외필논쟁(猥筆論爭) - 영남 우도 율곡학파의 대응을 중심으로

Abstract

This article focuses on the positions of Yeongnam Confucian scholars in the Neo-Confucian controversy surrounding Ki Jeong-jin's 「Eopil(猥筆)」, that is, the Eopil-Debate(猥筆論爭), focusing on Neo-Confucian scholars from the Yulgok academic community mainly distributed in Yeongnam-Udo(嶺南右道). This is an overview. We examine critical analysis of 「Eopil」, efforts to expand the debate beyond regional boundaries, and attempts to reconcile conflicts within Neo-Confucianism. It highlights key figures such as Kwon Bong-hee(權鳳熙), Kwon Myeong-hee(權命熙), Lee Do-bok(李道復), Han Yu(韓愉), and Ha Woo-sik(河祐植), and examines their roles and activities amidst the controversy. The analysis in this article aims to reveal three main aspects. First, the role and position of Lee Do-bok as a mediator of the controversy, and second, as co-producers of the analytical reading and critical discourse of 「Eopil」, Han Yu and Ha Woo-sik, not only expanded the scope of the debate beyond Yeongnam-Udo and Yulgok academic circles to the Yeonjae and Ganjae schools. Rather, you will be able to witness the continuous continuity and disconnection of Kwon Myeong-hee and Kwon Bong-hee, who tried to take collective action hostile to the labor-management school. Third, although it was incomplete, it will also be revealed that there was a plan by Kwon Bong-hee and Kwon Myeong-hee to launch an academic-political attack on the labor-management school by writing an appeal to turn this controversy into a national issue. Through the above discussion process, one final commonality will be highlighted. It can be summarized in two things. First, the criticism of 「Eopil」 ultimately highlights the fundamentalist commonality of returning to Lee Yi(李珥)'s philosophical thinking. Second, this commonality was also formed under the wide influence of Seoin-line Neo-Confucianism, starting from Song Si-yeol(宋時烈), through Song Hwan-gi(宋煥箕), and ending with Song Byeong-seon(宋秉璿). In light of the fact that 「Eopil」 is a Neo-Confucian discourse that attempts to respond to the changing historical reality of Joseon in the 19th century, this can be said to be a sign that reveals the unproductive nature of the Eopil debate that followed their criticism. This is because the theoretical structure of trying to understand the problems of the 19th century from the Neo-Confucian standards of the 16th century asks that the contents of 「Eopil」 be compared with the 16th century's Lee Yi, not the 19th century's reality.