『孟子』 解釋의 拮抗的 側面에 대한 一考- ‘孟子不尊周說’에 대한 朝鮮 學者들의 견해를 중심으로-

Abstract

The interpretation of 『Mengzi』, ‘Mengzi Buljonjuseol(孟子不尊周說) -the assertion that Mengzi not raised the Zhou Dynasty’, which kindled a debate by Jeongju(程朱), was valid and acceptable to some extent from the aspect of its historical situation or an understanding of the scriptures. However, regarding this issue, Joseon scholars unfolded keen logical confrontations while proving ‘Mengzi Buljonjuseol’ and ‘Mengzi Jonjuseol(孟子尊周說)’, respectively, through various demonstrations. Also, leaving the view of the antagonistic understanding of whether Mengzi raised Zhou or not, Mengzi did not look down on Zhou or negate the Royal line. Rather, he strongly insisted that it had a strict ideology of a sovereign-subject relationship. This confirms that Joseon scholars accepted royalty for the then Imperial family and valued it still as being one that couldn't be disobeyed while accepting the view of the change in Providence or protection of the people. In the meantime, Joseon scholars, who advocated 'Mengzi Buljonseol' in favor of the view of Jeongju, presented the following complementary view once after accepting the views of Jeongja(程子) and Zhuzi(朱子), whereas scholars who insisted on ‘Mengzi Jonjuseol’ assumed an attitude toward keeping the justification and loyalty of Jonju at the maximum by refuting or shifting its disputed point by either refusing to agreesing to reetial assumption of the understanding of Jeongju, in other words that the Zhou dynasty had become weakened, or by understanding that the monarchy recommended by Mengzi was the monarchy in ordinary life. This was a view that established a strict sovereign-subject relationship, and at the same time, fully approved the Royal line in the authority of a king. This proposes a need to review the recognition of reality or the recognition of politics of the outside of the scriptural annotations, namely, annotators, again. Although they supported Mengzi Buljonseol by accepting the view of Jeongju, as seen in their various demonstrations, it is rather their academic response to the recognition of the then politics and their expression through annotations, rather than a sort of unilateral acceptance. As regards Manheui or Hanju, who accepted the view of Jeongju through their establishment of the view rather than their propagating the view, either of them makes such an understanding convincing. Also, it is interesting that Seongho, who grasped historical changes according to historical facts and the trends of the times sensitively, or Sunam, who tried to identify historical reality through complete historical research of facts, demonstrated an ideological thought rather than reality toward the issue of jonju. Through not a few demonstrations, they tried to justify their views, but it was confirmed that their intention to accomplish the view of jonju on that basis was eventually higher. Meanwhile, the divergence of Seongho and Dasan, who reached different conclusions after all while taking the same type in terms of the view of Haengwang and jonju, also offers a reason to pay attention to diverse effects occurring outside of the interpretation of the scriptures.