정의림(鄭義林)과 외필논쟁(猥筆論爭)

Abstract

This paper examines the Confucian philosophical thought of Jeong Euirim, who was active in and around Hwasun(和順) during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Specifically, it focuses on the process and content of Jeong Eui-rim's development of his Confucian stance in the "Eopil-debate(猥筆論爭)". Through this examination, it seeks to explore Jeong Eui-rim's contributions and specific role in the Eopil-debate. The paper sequentially reconstructs the course of the Eopil-debate and Jeong Eui-rim's involvement from before 1901 to 1905. In particular, it clarifies Jeong Eui-rim's position in the Eopil-debate by highlighting both the similarities and differences between him and Jeong Jaegyu(鄭載圭). Three main points encapsulate their discourse: Jeong Eui-rim was a representative laborer and writer of the Honam region who responded to the discourse criticizing the Neo-Confucian direction of Eopil(猥筆) by keeping pace with Yeongnam's Jeong Jae-gyu in the Eopil-debate. Both assumed the Confucian continuity of Yi yi(李珥) and Ki Jeongjin(奇正鎭)'s thought from the perspective of "Juli(主理)" and authored works to counter their critics based on this assumption. However, in the process of accepting the concept of 'Sajuyeon(使之然)', which represents Ki Jeongjin's Confucianism, significant differences emerged. These differences stem from the conceptual gap inherent between the unique concepts of ‘Soiyeon(所以然)’ and Sajuyeon in Ki Jeongjin's Confucianism. While Jeong Jaegyu was more favorable towards Sajuyeon, Jeong Eui-rim leaned towards Soiyeon. This discussion highlights the need for a more detailed examination of Jeong Eui-rim's scholarly status in the Hwasun region as it transitioned from the 19th to the 20th century. The fact that the Confucian positions within the No-Sa school were not entirely uniform underscores the importance of studying the activities of his literary group and individual literati. Consequently, going beyond the limits of the Eopil-debate to conduct further research on Jeong Eui-rim and the academic groups he represented will contribute to understanding the nature and content of 20th-century Hwasun Confucianism and, subsequently, Honam Confucianism.