在主體性與他律性之間：戰後韓國學界的十七世紀朝鮮對外關係史研究特徵與論爭

Between the Self-determination and the Heteronomy: the Features and Controversy over Korean Historiographies of the Chosen dynasty's Diplomatic Policy during the 17^(th) century after 1945

李孟衡(Meng-Heng Lee)

《臺大東亞文化研究》 3期 (2015/10) Pp. 61-100

https://doi.org/10.6579/NJEAC.2015.3.3

摘要

日本殖民韓國時期，開展了許多朝鮮史的相關研究，並累積不少成果。然而，其內容多反應當時日本人之朝鮮觀，並不無刻意擁護、合理化日本對朝鮮之侵略與殖民之嫌，故戰後飽受批判。其主要論點可概括為日鮮同祖論、他律性論、停滯性論、黨派亡國論、半島地理決定論等。而其中，又以他律性論與停滯性論最核心。因此，克服他律性論與停滯性論便成為戰後韓國史學界的核心課題。為達成此一目標，如何重塑十七世紀朝鮮之對外關係史相，便成為戰後韓國史學者的重要課題之一。其中一條路線，便是肯定第十五代國王光海君（1575-1641，1608-1623在位）的兩端外交政策，其代表為李丙燾、韓明基。而韓明基更將十七世紀朝鮮的水軍、國內政變等，與明清交替、東亞國際秩序變遷等連結，以求凸顯朝鮮之主體性。然而，這種做法實際上也等同承認了「他律性論」在某種程度上似乎也不無道理。桂勝範則以朝鮮時代的海外派兵經驗來尋找朝鮮之主體性。桂氏以為，朝鮮在明朝正統、成化年間，曾經猶豫，甚至拒絕明朝之派兵要求，足見朝鮮的「事大」有其目的性，並藉此凸顯朝鮮之主體性。然而，這便落入了其自身所批判的「內在的發展論」之框架中。因此，無論是韓明基「他律」中的「主體」，或是桂勝範「派兵」中的「主體」，都反映了十七世紀朝鮮對外關係史的特徵：走在主體性與他律性之間。另一條超克他律性論的路線，則是「朝鮮中華主義論」。該學說認為朝鮮在明亡以後已成為中華之正統繼承者，並將尊周思明、華夷觀等思想與韓末之抗日義兵運動連結，認為這是一種時代精神，重新肯定了朝鮮中華思想的歷史意義。該說最重要的一點，便是朝鮮已不再是小中華，而是繼承了中華。因此，朝鮮中華主義也就成為了克服他律性論、建立主體性的重要武器。然而，這一學說自創始之初，便深受韓國學界的各種批評。原因在於，朝鮮中華主義係一僅僅強調中華的文化層面且深染明朝色彩的思想體系。批判朝鮮中華主義論者以為，該說漠視了中華內涵中的種族與地域之特性，刻意強調朝鮮繼承中華的文明，並且再次陷朝鮮史於「他律性」陰影之下。不論爭論雙方誰是誰非，這其中都透露了一個清楚的訊息：直至今日，樹立朝鮮歷史之主體性與克服殖民史觀之他律性論，對韓國學界而言仍屬重要。同時，也再度凸顯了自戰後乃至於近來十七世紀朝鮮對外關係史研究之特徵：走在主體性與他律性之間。

關鍵字

他律性論 ； 主體性 ； 光海君／仁祖評價 ； 朝鮮中華主義論

並列摘要

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the existing Korean historiographies about the Chosen dynasty's diplomatic policy in the 17^(th) century. It has been well-recognized that during the Japanese colonial period, Japanese scholars often referred to Chosen history as a typical example of 'the history of Heteronomy (他律性論)'. Yet contrary to this perspective, in the post-war period, several Korean historians have proven that the history of Chosen was actually selfdetermined. One example of this effort is their reevaluation of King Kwang-hae (光海君) in Chosen history from a tyrant to a wise monarch, who refused to ally with Ming China and depreciate his successor, King In-jo (仁祖), by attributing Chosen's defeat to Manchu as a result of his pro-Ming policy. A more elaborate example is the emphasis on characteristics of Sinocentrism in late Chosen Korea (朝鮮中華主義). This perspective often underlines Chosen's identity as the only inheritor of Chinese civilization after the collapse of Ming China. Nevertheless, both of these examples seem to suggest that other countries in East Asia inevitably influenced Chosen. Considering this historical reality, one can note that historiographies of Chosen history divided between self-determination and Heteronomy. This research contributes to the study of Korean history. The methodologies rely on textual history to analyze the features and controversies regarding historiography in Korean academia in terms of Chosen diplomatic history in the post-war period to learn about the different approaches of various scholars at certain times and their range of purposes.

並列關鍵字

the history of heteronomy ； self-determination ； the revaluation of king kwang-he ； sinocentrism in late Chosen Korea