예수회 색은주의 선교사들의 유교 이해 (The Sino-Jesuit Figurism and their Understandings of Confucianism)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 서울대학교 종교문제연구소
· 수록지 정보 : 종교와 문화 / 17호 / 33 ~ 66페이지
· 저자명 : 이연승

초록

This paper discusses the issues regarding the Sino-Jesuit figurists of the 17th century, and especially their understandings of Confucianism. Figurism can be said to be the interpretation method of Chinese Classics, trying to show that one could find 'signs'(figurae) referring to God's revelation.
Accommodationism, in other words, adaptation to Chinese culture was the evident missionary policy of the Jesuits since the end of the 16th century, and it can be said that they were successful in communicating with the Chinese literati and serving at the Imperial Court. But the Jesuits had lost the support of the Vatican through the Chinese Rites Controversy, and during these years of 100 years over, several talented French Jesuits including Jochaim Bouvet and Joseph-Henri de Prémare, were sent to China. They had to live abroad until death in China, namely the Qing dynasty of the Manchu, at the same time, they had to make a partial amendment of the early Sino-Jesuit's policy of accommodation.
This paper mainly analyzes the two works〯〯〯；J. Bouvet's Mirror of the Old and New Doctrine of Revering Heaven (『古今敬天鑒』) and Prémare's The True Meaning of Confucianism (『儒敎實義』). Bouvet and Prémare tried to explain the focal point of dissension in Rites Controversy; the first, the Chinese word for "God", which was generally accepted as Tian Zhu(天主), while Jesuits were available to allow Chinese Christians to use Tian(天) or Shangdi(上帝) and secondly, the ceremonial rites of Confucianism and ancestor worship. In general, they were consistent with Matteo Ricci, but their attitudes or methods in interpretation of Chinese Texts were quite new and 'curious', to borrow David Mungello's phrase. In, Mirror, Bouvet tried to prove that the ancient Chinese had known the only true God by referring to Chinese Classics and Daily Explanations(『日講』) of the Kangxi emperor(康熙帝), and Prémare, one of the most prominent disciples of Bouvet, tried to argue that the Chinese belonged to the new Confucianism were not atheists in The True Meaning.
Studies on Chinese figurism is now at the starting point, and further studies are needed to understand the diversity and complexity of the Western Sinology. In addition, we can understand the possibilities of creative interpretations of Classics of East and West through the study of figurism.

영어초록

This paper discusses the issues regarding the Sino-Jesuit figurists of the 17th century, and especially their understandings of Confucianism. Figurism can be said to be the interpretation method of Chinese Classics, trying to show that one could find 'signs'(figurae) referring to God's revelation.
Accommodationism, in other words, adaptation to Chinese culture was the evident missionary policy of the Jesuits since the end of the 16th century, and it can be said that they were successful in communicating with the Chinese literati and serving at the Imperial Court. But the Jesuits had lost the support of the Vatican through the Chinese Rites Controversy, and during these years of 100 years over, several talented French Jesuits including Jochaim Bouvet and Joseph-Henri de Prémare, were sent to China. They had to live abroad until death in China, namely the Qing dynasty of the Manchu, at the same time, they had to make a partial amendment of the early Sino-Jesuit's policy of accommodation.
This paper mainly analyzes the two works〯〯〯；J. Bouvet's Mirror of the Old and New Doctrine of Revering Heaven (『古今敬天鑒』) and Prémare's The True Meaning of Confucianism (『儒敎實義』). Bouvet and Prémare tried to explain the focal point of dissension in Rites Controversy; the first, the Chinese word for "God", which was generally accepted as Tian Zhu(天主), while Jesuits were available to allow Chinese Christians to use Tian(天) or Shangdi(上帝) and secondly, the ceremonial rites of Confucianism and ancestor worship. In general, they were consistent with Matteo Ricci, but their attitudes or methods in interpretation of Chinese Texts were quite new and 'curious', to borrow David Mungello's phrase. In, Mirror, Bouvet tried to prove that the ancient Chinese had known the only true God by referring to Chinese Classics and Daily Explanations(『日講』) of the Kangxi emperor(康熙帝), and Prémare, one of the most prominent disciples of Bouvet, tried to argue that the Chinese belonged to the new Confucianism were not atheists in The True Meaning.
Studies on Chinese figurism is now at the starting point, and further studies are needed to understand the diversity and complexity of the Western Sinology. In addition, we can understand the possibilities of creative interpretations of Classics of East and West through the study of figurism.

참고자료

· 없음