이 논문은 이재 문하의 대표적인 인물인 양응수의 성리설과 이에 대한 18세기 낙론계의 반응에 대해 살펴보고 있다. 그리고 이를 통해 그동안 피상적으로 다루어졌던 양응수의 학문적 정체성을 보다 합리적으로 결론 내리고자 한다.
18세기 기호 낙론계 연구와 관련하여 양응수는 동문이었던 박성원, 김원행, 임성주 등과 비교해 볼 때 의미 있게 다루어진 인물은 아니었다. 하지만 양응수는 이재문하에서 매우 상징성을 가지고 있다. 그는 도암집(陶菴集) 간행에 깊숙이 개입해스승의 유고를 정리, 편집하는 일을 주도하였으며 동문 중에서는 유일하게 1년간 스승의 시묘살이를 했다는 상징성도 있다. 이러한 사실들을 통해 볼 때 천문(泉門)에서의 양응수의 위상을 짐작해 볼 수 있다.
양응수는 성리설에도 조예가 깊어 백수집(白水集)에는 대부분이 성리설과 관련된 것이며 당시 학계의 최대 관심이었던 호락논쟁의 주요 쟁점에 대해서도 호론을비판하는 일련의 글들을 발표하여 낙론계 일원으로서의 정체성도 유지하고 있었다.
그리고 이재 심설의 종지를 ‘심유이기(心有二氣)’로 정리하는 등 스승을 충실히 계승한 제자의 역할 역시 자임하였다. 이렇듯 양응수는 천문에서 동문들과 함께 낙학의 여론을 주도한 인물이었으며, 백수집을 보더라도 학문적 성과가 매우 뚜렷한인물이었다.
그동안 학계에서 양응수에 대한 논의는 주로 낙론의 ‘계승’이라는 측면에만 주목하였다. 그는 분명 낙론계의 정체성을 유지하였지만, 낙론계 중심 학맥의 입장과는다른 정체성 역시 가지고 있었다. 대표적으로 그는 낙학의 종장이라 할 수 있는 김창협의 지각설을 비판하였을 뿐 아니라, 심유이기에 대한 해명에서도 낙론계 중심 학맥과는 다른 방식을 취하고 있었다. 이러한 양응수의 학문적 입장이 낙론계 내부에서 논란이 되고 특히 동문들이 양응수의 성리설을 호론과 같다고 비판하는 것에서볼 때 그의 성리설을 단순히 ‘낙론’의 ‘계승’이라는 범주에서만 논의하는 것은 양응수의 학문적 정체성에 대한 제한적인 이해라 할 수 있다.
따라서 이 논문은 양응수의 학문적 정체성에 대해 합리적인 결론을 내리기 위한선행 작업이라 할 수 있다. 이를 위해 주로 낙론계 일원으로서 그의 정체성과 그의성리설에 대해 동문들이 가지고 있었던 비판과 문제의식이 무엇인지를 확인할 것이다. 이 연구가 성공적으로 이루어진다면 18세기 낙론계 성리설의 다양성이라는 측면에서 왜 양응수라는 인물을 주목해야 하는지 그 이유를 찾음과 동시에 그의 학문적 정체성이 보다 명확해지는데 일정 부분 기여할 수 있을 것이다.
This paper examines and analyzes Yang Eungsu's Neo-Confucianism, a representative disciple of Yi Jae, while paying heed to the Nak School in the 18th century. By doing so, this paper reasonably identifies Yang's academic identity, which has not been studied in depth. Yang is not mentioned in the same way as his contemporaries Park Seongwon, Kim Wonhaeng and Lim Seongju in relation to the study of the Nak School in 18th century. However, Yang is a highly symbolic figure among Yi's disciples, especially considering that it was not possible to participate in the publication of Yi's writings unless one was very close to his teacher or had a high academic standing. This may explain his place in Cheonmun (泉門). Yang also maintained his identity as a member of the Nak School by presenting a critical view of the Ho School regarding the Horak controversy, which was a major concern of the scholarly community at the time, with most of Baeksujib (白水集) relating to Neo-Confucianism. He was also a faithful student of his teacher, summarizing the conclusion of Yi's theory of the mind as "the mind being made up two kinds of Qi (心有 二氣)." However, while Yang was identified as a the Nak School scholar, he also had an identity that diverged from the Nak School-centered position. For example, not only did he criticize the theory of consciousness of Kim Changhyeob, the master of the Nak School, but his way of arguing the key issues of the Horak controversy also varied from the mainstream of the Nak School. His academic position was controversial within the Nak School, and his alumni criticized Yang's theory as being the same as the Ho School. Therefore, it would be a limited understanding to view Yang’s theory solely in the context of his being a 'successor' to 'the theory of the Nak School'. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to establish a more accurate understanding of Yang's academic identity. Specifically, the study will focus on Yang's membership in the Nak School and the criticisms his alumni had regarding his theories on moral culture. Ultimately, the success of this study will shed light on why Yang is a noteworthy figure in regard to the diversity within the Nak School in the 18th century and help us to better understand his academic identity.
This paper examines and analyzes Yang Eungsu's Neo-Confucianism, a representative disciple of Yi Jae, while paying heed to the Nak School in the 18th century. By doing so, this paper reasonably identifies Yang's academic identity, which has not been studied in depth. Yang is not mentioned in the same way as his contemporaries Park Seongwon, Kim Wonhaeng and Lim Seongju in relation to the study of the Nak School in 18th century. However, Yang is a highly symbolic figure among Yi's disciples, especially considering that it was not possible to participate in the publication of Yi's writings unless one was very close to his teacher or had a high academic standing. This may explain his place in Cheonmun (泉門). Yang also maintained his identity as a member of the Nak School by presenting a critical view of the Ho School regarding the Horak controversy, which was a major concern of the scholarly community at the time, with most of Baeksujib (白水集) relating to Neo-Confucianism. He was also a faithful student of his teacher, summarizing the conclusion of Yi's theory of the mind as "the mind being made up two kinds of Qi (心有 二氣)." However, while Yang was identified as a the Nak School scholar, he also had an identity that diverged from the Nak School-centered position. For example, not only did he criticize the theory of consciousness of Kim Changhyeob, the master of the Nak School, but his way of arguing the key issues of the Horak controversy also varied from the mainstream of the Nak School. His academic position was controversial within the Nak School, and his alumni criticized Yang's theory as being the same as the Ho School. Therefore, it would be a limited understanding to view Yang’s theory solely in the context of his being a 'successor' to 'the theory of the Nak School'. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to establish a more accurate understanding of Yang's academic identity. Specifically, the study will focus on Yang's membership in the Nak School and the criticisms his alumni had regarding his theories on moral culture. Ultimately, the success of this study will shed light on why Yang is a noteworthy figure in regard to the diversity within the Nak School in the 18th century and help us to better understand his academic identity.