기조논문발표(4)

Cho Shik and Nammyung Studies

: Preliminary Reflections and Questions from Afar

Hoyt Cleveland Tillman

(Arizona State University)

When Professor Kim Choong-Yeol invited me to participate in this conference, I was delighted at the prospect of learning more about the development of Confucian thought in Korea. Confucian thought was so influential in Choson Korea that it provides a major comparative perspective for understanding Confucianism in China. Therefore, I have long regretted knowing so little of Korean developments. While teaching for six months in 1996 at the University of Washington, I had frequent discussions with Professor James Palais about Chinese and Korean histories, but since then I have had neither the time nor the opportunity to explore some of the ideas that we discussed during those conversations. Hence, I regarded this conference as an occasion to become immersed in Korean Confucianism. Because Professor Kim had said that Cho Shik (1501-72) was a practical Confucian thinker focused on social and governmental issues, I imagined that I might find that Cho Shik had read Song statecraft and utilitarian thinkers, for I have long had a feeling that Korean Confucians read much more broadly than the orthodox Cheng-Zhu texts. At least, it appeared that there might be grounds for making a comparative study between Cho Shiks statecraft and the thought of Chen Liang (1143-94) and other statecraft thinkers from Zhedong during the Southern Song era. Unfortunately, other commitments and duties did not leave enough time for me to do the level of research necessary to write the paper I envisioned or even to attend the conference. I apologize to Professor Kim and the participants for my absence and failure. At the present time, all I can do is to offer some preliminary reflections from my superficial reading and to pose some questions. Even though my questions might simply reveal my ignorance of Nammyang Studies, responses from scholars at the conference should enhance my understanding. Moreover, there is a slight chance that these reflections and questions, raised by a novice from a distant place, might provide a perspective.

First, I wonder if attention to Nammyung Studies is at all related to the cultural fever (wenhua re) or local cultural emphasis that has become so pronounced in recent years within China? In China, pride in local cultural heroes was only beginning to resurface in the early 1980s in the wake of the withering legacy of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. For instance, in June of 1985 when I was finally able to look at sites near Yongkang that were associated with Chen Liang, local officials from the Cultural Bureau had to scurry around to put together an exhibit on Chen Liang at a local museum; the meager exhibit consisted mainly of copies of Chen Liangs collected writings and a few publications about him. There was also a photo of the tomb inscription marking his grave, but I was not allowed to visit the gravesite because it was within a factory. I did spend the night in the cave where Chen Liang had drunk wine and held discussions with L□ Zuqian (1137-81) and Zhu Xi (1130-1200). Officials from the Cultural Bureau were amazed that a foreigner had done so much research and published so extensively about a local person of whom they apparently had only recently taken note. They also seemed amused by my suggestion that local historical figures, like Chen Liang, might serve to inspire young people from the area.  In contrast, scholars from the surrounding Jinhua area had by the 1990s established an association for promoting the study of Chen Liang, and it held a national conference to promote recognition of his contributions. By the late 1990s, Chen Liangs tomb had been restored, and a statue now projects a heroic image for both locals and tourists to admire. In another case, scholars and officials in Sichuan now look back to a 1981 academic conference in Chengdu as the date marking the revival of Three Kingdoms Culture (Sanguo wenhua).  Sichuan scholars and officials proclaimed at an international conference last May that the Romance of the Three Kingdoms (Sanguo yanyi) was a major component and influence on Chinese culture; however, without Chen Shous Chronicle of the Three Kingdoms (Sanguo zhi), the novel could not have been written. Moreover, since Chen Shou was from Nanchong, this area of Sichuan was the heart of Sanguo Culture. Scholars and officials at the Zhu Xi conference in Wuyishan last October made even stronger claims about the importance of their local area to Chinas national culture. I applaud all this attention to local history and culture. My question is: Are there similarities in the revival and promotion of Nammyung Studies in Korea? In the journal articles published by the Nammyung Studies Research Center, I notice that there is considerable emphasis on Cho Shiks nationalistic concerns for Korea and its people. Reflecting upon the cultural fever in China, is there a similar dynamic in Nammyung Studies between local culture and national issues in Korea?

Second, one implication of the cultural fever or local culture emphasis within China is a growing awareness of, or at least more willingness to acknowledge, cultural diversity within China; hence, I wonder, does Nammyung Studies includes this dynamic of enhanced awareness of cultural diversity within Korea? Those promoting Nammyung Studies might consider approaching Nammyung Studies from a perspective of cultural diversity.

At least in North American scholarship, Korean Confucianism has been so centered on Zhu Xi orthodoxy in Korea that a large range of Korean Confucians, including Cho Shik, has been neglected. For example, it appears that Cho Shik is not included in Peter Lees Sources of Korean Civilization. He is also ignored in Wm Theodore de Bary and JaHyun Kim Haboushs edited volume, The Rise of Neo-Confucianism in Korea. Although Cho Shik was a contemporary of Yi Toegye and corresponded with this renowned orthodox Zhu Xi scholar, Cho Shik is not mentioned in Michael C. Kaltons The Four-Seven Debate or in Edward Y. Chungs The Korean Neo-Confucianism of Yi Toegye and Yi Yulgok. Although there might be North American publications where he is discussed, this overview of major books in the field suggests that scholars dedicated to orthodox Neo-Confucian studies have neglected Cho Shik. Furthermore, despite Professor Kim Choong Yeols comment to me that Cho Shik was a practical Confucian quite different from Yi Toegyes orthodox line, Cho Shik attracted only enough attention to be listed once among other Confucian scholars in Mark Settons Chong Yagyong: Koreas Challenge to Orthodox Neo-Confucianism. Because James Palais Confucian Statecraft and Korean Institutions: Yu Hyongwon and the Late Choson Dynasty begins with statecraft writings in the 1580s, Cho Shik was slightly too early to be included.

One could also say that standard Korean reference works might not encourage statecraft scholars, like Professor Palais, to explore Cho Shiks works. For instance, according to an e-mail exchange with Professor Palais, the Hanguksa taesajon (Great dictionary of Korean history) (Seoul: Koryo chulpansa, 1996) probably leaves the reader uncertain about Cho Shiks philosophical stance and actual policies. On the one hand, this dictionary says that Cho Shik emphasized silhaeng (shi xing, or what might be termed practical action), as well as reflecting on your own mind and embodying what you gain from either investigation or experience (fan gong ti yan). On the other hand, he took seriousness and righteousness (jing yi) as his main creed; moreover, he turned down every appointment to office. After he refused yet another appointment to office in 1556, he did advise King Myongjong on the right way to rule the state (zhi guo). However, regardless of the practicality of that advice, Cho Shik might have simply advised the ruler to reflect on his inner mind and put it into use in some practical way-without giving any specific advice on concrete policy.

Even though the articles published by the Nammyung Studies Academy laud Cho Shiks concern for the people and the nation state, as well as his philosophical emphasis on practical action, an outside reader might still be left with uncertainties about the nature and extent of his attention to practical issues of statecraft. For instance, in the article by Zhou Daoqis article researching Cho Shiks political thought, Cho Shiks view of Zhuge Liang (181-234) is discussed (on pages 29 and 31). Although Cho Shik admired Zhuge Liang as a heroic person who strove in vain to save the Han dynasty, Zhuge Liang must have known that he would not succeed, so he probably should have remained in his hermits hut. Moreover, Cho Shik seized upon Zhu Xis criticisms of Zhuge Liangs learning as adulterated with Legalist ideas from Shen Buhai and Han Feizi. Professor Zhou concludes that Cho Shik was after all a recluse (chu shi) and a pure Confucian (chun ru). Three aspects of this account trouble me. (1) Cho Shik apparently neglected some of Zhu Xis statements about Zhuge Liang that provided a positive defense of Zhuges activism and contributions; one might expect a Korean focused on practical action to emphasize those remarks from Zhu Xi. (2) The categorization of Zhuge Liangs practical statecraft as learning adulterated with Legalist notions from Han Feizi suggests rigidity in insisting that practical action and government policy avoid any taint or trace of a major tradition of law and statecraft in East Asia. In other words, the range of practical actions would appear to be limited to the most orthodox ones. (3) My concern here is reinforced by the characterization of Cho Shik as an advocate of being a pure Confucian. Zhu Xi used this very label to attempt to curb or restrain thinkers, like Chen Liang, from pursuing statecraft thought.

Other articles in Nammyung Studies also enhance this impression of Cho Shiks narrow focus on Zhu Xi orthodoxy. What disturbs me is not the emphasis within several of the articles (such as those by senior scholars Tang Yijie, Zhang Liwen, and Zhang Yongjun) on Cho Shiks debt to Zhu Xi and the Cheng brothers. These orthodox philosophers were naturally major influences on Cho Shiks thinking. What bothers me is the narrow focus on orthodox thinkers and the exclusiveness explicit in the label pure Confucian. As evident in Wu Kunrus article (pp. 116-19), Cho Shik was very concerned about having true or genuine (zhen) Daoxue. Not surprisingly, as evident in his essay on heterodoxy (yiduan) (in Nammyungji, 4.49a-51b, pp. 50-51), Cho Shik picked up Zhu Xis and the Cheng brothers hostility to Buddhism and Daoism. But Zhu Xis-and apparently Cho Shiks-championing of pure Confucians and true Daoxue represented a demand for narrow orthodoxy within the Daoxue fellowship or community itself. As in Confucian Discourse and Zhu Xi de siwei shijie (Zhu Xis world of thought), my own publications have explored how Zhu Xi sought to exclude members of this Confucian community who disagreed with his views and how Zhu Xi sought to elevate himself to a unique leadership role as the authoritative interpreter of the Confucian tradition. Zhu Xis gradual ascendancy within Daoxue eclipsed earlier leaders, especially L□ Zuqian, who had a broader view of the Confucian tradition. As Zhu Xi became more dominant within the Daoxue fellowship, statecraft thinkers, such as Chen Liang and Ye Shi (1150-1223), became alienated.

After statecraft thinkers became alienated from Daoxue, a general impression arose that Daoxue and Song Confucians were so focused on philosophical speculation and moral cultivation that they neglected practical action. This characterization has become quite widespread, and James T.C. Liu even presented Daoxue as the crucial movement of China Turning Inward. Wu Kunrus article represents a specific application of this point. Practical action is presented as Chinese Song Confucian philosophys greatest lack (p. 115). Against this background, it is easy to highlight Cho Shiks statements about action as being an energized action philosophy; hence, he transcended Song Confucians and regained the orientation of the original Confucianism of Confucius and Mencius (p. 132). My Utilitarian Confucianism had similarly presented Chen Liangs statecraft thinking as going back to some of the central points of Confucius and Mencius. Actually, the field of Confucian studies has certainly gone too far in characterizing Daoxue and Zhu Xi as neglecting politics and practical action. Professor Yu Yingshis forthcoming Zhu Xi de lishi shijie (Zhu Xis world in historical context) (Taibei: Yunchen wenhua gongsi) documents how political issues and sociopolitical matters were more important to Zhu Xi and other Daoxue thinkers than their moral and speculative philosophies. Professor Yus work should serve to counter current characterizations of Daoxue as lost in metaphysical philosophy and moral cultivation.

It seems to me that Cho Shiks writings are more diverse than some contemporary scholars have depicted. Looking through the Nammyungjip, I notice that although he more often quotes the Cheng brothers and Zhu Xi, he also quotes a considerable range of Song Daoxue thinkers. This range includes Zhen Duxiu (1178-1235) who was excluded from the Daoxue biographies of the official Song history (Song shi), but has been regarded by many scholars as important followers of Zhu Xi. More importantly, Cho Shik quotes L□ Zuqian, the principal leader of Daoxue in the 1170s and a significant bridge to statecraft thinkers-like Chen Liang and Ye Shi-who were focused on practical action to restore national reunification. The tendency to neglect such diversity within Cho Shiks reading and writing has a long history, for there was a natural tendency to focus on his relationship to the orthodox tradition. Those who compiled the Nammyungjip apparently were primarily oriented toward the prevailing orthodoxy. For instance, the editors highlighted Cho Shiks relationship to Yi Toegye by placing his two letters to the famous orthodox philosopher at the beginning of the kwon (juan) of his letters. (See Nammyungjip, pp. 33, 98, 137, 151, 201.)

In concussion, I see potential in the development of Nammyung Studies for enhancing awareness of the dynamics of regional and national cultures, as well as appreciation for the diversity within traditions of Confucianism. If Nammyung Studies paid more attention to the diversity inherent in Cho Shiks writings, I personally believe we would get a clearer picture of his thought and how it related to lineages of Song Confucianism beyond the Cheng-Zhu line within Daoxue. From even a casual looking through his Nammyungjip, one can see that Cho Shik read and quoted from a far wider range of Daoxue than the Cheng-Zhu orthodox line that was enshrined in the Daoxue biographies of the official Song history. Since Choson Confucians had such a strong dislike for the bias of the Song shi editors against the Song, it is possible that Choson Confucians were not highly influenced by the narrow conception of the Daoxue tradition, for that narrow version of Daoxue owed a lot to the Song shis account. Of course, Zhu Xi strove to assert his authority within the Daoxue fellowship and to purge elements within Daoxue that he regarded as not purely Confucian. Some of Cho Shiks language suggests that he inherited Zhu Xis hostility toward impure and adulterated learning within Song Confucianism and even within Daoxue. Nonetheless, the fact that Cho Shik sought to highlight action and statecraft with his philosophy suggests that he was still influenced by the wider range of twelfth-century Daoxue thinkers and perhaps even by Song Confucians totally outside of the Daoxue fellowship. I personally think that if Nammyung Studies were to pay attention to the diverse origins of Cho Shiks thought, he might appear less original than some scholars now present him. But attention to diversity within his writings would certainly reveal him to have read more widely, and he would probably also emerge as an even more interesting thinker and an even more significant interpreter of Confucian thought.