來庵 鄭仁弘의 南冥學 辯論과 道學的 正統性 규명

Abstract

In a series of events between the mid-16th century and the early 17th century, Twe-gye Yi Hwang criticized Nammyeong Jo Sik and Nae-am Jeong In Hong argued in favor of the latter. Is this confrontation in line with a significant transition in terms of academic history that cannot be neglected as a mere confrontation between academic schools? In this awareness of an issue, this study traces back changes in the process that Jeong In Hong defended Nammyeong and seeks to understand the fundamental cause of such changes. Additionally, this study examines how Jeong In Hong verified the orthodoxy of Nammyeong School by means of 「Jeong-maek- go-pung-byeon」 in the early 17th century when Neo-Confucianism (朱子學) was recognized with securing the orthodoxy of studies. Jeong In Hong refuted Twe-gye’s criticism against Nammyeong in terms of practice and fidelity to principles. He also criticized that Twe-gye requested to kill Bongsonggun (prince) Iwan and that there were gisaengs (Korean geisha) belonging to the governmental office. He questioned whose life of these two living in the same period of time was suitable for the times. He argued that a Confucian philosopher (道學) should not be judged based on whether or not he secures a governmental position but based on whether his works were appropriate for the times. In other words, Confucian philosophers should practice the ideas of moderation that passed down through Yo(堯)-Sun(舜)-Wu(禹). The key of Jeong In Hong's defense in favor of Nammyeong was spiritual awakening and moderation. However, Twe-gye sought to establish a rightful type of learning of Confucianism, thinking that this could be achieved through Neo-Confucianism. The academic position and influence of Twe-gye led this view and directivity into a significant transition in terms of academic history to the point that this mainstream could not be defied. As Jeong-gu stated that Twe-gye upheld traditional Confucianism while Nammyeong was a man of noble personality implies the academic idea of the times. Thus, the fact that Jeong In Hong defended Nammyeong in the perspective of practicing the idea of moderation was not a matter of logical justification. Rather, it resulted from the failure of gaining others’ consensus since he did not have deep understanding of changes in terms of academic history. On the other hand, it is not reasonable for a follower to abandon the life and academic identity pursued by his master depending on the current of the times. The solution that Jeong In Hong came up with was to publish Hak-gi-yu-pyeon (學記類編) and thus to clarify that Nammyeong’s learning was more deeply rooted in Jeongju School (程朱學). Certainly for the same purpose, scholars of Nammyeong School sought to make known the implications of Nammyeong’s learning on the basis of Jeongju School after Jeong In Hong. In today’s point of view, it would be hardly accepted that Neo-Confucianism is the only rightful learning (正學). Nammyeong’s learning itself is a valuable heritage in the academic history, but its conformity to Neo-Confucianism cannot be an absolute basis for evaluation. However, it is necessary to seek to understand efforts that such scholars put forth to solve the issues of their times as accurately as possible and to reflect our learning and life by grasping their meanings and limitations in our times.