Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Other Titles:||On the Relation between Zhu Xi’s “Letter to Chancellor Liu” and the Korean Factional Struggle|
National Taiwan Normal University Department of History
|Abstract:||自李滉編著《朱子書節要》後，一定程度上造成了朱熹書信在朝鮮成為四書等經學著作之外的「新經典」，這是朝鮮儒學研究重心往「朱熹書信」的轉向。而後在朝鮮「士禍」嚴重的歷史背景下，由李珥起始，將朱熹〈與留丞相書〉用來注釋《論語》「君子周而不比」章，發揮其中思想，不僅消極地反對政敵用「朋黨」之名陷害君子，也積極地發揮了朱熹擴大「君子之黨」、「引君入黨」的思想，建構了不同於中國傳統的朋黨論述。其後承此思想脈絡的朝鮮儒者，便不斷引用朱熹的〈與留丞相書〉，而後配上宣祖國王的「入李珥黨宣言」， 以此二者來強調擴大「君子之黨」以及「引君入黨」的正當性。然而， 李珥以〈與留丞相書〉對經典作出的「政治性解讀」，流傳日久，也可能產生負面影響。朝鮮王朝自宣祖朝後「東、西分黨」，產生了幾乎是東亞近世最嚴重也最持久的黨爭，讓歷代朝鮮國王深為惱怒，因而對李珥建構的「朋黨」論述開始有所批判。站在王權欲化解黨爭的立場出發，仁祖國王認為朱熹〈與留丞相書〉已被朝鮮儒者「去脈絡化」，「朱子本意」已然失喪，不如回歸孔子所說的「君子不黨」。朝鮮朱子學儒者則從說明朱熹〈與留丞相書〉的時空背景與「字義」詮釋的角度入手，嘗試辨明朱熹本意，並再次高舉朱熹思想的永恆價值，為朱熹辯護。另一方面，也不得不向王權妥協，承認了〈與留丞相書〉在朝鮮激烈的「黨爭」時空下已經不適合隨意引述。以上論爭，也可視為是東亞近世反朱子學思潮的另一種面向。|
After Yi Hwang (이황) compiled his Outline and Explanations of the Works of Zhu Xi, Zhu Xi’s letters chieved a prominence in Korea second only to that of the Four Books. The publication of this work also led to a new emphasis among Korean Confucian scholars on the letters of Zhu Xi. When the Korean literati purges were taking place, Yi I (이이) offered an influential interpretation of Zhu Xi’s “Letter to Chancellor Liu.” He noted that Zhu Xi had used the letter to explain a passage from the Analects stating that “the superior man is catholic and not partisan.” According to Yi I, Zhu Xi was not only opposed to the notion of injuring political opponentsfrom different factions; he also wanted to incorporate king into larger factions—to “lead king into factions.” This was a new reading of Confucianism that became quite popular in Korea. In time, however, some negative consequences of such a reading began to appear. After the reign of King Seonjo of Joseon, the Kingdom of Joseonexperienced political divisions and its East-West feud. Many successive Korean kings had to contend with these problems, and as a result there arose several critiques of Yi I’s point of view. King Injo, who had wanted to resolve factional struggles for the benefit of royal power, contended that Korean Confucianism had decontextualized the original passage of the Analects. He argued that it was better to return to the primary notion that a gentleman is “catholic and not partisan.” In response, Neo-Confucian Korean scholars attempted to restore the “Letter to Chancellor Liu” to its own time and place. Their aim was to defend Zhu Xi and to clarify his original ideas. Yet even they had to compromise with royal power, when they were forced to admit that the “Letter to Chancellor Liu” had been cited and interpreted inappropriately during the long-lasting political divisions and East-West feud.
|Appears in Collections:||臺灣師大歷史學報|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.