東濱, 東洋, 東方 - ‘한국사’를 바라본 金庠基의 시야 - = The Eastern Shore, the Eastern World, and the Orient : Sang-ki Kim’s Historical Horizon of ‘Korean History’

국문 초록 (Abstract)

震檀學會의 핵심 멤버 중 한 명인 東濱 金庠基(1901～1977)는 근대 한국 ‘동양사학’의 개척자로 알려져 있다. 그는 1920년대 말 일본으로 유학을 떠나 早稲田大學 史學科를 東洋史 전공으로 졸업하였다. 그런데 당시 일본의 ‘東洋史’는 일본사가 제외되고 ‘조선사’는 포함되는 것으로서, 그의 졸업 논문은 ‘東學亂’에 대한 것이었다. 이후 1930년대 震檀學報를 통해 발표한 그의 주요 논고들 또한 한반도를 넘어서는 넓은 시야를 보여주지만, ‘한국사’에 근본을 둔 거것들이었다. 당시 ‘한국사’는 ‘동양사’ 속에 포함되는 것이었기에, 양자의 관계에 대한 고민은 아직 시작되지 않았다.
해방 이후 그는 서울대학교 사학과 교수로서 ‘동양사’ 전공을 맡게 되었다. 하지만 이 때의 ‘동양사’는 自國史인 ‘한국사’가 제외된 것으로서, 그의 이전 연구 영역으로서 ‘동양사’와는 달랐다. 김상기는 ‘한국사’가 제외된 ‘동양사’를 다룰 때는 ‘東洋’이라는 표현을 피하지 않고 사용하면서도, ‘한국사’를 다룬 글들에 대해서는 ‘東方’이라는 표현을 사용하였다. ‘한국사’를 포함하는 ‘동양사’를 ‘동방’이라는 키워드로 포착한 것이다. 나아가 그는 ‘한중관계사’를 넘어 ‘동방’이 투영되는 축소판으로서 高麗를 파악함으로써, ‘고려사’가 곧 ‘동방사’가 되는 경지를 보여주기에 이르렀다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Sang-ki Kim(Dongbin, 1901–1977), one of the core members of the Chintan Society, is widely regarded as a pioneer of modern Korean ‘Oriental history’(東洋史) scholarship. He went to Japan in the late 1920s and graduated from Waseda University’s Department of History, majoring in ‘Oriental history’. At the time ‘Oriental history’ in Japan was defined as a field that excluded Japanese history while encompassing ‘Korean/Chosŏn history,’ and Kim’s graduation thesis dealt with the Donghak Rebellion. His major studies published in the 1930s in the Chintan-Hakbo likewise demonstrated a broad perspective extending beyond the Korean Peninsula, yet they remained fundamentally grounded in ‘Korean history’. Because ‘Korean history’ was then subsumed under the rubric of ‘Oriental history’, a sustained reflection on the relationship between the two had not yet begun.
After liberation in 1945, Kim served as a professor in the Department of History at Seoul National University, where he was responsible for the ‘Oriental history’ track. In this new institutional setting, however, ‘Oriental history’ was redefined as a field that excluded ‘Korean history’ as the nation’s own history (自國史), making it different from the earlier ‘Oriental history’ that had included ‘Korean history’ as part of its scope. While Kim did not hesitate to use the term ‘the Orient(東洋)’ when addressing this Korean-history-excluding field, he employed the term ‘Eastern history’(東方史) for writings that dealt with ‘Korean history’. In doing so, he conceptualized an “Oriental history” that still encompassed Korean history through the keyword ‘the East’(東方). Furthermore, by understanding Goryeo as a microcosm in which ‘the East’ was reflected—going beyond a simple Korea–China relations framework—he ultimately advanced a perspective in which Goryeo history could be seen as “Eastern history” itself.