茶山과 日本 古學派 太宰春臺의 管仲論

Abstract

Dasan Jeong Yak Yong and Dajai Shundai were respectively statesmen of Joseon and Japan in the 18th century. The purpose of this study is to examine how they substantially reflected their theories of benevolence and views of governance in evaluating incidents or persons that were real in history, especially a problematic figure, Gwanjung. The two statesmen were not different from each other in respect for 'benevolence'as the core value of Confucianism. Both of them were ultimately same in the direction of benevolence realization since they went beyond the theory of moral obligations by Ch'eng-Tzu and Chu-Shi and thought highly of practical acts and accomplishments in face of a particular historical times called 'the Warring States Period. This are clearly supported by their analysis of 'Gwanjung'. In general, how we should evaluate Gwanjung's benevolence, in other words, whether his benevolence should be praised or censured depends on how we view the fact that Gwanjung didn't die even after the death of his served prince Gyu and how weigh between the rule of right and the rule of might. In evaluating Gwanjung's benevolence, Dasan and the Japanese School of Kogaku rather made same voices as follows. Which was younger or older of king Hwangong and prince Gyu is the very point of disputes over Gwanjung's undying. Ch'eng-Tzu and Chui-Shi discussed the existence or non-existence of Gwangjung as they assumed Hwangong as the older brother on the basis of the theory of moral obligations. In contrast, Dasan and three Confucian scholars of Kogaku all saw Hwangong the younger brother, and determined the existence or non-existence of Gwanjung from their effective perspective of chaos during the Warring States Period. This clearly indicates Dasan and the school kept in mind Confucian ideas that gave priority to practical acts and accomplishments over the theory of moral obligations to which Ch'eng-Tzu and Chu-Shi sticked. Concerning disputes over Gwanjung's saying 'prince Gyu is a man of small capability', Dasan and the three scholars of the Japanese school all stressed that the saying was not from Gwanjung's hatred toward the prince, but from his pity for him. Especially, a branch of Kogaku, that is, the Hweonwon School, represented by Sorai and Shundai, clearly suggested that Gwanjung was a sage who positively practices ways to cope with changes and not an incapable man who failed to reach the rule of right.