肅宗代 前半 懷尼是非와 蕩平論 －윤선거･윤증의 논리를 중심으로－ (Hoeni sibi(懷尼是非, Arguments between Song Siyŏl and Yun Chŭng) and the T΄angp΄yŏngnon(蕩平論, theory of impartiality) during the early reign of King Sukchong－with a special focus on the logic of Yun Sŏn´gŏ)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국사연구회
· 수록지 정보 : 한국사연구 / 148호 / 75 ~ 113페이지
· 저자명 : 김용흠

초록

Based on an analysis of the Hoeni sibi(懷尼是非, arguments between Song Siyŏl and Yun Chŭng) debate, with the main focus being on Yun Sŏn´gŏ and Yun Chŭng’s assertions made in response to those advanced by Song Siyŏl and the Patriarch faction(Noron), this study seeks to prove the following facts.
First, although the Hoeni sibi debate involved many facts and points of contention, it was in essence a conflict over basic thoughts and policies. From the standpoint of philosophy, the Hoeni sibi debate was a conflict between Yun Sŏn´gŏ’s relativization of Neo－Confucianism and Song Siyŏl’s Neo－Confucian Orthodoxy, the latter of which was regarded as impeding Yun Chŭng’s Silsim Sirhak (實心實學, Pragmatic Practical Learning). From the standpoint of policy, the Hoeni sibi debate was a conflict between socio－economics reforms designed to actualize the Great Cause of Conquering the North(Pukpŏl taeŭi) and the moralistic desire to absolutize the notion of Taemyŏng Ŭiriron(對明義理論, moral justice toward Ming).
Second, the Hoeni sibi debate was also a conflict between the progressive and conservative forces. The conflicts between the advocates of Chuhwaron(主和論, make peace with the Qing) and Ch΄ŏkhwaron(斥和論, reject the Qing), which continued unabated from the reign of King Injo, were in essence clashes between the progressive and conservative camps. However, while Yun Hwang, who belonged to the Ch΄ŏkhwaron faction, accepted the notion of Pyŏnt΄ongron(變通論, reform theory) during the reign of King Injo, Yun Sŏn´gŏ accepted that of P´abungdangron(破朋黨論, removal of factional politics) during the reign of King Hyojong. Meanwhile, Yun Chŭng, who sought to relativize the notions of Ch΄ŏkhwaron and Ŭiriron, positively accepted the concept of Saseron(事勢論, consideration of the situation) during the reign of King Sukchong. As such, the Yun family’s gradual approach to the Chuhwaron can be regarded as having signified their progression from conservative to progressive in terms of their perception of reality as well as policy. On the contrary, Song Siyŏl became even more conservative following his attempts to absolutize the notions of Ch΄ŏkhwaron and Ŭiriron.
Third, the Hoeni sibi debate was also a rivalry between the T΄angp΄yŏngnon(蕩平論, theory of impartiality) and anti‐T΄angp΄yŏngnon forces. T΄angp΄yŏngnon emerged as a result of the efforts made by government officials and Confucian scholars who sought to not only draw up new policies and institutions that could overcome the domestic and international crises after the two Manchu invasions of 1627 and 1636, but also to bring these to the political center. In this regard, it is important to note that Yun Chŭng’s family was actively involved in this process.
Fourth, although it would have been impossible for him to have any awareness of the Sirhak(實學, Practical Learning) that emerged during late Chosŏn, Yun Chŭng’s Pragmatic Practical Learning in fact shared many similarities with the latter. This connection is evident in Yun’s epilogue to Yu Hyŏngwŏn’s “Pangye surok(磻溪隨錄, Essays on Social Reform)”.
As such, we can see that the conflicts between Yun Chŭng and Song Siyŏl were also conflicts between adherents of Practical Learning and Neo－Confucianism. As the political theory of the adherents of Practical Learning was given form in the T΄angp΄yŏngnon, it was only natural that the conflict between these two camps evolved into one between the proponents of T΄angp΄yŏngnon and those who opposed it.
Hoeni sibi began during the reign of King Sukchong at the end of 17th century and moved beyond the families of Song Siyŏl and Yun Chŭng during the era of T΄angp΄yŏng politics in the 18th century. This denouement can be regarded as the result of the fact that at the core of the Hoeni sibi debate lay the differences in thoughts and policies, as well as the conflicts, between the conservative and progressive factions. In other words, this can be regarded as having been a conflict between new ideas and thoughts and older ones that raged during the period that saw the disintegration of feudal society.

영어초록

Based on an analysis of the Hoeni sibi(懷尼是非, arguments between Song Siyŏl and Yun Chŭng) debate, with the main focus being on Yun Sŏn´gŏ and Yun Chŭng’s assertions made in response to those advanced by Song Siyŏl and the Patriarch faction(Noron), this study seeks to prove the following facts.
First, although the Hoeni sibi debate involved many facts and points of contention, it was in essence a conflict over basic thoughts and policies. From the standpoint of philosophy, the Hoeni sibi debate was a conflict between Yun Sŏn´gŏ’s relativization of Neo－Confucianism and Song Siyŏl’s Neo－Confucian Orthodoxy, the latter of which was regarded as impeding Yun Chŭng’s Silsim Sirhak (實心實學, Pragmatic Practical Learning). From the standpoint of policy, the Hoeni sibi debate was a conflict between socio－economics reforms designed to actualize the Great Cause of Conquering the North(Pukpŏl taeŭi) and the moralistic desire to absolutize the notion of Taemyŏng Ŭiriron(對明義理論, moral justice toward Ming).
Second, the Hoeni sibi debate was also a conflict between the progressive and conservative forces. The conflicts between the advocates of Chuhwaron(主和論, make peace with the Qing) and Ch΄ŏkhwaron(斥和論, reject the Qing), which continued unabated from the reign of King Injo, were in essence clashes between the progressive and conservative camps. However, while Yun Hwang, who belonged to the Ch΄ŏkhwaron faction, accepted the notion of Pyŏnt΄ongron(變通論, reform theory) during the reign of King Injo, Yun Sŏn´gŏ accepted that of P´abungdangron(破朋黨論, removal of factional politics) during the reign of King Hyojong. Meanwhile, Yun Chŭng, who sought to relativize the notions of Ch΄ŏkhwaron and Ŭiriron, positively accepted the concept of Saseron(事勢論, consideration of the situation) during the reign of King Sukchong. As such, the Yun family’s gradual approach to the Chuhwaron can be regarded as having signified their progression from conservative to progressive in terms of their perception of reality as well as policy. On the contrary, Song Siyŏl became even more conservative following his attempts to absolutize the notions of Ch΄ŏkhwaron and Ŭiriron.
Third, the Hoeni sibi debate was also a rivalry between the T΄angp΄yŏngnon(蕩平論, theory of impartiality) and anti‐T΄angp΄yŏngnon forces. T΄angp΄yŏngnon emerged as a result of the efforts made by government officials and Confucian scholars who sought to not only draw up new policies and institutions that could overcome the domestic and international crises after the two Manchu invasions of 1627 and 1636, but also to bring these to the political center. In this regard, it is important to note that Yun Chŭng’s family was actively involved in this process.
Fourth, although it would have been impossible for him to have any awareness of the Sirhak(實學, Practical Learning) that emerged during late Chosŏn, Yun Chŭng’s Pragmatic Practical Learning in fact shared many similarities with the latter. This connection is evident in Yun’s epilogue to Yu Hyŏngwŏn’s “Pangye surok(磻溪隨錄, Essays on Social Reform)”.
As such, we can see that the conflicts between Yun Chŭng and Song Siyŏl were also conflicts between adherents of Practical Learning and Neo－Confucianism. As the political theory of the adherents of Practical Learning was given form in the T΄angp΄yŏngnon, it was only natural that the conflict between these two camps evolved into one between the proponents of T΄angp΄yŏngnon and those who opposed it.
Hoeni sibi began during the reign of King Sukchong at the end of 17th century and moved beyond the families of Song Siyŏl and Yun Chŭng during the era of T΄angp΄yŏng politics in the 18th century. This denouement can be regarded as the result of the fact that at the core of the Hoeni sibi debate lay the differences in thoughts and policies, as well as the conflicts, between the conservative and progressive factions. In other words, this can be regarded as having been a conflict between new ideas and thoughts and older ones that raged during the period that saw the disintegration of feudal society.

참고자료

· 없음