星湖의 새로운 史論

• 영문명: Seong-ho’s Modern Theory of History
• 발행기관: 백산학회
• 저자명: 宋賛 植(Song Chan-sik)
• 간행물 정보: 『백산학보』第8號, 403~425쪽, 전체 23쪽
• 주제분류: 인문학 > 역사학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 1970.06.01

영문 초록

Yi Ik (李瀷, pen name: Seong-ho 星湖, 1681-173) was one of the representative historians of the 18th century Korea. He passed broad and thorough criticism upon the social system of his days, and set forth new ideas of reformation. In the process of developing his new ideas of social reformation he undertook an intense research on Korean history, and thus his thoughts of Practical Learning (實學思想) were formed through his creative consciousness of history. Science of history in his days was no more than a mere application or extension of Neo-Confucianism (經學) of Chu-Hsi School(朱子學派), by which distinction of the good and evil of historical personalities was made, and accordingly the rise and fall of past dynasties were all explained by the providence (天命) devolving on the good or evil, right or wrong of the rulers. Most historians, trying to justify the Yi dynasty being in power, declared that the rule of that dynasty had begun in accordance with the demands of the providence. To this Seong-ho expressed his determined opposition. He said that these historians’ judgment of good and evil of historical personalities was in the wrong. According to him, the rise and fall of past dynasties had nothing to do with the Confucian ideas of virtue. He explicated this view of his by enumerating facts. In contrast to most other historians of his days, he boldly condemned the greater majority of the founders of dynasties in history, declaring that they had been rebels rather than virtuous individuals, if rightly viewed from Confucian morality. He concluded that the rise and fall of most dynasties were simply results of si-se (時勢), the currents of the times, irrespective of the instincts, good, or evil of the individual rulers responsible. Although he did not bother elaborating the idea of si-se, he pointed out that the first essential of historical science was to grasp and comprehend this si-se. His si-se was quite another movement of reality in the secular world, different from Confucian morals. Clearly this idea of si-se, if a little ambiguous, can be said to have been a term of a kind expressive of the objective movements of history. And his theory intended to understand history through this idea of si-se was a new, modern attempt, hardly to be seen in other historians of his days. He lamented the ignorance of his contemporaries of the history of Korea, born of their exceeding reliance on, and extreme respect for, the Chinese civilization and literature. He also criticized their mistaken views on Korean history. He was of an opinion that, in study of Korean history, literature and records by Koreans were much more important than those by the Chinese. He also said that, in describing Korean history, different methods should be adopted from those of Chinese history. He was opposed to the attitudes of other historians who, when describing international affairs, gave China too great importance while slighting those non-Han races (非漢族). He thought historians should prefer objective descriptions based on facts. Emphasizing the individuality of Korean history in constrast with Chinese history, he criticized these other historians who were inclined to deny this individuality of Korean history. With these new concepts of history, he wanted to describe Korean history anew by his own methodology, but failing in this attempt, only gave his unsparing advice to his disciple An Jeong-bok (安鼎福) when the latter authored Dong-sa-kang-mok (東史綱目-Outline History of Eastern Kingdoms). It was not a mere happenstance that this Dong-sa-kang-mok was written by a disciple of Seong-ho. Seong-ho’s opinions of historical science were scrappy, and, when examined by today’s standards, there is not a little immaturity found in them, yet they were decisively new, compared with those maintained by many scholars before him, and were far closer than those to modern science of history.

목차

緖言

Ⅰ. 成敗論

Ⅱ. 華夷論

結語