신라의 회의제와 상대등의 성격에 대한 재검토

초록

In the process of explaining Silla’s political history through the conflict between ‘the kingship’ and ‘aristocrat’, the various elements of Silla politics have traditionally been located on either side of the dichotomous opposition. Councils of nobles were considered to be on the other side of the bueraucracy which supported ‘the kingship’. It has been generally presumed that 上大等(sangdaedeung), which was the representative of ‘the aristocrats’, presided over the counclis of nobles. However 上大等 was a public officer appointed by the king. It is not enough to assume that 上大等 was elected by the councils of nobles according to the order among the aristocrats or that it suppressed or threatened the ‘kingship’ as one of the representatives of branched lineages. Futhermore, there is no evidence to suggest that there were councils of nobles which represent the interests of the aristocrats or that 上大等 was the chairman of those councils. It is obvious that various councils would have existed in Silla, but it is difficult to name them ‘the councils of nobles’ and to identify them as a unique aspect of Silla Politics. Councils are indispensable for the operation of organizations of a certain size or more. It cannot be concluded that the existence of councils itself was a threat to the kingship. It is necessary to reexamine the assumption that the specific officer or department such as 上大等 or 執事省 侍中(中侍) would represented the kingship or the aristocrats respectively and would have the characteristics of ‘royalism’ or ‘anti-royailsm’

키워드