右文興化－朝鮮漢文學的建構、中興及其在十八世紀的重建

Abstract

右文興化—— 朝鮮漢文學的建構、中興及其在十八世紀的重建

摘要

「右文興化」語出歐陽修〈謝賜《漢書》表〉，如表云：「右文興化，乃致治之所先；著錄藏書，須太平而大備。」，於歐陽修「右文興化」乃致治之表徵，「著錄藏書」則成為太平之旗幟。朝鮮（the Joseon Dynasty）繼承高麗（Goryeo）之遺緒而立，卻比高麗更注重文事，不僅在制度上建立起振興漢學，以漢學化育人才的教育體系，且將漢學在地化為社會文化的基底，視為風尚習俗之規範。在興崇文敎的體系運作下，與高麗走出了全然不同的文化樣態。在漢學著錄與藏書方面，則分別於十五世紀的世宗(Sejong)朝，十六世紀的宣祖(Sunjo)朝，以及十八世紀的正祖(Jeongjo)朝，不僅藉著專門機構的設置，輸入、刊印、註解、編輯了多部漢學經典，且也留下了多種朝鮮文人著作的漢文專著。其著錄與藏書之眾，誠如歐陽修所說「須太平而大備」，世宗、宣廟與正祖時期留下的文化成果，既說明了這三個時期在文治與文官體系方面的穩定發展，同時也說明了這三個時期亦是漢學知識與漢學教育在朝鮮史上發展的重要階段。 本文的撰寫目的，乃在探討朝鮮朝的漢學知識與漢學教育是透過怎樣的機制深化與在地化，以致於建立起「崇儒重道」的國家形象。故以世宗、宣廟與正祖朝為研究對象，並以「文化機制的運作」、「中國文學的接受」以及「詮釋共同體的著錄」為考察重點：（一）探討漢文學在朝鮮前期，如何在世宗的主導下建構起「崇儒重道」的基礎。十六世紀初葉，經過「四大士禍」與「中宗反正」等文治體系的變局之後，隱居鄉野的「士林」又如何於鄉間推行漢學，以至於由「士林」主導漢學發展的角色，延續「崇儒重道」的命脈。及至明清鼎革之後的十八世紀，面臨清朝的文化盛事，正祖又如何引導當代的文人，透過漢文典籍的編撰，重建朝鮮漢文學的「崇儒重道」傳統。（二）探討不同階段的朝鮮漢學者，探討他們如何接受中國文學原典，並以其作為深化、擴充朝鮮漢文學的滋養，且透過知識階層的集體詮釋與選編，再脈絡化為興學化育的經典文本。 為了探討漢籍原典與脈絡化經典之間的關係，本文主要借鑒文獻學方法，透過域外重點藏書機構的館藏考察與書誌特徵，以期證成漢籍原典的傳入確切時間與影響。針對「崇儒重道」文化的傳承與發展，本文則以不同時期的政治處境、文化政策等，作為考察朝鮮漢文學之所以形成「脈絡性轉換」（contextual turn）的背景，以期梳理朝鮮如何從前期開始就以「崇聖祀、興儒術」為文化取向，又如何在朝鮮中期走上「尊考亭之道」的路數，最終在朝鮮後期將朱子書為學文者之「會極」的歷史脈絡。

Advocating Literature for Enlightenment: The Construction and Revival of Chinese Literature in Korea and its Reconstruction in the Eighteenth Century

Abstract

The phrase “advocating literature for enlightenment” comes from Ouyang Xiu’s article “Xie Ci Han Shu Biao” (Memorial of Gratitude for Being Granted the Book of Han). The article states: “advocating literature for enlightenment is the prerequisite for good governance; and book writing and collection are truly comprehensive only in peaceful times.” As far as Ouyang was concerned, “advocating literature for enlightenment” is a manifestation of good governance, and “book writing and collection” an emblem of peace and prosperity. Established on the legacy of Goryeo though, the Joseon dynasty laid greater emphasis on cultural and educational affairs. It not only built an educational system which nurtured talents with revived sinology, but also localized sinology as its socio-cultural foundation and accepted it as customary norms. By virtue of this culture- and education-oriented system, the Joseon dynasty evolved a cultural modality far removed from that of Goryeo. During the reigns of Sejong (15th century), Sunjo (16th century), and Jeongjo (18th century), Korean literati had written various genres of monographs on sinology in addition to the inauguration of competent institutions as well as the introduction, printing, annotating, and editing of great classics of sinology. The resultant writings and collections were so massive that they embodied Ouyang’s thought: “book writing and collection are truly comprehensive only in peaceful times.” The cultural accomplishments during the reigns of Sejong, Sunjo, and Jeongjo on the one hand illustrated the smooth development of the education and civil service systems in the three eras, and on the other hand indicated that the three eras marked the crucial phases of the evolution of sinology-based knowledge and education in Korean history. Therefore, this dissertation seeks to investigate the institution-induced deepening and localization of sinology-based knowledge and education in the Joseon dynasty that cultivated a national image as “venerating Confucianism.” Focusing principally upon the reigns of Sejong, Sunjo, and Jeongjo, this dissertation delves into the “operation of the cultural system,” the “society’s acceptance of Chinese literature,” and the “writings by the community of interpretation.” Specifically speaking, this dissertation first of all examines how Chinese literature became the very foundation for “venerating Confucianism” under the leadership of Sejong in the early Joseon dynasty. How did scholars who secluded themselves in remote areas promote sinology in the countryside so that the groves of academe determined the development of sinology and perpetuated the tradition of “venerating Confucianism” in the early 16th century after the turbulence in the governance structure such as the Four Literati Purges and the Jungjong Coup? Besides, in the 18th century after the Ming dynasty ended and the Qing dynasty began, how did Jeongjo, whilst being confronted with the flourishing culture of Qing, guided his contemporary literati to revive the tradition of “venerating Confucianism” in Korea’s Chinese literary studies through the compilation of Chinese books and records? This dissertation then discusses Korean sinologists by probing how they accepted original Chinese literary classics, used them to increase the profundity of Korea’s Chinese literary studies, and re-contextualized them into classic texts for enlightenment through the collective interpretation and compilation by the intelligentsia. This dissertation employs bibliographic methods to explore the relationships between the original Chinese literary classics and the re-contextualized classic texts. It analyzes the collections of major overseas book-collecting institutions and the literary merits of these collections, insofar as to identify the exact timing and impact of the introduction of the original Chinese texts. In terms of the development and perpetuation of the culture of “venerating Confucianism,” this dissertation treats the political situations and cultural policies in different eras as the background against which Korea’s Chinese literary studies took a “contextual turn,” and thereby collates the historical context within which “venerating and promoting Confucianism” served as the cultural orientation of the early Joseon dynasty, followed by the “reverence for Zhu Xi’s theory” in the mid-Joseon dynasty and “Neo-Confucianism as the ultimate convergence” of scholars in the late Joseon dynasty.