전통적 지식인의 망국 인식 : 김윤식·김택영·박은식의 경우 = Traditional intellectuals’ understanding on a decaying country: Kim Yun-shik, Kim Taek-young, and Park Eun-shik

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

On August 29, 1910, the Korean Empire ceased to exist as an official state.
Although its right of diplomacy and military forces had already been lost, the new annexation came as a big shock to all members of the state. This paper will examine how was taken by Korean people of the time, focusing on cases of Korean intellectuals who were still stepped in traditional culture.
Kim Yun-shik(1835~1922) was a disciple of Park Gyu-su and a bureaucrat as a member of the Cabinet, but he was unable to actively perform his role in the situation of national ruin. Though he wrote in his diary that he expressed his objection to the annexation, he did not actually show that resistance in assertive behavior. This can be interpreted as an attitude of approving the international order formed by a ‘treaty’.
Kim Taek-young(1850~1927) faced the national ruin when he defected to China.
He, who was well-known as a historian and poet from Gaeseong, had a strong sense of Goryeo legacy. Accordingly, the fall of Joseon would have been equivalent to that of Goryeo dynasty, at least ideologically. That cognition is also seen in poetry for example ‘Oho-song(嗚呼賦)’ and prose describing ‘loyal subjects of a ruined country’ found in the history of Korea and China. Before long he completed a history work ‘Hansagyeong’, in which he describe the cause of national ruin in his perspective.
Park Eun-shik(1859~1925) worked as a journalist and historian who argued the reform of Confucianism. He defected to Manchuria and carried on independence movement after the loss of sovereignty, and his awareness of the process to decaying nation appeared in historical documents that he wrote following his defection. His unique way of thinking, which devides a state into ‘national spirit(國魂)’ and ‘national form(國魄)’, serves as an exemplary case of academic explanation about national ruin.
When the Manse Demonstrations occurred in 1919, Kim Yun-shik, Kim Taek-young, and Park Eun-shik offered their own understanding of national ruin and solution to overcome it from different places and perspectives. While Kim Yun-shik presented a petition reasoning with opponents, Kim Taek-young made efforts to get cooperation from China. Park wrote the history of independence movement, while actively taking part in it at the same time. The cause of different response to the same affair was probably taken from the difference of analysis on national ruin. Kim Yun-shik pointed out the incompetence of the King, while Kim Taek-young focused on problems of the intellectuals. Park pointed out the two problems, national and international both. Besides he found out the power of ‘the people’. The fact that he discovered the people and stressed the civil rights is the main cause of the different response in a sense.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 김택영, "한사경, 권6(영인본)" 아세아문화사

2 최혜주, "창강 김택영의 한국사론" 한울 1996

3 김성배, "유교적 사유와 근대 국제정치의 상상력" 창비 2009

4 김윤식, "운양집(영인본)" 민족문화추진회

5 김소영, "운양 김윤식 한시 연구" 성균관대학교 1998

6 김택영, "오호부. in: 韶濩堂詩集, 권6(영인본)" 아세아문화사 394-396,

7 황재문, "애국계몽기 몽유록과 힘의 윤리" 규장각한국학연구원 (35) : 219-242, 2009

8 김윤식, "속음청사(하)" 국사편찬위원회 1971

9 김윤식, "속음청사(상)"

10 황재문, "서간도 망명기 박은식 저작의 성격과 서술 방식" 진단학회 (98) : 153-182, 2004

11 김구, "백범일지" 돌베개 215-, 1997

12 한국교회사연구소, "뮈텔 주교 일기, 4" 한국교회사연구소 1998

13 노대환, "동도서기론 형성 과정 연구" 일지사 2005

14 노관범, "대한제국기 박은식과 장지연의 자강사상 연구" 서울대학교 2007

15 정교, "대한계년사, 9" 소명출판 229-, 2004

16 박은식, "韓國痛史"

17 노관범, "『韓國痛史』의 時代思想 －自强, 人道, 革命의 삼중주－" 한국사상사학회 (33) : 325-351, 2009

18 김도형, "1910년대 박은식의 사상 변화와 역사인식" 114 : 2001