조선후기 김경서 현창의 추이와 당대사적 의미 (Commemoration of Kim Gyeong-seo in the latter half of the Joseon period, and the meaning such efforts had in the time’s cultural atmosphere)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국역사연구회
· 수록지 정보 : 역사와 현실 / 115호 / 159 ~ 199페이지
· 저자명 : 장정수

초록

이 글은 심하전역에 참전했다가 포로가 되어 후금에서 생을 마친 부원수 김경서에 대한 현창 과정을 추적한다. 심하전역에서는 다량의 조선군 전사자와 포로가 동시에 발생했는데 전사자는 충절(忠節), 포로는 역절(逆節)이라는 전혀 다른 평가를 받았다. 김경서는 포로가 되었다는 이유로 도원수 강홍립과 함께 악평을 받았으며, 분전 끝에 전사한 충신 김응하에 대한 평가와 뚜렷한 대조를 이루었다. 훗날 김경서가 후금에 의해 살해된 사실이 전해지면서 그에 대한 신원(伸冤)과 복관(復官), 증직(贈職)이 이루어져 ‘투항’의 오명에서 벗어나게 되었다. 한동안 김경서에 대한 평가는 충절과 역절 사이에서 모호한 상태로 남았는데, 억울함은 인정하더라도 투항한 행적은 지울 수 없다는 이유에서였다. 18세기 후반 존주대의를 강조하는 분위기가 조성되자 김경서에 대한 현창 사업이 재개되어 그는 충신의 반열에 오를 수 있었고 19세기에 이르러 대명의리와 연결되었다. 김경서의 신원과 현창이 진행되는 이면에서 그와 함께 투항한 것으로 알려졌던 강홍립에 대한 평가는 악화되었다. 강홍립의 투항은 광해군의 비밀 지시에 따른 것으로 인식되었고, 심하전역은 존주대의를 수호하기 위해 많은 희생을 치른 사건으로 재탄생했다. 이는 조선이 청에 신속(臣屬)한 현실의 이면에서 스스로 중화문명의 계승자를 자처하며 형성해 가던 자아정체성을 강화시켰다.

영어초록

Explored in this article is how Vice Commander(Bu-Weonsu) Kim Gyeong-seo, who joined the Shimha war only to be captured as a prisoner of war and later died in Hu-Geum, was commemorated posthumously, and why.
At the Shimhar war, many Joseon soldiers were either killed or captured. However, while the former were hailed as loyal victims and commemorated in the name of loyalty and dignity[忠節], the latter were condemned as traitors[逆節]. Case of Kim Gyeong-seo belonged to the latter, as he was criticized -along with Do-Weonsu(Supreme commander) Kang Hong-rib- just for the reason that he was captured. Compared to the ongoing praise of Kim Eung-ha who was known to have valiantly struggled and then got killed, the evaluation of Kim Gyeong-seo was quite harsh. Then, later the fact that Kim Gyeong-seo was actually killed by Hu-Geum was revealed and disclosed to the public, so his honor was reinstated along with his earlier position, and a new title was even bestowed posthumously. It seemed like his name was being finally cleared from that of a ‘surrenderer.’ Yet in reality, for quite some time, his reputation remained somewhat murky, between ‘loyal’ and ‘disloyal,’ as there was an opinion –supported by many- which believed while his case certainly merited a sympathetic reevaluation, the fact that he surrendered could not be ignored.
But in the latter half of the 18th century, the sense of obligation to ‘honor the true master race(in this case, the Chinese Ming dynasty)’ began to form rather dominantly, and a new effort to commemorate Kim Gyeong-seo was initiated. He was hailed as a “Loyal vassal,” and in the 19th century he was even cited as a symbol to propagate an agenda of the time, which was to ‘uphold a righteous cause,’ commemorating Ming.
In the process of his being reevaluated and newly honored, the evaluation of Gang Hong-rib, who was known to have surrendered to Hu-Geum with Kim, deteriorated. Gang’s surrender was defined as an act following former king Gwang’hae-gun’s secret order, and the Shimha battle was redefined as a battle that cost many lives in the name of honoring the true legitimate (Ming) dynasty. Such definitions were meant to strengthen Joseon’s new identity as the bearer of the Sino-centric traditions, while the dynasty itself was being forced to serve the ‘barbaric’ Qing.

참고자료

· 없음