19세기 말~20세기 초 유교지식인들의 출처론과 국가관 — 유인석･전우･송병선의 사례를 중심으로 —

Abstract

This study examines the Discussion of whether to Serve the Government or Choose Another Path(出處論) as articulated by Yu In-seok(柳麟錫), Jeon U(田愚), and Song Byeong-seon(宋秉璿)—leading Confucian intellectuals outside the bureaucracy in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries—and the contrasting conceptions of the state that underlay their positions. They lived through an unprecedented era of crisis, in which the collapse of the Confucian tradition and the loss of national sovereignty unfolded simultaneously under overlapping domestic and foreign pressures. As leaders among the unofficial literati, they bore the responsibility of defending both Confucianism and national sovereignty, while providing guidance to their peers. Yet their choices diverged significantly. Yu In-seok chose the path of “raising righteous armies and sweeping away the Qing” (擧義掃淸), actively engaging in militia resistance to restore sovereignty. Jeon U pursued the path of “leaving to preserve the old”(去之守舊), retreating into seclusion to devote himself to scholarship and teaching in anticipation of the future. Song Byeong-seon chose “fulfilling one’s will through death”(致命遂志), confronting foreign aggression and the destruction of Confucianism with the ultimate sacrifice of his life. These differences arose from their divergent approaches to the Discussion of whether to Serve the Government or Choose Another Path. Yu In-seok inherited Yi Hang-no’s(李恒老) interpretation, which emphasized situational specificity and called upon the literati to respond actively to the crisis. Although he acknowledged the legitimacy of self-cultivation(自靖), withdrawal(居守), and resistance(擧義), he ultimately prioritized armed resistance. For Yu, the state was the vessel that contained the Confucian dao(道). Without the dao, the state had no meaning; yet without the state, the dao could not be preserved. Thus, the preservation of both was inseparable and had to be pursued in tandem. Jeon U, by contrast, followed Im Heon-hui’s(任憲晦) approach, which stressed constancy of principle and the fulfillment of one’s role and duty regardless of circumstance. Despite criticism, he adhered to the stance of the reclusive literatus, focusing solely on scholarship and teaching. He defined the state as subsumed within the dao, thereby justifying his withdrawal: preserving the dao was equivalent to preserving the state. As the collapse of sovereignty became increasingly inevitable, withdrawal took on greater moral significance as the act of safeguarding the foundation for eventual national restoration. Yet because he located the dao above the state, Jeon’s framework left little room for immediate, practical action toward the recovery of sovereignty. Song Byeong-seon, while drawing on Song Si-yeol’s(宋時烈) stress on the boundaries and responsibilities of office-holding, responded to the deepening crisis after the opening of the ports by expanding these boundaries, underscoring the duty of remonstrance and the responsibility to act. When his advice was rejected, he resigned, retreating into self-cultivation while maintaining a strong sense of loyalty to the monarch. His aristocratic heritage reinforced this loyalty, and the trauma of the 1905 Eulsa Treaty(乙巳勒約), which stripped Korea of sovereignty, led him to equate the destruction of the state with the annihilation of the dao. This conviction culminated in his dramatic choice of suicide in protest. In sum, the different ways in which Yu In-seok, Jeon U, and Song Byeong-seon engaged with the Discussion of whether to Serve the Government or Choose Another Path reveal contrasting understandings of the relationship between the Confucian dao(道) and the state, and illuminate the intellectual and moral dilemmas faced by Confucian literati in a time of national subjugation and cultural collapse.