18세기 전반 『남계집(南溪集)』 편간과 ‘박세채(朴世采)의 탕평(蕩平)’에 대한 논란 (Compilation of Namgye-jib(南溪集) in the 18th century’s early half, and Controversy surrounding Park Se-chae(朴世采)’s Tangpyeong(蕩平) discussions)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국역사연구회
· 수록지 정보 : 역사와 현실 / 129호 / 213 ~ 262페이지
· 저자명 : 진오균

초록

이 글에서는 박세채의 문집인 『남계집』을 편간하는 과정을 재구성하고, 그 과정에서 불거졌던 박세채의 정치적 행보와 붕당론에 대한 논란을 살펴보았다. 노소갈등이 심화되었던 18세기 정치사의 흐름에서 박세채의 정치적 입장에 대한 해석은 박세채의 개별 문인 및 정파의 이해관계와 밀접하게 연결되어 핵심 사안으로 대두하였다. 특히 영조대 탕평정치의 근거로서 박세채의 붕당론이 활용되었던 것은 박세채에 대한 논란이 더욱 심화되는 계기로 작용하였다.
『남계집』은 박세채에 대한 해석의 근거로서 주목받으면서 편간과정에서 정치적 논란의 중심에 위치하였다. 『남계집』 편간사업을 주도하였던 박세채의 후손과 문인이 노소갈등으로 대표되는 중앙정치의 흐름에 따라 분화하면서 편간방침에 대한 이견이 불거졌다. 문집 내용에 대한 산삭 여부와 문집의 간행 순서가 주요한 쟁점이었는데, 회니시비에 대한 박세채의 입장을 시비명변으로 규정한 노론계 문인과 조제보합으로 이해한 소론계 문인 사이의 갈등이 두드러졌다.
영조대 전반 소론탕평파의 주도에 따라 간행이 실현되면서 『남계집』은 붕당 문제에 대한 박세채의 조제보합적 태도를 부각하는 저작으로 자리매김하였다.
주목되는 것은 노론계 문인이 영조대 탕평정치에 반발하며 당대의 탕평과 박세채를 분리시키기 위하여 노력하였다는 점이다. 이는 영조대 탕평정치와 다른 맥락에서 박세채를 계승하려는 움직임이 있었다는 사실을 보여준다.

영어초록

Re-imagined in this article is the compilation and publication process of Park Se-chae’s personal anthology Namgye-jib. Also examined are the political actions of Park Se-chae which were put under a microscope during that very process, with a particular focus placed on his personal opinions on political parties (and their clashes with each other).
The 18th century witnessed heightened conflicts between the Noron and Soron factions, and at the time interpretation of Park Se-chae’s political stance was considered to be a significantly delicate issue that would affect the political interests of not only Park’s disciples but entire political factions as well. The debate was aggressive, and the controversy became even more complicated by the fact that his ideas regarding the Bungdang(朋黨, political parties) entities were cited as a foundation for King Yeongjo’s Tangpyeong(蕩平, Equality in Appointments) policy no less.
Compilation/publication of the Namgye-jib anthology proceeded in such a volatile situation. Articles included in the text were naturally perceived as containing the genuine voice of Park himself, and were put right at the center of a political fight. The task of compilation was of course overseen by Park’s descendants and disciples, but their political paths inside the central government had already diverged at this point, due to certain changes that had been unfolding in the political arena thanks to Noron-Soron conflicts. What ensued during the compilation process was different opinions clashing with each other. Whether or not to remove certain portions from the preliminary edition of the anthology, and the proper order to be observed in publishing the book turned out to be the main points of contention between the Noron and Soron sides. Noron-side disciples argued that Park Se-chae’s stance toward the conflicts between Song Shi-yeol(宋時烈) and Yun Jeung(尹拯) - which was also known as the “Debate between Hwedeok(懷德, Song) and Iseong(尼城, Yun)” [the ‘Hwe-Ni(懷尼) Debate(是非)’] - and only regarded it as a ‘Debate to clarify what is right and wrong,’ while Soron-side disciples regarded Park’s stance as genuinely intending to pursue harmony between parties and factions(“Joje Bohab, 調劑保合”).
When the publication went underway by the Tangpyeong faction within the Soron party during the early half of King Yeongjo’s reign, Namgye-jib was presented as a text highlighting Park Se-chae’s conciliatory attitude toward the politial Bungdang parties issue. What should be noted is the effort of the Noron figures, who were squarely against King Yeongjo’s Tangpyeong efforts, and determined to separate Park Se-chae(or his image) from the Tangpyeong issue or related arguments. It seems that there were indeed other attempts to hail Park Se-chae with a notion completely unconnected to the Tangpyeong politics of King Yeongjo’s time.

참고자료

· 없음