閔愼 代服 사건의 쟁점과 의미 (The Min Shin Controversy : Points and Meaning)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 진단학회
· 수록지 정보 : 진단학보 / 123호 / 55 ~ 82페이지
· 저자명 : 이정민

초록

본 논문은 17세기 후반 ‘閔愼 代服’ 사건에 대한 검토를 통해, 당시 조선사회의 禮 인식 양상을 살펴보려 하였다. 병세가 심각했던 부친을 대신해 손자인 민신이 상복을 입었던 이른바 ‘민신대복’ 사건은, 특수 상황에 대처하기 위한 ‘變禮’로 시행됐지만, 생존해 있는 아버지의 존재를 부정했다는 것이 논란이 되어 禮訟 정국 속에서 국가적 쟁점으로 비화하게 된다. 전례를 둘러싼 시비 논쟁이 왕실을 벗어나 사대부가문으로 확대되는 과정에서, 대복을 지지했던 宋時烈(1607～1689)과 朴世采(1631～1695)의 견해가 다수의 지지를 얻지 못했던 ‘특이한’ 상황을 통해, 당시 학계의 정서적 지형을 살펴 볼 수 있다.
본 논문에서는 ‘민신대복’ 사건을 ‘예송’의 일종으로 간주하고, 송시열과 박세채, 尹鑴(1617~1680)와 許穆(1595~1682) 등의 견해가 ‘宗統’과 ‘孝’, ‘親親’과 ‘尊尊’ 등을 둘러싸고 어떻게 갈렸는지를 검토하였다. 송시열과 박세채는 국가와 사회의 근간인 宗法과 宗統 수호가 그 무엇보다도 우선한다고 보았고, ‘친친’의 개념이 ‘존존’의 개념에 귀속되니 ‘존존’을 통해서도 ‘친친’을 포괄할 수 있다는 입장을 개진, ‘종통’을 지킨 민신의 대복 행위를 지지하였다. 반면 윤휴와 허목 등의 남인을 비롯, 전반적 여론은 부자간에 ‘효’가 우선되어야 한다고 주장하며, ‘친친을 실천하는 주체’와 ‘존존을 실천하는 주체’가 서로 엄격히 분리되어야 함을 강조하였다. 그러한 입장에서 그들은 민신을 ‘아버지를 부정하고 그 지위를 빼앗은 불효자’이자 ‘존존의 영역에서 허용될 행위’를 ‘친친의 영역에서 함부로 자임’한 ‘패륜아’로 간주하였다. 이러한 입장이 대세를 이루는 와중에 송시열과 박세채의 입장은 다소 ‘급진적’인 소수 견해로 몰렸음이 흥미롭다. 당시 조선사회에, ‘종통’과 관련한 왕실의 전례가 사대부가의 영역으로 확장될 여건이 아직 충분히 마련돼 있지 않았을 가능성을 살펴볼 수 있다.

영어초록

Examined in this article is the controversy that was launched by a ‘misguided’ decision to ‘stand in(‘代服’)’ as the main mourner for the death of a grandfather, made by an individual named Min Shin(閔愼) in the late 17th century. Discussions and debates that went on for decades since this incident first took place, represent a whole spectrum of various stances assumed by Joseon thinkers, regardless of their parties, on the issue of “protocols(禮).” As his father was very ill, Min Shin decided to act in the role of ‘main mourner,’ a status that in ordinary circumstances was to be filled by his father. The situation that called for such decision was pretty much extra-ordinary, but it was clearly an ‘unusual resolution’(“‘變禮”) in the eyes of the public nonetheless. Many people were surprised and shocked, even to the extent of being enraged. Primary criticism was centered upon the notion that Min Shin arbitrarily denied his father’s own rights. At the time, there has been a philosophical and political debate going on inside the government that was concerned about the mourning period that should be observed ‘for and by’ royal family members. We now call these debates as “Protocol Suits(禮訟)” as it filled the government with heated arguments, and such environment elevated the Min Shin controversy to a whole new level. The incident actually expanded the national debate, which had originally only concerned itself with royal family figures, to ordinary elite level households of governmental officials. Interestingly enough, the most prominent figures in the Westerners party, and who consciously recommended the ‘standing in’ option to Min Shin, such as Song Shi-yeol(宋時烈, 1607～1689) and Park Se-che(朴世采, 1631～1695), turned out to be not on the side of the majority, as we can see from the fact that they came under heavy fire by scholars and philosophers all around the country.
Primarily analyzed in this article is how opinions and stances differed between various thinkers such as Song & Park and Yun Hyu & Heo Mok, over issues like “Securing the succession line(宗統)” or “preserving filial piety(孝) and fulfilling a child’s obligation to its parents.” And it is duly noted that they had more fundamental concerns as well. Some were determined to uphold important notions like “Maintaining intimate relationship with the closest relatives(‘Chinchin, 親親’),” which was in other words a directive to endear oneself with one’s parents, while others were obsessed with the principle of “Serving one’s duty for the Elders(‘Jonjon, 尊尊’),” which was essentially to respect the ancestors above the parents-level, starting with grandparents.
Song Shi-yeol and Park Se-che were adamant that the clan law(宗法) and succession line(宗統), which were the founding bases of state and society, should be preserved and protected at all costs. In their eyes, ‘Chinchin’ was a concept that could be dealt with in the realm of ‘Jonjon,’ so they reasoned that Min Shin’s choice was the right one as he ultimately upheld the directive of ‘Jonjon,’ while not in any way abandoning ‘Chinchin.’ On the other hand, Southerners like Yun Hyu and Heo Mok, and many others throughout the society, argued that ‘Chinchin,’ one’s obligation to the parents, should be an individual’s highest priority, and ‘Jonjon’ should be pursued by the royal family which governs the country while ‘Chinchin’ be so by people in the private sector. With such view, they condemned Min Shin’s actions as an act of ‘denying the very existence of his own father’ and even ‘depriving his father of his rightful status as the dead one’s son.’ In their eyes, Min Shin was a rogue who dared acting on a principle that he was not entitled to observe.
Song and Park’s opinion ended up being in the minority, one which not that many others could concur. We can see that the Joseon society was not that much ready to embrace a rule that could be applied to not only the royal family but also formidable (but private) families throughout the dynasty.

참고자료

· 없음