15~16세기를 거치면서 형성되고 굳어진 구언과 응지상소에 관한 정치적 관행이 17세기 중반 이후 변질된 것으로 보인다. 16세기 후반까지도 군주성학론을 요체로 하는 주자학적 재이론은 국정의 공론公論으로써 다수 신료의 지지를 얻었다. 그래서 설령, 국왕으로서 수용하기에 거북한 것일지라도, 신료들 사이에서 어느 정도 공감대가 형성되었다면, 죄를 묻거나 벌을 주는 것이 더 큰 문제를 초래할 수도 있었기 때문에, 그래서 ‘극론極論일지라도 응지상소라면 용서해 주어야 한다.’는 오랜 정치 관행이 군신 간의 소통을 비교적 안정적으로 이끌 수 있었던 것이다. 그런데 이렇게 이전까지는 ‘소통의 기제’로써 군신 간의 소통을 비교적 안전하게 이끌었던 구언과 응지상소가 17세기 중반의 정치적 격변을 겪으면서 그 정치적 효능이 이전만큼 발휘되지 못하였던 것이다.
As political practices of “soliciting suggestions”(求言) and “presenting a petition of remonstrance in response to the king’s order”(應旨上疏), which were formed and solidied throughout the 15th and 16th centuries, experienced political upheaval in the mid-17th century, the political ecacy of the “portents theory” (災異論) was no longer as effective as before. Until the second half of the 16th century, the portents theory of Neo-Confucianism based on the theory of monarchy had gained support from a number of subjects as part of public opinions on state affairs. In the mid-17th century, however, as political forces were divided and political theories were thus diverged, the portents theory was used politically according to each political party’s platform. For example, when discussing punishment for Prince Inseong ([1588-1628] the 7th son of King Seonjo [r. 1567-1608]) or posthumous honoring of the father of King Injo (r. 1623-1649) as King Wonjong (1580-1619), it was often the case that the portents theory, having lost its original purpose that it stood for, was put forward and discussed according to the platform of each political party. Some argued that calamities(災異) were brought about because Prince Inseong was not punished, and others insisted that they happened because Prince Inseong was about to be punished. These manipulations based on political agenda, had separated it from its original purpose. e same logic can be applied to the case of posthumous honoring of the father of Injo. If the portents theory is utilized in such a strategic manner, that is, if it is politically used to attack rulers or opposing parties with presenting a petition of remonstrance in response to the king’s order, it could also trigger conflicts between the king and his subjects.
Ⅱ. 정치론의 분기와 재이론의 정략적 활용
Ⅲ. 재이론을 둘러싼 정치적 갈등의 심화