른 것은 아니다’라고 하였으니, ‘은거’와 ‘절의’를 유사 개념으로 생각하던 전통적․일반적 절의 개념과 차별성을 보인다. 둘째, ‘尊周나 復讐도 義의 범주에 들어갈 뿐 아니라, 존주나 복수를 능가하는 절의는 없다.’는 것이다. 이러한 의식은 병자호란을 겪은 조선 후기 집권층의 이데올로기로 형성된 것이다. 셋째, 절의와 학문은 분리해서 논할 수 없다는 견해이다. 조선 후기에는 절의가 원론적 차원을 탈피해 사회적․현실적 차원에서 논의되는 현상이 보인다. 그러한 현상을 대표하는 것이 史家 李種徽의 절의론이다. 이종휘는 조선의 고유한 풍속이자 절의로 4가지 조목을 제시하였으니, 첫 번째는 士族과 백성의 구별, 두 번째는 중과 俗人의 구별, 세 번째는 종과 주인의 구분, 네 번째는 아녀자의 수절이다. 이 4가지 조목은 양반 중심의 사회를 재정비하고 강화하자는 논리이다. 이종휘의 절의론은 조선 후기 양반의 위기 심리를 반영하는 것으로, 이전 시기의 단선적 절의 개념과 달리 당면한 사회 현실의 문제를 ... Joseon Dynasty sometimes realized the importance of the value of fidelity as it experienced the founding of the nation, struggles for the throne, sahwa[literati purge], and war. In the early Joseon Dynasty, the representative figure who defined and organized fidelity was Choi Bu(崔溥). In his historical opinion, 「the Fidelity of Silla(新羅節義)」, he asserted that ‘fidelity’ is most closely related to the rise and fall of the country from the perspective of a historian who investigates and describes the rise and fall of the country and its causes. In the middle of the Joseon Dynasty, Confucian scholar such as Lee Hwang made fundamental investigation on the value and utility of fidelity, and the cause was in reading extensively of the Analects of Zhu Xi(朱子語錄) . This was because Zhu Xi mentioned the problems of fidelity during the Later Han Dynasty. A typical example of awareness about fidelity in the middle of the Joseon Dynasty can be seen in Na Se-chan(羅世纘)’s 「Sungjeoluilon(崇節義論)」 and Kwon Ho-mun(權好文)’s 「Jeoluicheonhajidaehan(節義天下之大閑)」. However, since 「Sungjeoluilon」 was a text addressed to the king, the development of the argument was limited. And while it claimed that fidelity is inherent in human nature, the logic that the king should take the initiative to reverence and exalt it and prepare for it to be used at an unexpected time is somewhat confusing and contradictory. Although there was limitation in developing the logic in an orderly manner because 「Jeoluicheonhajidaehan」 adopted the form of Bu[賦, Ode], it organizationally structured the correlationship between the ethical value and political utility of fidelity. Intellectuals in the middle of the Joseon Dynasty had no choice but to feel a sense of disconnect between their beliefs and their worldly wisdom due to the expulsion of King Danjong(端宗) which they experienced in the previous period and the widespread sahwa[literati purge] at the time. Accordingly, the vague view about fidelity in the previous period was theorized. From the middle of the Joseon Dynasty to the late Joseon Dynasty, the trend of the theory of fidelity was closely related to sahwa[literati purge] and interparty strife. A representative example was that the theory of fidelity was mentioned in the process of correcting the false accusations of the previous Gimyosahwa(己卯士禍) and acquitting the victims, during the reign of King Jungjong(中宗). The most dramatic thing about the theory of fidelity in Joseon Dynasty was the incident surrounding the theory of fidelity of Jung Gae-cheong(鄭介淸). Jung Gae-cheong was criticized by Jung Cheol(鄭澈) and others, who were executing GichukOksa(己丑獄事) as the leader of Seoin, for writing the ‘Baejeoluilon(排節義論)’, and he died due to involvement in Jung Yeorip(鄭汝立)’s rebellion. His theory of fidelity became controversial for a long time even after his death, as it was handed down under the name ‘Baejeoluilon(排節義論)’ rather than its original title 「Donghanjeoluijinsongcheongdamseol(東漢節義晉宋淸談說)」. The person who clearly had showed the trend of the theory of fidelity in the late Joseon Dynasty was Kim Su-hang(金壽恒). Kim Su-hang developed three arguments in the process of questioning what ‘fidelity’ advocated by An Bang-jun(安邦俊) was. First, it was said that ‘all not holding a government service is right and not all entering into government service is wrong’, showing a difference from the traditional and general concept of fidelity which ‘retirement’ and ‘fidelity’ were considered similar concepts. Second, ‘Not only do reverence to Zhou Dynasty[尊周] and revenge[復讐] fall into the category of righteousness(義), but there is no fidelity that surpasses reverence to Zhou Dynasty and revenge’. This consciousness was formed by the ideology of the ruling class in the late J...

세조 · 성종대 정몽주 인식

김보정(Kim, Boe-Jeong) 역사실학회 2015 역사와실학 Vol.57 No.-

본고는 조선 전기 성리학 이해과정을 살펴보려는 일환으로써 세조 · 성종대의 정몽주 인식을 살펴본 연구이다. 사서는 당대의 인식을 보여주는 척도이며, 그 시대 편찬자의 사관을 잘 반영하고 있다. 세조 · 성종대 편찬된 관찬사서인 『국조보감』과 『동국통감』을 중심으로 살펴보았다. 세조대 『국조보감』의 편찬자, 즉 신숙주 등 8인의 정몽주 인식은 실록에 비해 상당히 많은 부분이 배제되어 그들의 정치성향과 무관하지 않음을 여실히 보여주고 있다. 성종대 『동국통감』의 편찬자는 서거정 중심의 훈척과 표연말?최부 등 사림으로서, 이들의 정몽주 인식은 사뭇 달랐다. 세조대 공신이자 훈척인 서거정은 『필원잡기』에서 농(弄)을 빌어서 정몽주를 폄하하고 있는데 비해, 김종직의 문인인 표연말 · 최부 등은 신편 『동국통감』에서 정몽주의 절의를 칭송하고 있다. 이러한 인식의 바탕에는 사서(史書) 진강의 영향을 들 수 있다. 세종대 경연과 달리 성종대 경연에서는 새로이 『고려사』를 진강한다. 『고려사』에 수록된 정몽주의 칭송기사를 발췌하여 신편 『동국통감『에 수록한 사실이 이를 증명하고 있다. 이 과정에서 성종대 사림은 정몽주를 ‘절의지사’ 라고 칭한다. 그러므로 세조 · 성종대의 정몽주 인식은 세종대 『삼강행실도』의 ‘충신’에서 중종대 문묘종사의 ‘성현’으로 숭배되는 과정에 있으며, 성종대 사림의 정몽주 인식은 ‘절의지사’ 라고 정의할 수 있다. This paper was investigated the recognition for Jeong Mong-Ju in Sejo?Seongjong Dynasty through the compilers of Kukjobogam and Dongguktonggam. Through the eight compilers of Kukjobogam such as Sin Suk-Ju, it had proved the fact that the recognition for Jeong Mong-Ju in Sejo Dynasty were excluded in Kukjobogam unlike the Annals of the Chosun Dynasty. Because Kukjobogam was written by focused in achievements and good words of the Kings, the articles for Jeong Mong-Ju were also partially omitted. This was found out being related to political opinions of eight persons such as Sin Suk-Ju. As the results about the recognition for Jeong Mong-Ju in Seongjong Dynasty through the compilers of Dongguktonggam, there were distinctions between the recognition of the King’s relatives and the recognition of Sarim such as Pyo Yeon-Mal and Choi Bu. Seo Keo-Jeong who the King’s relatives in Sejo Dynasty have banteringly denigrated Jeong Mong-Ju through Pilwonjabki. It was a look that reflects from the regency by the queen mother in the initial Seongjong Dynasty and the political affairs by Chancellors. However the government styles were changed through the reorganization systems by Chancellors, the recognition for Jeong Mong-Ju were gradually changed by appointed Sarim from the management the affairs of state in Seongjong 7th Dynasty. During the lecture, only Jeong Mong-Ju and Gil Je were mentioned as ‘Jeoleuijisa’, and the recognition about ‘Jeoleuijisa’ was changed as severely remonstrated persons in usual not urgent crisis. In the basis of this perception change, the lecture of history books was played an important role. Unlike Sejong Dynasty, Goryeosa was lectured twice, and Hanseo was lectured before and after the compilement of Dongguktonggam. As a result, Dongguktonggam in the Seongjong 16th Dynasty have been compiled by attaching 204 pieces of Shinsaron. Dongguktonggam was included the contents to honor the achievements of Jeong Mong-Ju in Goryeosa by Choi Bu and Pyo Yeon-Mal. Although Dongguktonggam in the Seongjong 16th Dynasty have coexisted the recognition of Hunchuk and Salim, the recognition for Jeong Mong-Ju have been represented as the ‘Jeoleuijisa’ recognition of Salim. Therefore, the recognition for Jeong Mong-Ju in Sejo? Seongjong Dynasty was in the process of being worshiped as ‘Saint’ for Jeong Mong-Ju in discussions of Confucian shrine in Jungjong Dynasty from the recognition as ‘Loyalty’ for Jeong Mong-Ju in Samkanghaengsildo of Sejong Dynasty, and the recognition for Jeong Mong-Ju of Salim in Seongjong Dynasty could be defined as ‘Jeoleuijisa’.

황매천의 중국 절의지사에 대한 지향

황수정(Hwang Sujeong) 한국언어문학회 2009 한국언어문학 Vol.71 No.-

This study examines Hwang Maechon(1855∼1910)'s intention toward scholars of integrity from China, focusing on. Jebyunghwsipjeol . Maechon described behaviors and spirits of ten scholars of integirty in China in Jebyunghwsipjeol : Maebok, Gwannyung, Dojam, Sagongdo, Yangjin, Gahyungong, Sago, Goyeommoo, and Weihwi. It was based on his patriotism. Discussion on him is summarized as follows: First, this study identified the background and intention of Jebyunghwsipjeol . Maechon had an intention toward China like Changkang. His longing for China was a way for him to escape from turbulent age. As he could not go to China, his plan to change failed. However, he surfaced behaviors of Chinese scholars of integrity through writing poetry. In particular, he expressed an intention to confirm attitude as fidelity to his country and an intellectual. Second, this study analysed the content of Jebyunghwsipjeol . He concentrated on distinctive behaviors of the ten scholars through themes of poetry, which was identified as intentions toward ‘life of integrity through retirement’, ‘change of status and loyalty’, and ‘desire for education and study’. It was the intention toward scholars of China and his own intention at the same time. Third, this study examined assessment and meaning of Jebyunghwsipjeol . Changkang said that this poetry seems like silk dress laying over sheep skin. It indicates ultimate beauty and integrity. Jebyunghwsipjeol describes historical agony of righteous scholars of integrity. He described it honestly and lyrically. Their behaviors promoted Maechon's righteous spirit. Thus, he expressed righteous spirit, loyalty, simplicity and persistence of persons of integrity in Jebyunghwsipjeol . He showed his patriotic intention based on behaviors of the ten people. Honest and righteous spirit in his poetry has a significant meaning for future relationships between China and Korea., and this study will be bases for studies on integrity of intellectuals in Korea and China.

기획논문 : 대주제: 조선전기 영남사림파와 강우학문 ; 탁영 김일손의 문학과 정치적 역할

권경렬 ( Kyoung Yeol Kwon ) 경상대학교 남명학연구소 2005 남명학연구 Vol.20 No.-

탁영 김일손의 문학과 정치적 역할

權敬烈 경상국립대학교 경남문화연구원 2005 남명학연구 Vol.20 No.-