성호(星湖) 이익(李瀷, 1681~1763)의 중국사인식(中國史認識) 소고(小考) (A Brief Study of Yi Ik’s Recognitions of Chinese History)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국사상사학회
· 수록지 정보 : 한국사상사학 / 75호 / 77 ~ 114페이지
· 저자명 : 한명기

초록

일찍이 과거의 꿈을 접었던 이익은 일생 계속한 광범한 독서를 통해 경세가로 성장했다. 그는 중국적인 것을 절대시하던 당시 조선의 관행을 넘어 중국, 중국사에 대해 과감한 비판을 감행했다. 이익은 仁義의 실천을 기준으로 중국사의 正統 여부를 평가했다. 이익은 三代를 이상적인 시대로 찬양하고 이후로는 ‘尊君抑臣’, ‘用人尙閥’, ‘文辭科試’ 때문에 世道가 무너졌다고 규정한다. 이익은 특히 삼대 이후 중국은 물론 조선에서도 치세를 망치는데 科擧制의 폐해가 가장 컸다고 비판했다.
이익은 宋이 簒奪로 건국된 뒤 大臣들이 사치와 수탈을 일삼아 亡國의 길로 들어섰다고 인식했다. 이익은 송의 王安石이 비록 실패했지만 그의 개혁을 향한 목표와 의지만은 높이 평가했다.
이익은 명이 건국 이후 君權만을 강조하면서 신료들을 제압하기 위해 각박한 정국을 야기하고, 그 과정에서 역대 황제들이 환관들을 중용한 것을 맹렬히 비판했다. 권한이 커진 환관들이 권력을 오로지 하고 엄청난 蓄財를 했던 것이 民怨과 농민반란을 야기하고 끝내는 망국에 이른 원인이라고 보았다. 이익은 특히 인의의 정치를 실천하지 못하고 환관을 중용했던 崇禎帝를 ‘망국의 군주’라고 냉정하게 평가했다. 이 같은 평가는 당시 영조와 노론 신료들이 각자의 정치적 목적을 위해 숭정제와 주원장을 존숭했던 대명의리론의 자세와는 확연히 달랐다.
이익은 명의 병부상서 石星과 책사 沈惟敬의 활약이 없었더라면 임진왜란 당시 조선은 망할 수도 있었다고 평가했다. 그럼에도 조선이 두 사람이 주도했던 강화론만 비난하고 원망했던 것을 몰인정한 행위라고 맹렬히 비난했다.
이익은 자신이 살던 시기 청의 歷年이 이미 100년을 지났던 것, 청이 反淸思想을 탄압하면서 사대부들의 원한이 높아졌던 것을 계기로 청이 곧 망할 수도 있다고 예측했다. 그것은 이익이 在野의 지식인으로 청에 직접 연행할 기회가 없었던 데다 당시 燕行使들이 가져왔던 선택적이고 부정확한 聞見에 근거하여 청을 볼 수밖에 없었기에 생긴 오류였다.
이익은 기본적으로 華夷論의 굴레를 벗어난 인물이었다. 그는 청의 강성함과 역량을 인정하고 그들을 청을 상국으로 섬기는 것이 문제될 것이 없다고 보았다. 그는 명이 망한 지 한참 지났음에도 조선 식자들이 ‘崇禎紀元後’를 운위하고 있었던 것을 비판했다. 또 병자호란 발생 무렵 조선 신료들이 자강 능력도 없이 과격한 척화론을 펼침으로써 청의 침략을 자초했다고 규정했다. 그는 현실을 직시하지 않고 自强의 노력도 없이 攘夷를 외치던 풍조를 경계했다. 이익은 화이론과 대명의리론에서 벗어나 당시의 현실을 객관적으로 봐야 한다고 강조했다. 이익의 이 같은 인식과 자세에는 당시 격화되고 있던 黨爭의 遺弊, 科擧制의 문제점, 門閥 숭상의 폐단 등에 대한 개혁을 염두에 두면서 곧 닥칠 지도 모르는 밖으로부터의 위협을 극복해야 한다는 충정이 담겨 있었다.
요컨대 중국, 중국사와 관련하여 방대한 논설을 남겼던 이익의 궁극적인 시선은 당대 조선이 직면하고 있던 안팎의 모순을 해결하는 데 모아지고 있었다.

영어초록

In “Seongho Saseol” and “Seongho Jeonseo”, Yi Ik assesses the credibility of Chinese history by examining the implementation of benevolence and righteousness. He commends the virtuous periods of Yao, Shun, and the Three Dynasties while deeming the post-three dynasties era as corrupt, marked by the breakdown of righteousness and the dominance of hegemony.
Yi Ik identifies reasons for the decline after the Three Dynasties, including the elevation of kingship, suppression of subordinates, prioritizing literary achievements in appointments, and the use of rhetoric to manipulate historical accounts.
Yi Ik also recognizes the Western Han as a relatively superior period of governance, highlighting a political approach that prioritizes virtue for the well-being of the people. After the Western Han, he observes an era characterized by the exploitation of the populace through stringent laws rather than benevolent leadership. Yi Ik argues that the continuation of traditional systems posed substantial challenges both in China and Joseon, urging the necessity for reforms.
Yi Ik critiques the Song Dynasty, highlighting its troubled inception marked by usurpation, with influential ministers engaging in excess and pillaging, ultimately leading the nation towards decline. While the common perception in Joseon is that Wang Anshi’s reforms were motivated by self-interest, Yi Ik acknowledges Wang Anshi’s dedication to reform, presenting a contrasting perspective to the prevailing view that associates Wang Anshi with petty motives.
In his assessment of the Ming Dynasty, Yi Ik underscored the importance of benevolence and the unfolding historical context. He argued that, starting with Zhu Yuanzhang’s establishment of the Ming Dynasty, rulers prioritized the consolidation of their power, creating a stringent political atmosphere to subdue courtiers. Yi Ik specifically highlighted significant problems arising from the emperors favoritism towards eunuchs, leading to discontent among the populace and ultimately sparking peasant uprisings that played a role in the downfall of the country.
Yi Ik’s critique extended to Emperor Chongzheng, highlighting his failure to institute benevolent governance, neglect proper talent recruitment, and his preference for eunuchs. Yi Ik squarely blamed the nation’s collapse on the courtiers. He strongly censured Chongzhen for deflecting responsibility onto the courtiers amid the crisis, portraying him as a leader who couldn’t quell the turmoil within the nation―a ruler accountable for its downfall. This evaluation sharply contrasted with the prevailing ideology of the time, where the ruling faction, led by King Yeongjo and the Noron scholars, revered Chongzhen and advocated for the Great Ming Restoration for political gains.
Yi Ik commended the contributions of Shi Xing and Shen Weijing in the military records of the Ming Dynasty during the Imjin War. While recognizing Joseon’s shortcomings in terms of self-strengthening, Yi Ik strongly criticized the failure to rescue individuals like Shi Xing and Shen Weijing, who faced persecution in Ming for advocating a policy of strengthening the country. This critique stands out due to its departure from the prevailing condemnation of the hardline approach taken by Shi Xing and Shen Weijing during that historical period.
Yi Ik’s viewpoint on the Qing Dynasty had its constraints. Despite foreseeing the possible decline of the Qing Dynasty based on factors like its lengthy history and growing discontent due to the suppression of anti-Qing sentiments, his prediction of an imminent collapse can be seen as an error influenced by the limitations of his era. As an intellectual outside the government, Yi Ik lacked direct access to assess the Qing Dynasty, and his speculations were shaped by the selective and inaccurate information conveyed by envoys during that period.
In summary, Yi Ik’s intermittent forecasts of the Qing Dynasty’s imminent downfall were errors rooted in the challenges he confronted. As an intellectual outside official roles, he lacked the ability to visit the Qing Dynasty personally, relying instead on the restricted and occasionally distorted information provided by envoys during that period for his assessments.
Yi Ik also recognized the power of the Qing Dynasty, emphasizing that serving them for more than 100 years after submission posed no issue. He expressed worry about Joseon scholars clinging to the ideals of the Chongzheng era long after the Ming Dynasty’s demise. Additionally, he criticized the extreme anti-Qing sentiment exhibited by Joseon officials before the Qing’s invasion of Choseon in 1636, attributing it to the consequences of Joseon’s own actions.
Yi Ik strongly criticized the inclination towards jingoism without addressing reality or pursuing self-strengthening efforts. He emphasized the importance of objectively evaluating the current situation and the relationship with the Qing Dynasty. Through his perspectives, Yi Ik showcased an understanding of lingering factional disputes, flaws in the civil service examination system, and issues related to favoritism based on social status. Implicitly, he acknowledged the imperative for reforms to effectively counter potential threats from external forces and adapt to the evolving geopolitical landscape.
Certainly, in the comprehensive essays where Yi Ik explored the dynamics and outcomes of Chinese history, his ultimate perspective centered on tackling the contradictions within the contemporary Joseon society. His insights were geared towards resolving the internal and external paradoxes that Joseon encountered during that period.

참고자료

· 없음