본고는 17세기 영남 사림의 종주이자 예학의 종장으로 자리매김 되고 있는 한강 정구의 성리학을 검토하는 것을 목적으로 한다. 그러나 한강의 성리설을 이해할 수 있는 자료가 많지 않기 때문에, 한강이 기본적으로 조술과 학통을 중시하는 도학적 태도를 가지고 있다는 전제하에, 그의 학문 체계와 아울러 연원에 대한 논의를 병행하여 그의 학문 연원을 규명하여 체계를 연원의 귀결로 설명하려 하였다.
한강의 학문연원에 대해서는 논란이 있으나 남명의 제자인 덕계 문하에서 수학하다가 퇴계를 거쳐 다시 남명문하에 들어갔다는 것만은 분명하고, 양문의 고제라는 것은 후대의 평가일 뿐, 퇴계의 직전제자들이 활동하던 당시 퇴계문하에서의 존재감은 극히 미미하였으므로 그의 학문적 성장을 추적한다는 측면에서 남명의 영향을 우선적으로 고려하고, 다시 퇴계 이학과의 비교 고찰을 통해 한강의 성리설을 추출하였다. 그 결과 한강의 성리설은 퇴계보다 남명에 가까워, 이선기후, 선지후행의 논리 속에서 천리와 인욕을 대립적으로 파악하고 천리에 의한 주재와 무욕으로의 전개를 단선적으로 추구하였다고 할 수 있다.
그러나 이러한 이학-심학에 관한 입론에도 불구하고 그의 예학은 기본적으로 퇴계를 계승한 것으로 평가된다. 사상의 완결성이라는 측면에서 이는 분명 논의의 여지가 있으며, 근기 남인의 연원에 대한 의문이 제기될 여지도 있다고 하겠다. 그러나 그가 17세기 예학시대를 연 인물의 하나라는 점과 이것이 도학의 새로운 국면이라는 점을 상기할 때, 한강의 학문을 단순히 남명이나 퇴계의 조술로만 볼 것인가 하는 의문 역시 제기될 수 있다고 하겠다. 예학적 방법론에 기초하여 남명과 퇴계의 학설을 아우르며 자신의 입장을 함께 개진하는 한강만의 학문이 전제될 수도 있기 때문이다.
다만 이에 관한 논의는 본고의 주제와 논자의 역량을 넘어서는 것이므로, 이에 대한 단순한 문제제기에만 그치고자 한다. 예학을 포괄하는 한강 사상에 대한 총괄적인 논의가 이루어진 것은 아니지만, 이상의 논의를 통해서 그가 퇴계 사후 퇴계문하에서 두드러질 수 없었던 본질적인 이유와 남명 문하에서 내암 등과 결별한 이유 등은 설명될 수 있으리라 본다.
This study tried to review the Neo-Confucianism of HanGang Jeong Gu. He was a master of Confucian rituals and a suzerain of the 17th southeastern region Sarim of Korea. He has voluminous works about the Confucian rituals and the practical ethics, but his metaphysical works are few and the origin of his thought is embroiled in controversy. It is the reason why this study tried to make a close inquiry into the origin of HanGang’s metaphysical thought from the viewpoint of Neo-Confucian legitimacy. In the point of Neo-Confucian legitimacy, HanGang’s thought could be construed as a succession of his academic masters. The result after reviewing of HanGang and his two teachers, NamMyeong and Toegye hailed as his academical masters, was not simple. His metaphysical thought, based on NamMyeong’s categorical dichotomy, separate ultimate principle and human desire in two, and his practical ethics try to accomplish the absolute moral presiding by freedom from avarice. And his perspective on Confucian ritual succeeded Toegye’s thought of it. HanGang was an academical successor of NamMyeong in the point of metaphysics and practical ethics but he was also a successor of Toegye in the point of Confucian rituals. That is the reason why he was a insignificant pupil as a Toegye’s early School and why he declared a separation from NamMyeong’s School, especially NaeAm, NamMyeong’s head student. He was one of the pioneers who guide the period of the confucian ritual study, and his study has estimated a prominent expert on confucian ritual study. In the point of confucian ritual study, academical points are integration and confucian hermeneutics. If we assume NamMyeong and Toegye’s works as classical texts, HanGang’s study may be the interpretation of them applying the method of Confucian Ritual Study. But this is an another story.
This study tried to review the Neo-Confucianism of HanGang Jeong Gu. He was a master of Confucian rituals and a suzerain of the 17th southeastern region Sarim of Korea. He has voluminous works about the Confucian rituals and the practical ethics, but his metaphysical works are few and the origin of his thought is embroiled in controversy. It is the reason why this study tried to make a close inquiry into the origin of HanGang’s metaphysical thought from the viewpoint of Neo-Confucian legitimacy. In the point of Neo-Confucian legitimacy, HanGang’s thought could be construed as a succession of his academic masters. The result after reviewing of HanGang and his two teachers, NamMyeong and Toegye hailed as his academical masters, was not simple. His metaphysical thought, based on NamMyeong’s categorical dichotomy, separate ultimate principle and human desire in two, and his practical ethics try to accomplish the absolute moral presiding by freedom from avarice. And his perspective on Confucian ritual succeeded Toegye’s thought of it. HanGang was an academical successor of NamMyeong in the point of metaphysics and practical ethics but he was also a successor of Toegye in the point of Confucian rituals. That is the reason why he was a insignificant pupil as a Toegye’s early School and why he declared a separation from NamMyeong’s School, especially NaeAm, NamMyeong’s head student. He was one of the pioneers who guide the period of the confucian ritual study, and his study has estimated a prominent expert on confucian ritual study. In the point of confucian ritual study, academical points are integration and confucian hermeneutics. If we assume NamMyeong and Toegye’s works as classical texts, HanGang’s study may be the interpretation of them applying the method of Confucian Ritual Study. But this is an another story.
