李建昌의 「李卓吾贊」에 대하여

김용태(Kim Yang-Tae) 동양한문학회(구 부산한문학회) 2008 동양한문학연구 Vol.26 No.-

  본고는 이희목 교수에 의해 십수년 전에 보고되었으나, 그 사이 학계에서 ‘잊혀진’ 자료였던 이건창의 「이탁오찬」이란 글의 존재를 학계에 환기하고, 그 내용과 의의를 검토하여 이건창 문학을 새롭게 이해하는 시각을 제시하려는 목적에서 집필되었다. 「이탁오찬」은 陽明左派의 성립에 중요한 역할을 하였던 李贄를 칭송하는 내용을 담은 글이기에, 최근 들어 그 열기가 더해지고 있는 양명좌파와 公安派의 수용에 대한 연구에 있어 매우 중요한 자료가 아닐 수 없다.<BR>  「이탁오찬」은 이건창이 20대에 지은 글인데, 이 당시 내면적으로 울분상태에 있던 이건창은 양명좌파 및 공안파를 접하면서 많은 위안을 받을 수 있었다. 이후 이건창은 양명좌파 및 공안파와 일정한 거리를 두게 되지만, 양명좌파 및 공안파의 사유를 자신의 문학적 목표와 실천의 자양분으로 적절히 활용하였다. 이러한 점은 이건창 문학을 주로 ‘古文’적 관점에서 접근 하였던 기존의 연구에서 주목하지 못했던 부분이라 할 수 있는데, 실상 이건창 문학이 위대한 까닭은 양명좌파, 공안파, 동성파 등등의 외부적 요인을 주체적으로 활용하여 자신만의 독특한 색깔로 재창조했다는 점에서 찾아져야 할 것이다. 그리고 이러한 점은 양명좌파와 공안파의 수용에 있어 ‘주체’의 측면을 제대로 고려하지 않는 최근의 연구경향에 대해서도 시사하는 바가 적지 않다고 할 수 있다.   The material, 「lee tak oh chan(李卓吾贊)」, was reported approximately a dozen years ago by a Professor Lee, Hee-mok. But this material has been "forgotten" in the academic society. This abstract has been created with an aim to propose a new point of view to understand the literature of Lee, Kun-chang(李建昌) by reviewing the 「lee tak oh chan」. 「lee tak oh chan」 contains materials that look up to Li zh? who had played an important role in establishing a Radical Yang-ming school, which cannot be a crucial material in the sense that recently its academic heat has been increasing toward Radical Yang-ming school and Gong-an School.<BR>  「Lee tak oh chan」 was made by Lee, Kun-chang in his twenties. At the time, Lee, Kun-chang who was in depression of his days had been consoled much by Radical Yang-ming school and Gong-an School. Since then, he placed a certain distance to Radical Yang-ming school and Gong-an School, however he applied appropriately Radical Yang-ming school and Gong-an School to sources of nutrition of literary object and performance. These points were something that at-the-time research hardly took notice of having the viewpoint to access to Lee, Kun-chang literature based upon "Guwen(Classical literary Style 古文)". In fact, the reason, we have to understand, that the greatness of Lee, Kun-chang literature is that it recreated outer factors of Radical Yang-ming school, Gong-an School, Dong-sung School, etc subjectively in its unique color.<BR>  And, in this respect, it suggests us a lot in the sense that even recent research trend tends to hardly focus upon "subjectivity" in the absorbtion of Radical Yang-ming school and Gong-an School.

청말 춘추공양학을 통해본 초기 근대의식

천병돈,노병렬 동양철학연구회 2015 東洋哲學硏究 Vol.83 No.-

Gong zizhen(龔自珍) and Wei yuan(魏源) is the end of the Qing Dynasty man. Before the Opium War, China research at the thought is the school of Chengzhu(程朱學) and documental archaeology(考證學). Other than the school of Chengzhu is the school of Chengzhu shunned the learning. As a result, li(理) focused only on a discourse unable to escape from center point of view and empty. Documental archaeology. Documental archaeology are the subject of study only change for classical literature in li, as with the jeongjuak gyeongsechiyong(經世致用) in did not pay attention. In other words, whether the school of Chengzhu or documental archaeology, didn't get away from feudal and as standardized thought. The Gong-yang schools of thought emerged from this background. They had switched to thinking of the ‘change’ in the center ‘li’. Thought of Change came from the change of great Book. Gongzizhen and Weiyu argued to as things are changing, society must change, too. Gongzizhen is changed to Sandeng age(三等世) the Sanshi theory(三世說). Sanshi theory is ‘confused age(衰亂世)’, advanced easy age(升平世), easy age(太平世)’. Sandeng age is well-governed age(治世), declined age(衰世), confused age(亂世). The development also changed, as all things are changing history. This is the history of development theory. Gongzizhen based on thought of Change claims the abolition of feudalism. Weiyuan criticize uniform political translation on ‘Shijing(詩經)’ ‘Shujing(書經)’. He translated real intention of Shijing and Shujing, and based on it showed thought of Change. Reform ideas of Gongzizhen and Weiyuan, but did not spread to the entire society. In this sense, these reforms can be described as rudimentary ideas of modern consciousness. However, opened a ‘awareness of modern consciousness’ is very valuable in that. 공자진과 위원이 살았던 시기는 봉건황제 시대 말기인 청나라 말기였다. 아편전쟁 이전 중국의 학술사상은 宋學(程朱學)과 고증학 위주였다. 정주학은 정주학 이외의 다른 학문을 배척했고, 理 중심의 세계관에서 벗어나지 못하고 공허한 담론에만 집중했다. 고증학은 학문의 대상을 理에서 고문으로 바꿨을 뿐, 정주학과 마찬가지로 경세치용 방면에는 관심을 두지 않았다. 즉 송학이든 고증학이든 봉건적이면서 획일화된 사고로부터 벗어나지 못했다. 이러한 사상적 배경에서 등장한 공양학파는 고정불변의 ‘理’ 중심적 사고로부터 춘추공양학을 바탕으로 공양학적 ‘변역’ 중심의 사고로 전환했다. ‘변역’ 사상은 『주역』 “窮則變, 變則通, 通則久.”라는 變易 철학을 근원으로 한다. 공자진과 위원은 만물이 변하는 것처럼 사회, 제도 또한 변해야 한다고 주장했다. 공자진은 동중서⋅하휴의 삼세설 즉 ‘衰亂世’ → 升平世 → 太平世’를 ‘治世 → 衰世 → 亂世’ 등 ‘三等世’로 바꾸고, 만물이 변하듯이 역사 또한 변화 발전한다는 역사발전론을 제시한다. 이러한 변역 사상은 봉건제 폐지를 비롯한 사회적 개혁까지 주장했다. 위원은 『시경』 『서경』에 대한 의리적 해석을 통해 획일화된 정치적 해석을 비판하고, 이를 통해 공양학적 ‘변역’ 사상을 나타냈다. 공자진과 위원은 ‘변역’ 사상을 바탕으로 정치적 사회적 개혁뿐 아니라, 서양 문물을 배워야 한다고 주장했다. 龔⋅魏의 사회개혁은 황제 1인 중심의 봉건사회에서 개인 중심의 근대사회로 개혁하자는 것이고, 서양문물의 수용은 서양 문물의 가치에 대한 인정이다. 그러나 공자진과 위원의 ‘變易’적 개혁 사상은 사회 전반의 개혁으로 나아가지 못했다. 이런 점에서 龔⋅魏의 개혁 사상은 초보적 근대의식이라고 할 수 있다. 그러나 ‘근대의식의 자각’을 열었다는 점에서 매우 가치 있다.

청말 춘추공양학을 통해본 초기 근대의식-공자진(공自珍)과 위원(魏源)의 변역(變易)사상을 중심으로-

천병돈 ( Byungdon Chun ),노병렬 ( Byungryul Roh ) 동양철학연구회 2015 東洋哲學硏究 Vol.83 No.-

Gong zizhen(공自珍) and Wei yuan(魏源) is the end of the Qing Dynasty man. Before the Opium War, China research at the thought is the school of Chengzhu(程朱學) and documental archaeology(考證學). Other than the school of Chengzhu is the school of Chengzhu shunned the learning. As a result, li(理) focused only on a discourse unable to escape from center point of view and empty. Documental archaeology. Documental archaeology are the subject of study only change for classical literature in li, as with the jeongjuak gyeongsechiyong(經世致用) in did not pay attention. In other words, whether the school of Chengzhu or documental archaeology, didn`t get away from feudal and as standardized thought. The Gong-yang schools of thought emerged from this background. They had switched to thinking of the ‘change’ in the center ‘li’. Thought of Change came from the change of great Book. Gongzizhen and Weiyu argued to as things are changing, society must change, too. Gongzizhen is changed to Sandeng age(三等世) the Sanshi theory(三世說). Sanshi theory is ‘confused age(衰亂世)’, advanced easy age(升平世), easy age(太平世)’. Sandeng age is well-governed age(治世), declined age(衰世), confused age(亂世). The development also changed, as all things are changing history. This is the history of development theory. Gongzizhen based on thought of Change claims the abolition of feudalism. Weiyuan criticize uniform political translation on ‘Shijing(詩經)’ ‘Shujing(書經)’. He translated real intention of Shijing and Shujing, and based on it showed thought of Change. Reform ideas of Gongzizhen and Weiyuan, but did not spread to the entire society. In this sense, these reforms can be described as rudimentary ideas of modern consciousness. However, opened a ‘awareness of modern consciousness’ is very valuable in that.

魏源의 變易論과 經世致用 思想

천병돈,노병렬 대동철학회 2017 大同哲學 Vol.78 No.-

공양학이란 治世의 원리를 재정립하는 경세사상이다. 魏源은 만물은 끊임없이 변화 발전한다는 ‘변역’ 이론을 통해 청말의 사회적 위기를 극복하려고 했다. 변역적 세계관은 역사에도 그대로 반영된다. 역사는 ‘一治一亂’을 통해 발전해나간다. 만물은 끊임없이 변화 발전한다. 인간의 역사 흐름 또한 一治一亂을 반복하면서 변화 발전한다. 그러므로 인간은 시세의 변화에 따라 그에 적절하게 대응해야 한다. 魏源은 청말 열강의 침략을 시대적 추세라고 받아들인다. 그러나 그 수용은 피동적인 수용이 아니라, 형세에 적절한 개혁을 통해 一亂을 一治로 바꾸자는 것이다. 이것이 바로 ‘經世致用’이다. 경세치용은 對外와 對內로 구분된다. 대외적으로는 서양의 기술뿐 아니라 민주주의 사상을 수용하려고도 했다. 대내적으로는 정치 개혁과 사회 인프라 구축을 통한 경제개혁이다. 정치 개혁 측면에서 魏源은 통치자의 자세, 인재 선발, 언로 확대 등의 대안을 제시했지만, 구체적인 방법을 제시하지 않았다. 경제적 개혁 측면에서는 매우 구체적이면서 실질적으로 접근했다. 魏源은 수리시설 확충, 제방구축, 교량 보수, 黃河 치수사업, 해운제도, 화폐제도, 소금 판매, 농업생산력 증대 등 경세치용적 경제 개혁 방안을 제시하여 국가와 국민의 부를 확대하고자 했다. 바로 이 점이 이항로와 다른 점이다. 실사를 통한 실질적인 효과 추구와 실질적인 효과를 통한 實事를 강조하는 魏源의 경세치용에 대해, 李澤厚는 ‘근대 중국의 선진적인 사상이 현실 문제를 중시하는 시대정신을 최초로 체현했으며, 魏源의 이러한 정신은 훗날 개량파에 많은 영향을 주었고, 개량파가 자본주의 상업을 발전시키자는 경제적 관점의 매개가 되었다’고 평가했다. The school of Gong-yang is the idea to re-establish national management. All things constantly change and develop. This is Change theory. Such cosmology is reflected in history as well. History evolves by repeating peace and confusion. Therefore, humans should respond appropriately to changing circumstances. Weiyuan witnessed the invasion of the Western powers. And Weiyuan accept that this is a trend of the times. But it is not the passive acceptance, but the management of the state through reform. This is the Statecraft. The Statecraft is divided into domestic and external. It has embraced democratic thought as well as Western technology externally. Internal reform is economic reform through political reform and social infra structure. In terms of political reform, he suggested alternatives such as the attitude of the ruler, selection of talent, and expansion of the union. However, Weiyuan did not explain the concrete method. In terms of economic reform, it was very concrete and practical. Weiyuan tried to expand the wealth of the nation and the people by proposing economic reform measures such as expanding the repair facilities, building the bank, repairing the bridges, the yellow river scale project, the shipping system, the monetary system, salt sales. This is in contrast to Lee Haengro. About Weiyuan’s Shilsagushi Phlosophy, Li Ze-hou(李澤厚) was highly evaluated.

劉逢祿公羊學解經徑路探析

魏航(Wei Hang) 동아인문학회 2009 동아인문학 Vol.15 No.-

LiuFengLu is the important person who made great contribution to the Qing dynasty Gongyang School's development, so to explore the path of his interpreting classic of Gongyang School is full of significance. The path of interpreting classic of Gongyang School was reflected in the following three aspects. The second path of LiuFengLu's interpreting classic of Gongyang School namely the tactical approach in medium is through the method of textual research to supplement the shortcoming of the method of directly getting the ideas and thoughts from the classics. It reflected the essence of academic fashion in the middle of Qing dynasty. The third path of LiuFengLu's interpreting classic of Gongyang School is application of the technique in the micro, by analyzing the regulations and example for getting the ideas and thoughts which hided in the classics text. Most scholars thought that there were many profound means in the spring and autumn annals and those means mainly centralized Gongyang' commentaries. LiuFengLu thought Hexiu's works was the best book of summary the ideas and thoughts of Gongyang commentaries. To grasp the mean, carry on the spirit of the rectification and saving the society can't leave Hexiu's summary. According to Hexiu's works, LiuFengLu wrote the Interpreting Regulations of HeShi's book. In this book, he divided all events into 30 regulations, through analyze the various events, taking new classification and according to certain philosophical inductive together, then made originally scattered and weird autumn events become orderliness and clear. After LiuFengLu's hand, the ideas and thoughts of Gongyang became obvious and easy to understand.

論錢穆對漢代『春秋』學的硏究

楊兆貴 ( Yang¸ Zhao Gui ),趙殷尙 ( Cho¸ Eun Sang ) 한국중국학회 2021 중국학보 Vol.97 No.-

錢穆對秦漢史、漢代經學研究飮譽學林, 影響很大。他這兩方面的論著大多已逾半世紀, 在出土文獻日益增多、研究方法多元化等學風下, 他的論著有哪些價值?對當代相關研究有什麼影響?筆者結合他這兩方面的研究, 聚焦他的漢代『春秋』學, 以見他治學、見解之一斑。 要探討他對漢代『春秋』學的看法, 則先簡介他對『春秋』及三傳的看法。他與傳統主張孔子作『春秋』的看法相同, 並從史學肯定『春秋』、『左傳』的史學價值。他認為漢代經學今古文之別是王官學與百家言之殊, 而非文字古今之異。這是他論漢代經今古文最具特色的部分。他撰『孔子與春秋』一文, 著重闡釋『公羊』學的精神, 強調孔子『春秋』以百家言而成為新的王官學。他在不同時期對『公羊』學與董仲舒的評價不同。他認為漢儒多通古今, 因此治『春秋』者多能兼採三傳或兩傳之義、說。他又指出, 『春秋』學與漢代思想尤其是災異說、禪讓說、禮制說有密切的關係。 Prof. Qian Mu has a great influence on the honorary scholars of Qin and Han history and Han dynasty studies. Most of his works in these two areas have been over half a century. With the increasing number of unearthed documents and diversified research methods, what is the value of his works? And what is the impact on contemporary related research? This essay combines his research in these two areas and focuses on his study of Chun Qiu in the Han Dynasty, so as to see his academic research methods and insights. To explore his views on the study of Chun Qiu in the Han Dynasty, the first part of the essay introduces his views on Chun Qiu and the three ‘Zhuan’. He is the same as the traditional view that Confucius wrote Chun Qiu, and affirmed the historical value of Chun Qiu and Zuo Zhuan from his historiography. He believes that the difference between modern and ancient literatures in Han dynasty is the difference between Ancient Official Document and Philosophers, rather than the difference between ancient and modern writing. He wrote the article Confucius and Chun Qiu, focusing on explaining the spirit of school of Gong Yang, emphasizing that Confucius' Chun Qiu became a new official ideology with the philosophical thought in Han China. He had different evaluations of Gong Yang and Dong Zhongshu in different periods. He believes that the Han scholars are mostly integrated with the ancient and modern literatures, so most of them who studied Chun Qiu can adopt the meaning and theories of the three or two ‘Zhuan’ at the same time. He also pointed out that the study of Chun Qiu has a close relationship with the thoughts of the Han Dynasty, especially the theory of catastrophe, concession, and etiquette.