본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

정조의 맹자학: 경연과 경학의 관점에서

Jeongjo’s Mencius Studies: In the perspectives of gyeongyeon (經筵) and gyeonghak (經學)

1

조회

0

다운로드

5

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류기타인문학

초록

The purpose of this study is to examine Jeongjo’s interpretation of Mencius studies in the aspects of gyeongyeon (經筵). Gyeongyeon is a place where the king and subjects get together and discuss occasions to celebrate while examining pending issues among national affairs. In brief, it is a crucial place for discussing studies as well as national affairs. Let’s examine the history of gyeongyeon here. In China, most of it was developed as a way of actualizing what the king had in mind. The subjects’ influence was quite limited in either changing or diverting the king’s intention. In Chosun, kings loving studies like Sejong, Seongjong, Jungjong, Yeongjo, or Jeongjo did listen to what their subjects said; however, it was nearly the matter of the king’s willingness to decide on the subjects of gyeongyeon and operate them. About Jeongjo, as you can clearly see it from ‘Gyeongseogangui (經史講義)’, one of his representative books, gyeongyeon was not a place to listen to the opinions of subjects but a place to teach and learn about the subjects. Jeongjo collected subjects who were very much different from one another academically and intended to teach them by throwing wide-ranging sharp questions. With this process, he meant to establish his status as gunje (君師) and also let the subjects know of it continuously. He had quite a lot of interest in and inclination for Mencius studies. What captures part of it well is 『Chuseogyeongseon (鄒書敬選)』 which is a collection of some text from Mencius. It is the summary of main contents extracted from Mencius. What is noticeable in it is that he applied the perspective of 『Juyeok (周易)』 to analyze Mencius. This is what anyone can do as an academic attempt, but his attitude shown in this process plainly reveals the problem that can be found in the king who is equipped with great academic capability and is too confident about his own discernment. In this sense, Jeongjo’s academic policy and gyeonghak need to be looked into more precisely afterwards.

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine Jeongjo’s interpretation of Mencius studies in the aspects of gyeongyeon (經筵). Gyeongyeon is a place where the king and subjects get together and discuss occasions to celebrate while examining pending issues among national affairs. In brief, it is a crucial place for discussing studies as well as national affairs. Let’s examine the history of gyeongyeon here. In China, most of it was developed as a way of actualizing what the king had in mind. The subjects’ influence was quite limited in either changing or diverting the king’s intention. In Chosun, kings loving studies like Sejong, Seongjong, Jungjong, Yeongjo, or Jeongjo did listen to what their subjects said; however, it was nearly the matter of the king’s willingness to decide on the subjects of gyeongyeon and operate them. About Jeongjo, as you can clearly see it from ‘Gyeongseogangui (經史講義)’, one of his representative books, gyeongyeon was not a place to listen to the opinions of subjects but a place to teach and learn about the subjects. Jeongjo collected subjects who were very much different from one another academically and intended to teach them by throwing wide-ranging sharp questions. With this process, he meant to establish his status as gunje (君師) and also let the subjects know of it continuously. He had quite a lot of interest in and inclination for Mencius studies. What captures part of it well is 『Chuseogyeongseon (鄒書敬選)』 which is a collection of some text from Mencius. It is the summary of main contents extracted from Mencius. What is noticeable in it is that he applied the perspective of 『Juyeok (周易)』 to analyze Mencius. This is what anyone can do as an academic attempt, but his attitude shown in this process plainly reveals the problem that can be found in the king who is equipped with great academic capability and is too confident about his own discernment. In this sense, Jeongjo’s academic policy and gyeonghak need to be looked into more precisely afterwards.

참고문헌 (27)

  1. "正祖實錄", ~
  2. "承政院日記", ~
  3. "弘齋全書", ~
  4. 정옥자, "정조시대의 사상과 문화" (1999), 돌베개
  5. 김문식, "정조의 제왕학" (2007), 태학사
  6. 이원택, "유교적 공론장으로서의 경연과 유교지식인의 정체성", 태동고전연구, 33, pp.109~134 (2014), 태동고전연구소
  7. 張帆, "中國古代經筵制度初探", 中國史硏究 (1991)
  8. 周維錚, "經學史十講" (2002), 復旦大學出版社
  9. 朱瑞熙, "中國文化論叢 55" (1996), 上海古籍出版社
  10. 姜鵬, "北宋經筵與宋學的興起", 博士, pp.2006
  11. 邹賀, "宋朝經筵制度硏究", 博士, pp.2010
  12. 余英時, "宋明理學與政治文化" (2004), 允晨文化
  13. 윤정분, "明代 經筵制度와 政局運營의 추이 -洪武(1368∼1398)∼弘治年間(1488∼1505)을 중심으로-", 중국사연구, (75), pp.113~141 (2011), 중국사학회
  14. 陳東, "淸代經筵制度硏究", 博士, pp.2006
  15. 權延雄, "高麗時代의 經筵", 慶北史學, 6 (1983)
  16. 南智大, "朝鮮初期 經筵制度", 韓國史論, 6 (1980)
  17. 오항녕, "성리학 역사서의 형성과 구조", 한국실학연구, 6 (2003)
  18. 노요한, "조선전기 관찬 역사서의 주해 방식에 대하여 - 『자치통감사정전훈의』를 중심으로-", 규장각, (50), pp.33~64 (2017), 규장각한국학연구원[DOI]
  19. 노요한, "조선전기 관찬 역사서의 주해방식에 대하여(2): 『자치통감강목사정전훈의』를 중심으로", 진단학보, (129), pp.75~99 (2017), 진단학회
  20. 權延雄, "韓國文化의 諸問題" (1981), 국제문화재단
  21. 鄭在薰, "경연·서연과 조선의 군주학", 伏賢史林, 30 (2012)
  22. 김중권, "朝鮮朝 經筵에서 宣祖의 讀書歷 考察", 서지학연구, (55), pp.143~181 (2013), 한국서지학회[DOI]
  23. 윤훈표, "승정원일기 경연 기사의 특징", 사학연구, (100), pp.31~63 (2010), 한국사학회
  24. 지두환, "朝鮮時代 經筵官 硏究", 한국학논총, 31, pp.157~177 (2009), 한국학연구소
  25. 함영대, "성호학파의 맹자학" (2011), 태학사
  26. 백민정, "『孟子』 해석에 나타난 正祖의 사유 경향 분석 -『孟子講義』 御製條問 및 條對와 『鄒書春記』의 問答을 중심으로-", 철학사상, (34), pp.167~215 (2009), 철학사상연구소[DOI]
  27. 정일균, "正祖의 『孟子』論(Ⅰ) - 『鄒書春記』를 중심으로 -", 한국실학연구, (23), pp.45~87 (2012), 한국실학학회[DOI]

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (12건)