고려 趙位寵의 義와 叛에 대한 성리학적 논변 (Debates Based on the Sung-Confucianism over ‘Loyalty’ and ‘Treason’ of Jo, Wi-Chong, a Figure of the Koryo Period)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 부산경남사학회
· 수록지 정보 : 역사와경계 / 88호 / 189 ~ 226페이지
· 저자명 : 유영옥

초록

前代의 역사가 끊임없이 재론되는 것은 當代의 이데올로기와 현실 상황이 그에 투영되어 史家의 史筆이 事業과 人物의 賢否를 지속적으로 환기시키기 때문이다. 조선은 성리학 사회였기 때문에 정통과 의리에 대한 엄격한 분변이 古今을 평가하는 가장 중요한 기준이 되었다.
따라서 조선후기 성리학의 정통론과 의리명분론이 더욱 강화되는 추세 속에서 『고려사』나 『동국통감』과 같은 조선전기 관찬사서의 史評은 종종 역전되는 경우가 발생한다. 여말선초의 절의자와 개국공신에 대한 평가가 주로 그에 해당되며, 그 이전의 고려인으로는 趙位寵에 대한 史評이 현란하게 상반된다.
조선전기 『동국통감』은 조위총이 거병한 처음은 義였으나 끝은 叛이었다고 하여, 조위총에 대한 義와 叛의 양면적 평가를 확고히 결정하였다, 그로 인해 조선후기 史書들은 대개 義가 叛으로 변질되었다는 『동국통감』의 사평에서 一步 더 나아가, 양자택일로 단정하자면 조위총은 결국 叛으로 귀착되는 인물이라고 인식하였다. 그 속에서 혹자는 조위총이 처음 거병할 때조차 義라고 할 수 있는지 의심하였고, 혹자는 그의 叛逆을 아예 부정하며 거병의 大義만 적극 顯彰하는 쪽으로 그를 재평가하였다.
조위총에게 일말의 大義도 없다고 혹평한 『동사찬요』를 비롯해 『여사제강』 등 17~18c 초반의 史書들은 주로 조위총의 義에 회의하거나 의심하였고. 조위총을 節義之士로 대서특필한 18c 중ㆍ후반 성호 이익과 제자 안정복의 『동사강목』 등은 조위총의 叛을 사소한 흠결로 포용하며 그의 大義를 적극 褒獎하였다.
이에 본고는 조선전기 『동국통감』이 조위총을 義와 叛으로 평가한 까닭을 서술하고, 이어서 정통과 의리에 대한 개인의 사유 및 시기에 따라 조위총을 다르게 보는 조선후기 史評들을 차례로 서술하였다.

영어초록

Some figures who were described in history books of the early Joseon period were differently estimated by those of the late Joseon period. One of those figures is Jo, Wi-Chong. From the perspective of the Sung-Confucianism, Jeong, Jung-Bu and Lee, Eui-bang are traitors because they carried out the Warriors' Coup in 1170 and ousted the then monarch, King Euijong. Kim, Bo-Dang and Jo, Wi-Chong rose in arms in order to crack down on those traitors. So they are righteous from the same perspective. History books published in the Joseon period all agreed that Kim, Bo-Dang who had taken up arms in the 3rd year of King Myeongjong's reign, but failed was righteous. However, they described that Jo, Wi-Chong who had raised an army in the 4th year of the same king's reign, but failed was just on one hand and rebellious on the other hand.
Estimating Jo, Wi-Chong in two ways, ‘loyalty’ and ‘treason’ was made for the first time by a historic publication of the early Joseon period, Dongguk Tonggam. This literature judged that Jo, Wi-Chong's initial mobilization of armed forces was certainly righteous, or loyal to ‘loyalty’ because it aimed to punish the military coup group that expelled the then monarch. But Dongguk Tonggam concluded that his armed action finally proved to be treasonable since it was wrong in timing. The literature attributed that conclusion to the following three facts. First, Jo, Wi-Chong missed the chance to kill the traitors because he hesitated when Kim, Bo-Dang rose in arms, and failed to cooperate with the latter. Second, prolonged military disputes led by Jo, Wi-Chong became as if they were insurrectional against King Myeongjeong as the power of the monarch were gradually fortified and stabilized. Third, Jo, Wi-Chong tried to depend on Jin by committing an anti-national act, that is, attempting to hand over some part of Koryo to the Chinese country when his situation fell into more trouble.
It was a main trend of the late Joseon period that legitimism and the priciples of righteousness and justice were strengthened based on the Sung-Confucianism. Following that trend, Jo, Wi-Chong was estimated in two different ways. Some doubted whether he was righteous while, others negated that he was rebellious. For example, Dongsa Chanyo and Yeosa Jegang criticizes him for having risen in arms for his own interest from the outset, which necessarily had to turn to be a revolt. In contrast, Lee, Ik and his disciples, Ahn, Jeong-Bok and Kang, Jae-Hang considered Jo, Wi-Chong's anti-state acts as trivial mistakes and praised extensively that those acts were based on his great cause. These differences can be attributed to different ways of reasoning that persons who actually estimated Jo, Wi-Chong had about things legitimate and righteous from the perspective of the Sung-Confucianism.

참고자료

· 없음