조선사대부의 눈에 비친 중국의 유교문화 -연행록(燕行錄)을 중심으로

Abstract

China, Korea and Japan, which are categorized as the countries belonging to the so-called East Asian cultural sphere, have shared basically identical cultural idealism, while showing individual features and characteristics in terms of the way of pursuing it. Confucianism is not an exception. Especially during Choson Korea lasted around for 500 years, it fully developed in an indigenous way that its influence encompassed all social classes from uppermost king to the lowest rank and file. Then, what is the difference between Confucianism of Ming and Qing dynasties from that of Choson? It is trueth at the former is seemingly similar but different from the latter. Methodologically, I focus much more on the intensity perceived at the leve lof social life than on the logica lreasoning captured at the philosophical level. Following this line of thinking, this writing is designed to depict the way Chinese Confucianism was witnessed through the lens of Choson noblemen who visited Ming and Qing China and wrote the travel logs. Together with it, I investigate what made them feel the difference between Confucianism of Ming and Qingdynasties and that of Choson. Straightforwardly, Ming and Qing Confucianism disappoints Choson noblemen in many respects. Nevertheless, they tend to attribute their disappointment to following reasons: The reason why Ming Confucianism was not on a firm footing is that the heretical Buddhism, Taoism, and Yangmingxue flourished. In the same vein, the reason why Qing Confucianism was not on a stable ground is that the northern barbarians ruled the central China and thereby the teaching of the old sages was interrupted. This way, they ascribed the reason of the decline of Confucianism in China to the prosperity of the heretical and heterodoxical religions and thoughts which cannot be accommodated due to their norms and criteria totally permeated by Confucianism. Is this kind of justification historically true and tenable? I suppose that Choson noblemen’s conception and judgment are based upon a false premise. At this point, I channel my study to a historical level. In fact, Confucianism that they expected to encounter in China was not faded but inexistent ever. Ming and Qing Confucianism was not dominant nor flourishing unlike Choson Confucianism was. In Ming and Qing China, even aristocrats, to say nothing of common people, were not asked to abide by such a high level of moral norms and criteria that were observed by all social classes in Choson. Of course, it is admitted that Ming and Qing Confucianism was the ruling ideology and the state administrative apparatus, but it did not reach every corner of individual daily life including the four ceremonial occasions, i.e. coming of age, wedding, funeral, and ancestral rites. In other words, Ming and Qing Confucianism did not penetrate through all facets of everyday life unlike Choson Confucianism was, and thus it never disappeared, but was imaginary in nature. It follows then that Choson noblemen’s conception on Ming and Qing Confucianism is not justifiable historically.