무신집권기 시평(時評)을 통해 본 실록 편찬의 경향 = The Compilation of the Goryeo Military Regime's Historical Chronicles and Distortion of History

국문 초록 (Abstract)

무신집권기에는 5종의 실록이 편찬되었다. 의종⋅명종⋅신종⋅희종⋅강종의 실록이다. 이 시기에 사고(史藁)는 제대로 작성되지 못하거나 작성되었더라도 왜곡되었고, 사관의 활동은 많이 위축되어 있었다. 󰡔고려사󰡕와 󰡔고려사절요󰡕에서 이 시기의 기록이 부실한 것은 여기에 원인이 있다. 실록의 편찬을 총괄했던 감수국사 또는 수국사가 무신으로 임명되거나, 무신집정자가 직접 감수국사가 되어 역사편찬을 제한하고 사실에 대한 왜곡이 자행되었다. 따라서 사고의 작성 또는 실록의 편찬 과정에서 사관(史官)에 의해 이루어진 시평(時評) 형식의 비판도 무신들을 빗겨있거나 저조할 수밖에 없었다. 사론으로는 󰡔의종실록󰡕에 실렸을 임민비(1)의 사론, 󰡔명종실록󰡕에 실렸을 유승단(1)⋅김양경(2)⋅권경중(4)의 사론과 󰡔희종실록󰡕에 실렸을 임익(1)의 사론이 확인된다.
1189년(명종 19) 이전에 편찬된 󰡔의종실록󰡕에는 집권 무신들, 특히 이의민의 폭정이 낱낱이 직서(直書)되면 안 되었다. 국왕의 폐정 및 측근 문신의 무신 차별과 탄압을 드러내 무신의 집권 당위성을 드러내기 위한 방향에서 편찬되었다. 1224년(고종 11) 찬수를 시작해서 1227년에 마무리된 󰡔명종실록󰡕은 편찬에 대한 기록이 상세한 편이다. 하지만 최씨정권은 사관(史館)을 장악하여 정권에 대한 정당성과 지지를 담보하려 했고, 󰡔명종실록󰡕은 이런 분위기에서 편찬되었다. 최씨정권 입장에서도 시대의 분기점으로 인식되었던 무신정변에 대해 역사적인 평가가 필요했기 때문이다.
신종⋅희종⋅강종의 실록은 형식적이나마 왕정복고가 이루어진 1267년(원종 8) 삼대실록(三代實錄)으로 편찬되었다. 하지만 편찬 이전에 작성된 사고가 제대로 기록될 수 없었고, 최씨정권에 대한 직접적인 비판이 이루어질 수 없었다. 무신집정자가 직접 감수국사를 맡기도 해서 철저하게 통제하고 있었기 때문에 사관의 활동이 계속 위축될 수밖에 없었다. 하지만 최충헌도 후세 사가(史家)에게 자신이 어떻게 평가될지를 의식하고 있었는데, 희종의 암살 모의를 제지한 사실에서 확인된다. 따라서 역사편찬 활동을 더욱 통제할 필요가 있었는데, 그것은 사고의 부실로 이어졌고, 이를 토대로 이루어진 신종부터 강종까지의 실록 편찬과 󰡔고려사󰡕와 󰡔고려사절요󰡕의 기록이 거의 공백으로 남겨진 것은 이런 배경에서 해석이 가능하다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

During the Goryeo military regime, a chronicle of the five monarchs, King Uijong, King Myeongjong, King Shinjong, King Huijong, and King Gangjong, was compiled. During this period, a proper historical chronicle(史藁) could not be written, and even at its completion, this work suffered from distortions, as the functions of the historical chroniclers responsible for the chronicles were curtailed. Government officials were appointed directly by warrior to the posts of Supervision of national history(監修國史), responsible for summarizing the historical record, but when warrior rose to the position of Supervision of national history(the senior official responsible for drawing up the duties of these officials), he either placed limits on the editorial process or allowed outright historical distortions to hold sway. This is the reason for the lack of information about this period in Goryeosa and Goryeosa-jeoryo. Thus, during the process of composing this historical chronicle, along with other histories of this period, the forms of social commentary and criticism, directed as they were by the historical chroniclers, inevitably either excluded mention of warrior and his actions altogether or lapsed into a type of literary stagnation, examples being confirmed in historical essays, such as Yim Minbee’s work in The Historical Chronicle of King Uijong, Yu Seungdan, Kim Yanggyeong, and Gwon Gyeongjung’s work in The Historical Chronicle of King Myeongjong, and Yim Ik’s work in The Historical Chronicle of King Huijong.
Compiled around 1189(King Myeongjong 19th), The Historical Chronicle of King Uijong could not very well have depicted a faithful and complete account of the military junta’s seizure of power, let alone the resulting tyranny of Yi Uimin. The usurpers geared the historical chronicles toward displaying the righteousness of military official’s consolidation of power in the face of the dissolution of the emperor’s civil administration as well as the discrimination against and oppression of the former empire’s civil and military ministers. The Historical Chronicle of King Myeongjong, begun in 1224(King Gojong 11th) and finished in 1227, serves as a detailed record of this editorial process. Using his power with an iron hand, however, Choe Clan held sway over the historical chroniclers and tried to use them to secure support and the perception of legitimacy regarding his authority. It was this environment which saw the compilation of The Historical Chronicle of King Myeongjong. The reason for this lies in the perceived need for a historical evaluation from the viewpoint of Choe Clan’s regime in regards to the military coup carried out by warrior, which was recognized as a critical turning point even at the time.
While the historical records dealing with King Shinjong, King Huijong, and King Gangjong were typical of this period, they were then compiled into The Historical Chronicle of Three Generations(三代實錄) in 1267(King Wonjong 8th), the year that saw the imperial restoration. During this time as well, a proper historical chronicle could not be created, nor could a frank assessment of Choe Clan’s centralization of power. The military rulers assumed direct control of the histories’ editorial process and applied their authority severely, which inevitably resulted in the further weakening of the historical work of the chroniclers. Still, even Choe Chungheon was conscious of how his own authority would be judged by future historians, and this can be confirmed in his decision to foil the conspiracy to assassinate King Huijong. Thus arose the further need to control the process of compiling histories, and when one considers the editorial process against this background, it is possible to explain the historical records from King Shinjong to King Gangjong, as well as those of Goryeosa and Goryeosa-jeoryo being almost completely devoid of reliable information.