전통적 지식인의 망국 인식 : 김윤식·김택영·박은식의 경우

Abstract

On August 29, 1910, the Korean Empire ceased to exist as an official state. Although its right of diplomacy and military forces had already been lost, the new annexation came as a big shock to all members of the state. This paper will examine how was taken by Korean people of the time, focusing on cases of Korean intellectuals who were still stepped in traditional culture. Kim Yun-shik(1835~1922) was a disciple of Park Gyu-su and a bureaucrat as a member of the Cabinet, but he was unable to actively perform his role in the situation of national ruin. Though he wrote in his diary that he expressed his objection to the annexation, he did not actually show that resistance in assertive behavior. This can be interpreted as an attitude of approving the international order formed by a ‘treaty’. Kim Taek-young(1850~1927) faced the national ruin when he defected to China. He, who was well-known as a historian and poet from Gaeseong, had a strong sense of Goryeo legacy. Accordingly, the fall of Joseon would have been equivalent to that of Goryeo dynasty, at least ideologically. That cognition is also seen in poetry for example ‘Oho-song(嗚呼賦)’ and prose describing ‘loyal subjects of a ruined country’ found in the history of Korea and China. Before long he completed a history work ‘Hansagyeong’, in which he describe the cause of national ruin in his perspective. Park Eun-shik(1859~1925) worked as a journalist and historian who argued the reform of Confucianism. He defected to Manchuria and carried on independence movement after the loss of sovereignty, and his awareness of the process to decaying nation appeared in historical documents that he wrote following his defection. His unique way of thinking, which devides a state into ‘national spirit(國魂)’ and ‘national form(國魄)’, serves as an exemplary case of academic explanation about national ruin. When the Manse Demonstrations occurred in 1919, Kim Yun-shik, Kim Taek-young, and Park Eun-shik offered their own understanding of national ruin and solution to overcome it from different places and perspectives. While Kim Yun-shik presented a petition reasoning with opponents, Kim Taek-young made efforts to get cooperation from China. Park wrote the history of independence movement, while actively taking part in it at the same time. The cause of different response to the same affair was probably taken from the difference of analysis on national ruin. Kim Yun-shik pointed out the incompetence of the King, while Kim Taek-young focused on problems of the intellectuals. Park pointed out the two problems, national and international both. Besides he found out the power of ‘the people’. The fact that he discovered the people and stressed the civil rights is the main cause of the different response in a sense.