대책문을 통해 본 조선초기 군주성학론

도현철(Do, Hyeon-Chul) 연세대학교 국학연구원 2018 동방학지 Vol.183 No.-

This paper focuses on the historical fact that the name Geunjeongjeon(勤政殿), created by Chung Do-Jeon(鄭道傳), means “diligence helps governance”, and he set a theme about monarchies’ diligent governance for the civil service examination in the 5th Year of Taejo, and then aims to examine the political ideas of the Joseon Dynasty through analyzing the answer sheets written by Kim Ik-Jung(金益精) who was the top examination passer that year. Chung Do-Jeon established the goal for political systems and ideas of the Joseon Dynasty and suggested the ideal monarchy which was essential in managing the monarchy-state. His viewpoint of monarchy was found out while Hangyang City Wall was constructing at the time of the founding of the country. The construction of Gyeonbokgung was completed in the 4th year of Taejo(1395) and the name of Geunjeongjeon, which means “diligence helps governance” indicated the Neo-Confucian ideal for monarchy. Chung Do-Jeon asked what the ways of practice for monarchies’ diligent governance are as a theme for the civil service examinations. Kim Ik-Jung, the top examination passer, suggested in his answer sheets that monarchies should practise the diligent governance on the basis of the Neo-Confucianism, and they should possess sagacious judgements of the right policy to be conducted diligently, and that they should open the offices to the wise men in order to be helpful to monarchies’ sagacity, and that they should strive to figure out people’s actual circumstances, and that they should not be contrary to the most pressing agenda and the late King’s precedents. This is what Kim Ik-Jung organized diligent governance by appealing to Neo-Confucian Sung-Hak(聖學, Learning of the Sage) according to Chung Do-Jeon’s ideal for monarchy. 본고는 정도전이 태종 4년에 근정전의 의미를 설명하면서 군주의 근면 정치를 제시하고, 태조 5년에 과거시험 문제로 군주의 근면 정치를 제시했다는 점에 착안하여, 태조 5년 과거 시험의 장원 급제자인 김익정의 답안지를 분석하여 조선의 정치이념을 살펴본 글이다. 조선왕조의 정치체제와 정치이념의 방향을 설정하였고, 왕조국가의 정치운영의 핵심인 이상군주론을 제시하였다. 정도전의 군주관은 조선왕조 건국기에 한양 도성 건설 사업의 과정에서 나타났다. 1395년(태조 4) 9월 경복궁이 완성되고, 근정전이라는 명칭을 통해 군주의 근면 정치라는 성리학적 군주상이 제시되었다. 다음 해인 1396년(태조 5) 5월 과거 시험 문제에서 정도전은 시험 문제로 군주의 근면한 정치의 구체적인 실천방법을 질문하는 것이었다. 이 시험의 장원급제자인 김익정은 성리학적 사유를 바탕으로 군주가 근면한 정치를 행하되, 근면하게 시행해야 할 올바른 정책에 대한 명철한 인식을 가질 것, 현자를 등용하여 군주의 명철함을 돕도록 할 것, 백성들의 실정을 파악하는 데 힘쓸 것, 당대의 급선무와 선왕의 전례에 어긋나지 않도록 할 것 등의 구체적인 방법을 제시하였다. 이는 정도전의 이상군주론에 부응해서, 김익정이 군주의 근면한 정치를 성리학의 성학론으로 풀어 정리한 것이다.

정도전의 사공학 수용과 정치사상

도현철 ( Hyun Chul Do ) 한국사상사학회 2003 韓國思想史學 Vol.0 No.21

정도전의 경학관과 성리학적 질서의 지향

도현철(Do Hyeon-chul) 한림대학교 태동고전연구소 2008 泰東古典硏究 Vol.24 No.-

정도전은 주자의 사서오경(四書五經)의 주석(註釋)을 받아들이고, 세계와 인간, 사회를 성리학의 리기(理氣), 태극(太極), 성정(性情) 으로 설명하였다. 《대학》과 《중용》을 통하여 천도(天道)와 인도(人道)를 재확인하고 《논어》와 《맹자》를 통하여 유학의 경세 론(經世論)을 이해하였으며, 오경(五經)을 통하여 수기치인(修己治 人)의 학을 말하고 도통(道統)을 제시하였다. 정도전은 《주례》에 의한 중앙집권체제와 재상정치론을 제시하 였다. 불교를 이단으로 비판하였고, 주자가례의 시행을 통하여 유교의 예적 질서를 확립하고자 하였으며, 성리학의 명분론(名分論) 및 춘추대의(春秋大義)와 천리인욕설(天理人欲說)을 기초로 의(義)와 공(公)에 의한 공적 관계를 내세웠다. 그런데 정도전은 정치적․사상적으로 제대로 평가받지 못했다. 왕자의 난을 일으켰다는 이유로 반역, 간신으로 죽임을 당하고, 태종이 즉위하면서 정도전의 부정적인 평가는 확립되었다. 문묘종사(文 廟從祀)에 배향되지 못하였고, 김종직, 신흠, 허균과 같은 조선 유학자들은 정도전을 부정적으로 인식하였다. 이는 정도전이 모반을 꾀하였다는 점이 국가의 공식적인 사실로서 인정받게 되고, 성리학의 도통(學統)을 학문 수수(收受)의 사실 여부나 학문 업적보다는 의리(義理) 정신의 실천에 그 기준을 삼은 결과였다. 조선시기에 정도전을 부정적으로 인식해도, 사상면에서 달리 볼수 있는 여지가 있다. 정도전과 동시대 유학자인 권근이 평가하고, 500여년이 지난 지금의 정도전 연구에서 인정하듯, 정도전이 불교를 배척하며 성리학을 진흥한 공을 받아들일 수 있기 때문이다. In this article, the bases of Jeong Do Jeon s philosophy in terms of Confucian classic texts, and the characteristics of his political ideas(政治思想), are examined. Jeong Do Jeon explained Ju Hi s annotation(註釋) of Four texts and Five classics(四書五經), and the issue of humans and the society, with concepts such as Ih-Gi /理氣(Ih and Gi elements of the universe), Taegeuk /太極(Taegeuk principle of the universe) and Seongjeong /性情(nature of human beings). He reasserted Confucianism s Way of the universe (天道) and Way of the humans(人道) through Daehak and Jungyong, understood Confucianism s suggestion of how to govern the world(經世論) through Noneo(Confucius words) and Maengja(Mencius words), and commented upon the task of building one s character and then leading the others( 修己 治人 ) and suggested the line of legitimacy(道統) , through his interpretation of the Five classics(五經). Jeong Do Jeon presented a centralized format of political governance and a concept of governance led by the ministers, based upon the teachings of Juryae/周禮. He criticized Buddhism as heresy, tried to establish a protocol-based Confucian order by implementing the dictations of Juja Garyae throughout the society, and supported a public and official relationship between people & entities built upon righteous(義) & public(公) elements, based upon the notion of a righteous cause(名分論) , Chunchu s grand righteousness(春秋大義) and the theory of Universe s reason and humans desire(天理人欲說) of Neo-Confucianism. Yet in subsequent periods Jeong Do Jeon s philosophy was not appreciated for what it was worth, in terms of politics and philosophy. In a political reality, he was killed as a treacherous figure under the charge of treason and of staging the insurrection of the princes, and after King Taejong rose to the throne a negative evaluation of his actions became complete. He was not admitted into the Munmyo/文廟 shrine and was not paid any respect in its services(從祀). A lot of Seoweon/書院 schools were erected, yet his achievements and their academic values were not reevaluated. Kim Jong Jik or other Sarim figures who were faithful to Neo-Confucianism, and Joseon dynasty Confucian scholars like Shin Heum or Heo Gyun also maintained a negative attitude toward Jeong Do Jeon. This means that the charges that Jeong Do Jeon faced, committing treason, was established as a nationally official fact. It was a result of the Joseon society, which embraced Neo-Confucianism as its own doctrine(國是), establishing the line of legitimacy in Neo-Confucian studies(學統), neither with the criteria to base such line upon facts regarding actual exchanges(收受) of studies nor with individuals accomplishments, but with the criteria to base such line upon an obligatory determination to realize the spirit of righteousness(義理) in the world. Even if he had been negatively viewed for the duration of the Joseon dynasty period, we can still reevaluate his philosophy in many different ways. No matter what kind of negative reviews had been suggested over the years, Jeong Do Jeon should be noticed for his vetoing Buddhism and promoting Neo-Confucianism, as had been already acknowledged by Confucian scholar Gweon Geun who lived in the same period with Jeong, by Lee Deok Mu who lived in the latter half period of Joseon, and by many people who still study Jeong s thoughts after some five hundred years.

권근의 유교 정치 이념과 정도전과의 관계

도현철(Do, Hyeon-chul) 한국역사연구회 2012 역사와 현실 Vol.- No.84

Examined in this article is how Gweon Geun justified his serving of two countries, and why he decided to cooperate with Jeong Do-jeon. Gweon Geun wanted to make the world a place ruled by Confucianism instead of Buddhism. He compiled important academic points of the Confucian philosophy when he wrote Ib’hak Do’seol and 『O’gyeong Cheon’gyeon-rok』. He intended to establish Confucianism as a legitimate, one-and-only righteous form of study. He argued that Confucianism was the ‘real, substantial’ philosophy(實學) to lead the world, and criticized Buddhism as a heresy that would impede the world’s efforts to become a better one. Based upon a Neo-Confucian view of the world, he criticized Buddhism as a school of thoughts that did not recognize the objective world and its principles, and a mere form of belief that eventually forced people to ignore their own human obligations. In his eyes, Buddhism was a religion for the animals, as it allowed people to sever all the personal relationships, either between a king and a vassal, or between a father and son, by having them commit to a Buddhist way of life. He also argued that Buddhism considered all actions as of the mere heart(imagination), and did not acknowledge the existence of a principle or an obligation, from which the actions would generate, or upon which the actions would operate. With Neo-Confucian theories regarding the ‘Human nature(“Inseong, 人性”)’ and the ‘Law of Nature(“Cheon’ri, 天理)’ in mind, Gweon Guen considered morality to be very important, and hoped for an enlightenment to come to the people, based upon all that. He also wanted a world in which the people’s good nature would be more refined(or corrected from a corrupted state) with the concept of ‘Respect(Gyeong, 敬),’ so that morality could firmly be established. In order to maintain social stability and order, he preferred a character-building exercise based upon people’s moral nature and respect, to the employment of external forces such as law enforcement or institutional corrections. He wanted to reinforce school education, and modified the national examination system to prioritize Creative writing(製述), so that the Confucian concept of morality would dominate the people’s consciousness and living patterns. In the meantime, Gweon Geun decided to join the new dynasty and bring his plans to realize his political philosophy in motion. First, to support Jeong Do-jeon’s plans for a new dynasty in theoretical terms, he authored the foreword for 『Bulshi Jab’byeon』, and highlighted the book’s meaning. He depicted Jeong Do-jeon as a visionary who intended to establish a new country, and explained Jeong’s academic traits, from the perspective of the Neo-Confucian argument of legitimacy. Gweon Geun participated in the publication of 『Gyeong’je Mun’gam』 which did not thoroughly cited all the Chinese materials consulted in its creation. In 『Gyeong’je Mun’gam』, Jeong Do-jeon cited the Chinese texts yet marked them as his own thoughts, and Gweon Geun did the same, because he agreed with Jeong Do-jeon’s thoughts and accommodate his intentions. In short, Gweon Guen tried to establish an idealistic Confucian soceity, and joined the Joseon government, established a relationship with the powerful Jeong Do-jeon, and tried to accommodate his intentions.

『삼봉집』과 권근의 역할

도현철(Do, Hyeon-chul) 한국고전번역원 2012 民族文化 Vol.- No.40

본고는 모두 3차례 즉 우왕11-13년 혹은 태조 6년의 2권의 초간본과 성종 18년의 8권의 중간본, 정조 15년의 14권으로 간행된 『삼봉집』의 성종본과 정조본을 비교하고, 『삼봉집』의 완성에 크게 간여한 권근의 역할과 역사적 의미를 살펴보려는 것이 목표였다. 성종본과 비교하여, 정조본은 새로 찾은 시문 자료를 3권에서 4권으로 늘리고, 『조선경국전』과 『경제문감별집』을 상?하로 나누었으며, 『불씨잡변』을 1권으로 독립시켰고, 陣法, 습유, 부록을 따로 2권으로 마련하면서 14권으로 늘어나게 되었던 것이다. 아울러 내용상의 세밀한 고증을 통해, 성석린의 ‘批’, 權近의 ‘訂’과 ‘註’ 등 조력자와 그 역할을 명기하였고, 『불씨잡변』과 『경제문감별집』은 細註로 그것의 전거를 밝혀 놓았다. 명종 2년에 간행된 『입학도설』에는 『삼봉집』에 있는 「心問天答」과 「心氣理三篇」이 실려 있는데, 이는 초학자를 위하여 유학의 기본 원리를 도설로 설명하는 과정에서 『입학도설』의 취지에 어느 정도 부합했기 때문이다. 그런데 『삼봉집』과 『입학도설』에는 「心問天答」과 「心氣理三篇」에 대한 권근의 주석 방법이 다르게 표시되어 있다. 전자에는 권근이 주석한 사실이 애매하게 표시되어 있고, 정도전이 저술한 부분과 권근이 주석한 부분의 구분이 명료하지 않다. 그러나 명종 2년에 간행된 『입학도설』에 권근이 주석한 사실이 細註로 표시되어 있어 이를 통해 정도전이 저술한 부분은 선언적인 몇 句에 불과하고, 권근이 주석한 부분이 주요 내용을 이루고 있다는 사실이 분명하게 드러나고 두 작품은 결국 권근의 저술이라는 것을 암묵적으로 보여준다.결국 정조본과 성종본 『삼봉집』을 비교해 보고, ?입학도설? 안에 있는 「心問天答」과 「心氣理三篇」을 분석해 볼 때, 『삼봉집』의 편찬에는 권근이 절대적인 참여가 있음을 알 수 있다.

《經濟文鑑》의 引用典據로 본 鄭道傳의 政治思想

都賢喆(Do Hyeon-Chul) 역사학회 2000 역사학보 Vol.165 No.-

려선교체기(麗鮮交替期) 『동헌집(桐軒集)』 복원(復元)과 자료(資料)의 특징(特徵)

도현철 ( Hyeon Chul Do ) 연세사학연구회 2007 學林 Vol.28 No.-

조선초기 단군 인식과 삼국유사 간행

도현철 ( Hyeon Chul Do ) 연세대학교 국학연구원 2013 동방학지 Vol.162 No.-

최근 조선초기에 간행된 것으로 추정되는 파른본 『삼국유사』가 소개되었다. 유교 국가 조선에서 불교사 입장에서 정리된 『삼국유사』를 간행한 이유가 무엇인지를 살펴보는 것이 본고의 목표였다. 고려후기에 몽골의 침입으로 국가적위기를 맞았고, 『삼국유사』와 『제왕운기』를 통하여 국가의 시조로 단군을 인식하게 되었다. 『삼국유사』와 『제왕운기』는 고조선을 상정하고 단군을 우리역사의 시조로 설정하였다. 『삼국유사』는 고조선에서부터 시작하여 삼한과 삼국, 고려로 이어지는 역사 계승을 제시했다. 당초 단군은 평양과 황해도 구월산 지역의 민간 신앙적 수호신으로 이해하다가, 국가시조, 역사공동체의 시조로 인식하게 되었다. 고려후기에 단군을 역사의 시원으로 파악하기는 하지만, 신화적이고 설화적인 내용을 사실을 받아들이지 않는 유교의 합리사관으로 인하여 유학자들은 단군을 사실로 인정하는데 주저하였다. 유교 국가인 조선은 나라의 시조인 단군에 대한 이해를 바탕으로 단군부터 조선에 이르는 역사를 서술하고 왕조의 정통성을 확립하고자 하였다. 이를 위해서 유교사관에 의한 연구를 통해 단군을 역사상의 인물로 재발견하였고, 『동국사략』과 『삼국사절요』를 완성하였다. 이 과정에서 『삼국유사』의 간행이 필요했다. 역사서를 편찬하기 위해서는 근거가 되는 기본 자료의 확보가 필수적이기 때문이다. 그리하여 『삼국유사』는 태조 3년 무렵에 『삼국사기』와 함께경주에서 간행되었을 것으로 추정된다. 말하자면, 조선왕조는 단군 인식과 한국상고사 인식의 확대로 고조선으로부터 조선에 이르기까지 한국 역사를 계통적으로 이해하는 통사체계를 구상하였고 이 과정에서 『삼국유사』를 간행하였던 것이다. Recently, a new edition of Samguk Yusa, which is believed to have been printed and published during the early days of the Joseon dynasty period, was presented to the academic community. This article examines why a Confucian state like Joseon bothered to publish Samguk Yusa, a history book which was written from a Buddhist perspective. In the latter half of the Goryeo period, Mongol forces invaded the Korean peninsula and the following dynastic crises prompted the Goryeo people to a new interest in historical entities such as Dan`gun (perceived as the one and only founder of the people of the peninsula) which is reflected in the publication of history books like Samguk Yusa and Je`wang Wun`gi. The people`s new appreciation of certain historical figures eventually led to a formation of a national pride. Goryeo, which was being forced to establish a new kind of relationship with the Mongol Yuan Empire, a relationship which was quite different from its former relationships with the Chinese dynasties, and the Goryeo dynasty and its people were in need of a new identity, and also a new historical perspective from which to view their relationship with the Mongol Empire. Samguk Yusa and Je`wang Wun`gi describe the history of Gojoseon and establish Dan`gun as the person who literally began the history of the Korean peninsula. Samguk Yusa explains that Korean history began with Gojoseon, which was followed by "Sam Han" (``the Three Hans``), the Three Dynasties, and finally Goryeo. Previously, Dan`gun was believed in folklore to have been just a kind of regional deity from the Pyeong`yang area and the Mt. Guweon-san area of what is now Hwang`hae-do province, but he later came to be worshipped as the ``founder of the state,`` and the originator of the historical community in which the Goryeo people lived. Even in the latter half of the Goryeo period, when Dan`gun gained this new status as the founder of the Goryeo people, Confucian scholars, who believed in reasoning and did not embrace folklore-based stories with mythical properties, hesitated to accept Dan`gun as a historical figure and as a person who really existed. Based upon their understanding of Dan`gun, the people of the Confucian state of Joseon recorded the history from Dan`gun to Joseon, and in doing so tried to validate and justify the relatively young dynasty`s foundation. Using Confucian-based studies and analysis, they tried to discover the true nature of Dan`gun as a real person, and as part of this effort, Joseon writers completed Dong`gukSa`ryak and Sam`guk-sa Jeol`yo. Samguk Yusa was needed, as it was vital to secure basic primary data for historical compilation. It is presumed that Samguk Yusa was published in the Gyeongju area around 1394, in the third year of King Taejo`s reign, along with Kim Bu-shik`s Samguk Sagi. In other words, the people of Joseon imagined a Korean history that began with the time of Dan`gun and continued through to the time of Joseon, and published Samguk Yusa as part of the effort to prove this. The establishment of Dang`un as the founder of the Korean people was only possible because of the people`s already widened understanding of Dan`gun and the ancient history of the Korean peninsula.

조선시대의 이색 인식과 연구 과제

도현철(Do Hyeon chul) 한국사연구회 2012 한국사연구 Vol.159 No.-

정석해의 교유관계와 연희대학교

도현철 ( Do Hyeon Chul ) 연세사학연구회 2019 學林 Vol.44 No.-

본고는 정석해의 교우 관계와 교육 행정 활동을 살펴봄으로써, 정석해 개인뿐만 아니라 해방 직후부터 1960년에 이르기까지 연희대학의 역사와 대학 교수의 현실 인식과 사회적 실천 활동을 파악하려는 것이다. 정석해는 동료 교수들 간의 네트워크를 형성하며 사적인 유대감과 함께 학교와 사회의 대소사를 논하고 진실의 구현, 정의의 실천에 앞장섰다. 그는 동료 대학교수들과 4·19 혁명과 6·3 한일협정 반대 시위 그리고 연세대학의 학원 자율화, 민주화에 참여하였다. 특히 그는 연희대학의 학원의 자율화와 민주화를 추구하여 권위적이고 비합리적인 태도를 수정해갔다. 그의 이러한 지식과 행동은 연세대학의 학교 운영이나 후배 교수의 교육 연구 활동에 큰 영향을 주었다. This paper aims to apprehend not only Professor Tseung Suk Hai individual but also the history of Yonhi University and the real-life awareness and social practice activities of university professors from the Independent to the 1960s by looking at Professor Tseung Suk Hai’s friendly relationship and educational administration activities. Forming a network between his fellow professors, Professor Tseung discussed the great affairs of university and society, and took the lead in the realization of truth and the practice of justice, with a private bond. He participated in the April 19 Revolution and 6.3 protest against the treaty between Korea and Japan with fellow professors, as well as liberalizing and democratizing campus at Yonsei University. In particular, he had modified the authoritative and irrational attitude of the university administration and professors in pursuit of liberalization and democratization of academies at Yonsei university. His knowledge and behavior have greatly influenced the management of Yonsei University and the education research activities of junior professors.