역사소설로 본 조선후기 ‘역사 만들기’의 일면

Abstract

With emphasis on the two historical fictions written under Manchu dominance in the 1600s-1700s, this paper examines the situations in which two fictions were circulated in different ways. The Kangno chŏn (story of Kangno), written in 1630, was not successful in inventing history in that it was somewhat circulated as a fiction but never regarded as a historical source about the Korean expedition to Liaodong for the Ming against the Later Jin in 1619 and the first Manchu invasion of Korea in 1626. In the Kangno chŏn, the author threw the entire blame on Kang Hongnip (1560-1627), who had commanded the Chosŏn expeditionary force but surrendered to the Later Jin, for Chosŏn’s forced negotiations with the Manchu invaders for peace in 1627. Such fictional contents, however, could not appeal to King Injo (r. 1623-1649) and his close allies of the time, who in fact also surrendered to the Later Jin in 1627. The more widely the Kangno chŏn was circulated, the more severely the king himself would be criticized. This is the very reason for Kangno chŏn’s failure in inventing history. Informing the knowledge of the Manchu-Korean joint expedition to the Amur against Russia in the 1650s, the Pukchŏng illok (Daily accounts of the northern expedition) was written by anonymous probably in the early 1700s yet full of exaggerations, fabrications, and distortions. The Pukchŏng illok was nevertheless very successful in inventing history on the ground that it was circulated widely in the 1700s-1800s as a key historical source rather than a fiction. Interestingly, there was a primary source about the expedition: Written by Sin Nyu, the commander of the Chosŏn expeditionary force during the military campaign against the Cossack-Russians in the middle reaches of the Amur River in 1658, The Pukchŏngnok (Record of the northern expedition) was very factual and coincide well with other contemporary records such as Russian materials and the dynastic annals of Chosŏn Korea. But the Pukchŏngnok was not circulated and forgotten soon because the Korean view of the expedition was very negative until the the turn of the 1690s. To Korean ruling elites, the northern expedition was a panic and remained as a trauma because Chosŏn dispatched a force for the Qing to fight against Russians as a token of Korean obedience to the Manchu. What is worse, it occurred in the middle of Hyojong’s reign (1549-1559), who eagerly desired a revenge on the Manchu Qing for the fall of Ming China as well as the Korean surrender to them. This negative view of the expedition dramatically changed in 1690 when King Sukchong (r. 1674-1720) officially declared that the Koreans achieved success eventually in the northern expedition, by pointing out Russia as a Manchu Qing substitute. Pukchŏng illok’s success in inventing history was possible under this new situation and it was actually circulated among scholars of the time as a historical source.