위서와 소설 사이: 17세기 『北征錄』을 통해 본 『北征日錄』 (Between Fiction and Psudograph: An Analysis of Pukchŏng illok through Pukchŏngnok in the 1600s and 1700s)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 서강대학교 인문과학연구소
· 수록지 정보 : 서강인문논총 / 50호 / 39 ~ 77페이지
· 저자명 : 계승범

초록

흑룡강원정(나선정벌)을 전하는 초기 자료는 원정군 사령관 신류의 진중일기 『북정록』과 허구성이 다분한 작자미상의 『북정일록』으로 대별할 수 있다. 그런데 정작 흑룡강원정을 세상에 널리 알린 것은 『북정일록』이었다. 남인계열 무장 신류의 『북정록』이 외부에 유포되지 않은 까닭은 흑룡강원정을 보는 당대의 시각이 매우 부정적이었기 때문이다. ‘오랑캐’ 청을 겨냥한 북벌론이 조야를 휩쓸던 효종 때, 정작 북벌은 하지 못하고 오히려 그 청의 지휘를 받아 출정한 흑룡강원정은 조선에게 치유하기 힘든 아픈 상처였다. 그러나 이런 부정적 인식은 북벌론이 사실상 그 시의성을 상실한 1690년대 벽두에 숙종이 신류를 위해 직접 지은 賜祭文을 통해 긍정적 기억으로 180도 바뀌었다. 흑룡강원정의 기억에서 청의 존재를 크게 희석시키고 그것을 조선 스스로의 전역으로 바꿈으로써, 북쪽의 오랑캐를 쳤다는 북벌의 가시적 성과로 둔갑시킨 것이다. 이런 상황에서 갑술환국(1694)을 계기로 남인이 몰락하고 서인이 재집권했는데, 서인에는 당시 ‘영고탑회귀설’과 맞물려 북변에 대해 큰 관심을 두던 인물이 많았다. 『북정일록』 같은 위서 또는 소설이 탄생 비밀은 이런 환경에서 실마리를 찾을 수 있는데, 원정의 주인공을 신류에서 배시황으로 바꾸고, 무공을 오로지 배시황에게 돌린 점은 『북정일록』의 저자가 서인계열임을 강하게 시사한다. 이 글에서는 서인 및 소론의 거두이자, 함경도관찰사를 역임하고 영고탑 일대의 정확한 정보에 큰 관심을 기울인 南九萬이 『북정일록』의 집필에 어떤 식으로든 관련이 있을 것으로 추정했다. 18세기 전반 무렵에 탄생한 『북정일록』은 이후 李瀷이나 李圭景 같은 대학자가 주요 자료로 소개함으로써, 흑룡강원정의 전말을 전해주는 역사 자료로 『북정록』을 대신하여 자리를 굳혀갔다.

영어초록

There are two main sources about the northern expeditions to the Amur (Nasŏn chŏngbŏl in Korean) in the 1650s. One is Pukchŏngnok (Record of the northern expedition) written by Sin Nyu, a key member of the Southerner faction and the commander of the Chosŏn expeditionary force, during the military campaign against the Cossack-Russians in 1658. The other is Pukchŏng illok (Daily accounts of the northern expedition), written by anonymous probably in the early 1700s, which is full of exaggeration, fabrication, and distortion. Interestingly, it is Pukchŏng illok that informed the knowledge of the expedition among Koreans of the time. The reason why Pukchŏngnok was not circulated and eventually forgotten is that the Korean view of the expeditions was very negative no earlier than 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. But it was 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 officially declared that the Koreans achieved success eventually in the northern expedition, by pointing out Russia as a Manchu Qing substitute. In this new situation, the Westerner faction took power again in 1694 with the result that the Southerners were almost purged and disappeared from the political scene of the central government. Unlike the Southerners, some Westerners were very much interested in the border defense in the north against the Manchu who they believed would pass through the northen provinces on the way back to their homeland, Ningguta in central Manchuria, when the manchu Qing faced a crisis in Proper China. Positioned between fiction and Psudograph, the birth of Pukchŏng illok can be understood in this special situation. It is presumed that Nam Kuman might have been closely related to the writing of Pukchŏng illok, even if he was not the author, on the grounds that ① he was a leading Westerner in the 1690s and early 1700s, ② he was a person who had abundant experiences as a governor in the northeastern province, ③ he was the person who had a thorough knowledge of Manchuria, especially Ningguta, better than any other officials in the Chosŏn government, and ④ he maintained a very close relationship with a Confucian student who resided in a town of the northeastern province during the expedition and left behind brief record of the expedition.

참고자료

· 없음