勉菴 崔益鉉의 心主理說 硏究 -尤庵 宋時烈의 心說에 대한 그의 態度를 중심으로- (A Study of Choi Ik-hyeon's Theory of Human Mind with Emphasis on His Criticism of Song Si-yeol)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 고려사학회
· 수록지 정보 : 韓國史學報 / 27호 / 83 ~ 106페이지
· 저자명 : 박성순

초록

조선 말기 衛正斥邪運動의 대표 세력인 華西學派는 宋時烈을 自派의 道統 淵源으로 내세우기를 주저하지 않았다. 화서학파의 首長인 李恒老가 ‘孔子朱子宋子’로 이어지는 道統觀을 수립한 이래, 화서학파는 이항로를 직접 송시열의 뒤에 연결시키는 그들만의 독특한 도통관을 정립하였다.그러나 이러한 도통관이 다분히 恣意的인 것이라는 점은 의심의 여지가 없다. 學統上으로나 學說上으로 화서학파는 오히려 노론 洛學派의 명맥을 계승하였기 때문이다. 송시열을 영수로 하는 이른바 尤庵學派가 權尙夏韓元震으로 이어지면서 이항로가 살던 경기도 楊根과는 거리가 먼 충청도 학계를 대표하는 湖學派로 자리매김했다는 점은 상식에 속한다. 더욱이 화서학파의 영수 이항로가 주창한 心主理說은 송시열의 心卽氣說과는 완전한 대척점에 서 있었다.이항로의 제자인 崔益鉉은 송시열을 尊華攘夷論의 상징적 인물로서 높이는 한편으로, 그의 심즉기설을 공개적으로 비판하였다. 그리고 송시열의 심즉기설을 편든 자신의 同門 선배인 유중교에 대해서도 가혹하리만큼 매몰찬 비판을 숨기지 않았다. 그것은 스승인 이항로의 心主理說에 대한 확고한 신념 때문이었다. 최익현의 송시열에 대한 양면적 태도를 통해서, 지금까지 피상적으로만 인식되어져 온 화서학파의 對宋時烈觀을 해명하고, 이항로의 心主理說이 지닌 역사적 위상을 가늠해 보고자 한다.

영어초록

As a symbolic nucleus of the so-called “Depending Orthodoxy and Rejecting Heterodoxy” movement in the late nineteenth century, the Hwaseo School(華西學派) scholars contended that their scholastic father was Song Si-yeol. They indeed held fast to their own view that their academic pedigree was linked directly with Song Si-yeol through Yi Hang-no, one of the most renowned later disciples of Song and the very person who made out their own genealogy of Confucianism, starting from Confucius down to Zhu Xi and Song Si-yeol. It is hard, however, to take it at its word because the Hwaseo School basically succeeded to Nakhak School(洛學派), a branch of the Patriarch's Faction (Noron), in terms of the academic pedigree and their interpretation of human mind.
It is well known among scholars that the Uam School(尤庵學派), which comprised of Song Si-yeol and his disciples, was succeeded by the Hohak School(湖學派), whose power base was located in Chungcheong Province and led by leading scholars such as Kwon Sang-ha and Han Won-jin. It is also well known that the theory of simjuri(心主理), which literally means that the subject of human mind is li(理), cannot be compatible with the theory of simjkgi(心卽氣), which literally means that the human mind is qi(氣).
Interestingly enough, however, the former theory was developed by Yi Hang-no, while the latter by Song Si-yeol. What is more, Choi Ik-hyeon, a disciple of Yi, criticized Song's theory of simjkgi even though he still paid honor to Song as a paragon of the “Depending Orthodoxy and Rejecting Heterodoxy” thought. Choi also criticized Yu Jung-gyo, a senior of the Hwaseo School, for his defending Song's theory of simjkgi. Choi's criticism of Song and Yu suggests that he was fully supporting Yi's theory of simjuri. By examining Choi's ambivalent attitude to Song, this paper provides new understanding of Hwaseo School's view of Song and the historical significance of Yi's theory of Simjuri.

참고자료

· 없음