왕안석 『홍범전』의 노자적 독법 ― 附: 『洪範傳』 譯註 ― (An Essay and a Translation with annotations on Wang An-Shih’s Commentary of the Great Plan in the Book of Documents)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국유교학회
· 수록지 정보 : 유교사상문화연구 / 77호 / 191 ~ 277페이지
· 저자명 : 임형석

초록

본고는 크게 ① 논고, ② 역주 두 부분으로 구성되어 있다. 논고는 다시 다섯 장으로 구성되어 있다. 제1장은 송대 홍범학이 등장하게 된 배경을 다룬다. 오대의 동란기를 거치며 건국한 송나라는 국내외적으로 여러 문제를 가지고 있었다. 국내적으로 번진 세력을 와해시킬 필요가 있었고 국외적으로 이민족 국가와 경쟁 상태에 있었다. 어느 정도 안정된 송 진종 대에 ‘대중상부’로 개원하는 사건이 벌어지는데 연호에서 알 수 있는 것처럼 「홍범」을 염두에 둔 시도였다. 이를 기점으로 전개되는 송대 홍범학을 제2장에서 다뤘다. 「홍범」은 군주권을 내세우는 정치 이론으로 알려져 있으며 재상권의 관점으로 송나라 정치사를 서술하는 경우도 있다. 본고는 기존 논점을 살려 송대 홍범학의 줄거리가 재상권과 황제권의 경쟁에서 촉발되어 다양한 견해를 제시하지만 결국 재상권 옹호론으로 귀결된 것으로 본다. 그리고 재상권 옹호론의 결정적 논리를 제공한 것이 왕안석 『홍범전』이다. 제3장은 왕안석 문집, 채상상 『왕안석연보고략』 등을 비교, 고증하여 『홍범전』의 성립 연대가 왕안석 만년이라고 추정한다. 아울러 왕안석 『노자주』도 『홍범전』과 거의 동시라는 점, 또한 왕안석의 여러 글에서 두 문헌이 지향하는 바가 같다는 점을 밝혔다. 제4장은 왕안석 『홍범전』의 주요 사상이 재상권 옹호론이 분명하다는 점을 밝히고 그것이 『노자』, 특히 제28장의 구도를 가져온 것임을 밝혔다. 또한 본말론을 포함한 체용론을 왕안석에게서 발견할 수 있다는 점과 그 논리가 『홍범전』에 녹아 있다는 점을 밝혔다. 제5장은 왕안석에 대한 후세의 평가를 서술한다. 양시와 유이의 왕안석 평가를 비교하면서 송대 왕안석 평가의 변천을 살펴보았고 주자의 왕안석 평가가 비교적 공정함을 논의했다.

영어초록

This paper mainly consists of two different parts, an essay and a translation with annotations, and the former also consists of 5 chapters. The 1st chapter deals with why did the studies about the Great Plan emerge in the Sung era. The Sung Dynasty, founded through the constant wars of the Five Dynasties, had many problems at home and abroad. It was necessary for the Sung Dynasty to undermine the power of the Fan-chen domestically and for it to be in competition with nomadic countries abroad, Liao and Western Hsia. There was an historical event in the reign of the Chen-tsung emperor, who changed his era name to Ta-chung Hsiang-fu, it was an attempt with the Great Plan in mind, as can be seen in the era name itself. The 2nd chapter deals with the studies about the Great Plan in the Sung era, which started with the same time of Chen-tsung’s changing his era name event. The Great Plan had been known as a decisive political theory that advocates a monarchy, but it got into a process of change for advocating the right of the chancellor, because the superior position of the chancellor became clear in the political history after the Five Dynasties. Based on the several prior studies, the essay believes that the studies about the Great Plan in the Sung era was triggered by the competition between the chancellor and the emperor, but ultimately led to the argument of defending the right of the chancellor. And it was Wang An-Shih’s Commentary of the Great Plan that provided the decisive logic of the argument for defending the right of the chancellor. The 3rd chapter estimates that Wang’s Commentary had formed in his last years through examining his literary collection and Ts’ai Shang-hsiang’s Wang An-Shih Nian-pu Kao-lüe. In addition, the essay reveals that his another Commentary on the Lao Tzu had established at the almost same time with his Commentary of the Great Plan, and his two writings showed that they shared the same goals. The 4th chapter reveals that Wang’s main idea about Commentary of the Great Plan was clearly for defending the right of the chancellor, and says that he brought it from the Lao Tzu, especially from the 28th chapter of it. It also reveals that his theory of Substance and Utilities, including the theory of Non-essentials and Fundamentals, can be found in Wang’s works and his theory was incorporated in his two Commentaries. The 5th chapter describes the subsequent evaluation of Wang An-Shih. The essay examines the evaluations of him in the Sung Dynasty, through comparing with the evaluation of him between Yang Shih and Liu Yi, and discusses Chu Hsi’s evaluation of Wang was a relatively impartial view.

참고자료

· 없음