International Journal of Korean History (Vol.14, Aug. 2009) 187

Historicist View and Confucian Repertoire in Late Chosôn : A Southerner Prism*

Joseph Jeong-il ∗∗

Introduction

Throughout the history of the Chosŏn dynasty (1392-1910), the ruling upper Sa elites (士) consistently appropriated in such a way as to support their privileged position within society, dominate central politics in court, and order state apparatus. Here, I examine how the Sa elites, specifically the marginalized Southerners 南人 (Namin) in late Chosŏn, utilized the Confucian repertoire for the defense of their sociopolitical dominance, or Sa hegemony.1 And, among this intellectual group this article reevaluates Yi Ik (李瀷, 1681-1763)’s historicist bent and An Chŏngbok (安鼎福, 1712-1791)’s (re-)discovery of a unique past. Yi Ik’s historical criticism will be reconsidered vis-à-vis his strategic use

* I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the following individuals for their valuable comments on this paper: Professor John B. Duncan at the University of California Los Angeles, Professor Cho Kwang at University, Professor David C. Kang at the University of Southern California, and Chongmyŏng at the Academy of Korean Studies, and Associate Professor Sharon Allerson at East Lost Angeles College for their comments on this paper. Please note that the romanization systems employed in this paper are the Pinyin for Chinese (diacritical marks omitted) and the McCune- Reischauer for Korean. Unless otherwise mentioned, transliterated terms in this article are Korean. If needed, “K.” (Korean) and “Ch.” (Chinese) are placed together in the transliterations that follow. ** Los Angeles City College 188 Historicist View and Confucian Repertoire in Late Chosôn: A Southerner Prism of the Confucian repertoire to counter the presentist attack of other Sa elites at the political center. An Chŏngbok’s rendition of a distinctive past of Chosŏn will be recounted as another use of the Confucian repertoire for the ideological fortification of Sa hegemony as opposed to the rest of the society. This means that the historicist orientation and the Confucian repertoire converged in the reality of power relations that Yi and An experienced. Along this line, I contend that both Yi’s historiographical reformulation and An’s reconstruction of the ancient history had less to do with a proto-national or modern consciousness than it did with an attempt to historicize the socio-political hegemony of the Sa elites as it was reset on the Southerner terms. This approach will enable us to locate more of a Chosŏn-based context where the dynamic production of knowledge went in tune with the practical position and movement of historical agents of late Chosŏn, specifically the Sa elites, between the 17th and 18th centuries.

Sa Hegemony and Confucian Repertoire

Modern Korean historiography had been confronting a failure narrative of colonialist scholarship that contends that among East Asian countries solely the historical path of Japan was analogous to the universal development of History, the one patterned on the Western model.2 The colonialist scholarship demarcates the inferiority of the Korean nation (minjok, 民族) whose history was incapable of keeping abreast with world history. This account carves out the heteronomy (他律) of the Korean nation, subservient to foreign forces without a spirit of self- determination, and forges the stagnancy of Korean history (停滯) which lagged far behind the proper developmental stage of world history.3 As a countermeasure, Korean scholars have sought in Korean history subjectivity (主體) and progress (進步), both of which have been employed together to construct a historical telos for the self-generated development of the Korean nation from the beginning of Korean history.4 Joseph Jeong-il Lee 189

In the study of the intellectual history of late Chosŏn, this subjectivity- progress thesis has accompanied a prescriptive mode of interpretation which confines the movement of various historical players of the time to a normative standard of whether they carried out a proper representation of the Korean nation or not. 5 In the process, the dichotomist pattern categorizes Confucianism, specifically Cheng-Zhu learning (程朱學), and Sino-centrism as conservative while counting any flow of seemingly anti- Confucian and nativist thoughts as the sign of progress and proto-national consciousness.6 The dichotomy also gave rise to a tendency wherein the Korean scholars overrate the academic activities of certain elite groups that they believe better articulated an alternative to the Cheng-Zhu orthodoxy and represented the proto-national consciousness as distinct from imperial China. Some scholars highlight the intellectual strands of the politically marginalized Southerner group in the positivist, reformist, and pragmatist accounts that go against the established Confucian historiography of the day.7 The growing interest demonstrated by members of this elite group, such as Yi Ik and An Chŏngbok, in historical criticism and ancient Korea is demarcated as a hallmark for the unfolding of Korean-ness distilled into modern Korea. 8 Still, other scholars dispute the above notion that sanctions the Southerner intellectual movement as a constructive antithesis to the Cheng-Zhu mainstream of Chosŏn Confucianism.9 The latter explanation estimates that the discourse on civilization and self- consciousness, raised by the power elite group of the Patriarch’s Faction 老論 (Noron) at the political center during the period, is an exemplary effort of overcoming the Sino-centric worldview.10 The above approach, though perhaps unwittingly, sets forth the premise that the Korean nation is the pre-existing and primary agency encompassing and transcending the whole spectrum of individuals, society, and state throughout the history of Chosŏn. What is at stake is the risk of the determinist teleology in which the practical movement of the historical agencies became tailored to and predestined for the grand narrative of the Korean nation alone. In so doing, the anti-colonialist 190 Historicist View and Confucian Repertoire in Late Chosôn: A Southerner Prism direction of the Korean scholarship has brought forth an ahistorical approach that accentuates and aggrandizes the Korean nation. Hence, we need a more historical perspective that can elucidate how the historical players of Chosŏn made choices and placed them into effect according to their status and conditions within Chosŏn society. This angle of contextualization and practice will help us to write about a Chosŏn- focused history in lieu of the lofty ideal of the Korean nation. Chosŏn Confucianism and the intellectual community of late Chosŏn should be also reconsidered given a shift in paradigm to a nation-centered interpretation. In light of this, Elman, Duncan, and Ooms scrutinize anew the usefulness of Confucianism as ‘a world-ordering repertoire of common techniques or tactics’ in traditional East Asia.11 Focusing on China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam, they take into serious consideration the elites of each locale in this area, especially as active players of the repertoire, skilled performers who knew how to suit various aspects of Confucianism - including such critical concepts as cosmos, classicism, literature, civilization, society, statecraft, and politics - to their own specific agenda. This perspective permits us to contextualize the practice of Confucianism, whose contents and constructs were spread, contested, and reshaped in association with the strategic positioning of the local elites themselves. Historically speaking, the ruling semi-aristocratic Sa or in the Chosŏn period crystallized themselves as an exclusively privileged dominant group vis-à-vis the rest of the society. Being social leaders, the Sa formed an exclusive elite group eligible to take governmental examinations and become central bureaucrats in court. They regarded the proper Confucian hierarchal order-timeless order (綱常)- as the essential theoretical platform to support the hierarchical social relations of Chosŏn under their Sa hegemony.12 Thus, promoting the social importance of this Confucian norm and value had an inseparable relevancy with the ideological reinforcement of the Sa ruling elites for the maintenance of their dominance.13 Between the late 16th and early 17th centuries, Chosŏn suffered bureaucratic infighting in court and domestic instability as well Joseph Jeong-il Lee 191 as the Japanese Invasions (1592-1599), Manchurian Invasions (1627/1636), and the fall of Ming China in 1644. These historical incidents caused a serious sense of crisis among the Sa elites about their hegemony over Chosŏn. 14 Nonetheless, the historical crises did not immediately doom the establishment of Chosŏn and the principle of Sa hegemony to unstoppable decline in the 17th and 18th centuries.15 What is also substantial is the emergence of the (士林) reformers who succeeded in occupying the political center by committing themselves more fervently to implementing various Confucian reform policies from the late 16th century. 16 After the Coup of 1623, the victorious Westerners 西人 (Sŏin) pronounced their adherence to the Confucian timeless order and their partnership with Ming as the two basic principles for Sa hegemony. 17 As another descendent group of the reformer Sarim elites, the Southerners joined the political turnover along with the Westerners. Both sides stuck decisively to the principle of Sa hegemony. However, if there was little change in the grand cause of Sa hegemony, the intense political strife among the Sarim descendents themselves in central politics did exert immense influence on the differentiation of their academic concerns and the trajectories of intellectual discourses. As Deuchler’s study reveals, the defense of the orthodoxy of Chosŏn Confucianism among the Sarim descendents, specifically predicated on the more complex concepts and jargons of the Cheng-Zhu scholarship, was explicated beyond academic concern to a welter of political strife in the late 17th and early 18th centuries.18 For them, producing a right commentary on Confucian classics was inseparable from the establishment of a right political line. Their enemies were frequently tarred with the stigma of heresy. Hence, the philosophical debate and textual interpretation of their scholarship did not simply make their academic level shine but also mirrored the fluidity and aftermath of the political struggle in which they were involved. Accordingly, the Confucian repertoire was the quintessential means for the late Chosŏn Sa elites both to establish a theoretical foundation for their privileged status over the rest of the society and to create the most 192 Historicist View and Confucian Repertoire in Late Chosôn: A Southerner Prism critical political weapon against their competitors at the political center in the late 17th and 18th centuries. Thus, staying away from the conventional search for a decisive epistemological rupture, implicitly destined for a modern spirit, in the intellectual community during the period, this paper charts the manner in which the tapestry of their academic constructs, outfitted in the Confucian repertoire, was interwoven with the strategic response of the Sa elites to the power relations surrounding them. With this in mind, I will inquire into the manner in which the noted Southerner scholars Yi Ik and An Chŏngbok in the 18th century availed themselves of history for their intellectual exercise. I would like to stress the way Yi revitalized historical criticism, envisioned an open space for the Southerner engagement, and finally countered the presentist theory of their archenemy, the Patriarch's Faction at the political center. An Chŏngbok’s new historiography about ancient Korea will be reconsidered in terms of how a Southerner invention of a distinct Confucian community outside of imperial China ultimately resonated with the historicist resuscitation of Sa hegemony from time immemorial.

History as a Southerner Engagement

Yi Ik’s Southerner line was usually known as Kŭn’gi namin, a group that lived in the capital (the current ) and its environs and formed a distinctive political and academic identity from the late 16th century.19 What tied them together was their factional strife with the Westerners and became the powerful majority in the court after the Coup of 1623 and later with the Patriarch’s Faction that arose within the Westerners in the late 17th century. 20 Academically, even if advocating the spirit of the Sarim reform movement under the motto of Cheng-Zhu learning, their scholarship expands the Cheng-Zhu principles into a wider perspective of the Confucian repertoire.21 Rather than blindly relying on the Cheng-Zhu commentaries, some noted kŭn’gi Southerners also tried to learn more from the ideal government of Antiquity in ancient China, and to revitalize Joseph Jeong-il Lee 193 the systems and thought of that time according to the context of late Chosŏn. With their respect for Antiquity (尙古), their scholarship was in good part based on the Six Classics (六經), the major field of ancient learning (古學) and ancient systems (古法) in the Confucian repertoire.22 The content of their discourse subject matters also stretched to such practical fields of statecraft as geography, institutions, legal systems, history, astronomy, agriculture, finance, and medicine.23 The case of Yi Ik fleshed out how the Southerners employed the significance of the Confucian repertoire in tandem with their factional cause that gainsaid that of the Westerners. From his great grandfather Yi Sang’ŭi (李尙毅, 1560-1624) to his father Yi Hajin (李夏鎭, 1628-1682) to his brother Yi Cham (李潛, ?-1706), Yi Ik’s family was deeply involved in central politics.24 Yi Hajin was exiled after the political fiasco of 1694, or kapsul hwan’guk (甲戌換局) and passed away in exile a year later.25 Yi Cham was cudgeled to death after his memorial attacking the Westerners, specifically targeted at the Patriarch’s Faction position regarding the issue of Lady Chang. Later, in defense of the political line of the Southerners, Yi Kahwan (李家煥, 1742-1801), the son of the Yi Ik’s nephew, was also executed during the political purge against the Southerners in 1801.26 Therefore, as far as the academic path of Yi Ik is concerned, the important aspect to be more carefully considered is his family background in that he was one of the representative kŭn’gi Southerners in the 17th and 18th centuries. On top of the political defeat in the power struggle at court, the Southerners were prepared for the ideological frontline against the Westerners, specifically the Patriarch’s Faction in the 18th century. They were making efforts to equip themselves with a variety of Confucian repertoire to justify their ascendency in court. The Principle, reformulated in the Confucian discourse of the Sarim in the 16th century, was meant to be timeless order in this world. For the Patriarch’s Faction, their victory in court and dominance over Chosŏn came in step with the actual operation of the Principle in the land of Chosŏn.27 Some core scholars from the Patriarch’s Faction, specifically those who joined the Nangnon 194 Historicist View and Confucian Repertoire in Late Chosôn: A Southerner Prism

(洛論) circle, took on an all-pervading one-ness of the Principle in this world as its major feature in order to create a more coherent logic tying their present power with the secular working of the Principle. One of their theoretical methods was to fortify a more solid framework efficient to hold the Ultimate (太極) and the Principle (理) inseparable. 28 By implication, their dominant presence at the political center in late Chosŏn is part of this grand cosmological operation of the Principle. For the Southerners, contrariwise, this flow of thought might lead to a universally profound justification of their defeat. Yi Ik definitely rejected the indivisibility of the Principle in an all-embracing mode covering society, and cosmos altogether. In order to strengthen his argument, Yi categorized the Supreme Ultimate (太極), the archetypical essence of the Principle, into two separate dimensions: the Ultimate in unity (統體太極) and the Ultimate in diversity (萬殊太極).29 According to Yi, the former unfailingly moves across the cosmos in a perfect form whereas the latter operates in compromise with this world filled with Ki, the dynamo of contingency and variability. Yi cited the allegorical comparison of the Principle to the moon shining over a river, made by the famous Cheng-Zhu scholar Zhen Chun (1159-1223).30 The real entity of the moon in the heavens is immune from celestial beclouded-ness (雲蔽) or water turbidity (水濁), both of which are subject to improper images of the moon mirrored on the river. The two moons, the one in the heavens and the other on the surface of water, can by no means be always in character with each other due to the inherent disparity between noumena and phenomena. It means that the earthly manifestation of the Principle does not always reflect the noumenal essence which is supposed to inherit the Ultimate in unity.31 Thus, Yi’s conscious division between the essential Ultimate-true moon- and the secular Ultimate-river moon- is to be read as a preliminary strategy intended not to attach full credence to a merely ideal working of the Principle in this world. Pronouncing the different domains of noumena and phenomena in the operation of the Principle gave Yi more room to feature a tension between the transcendental manifestation of the Joseph Jeong-il Lee 195

Principle in an ideal form and its inflection/distortion, including the injustice in central politics of his time, in the real world. The divisibility of the Principle furnished Yi a logical ease with which to block any immediate linking between the proper working of the Principle and what happens in this world. At this level, Yi was able to build up a better theoretical ground to reformulate and defend the politico-academic legitimacy of his Southerners. Therefore, I believe, Yi’s moon metaphor－true moon and river moon (moonlight)－reveals the gap between the invariable faith of the Southerners in Sa hegemony and the harsh situation they had to bear.32 Another notable feature in the scholarly activities of Yi Ik was his renewed interest in re-writing the history of Chosŏn. It is certain that the fundamental support of Sa hegemony was the unchanging credo in Yi Ik’s historiography. He was a Confucian scholar who originated from the Sarim scholarship. For Yi, writing history should display what is right and wrong (sibi, 是非). His fundamental framework was not far from the orthodox viewpoint of the Cheng-Zhu scholarship regarding goodness/ iniquity (善惡), loyalty/perfidy (忠逆), and righteousness (義理), the fundamental vocabulary for the factional cause in central politics. 33 However, we should not discount the politically sensitive context of his unfavorable time. The Patriarch’s Faction in the 18th century made every presentist attempt to legitimize their ex post facto victory in court. As a countermeasure, Yi Ik took historiography to the forefront of their ideological fight against the presentism of the Patriarch’s Faction. Yi surmised that interpretation of events involves situational contingencies (所値之勢), such as their unfortunate defeat in court or the grievous collapse of Ming China, and the matter of fortuity or misfortune.34 What was brought up was a negation of any immediate or determinist conclusion about what happened in the past and what happens at present. In light of this, Yi argued that history is written in retrospect (史者作於成 敗已定之後), and it is wont to be steeped in the prejudice of the later recorders.35 What should not go unnoticed here is the similar pattern of the moon 196 Historicist View and Confucian Repertoire in Late Chosôn: A Southerner Prism metaphor found in Yi Ik’s historicist approach. Yi’s elaboration about two separate realms of the Ultimate and his argument for a kind of historicism against presentism are logically held together. The essential part of the Ultimate and the orthodox Confucian historiography emanated from his sold faith in timeless order, the theoretical base of Sa hegemony over the rest of the Chosŏn society. Thus, the existence of the real moon in heavens and the Confucian norms and justice were in no way denied by Yi Ik. In contrast, the river moon and the present metaphorically displayed the Ki-bound reality, the harsh political reality of the Southerners included, in late Chosŏn. When it comes to the exercise of Sa hegemony on the above stage of this earth (river moon), Yi brought forth a flexible yet critical viewpoint sufficient to amplify a pool of controversy and appraise critically what happened and what happens. Writing history became one practical locale to neutralize the present which the dominant enemy Patriarch’s Faction employed to contemporize their dominance. For decades, as aforementioned, the conventional scholarship in Korea viewed the stance of Yi Ik as indicative of a new intellectual eagerness that would liberate history from morality, long detained in Confucian historiography, and raise a prototype of modern mentality. 36 So, his historical criticism was believed to be an objectivist approach injecting a fresh intellectual eagerness that would liberate history from the morality detained in Confucian historiography. Different from this conventional interpretation, what I see in Yi Ik’s scholarship as consequential is the theme of Sa hegemony. As a rule, Sa hegemony remained unchallengeable for Yi as much as the Ultimate in unity (true moon), timeless order in their society. Additionally, Yi’s careful posture to the volatile drift of the times and his negative reaction to instantaneous evaluation of current affairs were actually associated with the marginalized position of the Southerner intellectuals in the 18th century.37 His seemingly progressive historicism, I believe, shows the manner in which Yi turned history into a ground of the Southerner engagement in times of tribulations. Therefore, Yi Ik’s historicist stance was in good part connected to the fluidity of power relations at the political center. Joseph Jeong-il Lee 197

In the next section, I will offer a reinterpretation of An Chŏngbok’s perspective on the ancient history of Chosŏn. Just as Yi Ik’s renewed attention to history couched in the Confucian repertoire was correlated to the Southerner defense for Sa hegemony in the political arena, I believe, An Chŏngbok’s re-writing about the past of Chosŏn was similarly coupled with Sa hegemony in the social arena. An’s resurrection of an ideal Confucian community in the remote past of Chosôn was inseparable from the historical affirmation of Sa hegemony over the rest of the society from the Southerner’s perspective, i.e. it became another dimension of the Southerners’ historicist stance.

A Confucian Past Reinvented

Following the academic tradition of and Yi Ik, An Chŏngbok was one of the staunchest disciples who defended the factional cause of the Southerners in the late 18th century.38 As in the case of Yi Ik’s family, An’s Kwangju clan (廣州安) produced the eminent Southerner scholar-officials from the late 16th century. His 7th ancestor An Yŏgyŏng (安餘慶, 1538-1592) was academically close to the two key sarim figures in the late 16th century, Chŏng Ku and Kim Uong, the latter of whom was mentioned in Hong Taeyong’s negative comment on the Southerners. The 6th ancestor, An Hwang (安滉, ?-1593) was the brother- in-law of King Sŏnjo (宣祖, r. 1567-1608). His son An Ŭnghyŏng (安應亨, 1578-?) in An Chŏngbok’s 5th collateral line was the son-in-law of Yi Sanhae (李山海, 1539-1609) and the brother-in-law of Yi’s son Yi Kyŏngjŏn (李慶全, 1567-1644).39 An Chŏngbok’s Outlines and Details of the History of Chosôn (東史綱目, Tongsa kangmok) was recognized as one of the greatest historical writings in late Chosŏn. This masterpiece was completed alongside intensive discussions with his mentor Yi Ik. 40 Here, An positioned himself strictly against the non-Confucian grotesque stories of ancient Chosŏn.41 198 Historicist View and Confucian Repertoire in Late Chosôn: A Southerner Prism

“Observing the old documents written in ancient times, their description of Tan’gun’s activities was entirely preposterous and nonsensical. When Tan’gun emerged at first, he must have had the divine and holy virtue of sage-ruler. For this reason, people ran after and enthroned him. In the past, as the superb and marvelous figures were born, they were truly different from average people. Yet, how could it be like this description of absurdity?”42

While acknowledging Tan’gun as the first political leader of ancient Chosŏn in the era of the legendary sage-ruler Yao and Shun in ancient China, nevertheless, An made every attempt to eradicate non-Confucian elements from the first legendary ruler Tan’gun (檀君). An Chŏngbok blamed the Buddhist historiography especially for this absence of any proper referential point geared to a Confucian path in ancient times. He talks about the unfortunate situation where few historical books, formatted properly in the Confucian repertoire, remained. There was little room for a historical reference to ancient Chosŏn as being the land of the Confucian civilization.

“Our country had undergone numerous battles and suffered great destruction. The careful preservation of official history was not feasible whereas the records of the Buddhists came to be preserved in [remote] rocky caves and passed down to later generations. Historians were in agony with the fact that there was nothing to record, even to the point of including these Buddhist sources in official history. The more time went by, the more the description of these materials was perceived as true. It caused our land of the Confucian civilization to fall in the category of grotesque and strange. How can I not help deploring [this situation]? I will not take a mite of such [Buddhist] sources at all, hopefully clearing off the customarily false outworn practice.”43

An’s foremost task was to modulate various strands of past memories Joseph Jeong-il Lee 199 more consistently to a Confucian narrative from the outset of ancient Chosŏn. Still, what is noticeable is that the scattered loss of written records with no reference to the Confucian repertoire became the exquisite chance for An Chŏngbok to freely re-write the past in his own interpretation. He restarted the past with the Tong’i (東夷, eastern barbarians composed of native peoples in northeastern Asia) known widely as the ethnic origin of Chosŏn. 44 Special attention was paid to their decent manner in food, clothing and shelter.

“In the beginning, there were nine ethnic groups in ancient Chosŏn. They were called kyŏni, pangi, ui, hwangi, paegi, chŏgi, hyŏni, p’ungi, and yan’gi. All of them were the native people [for generations]. Being gentle, mild, and docile in nature, they took pleasure in drinking and dancing. And, they capped a hood called pyŏn (弁), wore silken dress, and used trays such as cho and du (俎 豆 ) [both of which were later taken for (Confucian) ancestor worship].”45

An Chŏngbok’s description of silken texture, attiring style, and the ritual vessels here indicates a high degree of civilization in the past. More important is that he tried to relate the conspicuous cultural development to the existence of a quasi-Confucian tradition in ancient Chosŏn, enough to conjure up an inherent affinity of the Tong’i people to a proper Confucian way of life. This approach granted An Chŏngbok a logical ease with which to argue for an archetype of the Confucian tradition in ancient Chosŏn, instrumental in retracing the historicity of Sa hegemony from time immemorial. Simultaneously, An Chŏngbok consolidated the link between its first kingdom of ancient Chosŏn and the ingrained receptivity of the same toward the Confucian civilization by connecting the ethnic origin of Tan’gun to the Tong’i people. 200 Historicist View and Confucian Repertoire in Late Chosôn: A Southerner Prism

“Someone asks, ‘In the very beginning of history, the Tong’i people thrived to the extent that their inhabitation scattered all around and how they identified themselves was different from what we recognize. So, they could not necessarily have belonged to the territory [of the present Chosŏn]. Still, what made you organize them altogether into the history of Chosŏn?’ My answer is that although they were not composed of one single ethnic group, they lived alongside the Liaohe River (遼河) and Shenyang (瀋陽) [part of the main historical landscape of ancient Chosŏn]. Even, I surmise, Tan’gun must have come from the Tong’i…. Tan’gun established his kingdom [Kojosŏn] at the same time as Yao was enthroned in ancient China. And, he controlled the area of Amnok River (鴨綠江), and distance- wise, the country of Tan’gun was not far from the great government of the sage-rulers in ancient China. That is why some of their [certain time-honored] customs, such as capping and utensils, were similar to those of the center of the Confucian civilization in style.”46

To be certain, the Tong’i people and the leader Tan’gun were taken together as the basic template of a collective identity for ancient Chosŏn. However, Tong’i was by no means employed for the sake of any ethnic uniqueness of a modern Korean nation. What An Chŏngbok proudly validated here is the natural/geographical proximity of the Tong’i people to ancient China, the center of the Confucian civilization under the reign of the sage-ruler Yao.47 The reign of Tan’gun was esteemed, yet, it is not that Tan’gun was the founding father of a Korean nation but that he ushered the Tong’i people into a prerequisite level conducive to the Confucian civilization. This stress on the spatio-temporal contiguity of the Tong’i people and Tan’gun to the Confucian antiquity of ancient China has been largely neglected by the modern Korean scholarship.48 Although the ethnicity and political entity of ancient Chosŏn was presumed to be different from that of ancient China, An’s rediscovery of ancient Chosŏn did in no way deny the leading role of ancient China nor its place as the center of the Joseph Jeong-il Lee 201

Confucian civilization in traditional East Asia. Namely, the ethnic and political uniqueness of ancient Chosŏn was recounted within the regime of the Confucian repertoire. Along this line, An Chŏngbok valued highly the fact that the Confucian heritage in the past of Chosŏn was created by Kija (箕子).49

“The heaven vouchsafed gracious assistance to our land so that the great kingly teacher moved here, encouraging the people with the Confucian ethics and instructing the Confucian rites and etiquette. They were able to retain Kija’s injunction to the flesh and bone, nurturing [themselves] in a state of a great Confucian transformation. Although the trace of Kija’s accomplishment is remote from these days and his words vanished, what the people learned and exercised continued into a millennium [of eternal duration] without collapse…. Therefore, that which was not accidental is Confucius’s remark on his wish to go to and live in ancient Chosŏn, and the comment of the previous historical documents about the existence of Confucian gentlemen (君子), attributable all to the great teaching of Kija”50

As described above, An Chŏngbok was pleased to claim Kija as the first major watershed for the Confucian past of Chosŏn and to acknowledge Kija’s decisive contribution to founding the civilization of Chosŏn. What is remarkable is that with Kija’s exploit exhibited as the convertor of ancient Chosŏn to the Confucian civilization, An went further to register the hierarchical values, culture and decorum—the essence of Sa hegemony— of the Confucian repertoire deeply back into the genes of the Chosŏn people. In other words, the historicity of the Confucian civilization was incarnated into the whole of Chosŏn. Far from any mere Sinophile penchant, Kija signifies the degree of internalization to which the use of the Confucian repertoire by An Chŏngbok created a smooth confluence of nature and history. At the same time, An Chŏngbok did not forget to clothe his new discovery in the Southerner version. According to An, there are few 202 Historicist View and Confucian Repertoire in Late Chosôn: A Southerner Prism historians of Chosŏn itself to mention, either. They did not fully establish a touchstone for the entire past of Korea in the proper format of the Cheng-Zhu orthodoxy. 51 The de-authorization of the conventional historiography before An himself set a tone for the Southerner view of Sa hegemony within the scholarship of the Sarim descendents. What should not go unnoticed is the fact that this is the time when the political and academic qualification of An’s Southerners had been severely denied by their enemy at the political center. Thereupon, re-writing the past of Chosŏn was overlaid with the defense of An’s Southerner identity from which he never separated Sa hegemony, whose central leadership, nevertheless, had been drawn into the hands of their political enemy in contemporary Chosŏn. Korean scholars have assumed Tan'gun and Tong’i as the preliminary source of Korean identity while situating Kija in the category of being a Chinese. But, as examined previously, An Chŏngbok put Tong’i, Tan’gun, and Kija all together in constructing the great past of ancient Chosŏn. Tong’i was the natural source of common background for Chosŏn. Tan’gun was the source of the dynastic legitimacy throughout the history of Chosŏn. Kija was the source of the cultural legitimacy for the Confucian civilization of ancient Chosŏn. All of the three were the indispensable components for begetting a Confucian narrative in which ethnic distinctiveness, territorial autonomy, and cultural tradition were collectively set apart for the historical confines of Sa hegemony. Hence, I maintain that the viability of the distinct identity of Chosŏn-ness in An’s historiography had more to do with a historicist recast of an ideal Confucian community back in ancient Chosŏn, patterned on the Confucian repertoire, than it did with any proto-national consciousness.

Conclusion

The Sarim descendents in late Chosŏn continued to pursue their intellectual engagement according to the changing circumstances of their Joseph Jeong-il Lee 203 time. One of the marked features was the interweaving of their scholarly activities, furnished with the highly developed level of the Confucian repertoire, and the theoretical refinement of Sa hegemony, the second of which concerned central politics and social order. In this context, I view the historicist attitude of Yi Ik and An Chŏngbok as a window into which the marginalized Southerners made the Confucian repertoire reproducible fittingly to their harsh reality. Yi Ik exploited historicism as new territory in which to relativize and neutralize the ideological onslaught of presentism from the dominant Patriarch’s Faction in court. An Chŏngbok revived a disparate Confucian civilization in the past of Chosŏn vis-à-vis that of imperial China, by which means I believe the historicity of Sa hegemony was more heightened. This approach to use of the Confucian repertoire by Yi and An to support their sociopolitical agenda readdresses the two conventional streams about the intellectual history of late Chosŏn－the first one that reiterates the derivativeness of Chosŏn Confucianism from Chinese Confucianism and the other one that overestimates a distinctive prototype of Korean-ness devoid of any external- non-Korean- elements in late Chosŏn. Finally, this article limits the object of study to the kŭn’gi Southerners. Worth further examination is the strategies and methods of the other Sarim descendent groups in late Chosŏn, including the other Southerners and the archenemy Patriarch’s Faction, in their orchestration of the Confucian repertoire. Then, we can reach a more open topology of the intellectual history of late Chosŏn in which various historical agencies diversified and internalized the Confucian repertoire on their terms-a Chosŏnization of Confucianism- while the Confucian repertoire helped enrich their creed and reconstruct the orthopraxy of the society-a Confucian transformation of Chosŏn.

Keywords : Sa Hegemony, Confucian repertoire, historical agency, historicism, presentism

204 Historicist View and Confucian Repertoire in Late Chosôn: A Southerner Prism

Notes :

1 They were called scholar-officials or scholar-bureaucrats. For more reference to the historical transformation of the Sa literati groups, see James B. Palais, 1996, Confucian Statecraft and Korean Institutions: Yu Hyŏngwŏn and the Late Chosŏn Dynasty, Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press; Martina Deuchler, 1992, The Confucian Transformation of Korea: A Study of Society and Ideology, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; John Duncan, 2000, The Origins of the Chosŏn Dynasty, Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press; Yi Sugŏn, 1995, Yŏngnamhakp’aŭi hyŏngsŏnggwa chŏn’gae, Seoul: Ilchisa; Chŏng Manjo, 2004, Chosŏnsidae Kyŏnggipukpujiyŏk chipsŏngch’on’gwa sajok, Seoul: Kukmin University Press; and Chŏng Chinyŏng, 1998, Chosŏnsidae hyangch’on sahoesa, Seoul: Han’gilsa. Yangban was another common term for the great Sa elite families in pre-modern Korea. It signified the two main branches of civil and military organizations in the central bureaucracy. Late Chosŏn in this article covers from the end of the Japanese Invasion (1592-1599) to the end of the 18th century. 2 Kang makes a critical analysis aimed against the politicized logic of the colonialist standpoint displayed in the works of Fukuda Tokuzō, Kokushō Iwao, Nishikata Hiroshi, and Moritani Katsumi. For more reference, Kang Chinch’ôl, 1991, Han’guksahoe ŭi yŏksasanŭg [Historical Image of Korean Society], Seoul: Ilchisa. Yi Kibaik also criticizes the stagnancy and heteronomy theses of the colonialist scholarship, furthered by the famous Japanese historians such as Wada Sei, Iwai Hirosao, Mishina Shōei, Suematsu Yasukazu, Aoyama Koryō, even after the colonial period. See Yi Ki-baik, 1978, Han’guksahak ŭi panghyang, Seoul: Ilchogak, pp. 121-122. Sino- Korean characters accompany the names of the Japanese scholars in this article due to the various pronunciation of them. 3 Hatada Takashi, 1981, “Introduction”, Shin Chōsenshi nyūmon, : Ryūkei Shosha, pp. 7-18. 4 The two notions of subjectivity and progress were instrumental to countering the colonialist history and to reconstructing the history of the Korean nation in a developmental sense, which resulted in the appearance of the Internal Joseph Jeong-il Lee 205

Development Theory (內在的 發展論). The development thesis asserts that the historical change found in pre-modern Korean history must have been tied to a certain orientation toward ‘the modern.’ The Chosŏn dynasty, particularly the second half of the period between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries, has been looked upon as the ending point of pre-modern history and the outset of modern Korea. This idea promoted such topics as the discovery of proto- national consciousness, the development of non-agricultural space, the expansion of inland markets, new streams of thought against Cheng-Zhu scholarship, the decline of the established status system, and the prevalent emergence of popular culture. More specifically, the development hypothesis characterized late Chosŏn as the Dissolution Period (解體期) or the Transition Period (轉換期) to enhance the empirical and theoretical sophistication of the development discourse and accommodate the space of particularity in Korean history. See Kŭndaesayŏn’guhoe, 1987, Han’guk chungsesahoe haech’egiŭi chemunje (I) (II), Seoul: Hanul; 1993, Han’guksa chŏnhwan’gi ŭi munjedŭl, Han’guksayŏn’guhoe, Seoul: Chisiksanŏpsa; and Han’guk’yŏksayŏn’guhoe, 1990, Chosŏnchŏngch’isa (I) (II), Seoul: Ch’ông’nyônsa. For more information regarding the historiographical context of modern South Korean scholarship, refer to Yi Usông, 1982, Han’guk ŭi yŏksasang, Seoul: Ch’angjak kwa Pip’yŏng; Kang Mangil, 1978, Pundansidae ŭi yŏksainsik, Seoul: Ch’angjak kwa Pip’yŏng; Cho Donggŏl, 1998, Hyŏndae han’guk sahaksa, Seoul: Nanam; and Pak Ch'ansŭng, 1994, Han’guk ŭi yŏksaga wa yŏksahak, Seoul: Ch’angjak kwa pip’yŏng. 5 Kŭndaesayŏn’guhoe, 1987, Han’gukchungsesahoe haech’egiŭi chemunje, Seoul: Hanul. 6 Yi Usŏng, Han’guk ŭi yŏksasang, pp. 9-13 and 270-275. Cho Sŏngsan reconsiders this dichotomist tendency in the intellectual history of late Chosŏn. For more reference, see Cho Sŏngsan, 2000, “Chosŏnhugi sŏngnihak yŏn’guŭi hyŏnhwanggwa chŏnmang”, Chosŏnhugisa yŏn’guŭi hyŏnhwangwa kwaje, Seoul: Ch’angjakgwa pip’yŏngsa, pp. 497-500. 7 Song Ch’ansik, 1976, “Sŏnghoŭi saeroun saron”, Han’gugŭi yŏksainsik (II), Seoul: Ch’angjakkwa pip’ŏngsa, pp. 363-381; Ha Ubong, 1994, “Yi Ik”, Han’gukŭi yŏksagawa yŏksahak (II), Seoul: Ch’angjakkwa pip’ŏngsa, pp. 234-245; and Cho Sŏngŭl, 2004, Chosŏnhugi sahaksa yŏn’gu, Seoul: Hanul, pp. 253-275. 8 Yi Sŏngŭn, 1978, Han’guk minjok sasangsa taegye IV, Seoul: Hyŏngsŏlch’ulp’ansa, 206 Historicist View and Confucian Repertoire in Late Chosôn: A Southerner Prism

pp. 11-90, and pp. 77-80; Kim T’aeyŏng, 2000, “Chujahak segyegwan’gwa chosŏnsŏngnihagŭi chuch’eŭisik”, Taedongmunhwayŏn’gu 37, pp. 224-225; Kim Yongdŏk, 1977, “Sirakpp’aŭi minjoksagwan”, T’ongil chŏngch’aek vol. 3-4, pp. 53-67; Yi Usŏng, 1982, Han’gugŭi yŏksasang, Ch’angjakkwa pip’yŏng; Cho Sŏngŭl, 1994, “Chosŏnhugi sahaksa yŏn’gu tonghyang (1985- 1994)”, Han’guksaron, vol. 24, pp. 347-399; Chŏng Ch’angryŏl, 2002, “Yi Igŭi yŏksairone kwanhan yŏn’gu”, Han’gukhak nonjip, vol. 36, pp. 93-114; and Wŏn Chaerin, 2003, Chosŏnhugi Sŏnghohakp’aŭi hakp’ung’yŏn’gu, Hyean. 9 Chi Tuhwan, 1998, Chosŏnsidae sasangsaŭi chaejomyŏng, Seoul: Yŏksamunhwa, p. 270; and Chŏng Okcha, 1998, Chosŏnhugi chunghwasasang yŏn’gu, Seoul: Ilchisa. 10 Chi Tuhwan, Chosŏnsidae sasangsaŭi chaejomyŏng, pp. 283-284. This reverse position is reinforced by the studies on the self-reliant discourse, dubbed as ‘Chosôn as the Center of Civilization (朝鮮中華)’, after the fallen Ming China in 1644. For instance, see Chŏng Okcha, 1998, Chosŏnhugi chunghwasasang yŏn’gu, Seoul: Ilchisa, pp. 11-25 and 268-278. 11 See Rethinking Confucianism: Past and Present in China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam. 12 Kangsang (綱常) is composed of two terms; Samgang (三綱, Three Bonds) and Osang (五常, Five Constancies). The five basic interpersonal relationships consist of 1) righteousness between sovereign and subject; 2) proper rapport between father and son, 3) separation of functions between husband and wife, 4) proper recognition of sequence of birth between elder and younger brothers, and 5) faithfulness between friends. The Three designates the first three components in the Five as above. Both enunciate the familial and social relations of human beings in a complementary organism that binds kinship, court, and statecraft in a proper yet harmonious order. For more reference, see Martina Deuchler, 1992, The Confucian Transformation of Korea, Cambridge: Council on East Asia Studies, Harvard University, p. 110. 13 Martina Deuchler observes how the elites of early Chosŏn tried to transfigure themselves into model Confucian elites, qualify themselves as the utmost civilizers above the rest of the new Chosŏn society, and thus maintain their privileged status. To wit, Deuchler also sheds light on a historical correlation between the construction of Sa hegemony and its larger social ramifications from the 14th to 16th centuries. Martina Deuchler, The Confucian Transformation Joseph Jeong-il Lee 207

of Korea. See also, Ch’oe Sŏnhye, 2007, Chosŏnjŏn’gi chibangsajok kwa kukkka, Seoul: Kyŏng’in munhwasa, pp. 195-224; and Chi Tuhwan, 1994, Chosŏnjŏn’gi ŭiryeyŏn’gu, Seoul: Seoul National University Press, pp. 135- 265. 14 JaHyun Kim Haboush, 1999, “Constructing the Center: The Ritual Controversy and the Search for a New Identity in Seventeenth-Century Korea”, Culture and the State in Late Chosŏn Korea, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 4-5 and 67-69. 15 The Sa elites, particularly those who resided in the capital and its environs, were active in proposing a wider range of reform policies, the so-called properly adaptive policies for change (pyŏnt’ong, 變通), devised to align with the Confucian repertoire. Kim Yonghŭm, 2006, Chosŏnhugi chŏngch’isa yŏn’gu I – Injodaeŭi chŏngch’ironŭi punhwaŭi pyŏnt’ongnon, Seoul: Hyean; Kim Chunsŏk, 2003, Chosŏn hugi chŏngch’i sasangsa yŏn’gu : kukka chaejoronǔi taedu wa chŏngae, Seoul: Chisik sanŏpsa. 16 Yi Pyŏnghyu, 1999, Chosŏnjŏn’gi sarimpp’a ŭi hyŏnsilinsik kwa taeŭng, Seoul: Ichogak, pp. 52-198; and Kim Ton, 2009, Chosŏnjung’gi chŏngch’isa yŏn’gu, Seoul: Kukhak charyowŏn, pp. 39-75. 17 This political event, led by mainstream Westerners and some Southerners against King Kwanghae (r. 1608-1623), is also called as the Restoration of King Injo (仁祖, r. 1623-1649), or Injobanjŏng (仁祖反正). The factional lines were as follows. Easterners 東人 (Tong’in) ⇔ Westerners 16th c Southerners ⇔ ↓Westerners↓ --- Northerners (北人, Pugin) 17th c Southerners ⇔ ↙Young Disciples (Soron, 少論) vs. Old Disciples 18th c Southerners↓ --- Young Disciples↓ ⇔ ↓Old Disciples↓ ↓Southerners↓ --- Young Disciplines⇔ Horon (湖論) vs. Nangnon (洛論) (Kyŏngnam 京南 --- Yŏngnam 嶺南) ---- signifies a degree of affiliation. For more reference to the political divide in late Chosôn, especially between the mid-16th to mid-18th centuries, see Chosŏnhugidangjaengŭi chonghapchŏk kŏmt’o (Sŏngnam: Academy of Korean Studies, 1992); Yi Ŭnsun, 1988, Chosŏnhugi tangjaengsa yŏn’gu, Seoul: Ilchogak; Yi Hihwan, 1995, Chosŏnhugi tangjaeng yŏn’gu, Seoul: 208 Historicist View and Confucian Repertoire in Late Chosôn: A Southerner Prism

Kukhakjaryowŏn; JaHyun Kim Haboush, 1999, “Constructing the Center: The Ritual Controversy and the Search for a New Identity in Seventeenth-Century Korea”, Culture and the State in Late Chosŏn Korea, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 46-90; and Martina Deuchler, “Despoilers of the Way – Insulters of the Sages: Controversies over the Classics in Seventeenth- Century Korea”, Ibid., pp. 91-133. 18 Cho Sŏngsan, 2007, Chosŏn hugi nangnon’gye hakp’ung ŭi hyŏngsŏng kwa chŏn’gae, Seoul: Chisik sanŏpsa; Martina Deuchler, 1999, “Despoilers of the Way – Insulters of the Sages: Controversies over the Classics in Seventeenth- Century Korea,” Culture and the State in Late Chosŏn Korea, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 91-133; and Mark Seaton, 1997, Chŏng Yagyong: Korean’s Challenge to Orthodox Neo-Confucianism, NY: State University of New York Press, pp. 21-51. 19 Sin Pyŏngju, 2007, Chosŏnjunghugi chisŏngsa yŏn’gu, Seoul: Saemunsa; Chŏng Hohun, 2004, Chosŏnhugi chŏngch’isasang yŏn’gu, Seoul: Hyean; Ku Man-ok, 2004, Chosŏnhugi kwahaksasangsa yŏn’gu, Seoul: Hyean; Kim Chunsŏk, 2003, Chosŏn hugi chŏngch’i sasangsa yŏn’gu, Seoul: Chisik sanŏpsa; Yi Sugŏn, 1995, Yŏngnamhakp’aŭi hyŏngsŏnggwa chŏn’gae, Seoul: Ilchisa; and Yi Pyŏnghyu, 1984, Chosŏnjŏn’giŭi kihosarimp’a yŏn’gu, Seoul: Ilchogak. 20 What left the animosity between the Southerners and the Westerners irreconcilable was the issue of Lady Chang (禧嬪張氏, ?-1701), the mother of King Kyŏngjong (景宗, r. 1720-1724). As one of his father Sukchong (肅宗, r. 1674-1720)’s concubines, Lady Chang was supported by the Southerners. Yet, she was sentenced to death after her cursing of Queen Min (仁顯王后, 1667- 1701) who was from the Yŏhŭng clan (驪興閔) considered one of the representative Westerner families. The daughter of Min Yujung (閔維重, 1630-1687), the queen did not produce any legitimate royal successor, and the Westerners, specifically those who were affiliated with the Patriarch’s Faction in the late 17th century, finally approached Lady Ch’oe (淑嬪崔氏, ?) who was the birth mother of Yŏngjo (英祖, r. 1724-1776). Espousing Kyŏngjong’s status as the princely heir, the Southerners experienced an intense confrontation with the Westerners who championed the succession of Yŏngjo after his ailing stepbrother Kyŏngjong. The influence of the Southerner force, despite its brevity, came into a revival during the reign of Chŏngjo (正祖, r. 1776-1800). The monarch took up the Joseph Jeong-il Lee 209

incident of his father Prince Changhŏn (莊獻世子, 1735-1762), who was sacrificed in the maelstrom of political conflicts associated with some major Patriarch’s Faction politicians, as the focal political affair. Some Southerner elites, especially those led by the descendents of the kŭn’gi Southerners, tried to help the king even by mobilizing their distantly marginalized colleagues in the Kyŏngsang province-- the Southerners’ original base. They instigated their old comrades to propose a grand memorial, co-signed by the ten thousand hands (Yŏngnam maninso, 嶺南萬人疎) in 1792. The objective of this collaborative proposal was to demand the posthumous exoneration of the defiled crown prince from the charge of political betrayal studded with non- piety (不孝) and non-loyalty (不忠) against Yŏngjo, the grandfather of Chŏngjo. Needless to say, this act was ultimately intended to pressure their enemy Patriarch’s Faction involved with the tragic death of Prince Changhŏn. For more about the political activism of the Southerners during the time, see Yi Sugŏn, Yŏngnamhakp’a ŭi hyŏngsŏnggwa chŏn’gae, pp. 531-555. 21 Following after the orthodox Cheng-Zhu line of their master Yi Hwang (李滉, 1501-1570), they wove together the Ki (氣)-centered Confucian metaphysics of the noted Northerners, Sŏ Kyŏngdŏk (徐敬德, 1489-1546) and Cho Sik (曺 植, 1501-1572) with Yi’s orthodox reinterpretation of Li (理), or the Principle. Chŏng Hohun, Chosŏnhugi chŏngch’isasang yŏn’gu, pp. 29-64 and 111-127. Sin Pyŏngju, Chosŏnjung’hugi chisŏngsa yŏn’gu, pp. 237-276. Within the Easterners, Sŏ Kŏngdŏk and Cho Sik were lifted up as the representative intellectuals of the Northerners who had a diverging political and academic identity in contrast to the Southerners under the banner of Yi Hwang. The Ki- based account of Li and the great emphasis on the practice of the Confucian theory were characteristic of the Sŏ and Cho line. The Northerners dominated central politics during the reign of King Kwanghae (光海君, r. 1608-1623). 22 For more references, see Chŏng Hohun, Chosŏnhugi chŏngch’isasang yŏn’gu, pp. 127-149, 175-223, and 249-305; Kwŏn Chinho, 2001, Misu Hŏmok ŭi sanggojŭngsin kwa sanmunsegye, Ph. D. Dissertation, Sŭnggyungwan University; Han Yŏngu, Chosŏnhugi sahaksa yŏn’gu, pp. 92-99; and Chŏng Okja, 1979, “Misu Hŏmok yŏn’gu”, Hanguksaron, vol. 5, pp. 197-232. 23 For instance, Palais examines the comprehensive facet of Yu Hyŏngwŏn (1622-73)’s scholarship on statecraft and identifies its influence on the contemporary Southerner scholars. See Palais, Confucian Statecraft and Korean Institutions: Yu Hyŏngwŏn and the Late Chosŏn Dynasty. 210 Historicist View and Confucian Repertoire in Late Chosôn: A Southerner Prism

24 For further reference to Yi Ik, see Sin Hangsu, 2001, Yi Ik (1681-1763) ŭi kŏngsa haesŏk kwa hyŏnsil insik, Dissertation, Seoul: Korea University, pp. 13-27. 25 In 1694, a secret plot was devised by some Westerners who intended to bring the dethroned and exiled Queen Min back to the royal place. This was detected and investigated by the Southerner who seized power in court. But, in the process, King Sukchong ordered the restoration of the Queen Min and removed the Southerner force from central politics. This political turnover (hwan’guk, 換局) of 1694 occurred in the year of kapsul (甲戌) calculated according to the sexagenary calendar, so it is conventionally called as kapsul hwan’guk. 26 King Chŏngjo deployed the kŭn’gi Southerners in the lower and middle strata of central bureaucracy in order to counterbalance the Patriarch’s Faction and to consolidate the royal power. At that time, some Southerner scholar-officials and their families were involved with the spread of the Catholicism that was officially banned by the court. With the demise of King Chŏngjo, his grandfather Yŏngjo’s second queen, Chŏngsun ( 貞純王后, 1745-1805) became the dowager regent in the court of the 11-year-old Sunjo (純祖, r. 1800-1834). The queen came from Kyŏngju Kim (慶州金), one of the main groups of the Westerners and later the Patriarch’s Faction. The queen stood at the forefront opposing her stepson Prince Changhŏn and his son King Chŏngjo. In 1801, the queen executed a great persecution against the Catholic believers, in which process she actually eliminated the Southerner force from the court. Yi Kahwan, the representative Southerner intellectual during the reign of King Chŏngjo, was involved in Catholicism. He was one of the main targets of the 1801 persecution. 27 For further reference to the scholarship and political movement of the Patriarch’s Faction, Cho Sŏngsan, 2007, Chosŏnhugi nangnon’gye hakp’ung ŭi hyŏngsŏng kwa chŏn’gae, Seoul: Chisik sanŏpsa. 28 The eminent scholar, Kim Ch’anghŭp ( 金昌翕, 1653-1722), from the Patriarch’s Faction contended that an ideational presence of the Supreme Ultimate (太極之眞象) is embedded in this world with the form of an uninterrupted one-ness (一圓之貫乎中間). Samyŏnjip [Collected Works of Kim Ch’ang-hŭp] 21:32b1-6. The Supreme Ultimate (太極) was conceived of as the pre-existing stage of the Principle, being unreachable and unfathomable beyond human sense and intellect. The tight interconnection between what is Joseph Jeong-il Lee 211

seen and what is unseen paved the way for inventing a double structure of the Ultimate that is both transcendental and immanent. This concretized account of the Ultimate helped spark a more practical and tangible conductance of the Principle down to this world, too. Alongside this, the other famous scholar, Kim Ch’anghyŏp (金昌協, 1651-1708) re-articulated the absent-cause of the Principle (無形有爲) in such an active way that the actual quality of its leadership could be better justified. The world is seemingly operated by the visible touch of Ki, yet the workability of Ki stems from the Principle that performs the initiative yet invisible leadership over this world (氣非氣之妙). “世言理氣二物者 初未必灼見理體 只見先儒說氣有形而理無形 遂認於氣 外眞有一物 懸空自運爾 是則口中雖說無形 而心裏所見 實無以別於有形 之物矣…. 而不曾於實體處 潛玩默究 眞見其無形有爲 卽氣非氣之妙 大抵 此是義理至精微處…” [Emphasis Added] Kim Ch’anghyŏp, Nongamjip [Collected Works of Kim Ch’anghyŏp] 32:15a10-b6. Brothers Kim Ch’anghŭp and Kim Ch’anghyŏp were well known as the influential intellectuals in the Patriarch’s Faction. For more information, refer to Yi Ch’ŏnsŭng, 2005, “Yulgogŭi it’onggiguksŏl kwa horaknonjaeng e kkich’in yŏnghyang”, Han’guksasangsahak vol. 25, pp. 39-69; and Yi Ch’ŏnsŭng, 2004, “Nong’am Kim Ch’anghyŏp ŭi sasang kwa nakhagŭroŭi yônghyang”, Chosŏnsidaesahakppo vol. 29, 137-160. 29 Yi Ik, 1977, Kukyŏk sŏnghosasŏl I, Seoul: Minjok munhwa ch’ujinhoe, pp. 77- 78. 30 Ibid. 31 In fact, this moon-moonlight metaphor was the main topic of Yi Hwang, who was revered as the master of Yi Ik’s kŭn’gi Southerners, in regards to the secular manifestation and operation of the Principle. See Edward Chung, The Korean Neo-Confucianism of Yi T’oegye and Yi Yulgok, pp.78-84. Yi Ik concurred with Yi Hwang’s notion on the divisibility of the Principle in this world. 32 Ku Manok attributes the development of natural studies in late Chosŏn to Yi Ik’s thought. Ku Manok, 2004, Chosŏn hugi kwahak sasangsa yŏn’gu I, Seoul: Hyean, pp. 356-362. During that period, according to Ku, the intellectual interest in the natural world was based upon the Cheng-Zhu scholarship’s way of thinking that encompassed humanity, heaven, and the cosmos altogether. This orientation inhibited a new intellectual trend that distinguished the Principle of the natural world (物理) from the Principle of 212 Historicist View and Confucian Repertoire in Late Chosôn: A Southerner Prism

the human world (道理). In the West, the former had developed into modern science. Taking a new direction to the empirical realm, Ku asserts, Yi Ik broke new ground for an evidential approach to things of the real world in late Chosŏn. However, as demonstrated in the main text, we need to think more about the significance of non-academic elements which had an inexplicable impact on the formation of Yi Ik’s scholarship. 33 Sin Hangsu contends that the way Yi Ik interpreted the legitimate success of the political dynasties (正統) in imperial China and royal Korea had a great bearing on ’s historiography. Sin, Yi Ik ŭi kyŏngsahaesŏk kwa hyŏnsil’insik, pp. 141-157. 34 “千載之下 何從而知其是非之眞耶!... 余固曰 天下之事 所値之勢爲上, 幸 不幸次之 是非爲下” Saryoro pon Han’guk Munhwasa, eds. Han U’gŭn and Yi Sŏngmu (Seoul: Ilchisa, 1985), p. 529. “天下事 大抵八九是幸會也 其史 書所見 古今成敗利鈍 固多因時之偶然 至於善惡賢不肖之別 亦未必得其 實也” Ibid., 528. 35 “史者作於成敗已定之後 故隨其成與敗 而粧點就之 若固當然者 且善多諱 過 惡必棄長 故愚智之判 善惡之報 疑若有可徵 殊不知當時自有嘉謀不 成…” [Emphasis Added] Ibid., p. 529. He mentioned (程頤, 1033- 1107) who warns the Confucian scholars that what was claimed as true or right in history should be critically reconsidered rather than being uncritically described by a unilateral standard. “讀史料成敗 昔程子讀史到一半 便掩券 思量料其成敗 然後却看有不合處 又更精思 其間 多有幸而成 不幸而敗 蓋 其不合處固多 而合處亦未加準信” Ibid., p. 529. 36 Song Ch’ansik, 1976, “Sŏngho ŭi saeroun saron”, Han’gug ŭi yŏksainsik (II), Ch’angjakkwa pip’ŏngsa, pp. 363-381; Cho Sŏngŭl, 2004, Chosŏnhugi sahaksa yŏn’gu, Hanul, pp. 253-275. 37 Sin Hangsu, Yi Ik ŭi kyŏngsa haesŏk kwa hyŏnsil insik, pp. 13-25. 38 For more information on the intellectual genealogy from Yi Hwang to Yi Ik to An Chŏngbok, see Sin Hang-su, Ibid., pp. 32-45; Kang Segu, 1996, Sunam An Chŏngbok ŭi hangmun kwa sasang yŏn’gu, Seoul: Hyean, pp. 110-129; and Martina Deucheler, 2002, “The Practice of Confucianism: Ritual and Order in Chosôn Dynasty Korea,” Rethinking Confucianism: Past and Present In China, Japan, Korea, And Vietnam, pp. 292-334. 39 Both Yis played pivotal roles in the Northerner cabinet during the reign of King Kwanghae, and turned to the Southerners after the Coup of 1623 when the Westerners seized power in court. Joseph Jeong-il Lee 213

40 Sin Hangsu, Yi Ik ŭi kyŏngsa haesŏk kwa hyŏnsil insik, pp. 132-151. 41 Ancient Chosôn here is referred to as the past of the Chosôn dynasty, specifically before the Three Kingdom period (the 1st to mid- 7th centuries). 42 An Chŏngbok, 1975, Tongsa kangmok I, Seoul: Kyŏngin munhwasa, p. 103: “按東方古記等書 所言檀君事 皆荒誕不經 檀君首出 必其人有神聖之德 固人就以爲君耳 古者神聖之生 固有異於衆人者 豈有若是無理之甚乎.” For further information regarding Tan’gun, see ed. Yun Ihŭm, 1994, Tan’gun: kŭ ihae wa charyo, Seoul: Seoul National University Press; Lev R. Kontsevich, 1998, “Reconstructing the Text of the Tan’gun Myth and its Proper Names”, Perspectives on Korea, Sydney: Wild Peony, pp. 294-319; and John Jorgensen, “Who was the Author of the Tan’gun Myth?” Ibid., pp. 222-255. 43 “東方累經兵火 國史秘藏蕩然無存 而僧釋所記得保於岩穴之中 以傳後世 作史者悶其無事可記 至或編入正史 世愈久言愈實 使一區仁賢之方 歸於 語怪之科 可勝嘆哉 若是不經之說 一切不取 庶欲洗刷襲謬之陋習爾” Ibid., 103. For more reference to An’s critique against Buddhism, see Kang Se-gu, Sunam An Chŏngbok ŭi hangmun kwa sasang yŏn’gu, pp. 186-203. 44 Not a few of the Sa elites in late Chosŏn took note of the specific entity, being called as the Tong’i and recorded sporadically in the pre-modern Chinese materials, as the ethnic origin of ancient Korea. They were also known as Kui (九夷) whose literal meaning is nine non-Chinese barbarian peoples. 45 “初東方夷有九種 曰畎夷, 方夷, 干夷, 黃夷, 白夷, 赤夷, 玄夷, 風夷, 陽夷 率皆土着 天性柔順 喜飮酒歌舞 或冠弁衣錦 器用俎豆….” Tongsa kangmok I, pp. 104-105. 46 “或問 東夷古初 種落寔繁地別號殊 未必皆在我彊 則子之編于此者 何也 曰其種雖不一 而其地要不出遼藩內外之地 檀氏亦安知非九夷之一乎…. 檀君與堯幷立 跨居鴨綠內外 去聖人之化不遠 是以其冠弁俎豆 有中夏之 風….” Ibid., 105. 47 At a certain point, however, An Chŏngbok resorted to natural difference, which was the very resource that he employed to make a connection to the center of the Confucian civilization, as the theoretical ground for the autonomy of Chosŏn. “我東與中華 山川隔絶 是天生別區 不可列於中國之 郡縣明矣.” Ibid. 48 Chŏng Chaehun, 2008, Chosŏnsidae ŭi hakp’a wa sasang, Seoul: Sin’gu munhwasa, pp. 207-230. 49 Kija (箕子, Ch. Qizi) was recorded as one of the sagacious leaders who migrated to ancient Korea with a group of people after the fall of Xiang (商), 214 Historicist View and Confucian Repertoire in Late Chosôn: A Southerner Prism

long before the time of Confucius. For further reference to the changing reception of Kija in Korean history, see Sim Jae-hoon, 2002, “A New Understanding of Kija Chosŏn as a Historical Anachronism, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies vol. 62-2, pp. 271-305. 50 “皇天眷佑我邦 太師東來 篤我以彛倫 敎我以禮樂 使人淪肌浹骨 涵育於 大化之中 雖其迹已遠 其言已湮 而民之受敎而服習者 歷千祀而不泯.... 是 以聖人有欲居之意 前史有君子之稱 豈徒然哉 莫非太師之敎使然也.” Ibid., p. 109. Here, the grand instructor, or T’easa (太師) refers to Kija. 51 Sunamjip [Collected Works of An Chŏngbok] 10:1a4-b7 and 10:1b5-6.

*

Submission date: 2009.5.29 Completion date of review: 2009.7.31 Joseph Jeong-il Lee 215

<국문초록>

이익과 안정복의 역사관에 대한 재고

지금까지 한국사에서 이익과 안정복의 역사 인식 및 역사 서술은 얼마나 탈주 자학적으로 전개되었는가에 초점이 맞추어져 왔다. 여기에는 조선 후기 지성사 를 사후적으로 소급해서(retrospective) 재구성하는 근대지향적 시각이 전제되어 있는 것이다. 본고는 이익과 안정복의 역사 인식 및 역사 서술을 보다 당대의 맥 락에서 이해하는 것을 목적으로 하고 있다. 구체적으로, 조선 후기에 나타난 지식 생산과 역학관계의 상관성을 중심으로 이익과 안정복이 남인(南人)의 사회정치 적 헤게모니 재건과 유지를 위하여 어떻게 유교 담론을 이용하였는가에 주목한 다. 이익의 유교 역사주의적 비평은 당시 노론(老論)계에서 나온 정치현실과 보 편적 리(理)의 구현을 동일시하는 현재주의적 이념공세에 대한 전략적 대응이란 측면에서 재조명되고 있다. 안정복의 고대 조선에 대한 새로운 서술에서는 그가 조선 유교 문명의 기원을 단군 이전인 동이족으로까지 연결하면서 기존의 비유 교적 기억들을 어떻게 유교적인 것들로 대체하고 보완하였는가에 주안점을 두 고 있다. 이러한 유교적 과거의 재창조도 단순히 조선의 역사에서 유교 국가의 기 원을 밝히고자 했던 것이 아니라 유교적 질서의 유구성을 강조함으로서 사(士) 헤게모니의 역사성을 재확인하고 이를 통하여 사 집단의 일원으로서의 남인의 입지를 공고히 하려는 노력의 일환이었다고 생각된다. 이와 같이, 새로운 역사주 의적 관점을 구축하는 과정에서 이익과 안정복이 이론적 소재와 장치들을 유교 레파토리에서 전략적이고 선별적으로 가져다 자신들의 어젠다에 맞게 이용한 사실은 남인학계의 역동성을 또 다른 시각에서 살필 수 있는 계기가 될 수 있다고 본다. 그리고, 이는 조선 후기적 문맥(Chosŏn-focused context) 속에서 사 지식인들 이 유교 담론을 어떻게 실용적으로 내재화하였는가를 연구하는 데에도 도움이 될 것이다.

주제어: 유교 레파토리, 사 헤게모니 , 근기남인 , 역사주의, 현재주의