본고에서는 한국사상사에 있어서 선진 제자학을 위상을 검토하고 아울러 순자사상의 한국적 수용과 전개 양상을 살펴보았다. 나아가 여말선초부터 18-19세기에 이르는 지식인들의 문집을 통하여 순자에 대한 이해양상과 시대별 흐름을 다음과 같이 요약할 수 있다. 즉 삼국시대부터 고려 중엽까지는 지식인들이 선진 제자학 가운데 다른 학파나 사상가를 이단으로 간주하여 비판하는 일은 거의 없었다. 그런데 여말선초 이래 『맹자』가 유가의 정통 경전으로 확립되면서부터 순자를 비롯한 선진 제가를 이단으로 간주하여 비판하기 시작하였다. 고려부터 선초에 이르는 지식인들의 순자의 성악설에 대한 평가는 엇갈리고 있으며, 다만 순자에 대한 이해의 심도가 점차 깊어짐을 알 수 있다. 성리학 전성기에 이르면 선초에 비해 순자에 대한 지식인들의 비판 강도가 오히려 줄어드는 경향을 엿볼 수 있는데, 이것은 맹자의 성선설을 토대로 한 성리학적 세계관이 이미 확립되었음을 반증하는 것이다. 또한 성악설을 비판하는 지식인들도 대체로 순자의 다른 사상에 대해서는 적극적으로 원용하는 태도를 취하고 있다. 17세기에 이르면 순자를 법가로 귀결시키는 논의도 일부 보이지만, 주자학의 권위에 도전하거나 실학적 토대 위에서 제자학을 적극 수용하는 경향이 대세를 이루게 된다. 18세기에 이르면 순자에 대한 이해 범위가 보다 확산되고 있음을 확인할 수 있으며, 특히 글자 고증에 있어서 순자의 원문 및 주석이 널리 활용되고 있다.
요컨대 조선조 지식인들의 순자 비판은 시종일관 그의 성악설에 근거하며 나아가 분서갱유를 주도한 李斯 등의 법가와 연계시키는 데 집중되어 있다. 반면에 이를 제외한 순자의 기타 사상에 대해서는 대체로 긍정적으로 수용했다고 해도 좋을 것이다. 그런데 이처럼 순자를 비판하고 있는 지식인들은 제자서를 쉽게 접하거나 상대적으로 개방적인 학문태도를 지녔었다는 점은 주목할 필요가 있다.
In this thesis, the status of Pre-Chin Study of One Hundred Schools in the history of Korean thoughts, and in addition, the reception of Hsün Tzu’s ideology and the aspect of its development in Korea were examined. Moreover, the different understandings of Hsün Tzu and their trend of the times were summarized through the intellectuals’ collection of works from the end of Goryeo Dynasty and the beginning of Cho Sun Dynasty to 18-19 century. What was revealed through the study can be summed up as the followings. From the age of Three States to the middle part of Goryeo Dynasty, few intellectuals regarded other schools or philosophers among Study of One Hundred Schools as heresies and blamed them. However, since Mencius had been established as the legitimate classical scripture of Confucianism after the end of Goryeo Dynasty and the beginning of Cho Sun Dynasty, other Pre-Chin philosophers including Hsün Tzu had started to be regarded and criticized as heresies. Intellectuals of Goryeo Dynasty and the early Cho Sun Dynasty made various estimates on Hsün Tzu’s doctrine of the evilness of human nature, but we can see the understanding of Hsün Tzu became deeper. In the heyday of Neo-Confucianism in Cho Sun Dynasty, the intensity of the criticism on Hsün Tzu by intellectuals rather tended to decrease, compared to that of the early Cho Sun Dynasty, which produced contrary evidence that the world view of Sung Confucianism, based on Mencius’ doctrine of the goodness of human nature, had been already established. Also, even the intellectuals criticizing the evilness of human nature positively quoted Hsün Tzu’s other ideas in general. In 17th century, there were some arguments to conclude Hsün Tzu as Legalism, but the general trend came to accept Study of One Hundred Schools constructively, challenging the authority of Sung Confucianism, or based on positive school. In 18th century, it can be confirmed that the understanding on Hsün Tzu became broader, and particularly in the historical research of letters, Hsün Tzu’s original texts and annotations were used in many ways. In short, the intellectuals’ criticism on Hsün Tzu in Cho Sun Dynasty was always grounded on his argument of the evilness of human nature, and furthermore, on connecting it to Legalism, related to the Fenshukengru. On the other hand, it can be said that they generally accepted other ideas of Hsün Tzu positively, except for the idea of the evilness of human nature. However, it’s worth paying attention to the fact that those intellectuals who criticized Hsün Tzu could easily meet with the books of Study of One Hundred Schools, and relatively had an open attitude in terms of knowledge.
In this thesis, the status of Pre-Chin Study of One Hundred Schools in the history of Korean thoughts, and in addition, the reception of Hsün Tzu’s ideology and the aspect of its development in Korea were examined. Moreover, the different understandings of Hsün Tzu and their trend of the times were summarized through the intellectuals’ collection of works from the end of Goryeo Dynasty and the beginning of Cho Sun Dynasty to 18-19 century. What was revealed through the study can be summed up as the followings. From the age of Three States to the middle part of Goryeo Dynasty, few intellectuals regarded other schools or philosophers among Study of One Hundred Schools as heresies and blamed them. However, since Mencius had been established as the legitimate classical scripture of Confucianism after the end of Goryeo Dynasty and the beginning of Cho Sun Dynasty, other Pre-Chin philosophers including Hsün Tzu had started to be regarded and criticized as heresies. Intellectuals of Goryeo Dynasty and the early Cho Sun Dynasty made various estimates on Hsün Tzu’s doctrine of the evilness of human nature, but we can see the understanding of Hsün Tzu became deeper. In the heyday of Neo-Confucianism in Cho Sun Dynasty, the intensity of the criticism on Hsün Tzu by intellectuals rather tended to decrease, compared to that of the early Cho Sun Dynasty, which produced contrary evidence that the world view of Sung Confucianism, based on Mencius’ doctrine of the goodness of human nature, had been already established. Also, even the intellectuals criticizing the evilness of human nature positively quoted Hsün Tzu’s other ideas in general. In 17th century, there were some arguments to conclude Hsün Tzu as Legalism, but the general trend came to accept Study of One Hundred Schools constructively, challenging the authority of Sung Confucianism, or based on positive school. In 18th century, it can be confirmed that the understanding on Hsün Tzu became broader, and particularly in the historical research of letters, Hsün Tzu’s original texts and annotations were used in many ways. In short, the intellectuals’ criticism on Hsün Tzu in Cho Sun Dynasty was always grounded on his argument of the evilness of human nature, and furthermore, on connecting it to Legalism, related to the Fenshukengru. On the other hand, it can be said that they generally accepted other ideas of Hsün Tzu positively, except for the idea of the evilness of human nature. However, it’s worth paying attention to the fact that those intellectuals who criticized Hsün Tzu could easily meet with the books of Study of One Hundred Schools, and relatively had an open attitude in terms of knowledge.
