金堉의 『海東名臣錄』⋅『國朝名臣錄』 편찬과 사상적 의미

Abstract

This article analyzes content and structure of Haedongmyeongsinr-ok(『海東名臣錄』) and Gukjomyeongsinrok(『國朝名臣錄』) and consider-s acceptance phase of Songmyeongsineonhaengrok(『宋名臣言行錄』) by comparing with it written by Zhūzǐ(朱子). Moralists were placed in front of Haedongmyeongsinrok and were importantly rated in Gukjomyeongsinrok(『國朝名臣錄』), which listed its items in the order of moral philosophy(道學), service(事業) and allegiance(忠節). Not follow structure of Songmyeongsineonhaengrok, which was organized in the former volume(前集), the latter volume(後集), the sequel to volume(續集), the supplementary volume(外集), Kim Yuk(金堉) faithfully reflected Zhūzǐ’s intention of compilation of Songmyeongsineonhaengrok in which he deemed highly of moralists by including them separately in the supplementary one. Similarly, narrative style of figure in Gukjomyeongsinrok also was a basic introduction of figure at the first, and descriptive part of one’s achievements and comments about one followed style of Songmyeongsineonhaengrok, which increased reliability and objectivity of records by making notes on sources. While compiling Gukjomyeongsinrok, soon after publishing Haedongmyeongsinrok, Kim Yuk added new figures and divided criteria for appraisal of figure into moral philosophy, service and allegiance more clearly. In comparison with Haedongmyeongsinrok, it contained items about allegiance differently to put more emphasis on it. Especially, his opinion of fidelity(節義) was so high that, in the part of allegiance, he treated heavily the people damaged by the GyeYujeongnan(癸酉靖難, the political change in 1453), Saengyukshin(生六臣, the survived six meritorious individuals), Sayukshin(死六臣, the dead six meritorious individuals) and the Sarim(士林, the literati of Joseon) damaged by Sahwa(士禍, the massacres of literati). Kim Yuk followed faithfully what Zhūzǐ’s Songmyeongsineonhaengro-k was understood by the Sarim in the 16th century, who considered it as a book clarifying the essentials of moral philosophy and its succession through one’s achievement and doctrinality. And he showed a face of pragmatic statesman with more emphasis of service and allegiance, practical aspects of moral philosophy. It also appeared in that he noticed and published Hyogyeong(『孝經』) and Chunggyeong(『충경』), Confucianism Classics(經學) of the Han-Tang(漢唐), the Sarim in the 16th century did not consider them important. It could be suggested that Kim Yuk reflected his own thoughts of statesman here, who, as a representative pragmatist of Joseon in the first half of the 17th century, organized internal affairs and stabilize the livelihoods of the people after struggling national crises. He placed a higher value on the confucianism focused in its Classics of the Han-Tang and some kinds of poetry and prose of the three masters(三家) in the age of Tang(唐代) than the poetry and prose(詩文) in the moral philosophical style(道學風) or neo-confucianism. It seems that Kim Yuk, a representative statesman in the 17th century, had ideological base of confucianism of Han-Tang, unlike Sarim in the 16th century looking upon the world in terms of morality and idealism of neo-confucianism by Zhūzǐ.