「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.

조선후기 조선중화주의와 그 해석 문제

계승범(Kye, Seung Bum) 한국사연구회 2012 한국사연구 Vol.159 No.-

Even after the king of Chos?n walked out of a mountain fortress and capitulated to the Manchu emperor in 1367, Korean officials and intellectuals never regarded the Manchu emperor as the authentic Son of Heaven. Even though the Chos?n court sent tributes to Beijing on a regular basis and all of tile Chosen kings received investiture from Manchu emperors since then, Korean officials firmly believed that they were superior to the Manchu in terms of culture, more specifically, the Confucian culture. They thought that the outer world, including China, was fatally tarnished by the barbaric Manchu and Confucian orthodoxy only survived in the land of Chosen. Not surprisingly, their cultural and spiritual reliance on the fallen Ming China became more strengthened under the Manchu dominance. This intellectual trend led the Korean ruling elites to be confident that the legitimacy of Confucian culture had been transferred to Chos?n Korea from Ming China, which they believed had already been tarnished by the barbaric culture of the queued Manchu. This confidence even developed into a national ideology and contributed to the successful recovery from the national crisis caused by the surrender to tile barbaric Manchu on one hand. On the other hand, it prevented Korean elites from adopting the new Manchu-dominated world order and subsequently led them to employ an extremely isolationist policy. This paper critically reviews the contemporary Korean scholars’ interpretation of the consciousness of Chos?n zhonghua, while emphasizing the politico-intellectual trend in the late Chosen Korean since the Korean surrender to the Manchu Empire in 1637. Chos?n zhonghua was a belief that the Chos?n nation succeeded the gist of the Chinese Confucian culture and eventually became zhonghua after Ming China was completely destroyed by the Manchu in 1644. The majority of Korean scholars interpret the Chos?n zhonghua thought. which flourished until the turn of the 1900s among the main society of Chos?n intellectuals, as the growth in Korean pride and the spiritual escape of Korea from China. This paper, however, argue that such an 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 into the East Asian sphere on the threshold of the so-called modern period.

광해군대 말엽(1621~1622) 외교노선 논쟁의 실제와 그 성격

桂勝範(Kye Seung-Bum) 역사학회 2007 역사학보 Vol.0 No.193

With emphasis on a series of confrontations between king and court, this article looks at the debate on foreign policy late in the reign of King Kwanghae (r. 1608-1623) and provides a new interpretation by examining a variety of issues, such as sending a written reply to the Later Jin, treating Mao Wenlong (1576-1629) and the Chinese refugees in Korea, supplying troops and provisions on Ming demand, and presenting royal titles of honor. The king wanted to save the situation by rejecting the Ming demand and by communicating directly with the Later Jin, while his court officials were very eager to cut off ties with the Later Jin and line up more closely with the Ming. These two different attitudes could not be compatible with each other theoretically and practically because any friendly approaches to the Later Jin would inevitably undermine the existing relationship with the Ming: the Korean leadership had regarded the Ming as the ritual father as well as the suzerain and had secured their position under the Ming order for over 200 years. The debate, therefore, was not merely on the matter of diplomacy but a matter of national identity, the very raison d'etre of the Chos?n dynasty in the sinocentric East Asian world order. For this reason, the watch-and-wait or so-called neutrality between the Ming, the father, and the Later Jin, a 'barbaric' rebel, was theoretically impossible from the start, This was also the very reason why court officials called the argument for an anti-Jin policy right or orthodox. The dramatic denouement of the debate-the dethronement of the king, who had always received investiture from the Ming emperor before but went so far as to even label the anti-Jin policy as perverse-was enough to foreshadow the direction in which the politico-intellectual trend of traditional Korea would move in the 'post-debate' period.

[조선전기] 조선 전기사 연구의 현황과 과제(2011~2012)

계승범(Kye, Seung-Bum) 역사학회 2013 역사학보 Vol.0 No.219

This review article examines scholarly monographs and articles, published during 2011~2012 in Korea, dealing with a variety of topics in the time period of early Chos?n Korea, covering the 1400s~1500s. Early Chos?n Korea underwent a longterm transition from indigenous/Buddhist to Confucian in almost all aspects, with the result that it began to take shape as a Confucian society in which Confucian values were placed above any others, from politics to even daily life. Younger generations of the ruling elite, more seriously versed in Confucian values than older generations, were very eager to apply what they had studied through Confucian classics to the reality of the time without compromise. With respect to this longterm yet steady transition that took place in early Chos?n, the years of 2011~2012 witnessed a number of valuable analyses and interpretations, including, among others, the features of the founders of the new Chos?n dynasty in the 1400s and the more Confucianized ruling elites in the 1500s, a new relationship between Ming China and Chos?n Korea based on Confucian rituals, the development of Neo-Confucianism among Korean intellectuals and its ‘Koreanization,’ remarkable changes in the family organization, and the prevalence of new types of porcelain that resemble Chinese styles. This review article also provides some suggestions that scholars and students majoring in the early Chos?n period need to share with each other for more meaningful research in the near future; for example, the necessity of producing more macroscopic and diachronic views and discourses.

파병 논의를 통해 본 조선전기 대명관(對明觀)의 변화

계승범 ( Seung Bum Kye ) 성균관대학교 대동문화연구원 2006 大東文化硏究 Vol.53 No.-

조선의 18세기와 탈중화 문제

계승범(Kye Seung-Bum) 역사학회 2012 역사학보 Vol.0 No.213

With emphasis on the politico-intellectual trend of the Joseon Dynasty in the 1700s, this paper examines whether Korean intellectuals attempted to escape from the political and cultural authorities of China (Zhonghua) under Manchu dominance. Unlike preexisting studies on this question, which regard both Ming China and Qing China as “China,” this paper discriminates between the two because Joseon ruling elites and intellectuals never accepted the Manchu Qing as Zhonghua. Even after the king of Joseon walked out of a mountain fortress and capitulated to the Manchu emperor in 1367, Korean intellectuals never regarded the Manchu emperor as the real Son of Heaven. Although the Joseon court sent tributes to Beijing on a regular basis and all Joseon kings received investiture from Manchu emperors thereafter, Joseon intellectuals still firmly believed that they were superior to the Manchu in terms of culture, especially with respect to their Confucian orthodoxy. Indeed, Joseon intellectuals believed the barbaric Manchu had fatally tarnished the outer world, including China, and now true Confucianism only survived in the land of Joseon. Not surprisingly, their cultural and spiritual reliance on fallen Ming China strengthened under Manchu dominance. The more they attempted to escape from Qing China, the more they thought of Ming China. For this reason, it is difficult to argue that Korean intellectuals attempted to escape from both Ming China and Qing China in the 1700s.

역사소설로 본 조선후기 ‘역사 만들기’의 일면

계승범(KYE, Seung-Bum) 한국사학사학회 2018 韓國史學史學報 Vol.0 No.38

본고에서는 조선후기에 등장한 『강로전』(1630)과 『북정일록』(18세기 전반)이 시도한 역사 만들기 작업의 결과가 상이하였음에 주목하되, 시점(타이밍)과 시대분위기의 차이라는 관점에서 비교·분석하였다. 『강로전』은 사료로 인정받지 못하였다. 소설로도 크게 유행하지는 못하였다. 특히 역사적 사실을 기록한 자료로 인정받지 못했다는 것은 역사 만들기 작업에 성공적이지 못했음을 의미한다. 정묘호란(1627) 발생 3년 만에 등장한 『강로전』은 그 등장 시점이 너무 일렀던 탓에 동시대 사람들의 ‘팩트 체크’를 피하기 어려웠다. 특히 강홍립의 항복행위를 극단적으로 비난한 『강로전』의 내용은 광해군보다 더 심하게 명나라를 배신하고 후금에 항복했다는 비난으로부터 자유로울 수밖에 없었던 인조 시기(1623~1649)는 물론이고 17세기가 저물도록 국가 권력의 호응을 얻어내지도 못하였다. 강홍립의 항복행위를 심하게 비난하면 할수록 국왕 인조의 丁卯和盟(1627)과 삼전도항복(1637) 행위에도 치명적 부메랑이 될 수밖에 없었기 때문이다. 이에 비해, 2차 흑룡강원정(나선정벌, 1658)을 다룬 『북정일록』은 18세기 전반 무렵에 나오자마자 민간에서 크게 유행하였으며, 특히 당시 유명한 학자들로부터 사료로 취급받았다. 역사 만들기 작업이 대성공을 거둔 것이다. 이렇게 된 데에는 원정군 사령관 신류가 남긴 1차 사료 『북정록』이 집안에만 머문 채 외부로 알려지지 않은 상태에서 소설 『북정일록』이 원정의 전말을 세간에 알린 사실상 유일한 자료였기 때문이다. 신류 본인은 물론이고 그 집안사람들이 『북정록』을 감춘 이유는 흑룡강원정 참전을 자부심이 아니라 수치심으로 여기던 시대분위기가 워낙 강고했기 때문이다. 북벌을 외치던 효종 대에 북벌을 실행에 옮기기는커녕 오히려 북벌의 대상인 청나라의 징병에 따라 출정하여 그 지휘를 받은 일은 형언하기 힘든 치욕스런 경험이었다. 1690년에 숙종이 흑룡강원정(나선정벌)에서 청나라의 존재를 지움으로써 그것을 조선이 단행한 북벌의 성공적 완수로 기억을 조작한 후에도, 『북정록』은 여전히 집안에만 머물렀다. 북벌의 대상인 청나라의 지휘를 받은 침울한 내용이 적나라했기 때문이다. 바로 이런 상황에서 18세기 전반 어느 시점에 원정의 주인공을 실존인물 신류에서 가공인물 배시황으로 뒤바꾼 『북정일록』이 원정 관련 거의 유일한 자료로 세간에 널리 회자하였던 것이다. 이익이나 이규경 같은 조선후기 대학자들조차도 『북정일록』의 내용을 사료로 취급한 사실은 이를 잘 보여준다. With emphasis on the two historical fictions written under Manchu dominance in the 1600s-1700s, this paper examines the situations in which two fictions were circulated in different ways. The Kangno chŏn (story of Kangno), written in 1630, was not successful in inventing history in that it was somewhat circulated as a fiction but never regarded as a historical source about the Korean expedition to Liaodong for the Ming against the Later Jin in 1619 and the first Manchu invasion of Korea in 1626. In the Kangno chŏn, the author threw the entire blame on Kang Hongnip (1560-1627), who had commanded the Chosŏn expeditionary force but surrendered to the Later Jin, for Chosŏn’s forced negotiations with the Manchu invaders for peace in 1627. Such fictional contents, however, could not appeal to King Injo (r. 1623-1649) and his close allies of the time, who in fact also surrendered to the Later Jin in 1627. The more widely the Kangno chŏn was circulated, the more severely the king himself would be criticized. This is the very reason for Kangno chŏn’s failure in inventing history. Informing the knowledge of the Manchu-Korean joint expedition to the Amur against Russia in the 1650s, the Pukchŏng illok (Daily accounts of the northern expedition) was written by anonymous probably in the early 1700s yet full of exaggerations, fabrications, and distortions. The Pukchŏng illok was nevertheless very successful in inventing history on the ground that it was circulated widely in the 1700s-1800s as a key historical source rather than a fiction. Interestingly, there was a primary source about the expedition: Written by Sin Nyu, the commander of the Chosŏn expeditionary force during the military campaign against the Cossack- Russians in the middle reaches of the Amur River in 1658, The Pukchŏngnok (Record of the northern expedition) was very factual and coincide well with other contemporary records such as Russian materials and the dynastic annals of Chosŏn Korea. But the Pukchŏngnok was not circulated and forgotten soon because the Korean view of the expedition was very negative until the the turn of the 1690s. To Korean ruling elites, the northern expedition was a panic and remained as a trauma because Chosŏn dispatched a force for the Qing to fight against Russians as a token of Korean obedience to the Manchu. What is worse, it occurred in the middle of Hyojong’s reign (1549-1559), who eagerly desired a revenge on the Manchu Qing for the fall of Ming China as well as the Korean surrender to them. This negative view of the expedition dramatically changed in 1690 when King Sukchong (r. 1674-1720) officially declared that the Koreans achieved success eventually in the northern expedition, by pointing out Russia as a Manchu Qing substitute. Pukchŏng illok’s success in inventing history was possible under this new situation and it was actually circulated among scholars of the time as a historical source.

기획논문 : 광해군의 대외정책과 그 논쟁의 성격

계승범 ( Seung Bum Kye ) 한국불교사연구소 2014 한국불교사연구 Vol.4 No.-

광해군대 외교노선을 놓고 벌어진 조정 논쟁의 핵심은 왕과 신료들 사이의 충돌이었다. 1589년의 기축옥사 이후로 처절하게 전개된 당쟁의 현실을 고려할 때, 5년간(1618-1622)에 걸쳐 벌어진 논쟁에서 신료들이 당색을 초월해 한 목소리로 국왕에 대항한 것은 매우 특이한 현상이었다. 왕과신료들이 이렇게 첨예하게 대립한 이유는 상황을 타개하기 위한 대책을 서로 다르게 뽑았기 때문이다. 왕과 신료들 모두 후금의 조선 침공 가능성을 부정하지는 않았으나, 그런 상황에 대처하는 해결방안이 서로 달랐다. 국왕 광해군은 후금에게 조선 침공 빌미를 주지 않기 위해서는 누르하치와 부단히 대화를 전개해야 한다고 주장했다. 반면에, 신료들은 명과의 동맹관계를 보다 강화해야 한다고 역설했다. 명이 배후에서 후금을 견제하는 한 후금은 조선을 독자적으로 침공하기 어렵다는 판단 때문이었다. 이런 식으로 왕과 신료들은 외교노선 문제를 놓고 사사건건 대립했으며 상대방을 의견을 나라를 망치는 생각으로 격하게 몰아붙였다. 신료들은 왜 그렇게 당색을 초월해 한 목소리로 국왕과 대립했을까? 왕과 신료들의 이런 첨예한 대립은 당시 조선사회의 어떤 특성을 반영해 주는 것일까? 어떤 중요한 결정을 내릴 때 인간이라면 이해득실을 계산하는 것이 인지상정이며, 그런 계산은 또한 정세판단과도 긴밀한 관계에 있다. 그렇다면 왕과 신료들은 왜 그렇게 다른 주장을 했으며, 정세판단을 달리했으며, 이해득실에서 공통점을 거의 갖고 있지 않았을까? 이 논문은 이런 일련의 문제에 대해 분석적인 답을 제공한다. The most significant attribute of the dispute over foreign policy in King Kwanghae`s court was the confrontation between King court officials. Considering that factional strife intensified violently since the treason case of 1589, it is significant that all factions lined up with each other and stood against the throne throughout the five-year dispute (1618-1622). The main reason for the confrontation was that King Kwanghae and his officials drew up very different plans to cope with the situation. Neither of them denied the possibility of a Manchu invasion of Chos.n, but the problem was how to cope that possibility. King Kwanghae maintained that Chos.n should prevent any possible military conflict with the Manchu. To this end, he stressed communications with Nurhaci. Court officials, on the other hand, contended that being allied with the Ming would be the best strategy because they believed that the Manchu would not be capable of invading Chos.n as long as the Ming-Chos.n alliance remained solid. For this reason, they strongly opposed all policies that might do damage relations with the Ming: they would not even consider a policy of secret communications with the Manchu. Why did the court officials, regardless of factional affiliation, unanimously oppose the king? What does this imply about the nature of Chos.n society of the time? It is human nature to calculate loss and gain before making an important decision, and such calculations are usually based on one`s judgment of the situation and one`s interests. So then, what made King Kwanghae and his court officials view the situation differently and not share a common set of interests? This article provide analytic answers to those questions.

17세기 중반 나선정벌의 추이와 그 동아시아적 의미

계승범(Kye, Seung Bum) 한국사학회 2013 史學硏究 Vol.- No.110

청의 入關(1644)을 계기로 많은 인구가 중원으로 이동함에 따라 만주일대의 인구는 크게 줄었다. 또한 남쪽에서 여전히 항거하는 南明을 제압하는 데 군사력을 집중하다보니, 만주 일대 청의 군사력은 이전에 비해 크게 약해졌다. 한반도의 조선도 만주 일대에 관심을 가질 처지가 아니었다. 만주지역을 夷狄의 땅으로 간주해온 전통적 인식 틀도 한 요인이었지만, 무엇보다도 삼전도항복(1637) 이후로는 청의 내정간섭을 견뎌내는 일만으로도 힘에 부쳤기 때문이다. 17세기 중반에 까자크인을 앞세운 러시아가 흑룡강과 송화강을 따라 만주 일대에 새로운 세력으로 등장한 것은 바로 이런 상황에서였다. 흑룡강 일대를 따라 청과 러시아 사이에 벌어진 연이은 전투에서 큰 효과를 보지 못한 청은 조선군의 화력을 이용하고자, 1654년과 1658년 두 차례에 걸쳐 조선에 銃手兵의 파병을 요구했다. 당시 청의 요구를 거절할 형편이 아니었던 조선 조정은 각각 150명에서 250명 규모의 소규모 부대를 출정시켰으니, 이것이 이른바 나선정벌이다. 이 논문에서는 조선과 러시아의 자료를 토대로 삼아 서로 대조함으로써, 그동안 개설 수준에 머물던 나선정벌의 추이를 자세히 고증해 재구성한다. 또한 그동안 다소 민족적 시각에서 나선정벌의 역사적 의의를 일부 과장한 기존 설명을 넘어, 17세기 중반에 새롭게 형성된 만주 일대의 새로운 국제질서라는 맥락에서 사실적으로 재해석한다. With the Manchu conquest of Ming China in the mid-1600s, Manchuria became a sparsely populated region: the majority of the Manchu population left their homeland and rushed to China. The Qing authority also concentrated all its energy on the military campaigns against Ming loyalists in the south. The Koreans on the peninsula also abandoned Manchuria, not only because they regarded it as a barbaric land but also because they never wanted to offend the Manchu. It was in this situation that new-comers began to infiltrate into northern Manchuria alongside the Amur (Heilung) River and the Sungari River. The Manchu-Korean joint expeditions to the Amur were planned and launched subsequently. In the early phase of the Manchu-Russian/Cossack conflicts, the Manchu suffered some successive defeats because they were surpassed in firepower and mobility. In the mid-1650s, for this reason, the Manchu authority demanded twice that Chos?n send some troops armed with Korean-type muskets. Referring to Korean and Russian sources, this paper examines and provides the details of the expeditions and interprets the historical meaning of the expeditions in the context of the emergence of a new political topography in Northeast Asia in the mid-1600s.

인목대비 폐위 논쟁과 인조반정의 명분 - 오수창 교수의 비판에 답함

계승범(Kye, Seung Bum) 역사비평사 2022 역사비평 Vol.- No.141

By reexamining the nature of the court disputes over the queen dowager, suspected of her involvement in a treason case, and the causes for the Palace Coup of 1623, which dethroned the king who had con fined the queen dowager in her palace, this review article refutes Prof. Oh Soo-chang’s criticism against my monograph Mohu ǔi panyǒk (The treason of the queen dowager). Unlike prof. Oh who argued that the essence of the disputes was the issue of king’s disloyalty to the queen dowager, the key nature of the disputes was whether the king had to punish the queen dowager, his stepmother, who was charged of seeking treason, according to the state law based on the Confucian value of ch’ung or kongǔi (loyalty) or show mercy to her adopting another Confucian value of hyo or saǔn (filial piety). There were many similar cases and debates on the queen dowagers who were involved in treason cases in Chinese history. The majority of Neo-Confucian scholars like Zhu Xi (1130~1200), in particular, placed much more emphasis on ch’ung and even thought that the queen dowager should have been punished. In Chosǒn Korea in the early 1600s the great controversy came to an end by confining the queen dowager in her palace, but the king was dethroned five years later by a palace coup. According to the message promulgated in the name of the Queen Dowager immediately following the coup, the causes for the coup can be classified broadly into two categories: the deposed king’s betrayal of Ming China to the barbaric Manchu (43%) and the confinement of the queen dowager and the murder of her young son (31%). The later sources, however, tended not to cite the betrayal of Ming China, but excessively emphasized the confinement of the queen dowager, a serious royal violation of the Confucian value hyo. The issue of foreign policy, the betrayal of the Ming emperor, was struck off the official causes for the coup. During the Manchu invasion of Korea (1636~1637), King Injo (r. 1623~1649), who led the coup and ascended the throne, eventually surrendered to the Manchu emperor, with the result that one of the primary causes for the coup was now lost. In order to maintain his legitimacy and offset the lost cause with the other one, Injo and his officials had little option but to lay utmost emphasis on the former king’s unfilial act. Although prof. Oh insists that the coup was a righteous restoration to eliminate royal depravity, the causes for the coup were not singular and morphed as time went on, depending on the political situations in domestic and foreign affairs.