17세기 말에 明代 학자가 제기한 『古文尙書』 僞書論이 조선에 전해오면서 『尙書』의 진실성과 神聖한 地位를 지키고자 하는 許穆(1595-1682)과 같은 『古文尙書』 擁護論 학자가 나타났지만 계속 이어지지는 않았다. 한참 뒤인 18세기 후반에서 19세기에 이르러서야 『古文尙書』眞僞에 대한 논쟁이 활발해지게 되었다. 중국 역대 학자들은 여러 가지 증거를 통해 이미 『古文尙書』가 후대 사람들이 위조한 책이라는 사실을 밝혔으나 조선 학자들은 『古文尙書』를 위작으로 인식하면서도『古文尙書』를 모두 배척하면 안 된다는 주장을 펼쳤다. 그 이유는 바로 『古文尙書』에 성리학의 근원이 담겨 있다고 보았기 때문이다. 그리하여 『古文尙書』 僞作論과 『古文尙書』 擁護論의 한쪽에 치우치지 않고 그 양면의 주장을 선택적으로 받아들여 중간적 주장을 제기한 『古文尙書』眞僞折衷論이 등장하게 되었다. 徐有榘와 洪奭周는 같은 『古文尙書』 眞僞折衷論 학자로서 그의 논증내용은 毛奇齡과 상당히 관련이 되었다. 그들이 朱熹에 대한 절대적 尊崇의 태도를 가지고 있었으며, 주희를 공격하는 毛奇齡(1623-1716)을 비판하기 위해서 이러한 논쟁에 참여했다고 할 수 있다. 또한 조선시대에 있어서 『古文尙書』에 관한 논쟁을 참여하였던 학자 중에서 徐有榘와 洪奭周는 자신의 입장을 전후 바꾸었기 때문에 특별한 사례로 들 수 있다. 그들의 입장을 바꾼 이유가 무엇일까? 또는 입장 轉變 과정은 한국 서경학에 있어서 어떤 의미를 가지고 있는지 살펴보고자 한다.
The debates over the authenticity of Gu Wen Shang Shu (古文尚書, also known as the Book of Documents or Classic of History) have been one of the important topics in the history of Confucian classics. At the end of the 17thcentury, the pseudograph theory of Gu Wen Shang Shu proposed by the Chinese scholars in the Ming dynasty had been spread to the Korean Peninsula. In order to preserve the sacredness of the book, the Korean scholars who advocated the “Defense of Gu Wen Shang Shu” had taken the first move. After entering the second half of 18thcentury, the scholars who hold the opposite view that seeing Gu Wen Shang Shu as a pseudo-book had joined the debates. In the 19thcentury, as the scholars who argued the authentic/pseudo eclecticism on Gu Wen Shang Shu had become the majority, they had finally mediated and settled the disputes lasting a long time. In this paper, Seo Yu-ku(徐有榘) and Hong Suk-ju (洪奭周) have been chosen to be the main subjects of study due to the fact that among the Korean scholars who participated in the debates over the authenticity of Gu Wen Shang Shu, they were the only two scholars who had been influenced by the Chinese scholars in the Ming and Qing dynasties and further changed their attitude towards the authenticity of Gu Wen Shang Shu. While Seo Yu-ku had shifted his stance from favoring Mao Qi-ling’s(毛奇齡) argument to showing extreme disgust, Hong Suk-ju had no longer held on to the position of absolutely believing in the authenticity of Gu Wen Shang Shu after being affected by the Ming and Qing scholars. The two scholars’ pursuit of the balance between viewing Gu Wen Shang Shu as the book of the saints and a pseudo-book also represented the eclectic position of the Korean academia on this issue at the time. Therefore, while the Ming and Qing scholars arguing Gu Wen Shang Shu was a pseudo-book had held the majority of the Chinese academic circle and strongly advocated the exclusion of Gu Wen Shang Shu, the Korean scholars in the Chosŏn dynasty had adopted the authentic/pseudo eclecticism on Gu Wen Shang Shu which sought a balance between Han and Song studies as the corresponding approach in the debates. Eventually, Gu Wen Shang Shu has been kept under the consideration of the sound preservation of the Korean culture that has been profoundly influenced by Zhu-zi’s(朱子) thought.
1. 들어가며
2. 徐有榘의 논변 과정
3. 洪奭周의 논변 과정
4. 맺음말
참고문헌