뭉케 카안 즉위 과정의 재검토를 통해서 보는 『集史』의 편향성

Identifying Bias in Rashid al-Din’s Collected Histories: A Re-examination of Möngke Qa’an’s Succession

본 논문은 이른바 ‘톨루이 혁명,’ 즉 몽골제국의 카안 위(位)가 칭기스 칸의 셋째 아들 우구데이의 후손에서 네 번째 아들 톨루이의 후손으로 넘어간 시기, 구체적으로 몽골 제국의 3대 카안 구육(재위 1246-1248)의 사망 이후 4대 카안 뭉케 카안으로 넘어가는 과정의 일련 사건을 분석함으로써 『集史』의 편향성을 분석하고자 한다. 주로 『集史』와 『征服者史』의 기록을 분석하여 『集史』의 특징은 무엇인지를 분석하고, 두 사료 간의 차이가 단순히 차이가 아닌 특정한 목적, 즉 뭉케 카안 즉위의 정당성을 강조하기 위한 것이었음을 보았다. 이를 위해서 먼저 『征服者史』와 『集史』의 내용을 자세히 비교 분석 후, 각 사료가 가진 특징을 분석하고, 특히 『集史』의 서술에 포함된 여러 모순을 도출하여 『集史』가 어떤 면에서 신빙성과 정확성이 부족한지, 그리고 궁극적으로 어떤 편향성을 가졌는지 살펴보았다.

This article re-examines the so-called Tolui Revolution, i. e. the transition of the Qa’an position from the descendants of Ögödei to Tolui, specifically around the events after the death of Güyuk (r. 1246~1248) to the succession of Möngke (r. 1251~1259). Previous studies have primarily focused on reconstructing the events around the succession of Möngke, mostly assuming that all of the relevant sources are mostly historically reliable sources and paying only limited attention to critically evaluating the reliability or bias of the various sources. Through this re-examination, the study identifies the bias within Rashid al-Din’s Collected Histories (Jāmi at-tavārīkh). This will be done through a close comparison of The History of the World Conqueror of Juvaynī and Rashid al-Din’s Collected Histories, and argue that the difference between the two sources has a significant underlying purpose, namely, the justification of the Möngke’s succession to the degree that it distorts important basic facts. Through this examination, I first identify how Rashid al-Din’s Collected Histories emphasized the justification of Möngke’s succession, while seemingly excluding any challenges from Batu Khan, and emphasizing how the descendants of Ögödei and Chaghatai opposed Möngke. Additionally, I identify multiple examples within the Collected Histories that are inconsistent and factually problematic or confusing. For example, a single person is recorded to have been executed, but later found to be alive; in another example, a descendant of Chaghatai is said to have been punished by Möngke, but later a general is dispatched to keep him in check; in another example, a person reported to be at the grand assembly is later recorded as arriving after the assembly was over. Coincidently (or not), these inconsistencies are only found in the Collected Histories but not in The History of the World Conqueror. Based on these examples, I argue the seemingly more readable account of Rashid al-Din is internally incoherent with multiple self-contradicting records, and how these inconsistencies serve to show the legitimacy of Möngke’s succession.