숙종대 明史 진강과 명의 멸망에 대한 인식 - 『明紀編年』 진강을 중심으로 - (Lecture on Ming-Shi (明史)‘ in the Royal Study Sessions and The Perception toward the Fall of the Ming dynasty during the Reign of King Sukjong- With Focus on the lecture on the Myeong-gi-pyeon-nyeon (明)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국학중앙연구원 한국학중앙연구원
· 수록지 정보 : 藏書閣 / 45호 / 318 ~ 357페이지
· 저자명 : 윤정

초록

본 논문은 숙종대 후반 진행된 명사 진강의 의미를 남명 사적을 포함한 멸망기에 대한 인식을 중심으로 살펴본 것이다. 숙종대 처음으로 실행된 명사의 진강은 명의 사적을 이해하는 준거였던 『皇明通紀』를 주 교재로 하고, 여기에 포함되지 않은 명말 부분은 『명기편년』으로 보완하는 방식으로 진행되었다. 『명기편년』은 명의 鍾惺이 당대사로 저술하고 청의 王汝南이 보완한 편년체 사서로서, 왕여남은 熹宗과 毅宗대를 보충하고 『명계유문』을 통해 남명의 사적을 추가하였다. 이것은 남명을 명 역사의 연장으로 본 것으로서 「명기편년부록」의 형태로 영력제 치세 일부까지 다루었다. 이에 대해 숙종대 진강에서는 융무제까지 만을 대상으로 하여 명 멸망의 책임을 이들에게 돌렸다. 이것은 병자호란 후 조선이 북벌정책을 추진하면서 관심을 기울인 영력제의 치세를 배제한 것이다. 이와 함께 멸망의 주체로 비판되던 의종에 대해서는 긍정적으로 인식이 변화하였는데, 이는 명 멸망의 책임을 황제에게 돌리는 시각이 대명의리의 정당성을 훼손할 수 있기 때문이었다. 이후 대보단의 설립과정에서 진강 때까지 사용하던 회종의 호칭을 남명에서 올린 의종으로 바꾼 것은 명 멸망에 대한 변화된 인식을 반영한 것이다. 이처럼 숙종대 명사 진강을 통해 확립된 명사인식은 인조반정의 기반이 되었던 대명의리의 정당성을 역사적으로 확보하는 한편 중화의 정통을 이어가는 조선의 위상을 정립하려는 것이었다.

영어초록

This study explored the meaning of lectures on Ming-Shi (明史) in the royal study sessions which was conducted during the late period of King Sukong's reign, based on the perception of the fall of the Ming China including the South Ming (南明). Lectures on Ming-Shi (明史), the abbreviation for lectures on Ming-Shi in the royal study sessions, used Hwang-myeong-tong-gi (皇明通紀) as a main textbook. And details of the last days of the Ming dynasty which was not covered in this book was supplemented with the Myeong-gi-pyeon-nyeon (明紀編年). This is a history book compiled in a chronological form which was written by Jong Seong (鍾惺) of the Ming dynasty and supplemented by Wang Yeonam (王汝南) of the Qing dynasty. Wang Yeonam supplemented the periods of Emperor Huijong(熹宗) and Emperor Uijong (毅宗) and added the history of South Ming with referecne to Myeong-gye-yu-mun. This means that the South Ming was regarded as part of the Ming history. It partially dealt with the period of Emperor Yeongnyeokje’s reign in the form of a supplement to Myeong-gi-pyeon-nyeon. The lectures conducted in the royal study session during the reign of King Sukjong dealt with history that covers the reign of rulers up to Emperor Yungmuje. It meant that the fall of the Ming dynasty was attributed to emperors including Emperor Yungmuje. After the Manchu war of 1636, Joseon paid attention to the rule of Emperor Yeongryeokje during the process of driving plan for northern subjugation. In contrast, it was excluded the period of King Sukjong’s reign. Along with this, the perception of Emperor Uijong, who was criticized as a main culprit of collapse changed positively. It is due to the viewpoint that attributing the Ming dynasty's collapse to the emperor could damage the legitimacy of Joseon’s faithful relationship to the Ming Dynasty. The appellation, “Emperor Hwejong,” which was used during the lecture in the royal study sessions was changed into “Emperor Uijong,” which was decided in the South Ming dynasty while the foundation of Daebodan was discussed and processed. It reflected the change of the perception toward the collapse of the Ming dynasty. As such, Joseon’s perception toward the Ming dynasty's history established through lectures on the Ming-Shi (明史) during the reign of King Sukjong reflected its intention to secure the legitimacy of 'Faithful' relationship to the Ming Dynasty, which laid the groundwork for King Injo's restoration and establishing the status of Joseon as a successor of Chinese tradition.

참고자료

· 없음