earticle

영어

From Jeongmyo Horan (the First Manchu Invasion, 1627) to Byeongja Horan (the Second Manchu Invasion, 1636), in order to save the nation, political opposition in Joseon Dynasty had been lasting between Juhwa-ron (Supporting the peace negotiations with enemy) and Cheokhwa-ron (Boycotting the peace negotiations with enemy). Choi Meong-gil, who was the most representative officer of Juhwa-ron, enduring national humiliation and braving the enormous pressure from moral principle, had tried his best to negotiate with Qing Dynasty at the critical moment of national calamity. In essence, Choi Myeong-gil’s Juhwa-ron, had been the strategy of avoiding war with Qing Dynasty, which had been the continuation of King Gwanghaegun's route of realistic diplomacy. It was known that officialdom of Joseon had always disdained the Manchu nation and extremely adored Ming Dynasty whether in diplomacy or in culture. Choi Myeong-gil, having been deeply affected by this traditional diplomatic culture, also had persisted in Daemyeong Euiri (the standpoint of worshiping and supporting Ming Dynasty). However, in order to avoid war and continue the destiny of nation, he had to follow the tracks of realistic diplomacy and choose peace negotiations with Qing Dynasty. The difference of Juhwa-ron and Cheokhwa-ron lay in the different methods of saving the nation and Choi Myeong-gil had never thought of compromising to Qing Dynasty in the depth of his heart. Compared to the head officer of Yeonguijeong Kim Ryu, Choi Myeong-gil had not feared defamation and public opinions, and put his more undertaking and responsibility to national protection into real practice. Thus, he had timely solved the Namhansanseong Mountain Fortress Crisis and finally avoided Joseon from falling down. Just because of his courageous activities and undertaking in Byeongja Horan, Choi Myeong-gil had been increasingly trusted by King Injo. Although Choi Myeong-gil’s Juhwa-ron had been contrary and unconformity to the political ethic and traditional Confucian morality of Joseon Dynasty, his pragmatic spirits and historical responsibility in the national crisis had been more and more affirmed by later generations. After Byeongja Horan, Choi Myeong-gil pushed the main responsibility of causing the war into the Groundless disputes on Public Affairs, in order to relieve the reproaches towards Cheokhwa-ron which used to be considered as the chief culprit of ruining the country by some persons during the war. His measures had not only timely adjusted domestic political conflicts and had a positive effect on the political stability of Joseon Dynasty, but also avoided Qing Dynasty's more blames toward Joseon's domestic problem of opposing Qing Dynasty, which had more distinctly shown Choi Myeong-gil's diplomatic practice of Realism and his insisting on Daemyeong Euiri.

한국어

조선 조정과 재야의 정치적 견해의 대립은 정묘호란부터 병자호란에 이르기까지 국가와 종묘사직을 수호하기 위한 ‘척화’와 ‘주화’의 끊임없는 논쟁으로 점철되었다. 최명길은 주화파 의 대표이지만 결정적인 순간에 국가의 중책을 수행하기 위해 굴욕을 참아내며 청에 유연하 게 대응함으로써 조선이 국체를 보전하고 국운을 지탱할 수 있었다. 최명길의 ‘주화’란 사실은 광해군 때 금(청)과의 전쟁을 막고자 하던 ‘전쟁 회피’ 노선의 연속이었다. 최명길은 금에 대 한 ‘문화적 자부심’과 명에 대한 ‘명분론’ 때문에 심리적 중압감이 있었지만 최종적으로는 광 해군 시대의 현실주의적 외교 노선을 택했다. 최명길의 ‘주화론’ 과 ‘의리론’은 구국을 위한 방 식이 달랐을 뿐이며 그는 결코 친청파가 아니었다. 최명길이 구체적인 행동을 통해 남한산성 의 위기를 즉각적으로 해결할 수 있었으며, 국운이 위태로운 상황에 이르는 것을 모면할 수 있었다. 김류 등 당시 정권을 주도하던 조정대신과 달리, 최명길은 반대파의 공격과 비방을 두려워하지 않고 대범하고 강인한 추진력을 보여주었으며 보국안민(保國安民)의 책무를 몸소 실천했다. 그리하여 당시 통치자인 인조 이종에게 보다 두터운 신뢰를 받았다. 최명길의 ‘주 화’ 는 비록 조선왕조 정치윤리에는 위배되었지만 나라가 풍전등화(風前燈火)의 위기에 처했 을 때 그가 보여준 실용주의 정신과 역사적 역할은 해를 거듭할수록 후대로부터 긍정적인 평 가를 받고 있다. 최명길은 전시(戰時)에 ‘척화가 나라를 그르친다’는 말 대신 ‘근거없는 의논 으로 나라를 그르친다’는 주장을 펼침으로써 국내 각파의 정치적 모순을 즉각적으로 조정하여 국정을 안정시키는데 긍정적인 역할을 했다. 한편 그는 청이 예의주시하고 있던 조선 국내의 반청문제를 유연하고 절묘하게 회피해나갔는데 이는 곧 의리정신(義理精神)의 수호이자 구체 적 실천을 보여주는 것이었다.