「도강록서」는 『도강록』의 서문이자 『열하일기』의 첫 부분이다. 서문은 보통 책의 내용을 소개한다. 하지만 「도강록서」는 단지 숭정연호 사용과 관련된 내용만 담고 있다. 문체 역시 『춘추공양전』을 흉내 냈다. 그런 탓에 『도강록』이나 『열하일기』가 춘추대의와 조선중화주의를 주창하고 옹호한 것처럼 느끼게 된다. 하지만 그것은 사실이 아니다. 연암은 춘추대의를 옹호하지 않았다. 그 증거는 많다. 첫째로 『열하일기』와 『연암집』에서 연암은 숭정 연호 대신 청나라 연호를 썼다. 둘째로 『열하일기』에서 청 왕조에 대해 춘추대의를 적용하기보다, 청 왕조의 중화론, 정통론, 공자계승론과 같은 주장을 내세웠다. 셋째로 연암 자신이 이런 사실을 스스로 고백했다. 이재성에게 보낸 편지에서 연암은 「도강록서」에서 춘추대의를 표방한 것이 구차스러운 일이었다고 적었다. 「도강록서」는 일종의 위장이다. 춘추대의론자들의 비난이 일었을 때 연암은 「도강록서」에서 춘추대의를 옹호한 듯 말했던 것을 먼저 떠올리고, 그것이 구차한 일이었다고 한탄했다. 이런 정황은 역설적으로 「도강록서」가 이런 물의에 대비한 글이었음을 방증한다. 그것은 춘추대의론자들의 반격에 대비한 위장이었다. 현재로선 이런 위장이 어떤 구체적 사건과 연관되었는지를 짐작할 수 없다. 따라서 춘추대의 부정에 대해 물의가 일어날 것에 대한 선제적 대비일 것으로만 추정한다. 연암은 청나라의 검열을 걱정한다고 했지만 실제로 걱정한 것은 춘추론자들의 검열이었고, 숭정 연호를 숨기겠다고 했지만 진짜로 숨기고 싶었던 것은 자신의 우려였다. 그래서 숭정 연호를 내세워서 춘추론자들의 검열을 피하고 춘추대의와 조선중화주의를 내세워 자신의 불안감을 감추려고 했던 것이다. 이것이 「도강록서」의 진실이다.

Doganglok-seo is the preface of Doganglok (The diary of a journey crossing of the Yalu River into Shengjing) in Yeolha-ilgi (熱河日記, the diary of a journey into Beijing and Chengde) by Yeonam Park Jiwon (燕巖 朴趾源, 1737~1805). This article is the first article in both The Doganglok and Yeolha-ilgi. Thus, it appears as the preface of both of them. Generally speaking, the preface is an introduction to a book, especially one that explains the author’s aims, but this article had no comment on Doganglok and Yeolha-ilgi. In this article, Yeonam Park Jiwon gave no explanation apart from the reason why the reign name of ChongZhen (崇禎) had to be used in Yeolha-ilgi. The style of this article mimicked that of Gongyangzhuan (公羊傳); therefore, Doganglok and Yeolha-ilgi appear to place a high value on spring and autumn righteous causes (春秋大義), and Park Jiwon appears to advocate this. However, this is not the case. He did not advocate it. There is a considerable body of evidence that shows that he did not support it. First, although he said to be going to use the reign name ChongZhen, he hardly used this reign name (ChongZhen) in Yeolha-ilgi and Yeonam-jip (燕巖集, a collection of his works). He mostly used the reign name of Qing Dynasty. Secondly, he insisted that although the Qing dynasty did not consist of Han Chinese, it became a successor to the Sinic civilization and Confucius. He said, so to speak, that the orthodoxy of the Qing dynasty had to be recognized, and lastly he confessed that it was very poor that he had fabricated the spring and autumn righteous cause in Doganglok-seo. These circumstances imply that the spring and autumn righteous cause in Doganglok-seo was fabricated. This was done to prevent counterattacks of followers of it. When the followers criticized him severely, he recalled Doganglok-seo. Paradoxically speaking, this is circumstantial evidence that the spring and autumn righteous cause in Doganglok-seo was fabricated. At this point, we cannot estimate that any specific event caused him to fabricate it, but we can instead estimate that it may have been a form of prevention against a counterattack on it. To sum up, Yeonam said that he feared censorship by the Qing Dynasty; however, what he actually feared was censorship of the followers of the spring and autumn righteous cause. He reported that he intended to conceal the reign name ChongZhen, but what he in fact concealed was his own anxiety. Yet his anxiety was realized finally, and this is the truth of Doganglok-seo.

, , , , , ,

Yeonam (燕巖), Park Jiwon (朴趾源), Yeolha-ilgi (熱河日記, The Diary of a Gourney into Beijing and Chengde), Doganglok (渡江錄, The Diary of Crossing of the Yalu River), Doganglok-seo (渡江錄序, The Preface of the Diary of Crossing of the Yalu River), Spring and Autumn Righteous Cause (春秋大義), Disguise