谷口園 鄭象觀의 『史記』 애호와 그 의의 -「讀馬史」 및 南漢朝와의 왕복 서한을 중심으로-

Abstract

This paper aims to thoroughly reconstruct the detailed contents and developmental process of Jeong Sang-guan's understanding of Sima Qian's Shiji, through an analysis of his writings “Dokmasa”(Parts 1 and 2) and nine exchange letters with his mentor and elder, Nam Hanjo, who was also his father-in-law. Ultimately, the objective is to clarify the concrete reality of Jeong Sang-guan's affection for Shiji and its significance from the perspective of its reception in Joseon. Jeong Sang-guan and Nam Hanjo exchanged letters at least five times, continuously discussing Shiji. Within these exchanges, Jeong initiated debates, defended it stylistically, presented new stylistic theories, defended it ethically, and ultimately even withdrew some claims, showing a series of shifts in his stance. Jeong Sang-guan immersed himself in the emotional catharsis provided by Shiji, aiming to read it more expansively, prioritizing unique works imbued with the personality of Sima Qian such as “Naozhonglianzhuan” and “Guoyuanzhuan”. In contrast, Nam Hanjo suggested that the emotional catharsis from Shiji could adversely affect the prose and recommended discontinuing its reading, but if necessary, reading works with a broader and smoother prose style like “Bensuzhuan” and “Chaizhuangzhuan”. Furthermore, while defending Sima Qian's prose as great not only in terms of stylistic power but also in terms of ethics and Confucianist learning, Jeong Sang-guan elevated Sima Qian to a higher position than Han Yu and Gu Yangsu, whereas Nam Hanjo did not relent from his position that Sima Qian's prose deviated from the Wangdao and was inferior to Han Yu and Gu Yangsu. Although the Shiji debate between Jeong Sang-guan and Nam Hanjo ultimately concluded with Jeong's partial retreat, it is significant in revealing the differing perspectives on important issues such as the worthiness of works within Shiji, the level and value of its prose, its alignment with ethical principles, and the significance of reading. In that case, what relationship does the exchange of letters with Nam Hanjo have with “Dokmasa”? First, “Dokmasa, Part 1” is presumed to have been written around the time Jeong Sang-guan first sent his first letter to Nam Hanjo, showing admiration for Sima Qian's greatness by writing excellent prose despite his anger. On the other hand, “Dokmasa, Part 2” is a responsive writing aimed at supplementing his own perceived shortcomings in defending Shiji against Nam Hanjo's critical views, during the process of debate with Nam Hanjo. In summary, Jeong Sang-guan's thoughts on Shiji are consistently revealed between “Dokmasa” and the exchange of letters, whereas “Dokmasa, Part 1” is an independent work driven by Jeong Sang-guan's personal motivation to appreciate and explore Shiji, separate from the debate with Nam Hanjo. Such aspects of Jeong Sang-guan's affection for Shiji suggest the process that many scholars of the time must have gone through in accepting Shiji, highlighting the importance of understanding the different perspectives on important issues such as the level and value of prose, the suitability of ethics, and the significance of reading in Joseon. It is also important in showing the actual difficulties of appreciating Shiji among scholars in conservative regions like Yeongnam and the resulting limitations. Therefore, considering regional differences is essential for future studies of the reception of Shiji in Joseon.