본고는 양계초가 계몽사상가로서 주도적인 역할을 한『청의보』(1898-1901).『신민총보』(902-1907) 시기를 전후하여 사용한 ‘혁명’ 개념이 어떻게 함의를 바꿔 가는지 추적했다. ‘입헌파’로서 양계초는 ‘혁명파’와 대립했지만, 근대어로서 번역어 ‘혁명’을 중국에서 가장 먼저사용한 사람이었다. 초기에 그는 ‘혁명’을 ‘진화’와 동류개념으로 받아들였기 때문에 일정한 시기까지는 ‘혁명’을 긍정적으로 사용한다. 그러나 혁명파와의 대립을 통해, 그리고 1905년 러시아혁명이라는 현실의 혁명을 목도하면서, 혁명에 부정적인 자신의 입장을 점차 정리해가면서 부정의 논리를 세운다. 그는 사회진화론을 국가경쟁력을 고양해야 한다는 현실을 인식하는 틀로 받아들임과 동시에, 사심을 제어하고 국가에 기여한다는 도덕적 가치를 제공하는 체계로도 받아들였다. ‘혁명’에 대한 비판 역시 그가 사회진화론을 받아들인 틀에서 이루어진다. ‘혁명’은 국내적으로는 국가에 헌신해야 할 사람들의 사적인 권력야망이며, 국외적으로는 국가경쟁력을 좀먹을 내란이라고 비판된다. 그리고 그것은 국가와 국민에 대한 고려는 전혀 없이 사심에 의해 자행된과거의 역성혁명과 다르지 않은 것이라고 처리된다. 이처럼 진화로서 긍정되었던 ‘혁명’은 진화의 반동인 ‘야만적’ 정권 탈취로 부정되기에 이른다.

This paper examines how Liang Qichao, who had a leading role as an enlightenment thinker, changed the implication of the concept of “revolution” around the time of the Russian Revolution of 1905. Though Liang Qichao, as a “Constitionalist”, was in conflict with the “Revolutionaries,” he was the first person in China to adopt “revolution”, a translated term, with its modern meaning. With the understanding of “revolution” as a concept similar to “evolution”, he used the term quite affirmatively up to a certain time. However, through confrontation with the revolutionaries while witnessing the reality of the Russian Revolution, he organized his negative position towards revolution. Social evolution was regarded as a framework to recognize the reality that people had to uplift the national competitiveness, as well as an institution to recognize the moral value that they had to control self-indulgence and contribute to the country. Criticism of revolution was also carried out within the framework in which Liang Qichao accepted social evolution. Domestically, “revolution” was regarded as a private ambition towards power by amoral people who needed to devote themselves to the country; in terms of the relationship with foreign countries, it was criticized as a riot that eroded national competitiveness. It was considered not different from dynastic revolutions which had been forced by selfishness without any consideration to the nation and its people. “Revolution”, which had been affirmed as evolution, was negated as a “barbaric” takeover against evolution.