Browse

19세기 ‘세도정치기’의 求言敎와 應旨疏 - ‘탕평정치기’와의 비교를 중심으로
Gueongyo and Eungjisangso in the era of ‘Sedo politics’ of 19th century - in comparison with the era of ‘Tangpyeong politics’

Cited 0 time in Web of Science Cited 0 time in Scopus
Authors
김인걸
Issue Date
2011-06
Publisher
서울대학교 규장각한국학연구원
Citation
한국문화, Vol.54, pp. 71-97
Keywords
求言敎應旨上疏減膳求言減膳撤樂言責論思之臣民憂國計GueongyoEungjisangsoMinwoogukgye
Abstract
본고는 19세기 조선사회의 모습에 접근하기 위한 ‘역사지표’의 하나로 국왕의 구언교에 따른 응지상소를 택하였다. 구언교는 조선 전 기간에 걸쳐 내려지고 있었던 것이었지만, 구언을 통한 상하 의사소통이, 특히 조선후기 정조대에 대단히 활성화되어 있던 것으로 알려져 있기 때문에 18, 19세기의 실태 파악에 었어 상호 비교의 준거점이 될 수 있을 것으로 기대했기 때문이다.

필자는 오래 전에 18, 19세기 朝野間의사소통의 양적 질적 평가를 위한 기초자료 정리 작업의 일환으로 정조대(1776-1800) 應旨上疏者와 그 후예들의 언론활동을 조사하면 18, 19세기사 해석에 대한 단절적 이해를 극복할 수 있는 가능성을 발견할 수 있을 것이라는 기대를 가지고 있었다. 기존 조선시대 정치사연구에서는 19세기 세도정치기에 접어들어 공론정치가 종식되고 언로가 경색되어 국정운영이 파탄에 이른다고 설명되어 왔으나 이 같은 설명은 충분한 실증적 기반 위에서 도출된 것이 아니어서, 그 내용이나 성격에 대한 양적, 질적 평가가 필수적으로 요청되고 있었다.

This Study chose Gueongyo of the king and Eungjisangso of retainers as a history index to approach Choseon society of 19th century. Gueongyo is one of the means of communication between top and bottom, typically over abnormal climate(natural disasters) of spring and fall, and the king reflects on himself and asks for forthright statement of retainers for the sake of smooth political operation by means of Gueongyo in accordance with ‘cheoningameungseol’ of Confucian dynasty which is based on the agricultural society.

We confirmed in quantitative terms that the Gueon’s frequency of King Yeongjo is unexpectedly low than that of King Jeongjo, and early of 19th century, at the reign of King Sunjo, exsisting practices maintained but the frequency of it dramatically reduced in late of 19th century. This phenomenon continued until King Heonjong and Cheoljong. Next in qualitative terms, Gueon or Eungjisangso, in the era of ‘Tangpyeong politics’ of Yeongjo and Jeongjo, were focused on people’s concerns and issues related to state-run(民憂國計). Gueon in the era of ‘Sedo politics’ of 19th century, however, became too ritual and formal and Eungjisangso, as the reaction of Gueon, became cliche to escape the responsibility of the official in charge. At this time, it is hard to find seeking for specific resolution which was found at the reign of Jeongjo, but the only Susung(修省; behaving with decency) of the king, as a measure of natural disasters, was repetedly pointed out.

It seems that the obsessive political culture of ‘Tangpyeong politics’, which made political statement of Eungjisangso disappear, largely affected to Gueon and Eungjisangso being ritual at the 19th century. It was a result of losing sense of Gueon and Eungjisangso as a measure of communication because the retainers were oppressed as their untimely comments were not accepted since ‘Tangpyeon politics’. But Gueon of the time before didn’t play the completely negative role. Because King Jeongio’s collecting public opinions actively raised hopes and also disappointed many, we could understand suggestions posed in various ways by regional people who were excluded from politics of 19th century in this regard.
ISSN
1226-8356
Language
Korean
URI
http://hdl.handle.net/10371/75726
Files in This Item:
Appears in Collections:
Kyujanggak Institute for Korean Studies (규장각한국학연구원)Korean Culture (한국문화) Korean Culture (한국문화) vol.53/56 (2011)
  • mendeley

Items in S-Space are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Browse