조선후기 학계의 薛瑄(1389~1464) 평가, 그 변화와 의미 (The Joseon Academic Community’s Evaluation of Seol Seon(1389～1464), changes and meaning)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국사연구회
· 수록지 정보 : 한국사연구 / 165호 / 101 ~ 142페이지
· 저자명 : 이정민

초록

중국 명초의 대표적 정주학자 설선(薛瑄,1389～1464)은 ‘正學을 표방한 공로’를 인정받아 중국 문묘에 배향된 인물이지만, 한편으로는 ‘송대 정주학을 답습한’ 학자라는 비판을 받기도 하였다. 그의 학문이 조선 학계에 알려진 16세기 이래 그는 다양한 평가를 받아왔으며, 그러한 평가들은 조선 학계의 시기별 문제의식을 보여주는 바가 있다.
16세기와 17세기 전반 설선에 대한 조선학계의 평가는 대단히 우호적이었다. 그는 출처 대의를 엄정히 준수한 관료로 평가받았고, ‘復性’을 통해 송대 정주학의 철저한 실천을 추구한 학자로 평가받았다. 그러나 17세기 후반에 접어들면서 그러한 평가는 변화하였다. ‘절의’에 주목하는 정서가 만연하게 되면서, 영락연간에 출사하고 원대 허형을 聖人으로 존숭한 설선의 출처관은 비판의 대상이 되기 시작하였다. 궁행 보다는 “아직 밝혀지지 않은 정주학적 의리의 발견과 심화”가 중시되면서, 설선은 ‘자득을 못한 학자’라는 부정적 평가를 받게 되었다.
결국 설선은 ‘정주학의 심화연구 및 이론화 작업을 결여’하고 ‘사문의 발전에 대한 기여가 부재’했다는 이유로 문묘에 배향되지 못하게 된다. 16세기～17세기 전반 설선 평가로부터의 이러한 전환을 통해, 조선학계의 내부 변화 및 분위기를 엿볼 수 있다.

영어초록

Seol Seon was a renowned Chinese scholar and philosopher in the early Ming period. He was first introduced to the Joseon circle of academy in the 16th century, and at the time was received very well. His works were warmly embraced, and considered to be inspiring in the eyes of the Joseon scholars. But as time went on, and especially during the latter half of the 17th century, different opinions surfaced as well.
Since the beginning of the 16th century, and through the early half of the 17th century, Seol Seon was cited as the prime example of ‘willingly giving up one’s privilege to avoid serving the wrong regime,’ and was considered as a role model in that regard. His academic achievements were also praised, as he was considered as a true successor of the Sung period Neo-Confucianism because he argued that the true human nature could and should be restored through a series of training and character-building exercise.
Entering the latter half of the 17th century, however, the Joseon academic circle’s evaluation of Seol Seon began to change, and displayed a completely different attitude. In terms of loyalty the unwavering pursuit of “Moral obligation (as a vassal)” became an important issue, and the idea prioritizing ‘active character-building efforts’ was replaced by a new idea considering ‘deeper studies which would enable discoveries of the Neo-Confucianism’s complicated nature and lessons’ to be much more urgent and important. As a result, Seol Seon, who did serve the Ming government once during the reign of “treacherous” Emperor Yeong’lak, and openly honored Heo Hyeong who had served the barbaric Mongol Yuan empire in the past, came to be criticised as a person whose “loyalty was misplaced.” Meanwhile, his academic accomplishments, which were strong on action but not so much in theoretic suggestions(at least in appearance), came to be dismissed as ‘shallow.’ As a result, in spite of the previous official suggestion that he should be enshrined at the National Literary Shrine, he was not included in the renovation of the shrine which was concluded in the 18th century.
All these changes in the Joseon scholars’ and philosophers’ perception of Seol Seon, and their evaluation of Seol Seon’s accomplishments, suggest that the Joseon academic community was indeed going through a change in the 17th and 18th centuries.

참고자료

· 없음