LIFE AND DEATH OF A DESPOILER: THE CONFUCIAN REFORMATION OF YUN HYU by Guy Shimon Shababo A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Asian Studies) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) May 2019 © Guy Shimon Shababo, 2019 ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, the dissertation entitled: Life and Death of a Despoiler: The Confucian Reformation of Yun Hyu submitted by Guy Shimon Shababo in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Asian Studies Examining Committee: Prof Donald L. Baker Supervisor Prof Edward Slingerland Supervisory Committee Member Prof Bruce Rusk Supervisory Committee Member Prof Josephine Chiu-Duke University Examiner Prof Steven Lee University Examiner iii Abstract Yun Hyu was a seventeenth-century scholar-official of the Chosŏn Dynasty. Although he never took the civil service exams, he held office under three different Chosŏn Kings. Yun Hyu is mostly known for his involvement in the so-called Rites Controversy over the mourning of King Hyojong, and for his Socratian execution, by poison. Past studies of Yun Hyu suggested a variety of reasons for the controversial treatment he received. In this work I argue that we should think of Yun Hyu as a religious thinker. Reading Yun Hyu as a theologian allow us to appreciate the dramatic implications of his thought and understand the strong reaction of his peers and opponents. To do so I first present Yun Hyu’s life and work in the context of his time and society, namely the seventeenth-century Neo-Confucian factions. This is Yun Hyu’s most complete biography in English to date. It is followed by a close reading of his most influential texts. I have divided Yun Hyu’s writings into three subjects to represent the main aspects of his religious thought: Sacred texts, divinity and the afterlife. In each chapter I attempt to introduce Yun Hyu’s original thought and contributions but also demonstrate how a religious reading of his writing sheds some light on his motives. Finally, I conclude by discussing the religiousness of Neo-Confucianism, demonstrating how it is implemented in the case of Chosŏn in general and Yun Hyu specifically. In particular I demonstrate that a cognitive and evolutionary approach to religion has much to offer us in the way of understanding the motives and agenda of premodern people. iv Lay Summary This work examines the life and work of Yun Hyu (1617 – 1680), a Korean thinker and statesman of the Chosŏn Dynasty (1392-1910) mostly known for his involvement in a public debate over the mourning rituals for King Hyojong (r. 1649-1659) and the following falling out between him and his friend Song Siyŏl (1607-1689). Yun Hyu was executed by poison in the summer of 1680 for high treason, and thus remained controversial and unstudied in Korea until the present day. In this work I survey his most important writings and argue that we should see Neo-Confucianism as a religion and Yun Hyu as a Confucian fundamentalist. I provide a detailed biography of Yun Hyu, followed by a detailed analysis of his writings. Finally, I show that Neo-Confucianism is a religion. I demonstrate how insights from sciences can be useful for the study of the Humanities, and particularly for understanding religious behaviours. v Preface This dissertation is original, unpublished, independent work by the author Guy Shimon Shababo. vi Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iii Lay Summary ............................................................................................................................... iv Preface .............................................................................................................................................v Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ ix List of Abbreviations .....................................................................................................................x Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... xi Dedication ................................................................................................................................... xiii Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................1 1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Argument and Structure of the Dissertation ................................................................... 6 1.3 Background and Methodology ...................................................................................... 10 1.4 A Notes on Sources ....................................................................................................... 14 1.5 A Note on Names and Titles ......................................................................................... 17 Chapter 2: Historical Background and Biography ..................................................................18 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 18 2.2 Historical Survey - The Seventeenth Century in Korea ................................................ 20 2.3 Factionalism and Intellectual Trends ............................................................................ 29 2.4 Yun Hyu’s Family and Faction ..................................................................................... 39 2.5 Yun Hyu’s Career ......................................................................................................... 43 2.5.1 Early Life .................................................................................................................. 43 vii 2.5.2 Government Service During Hyojong’s Reign ......................................................... 46 2.5.3 Retirement During Hyŏnjong’s Reign ...................................................................... 56 2.5.4 Government Service During Sukchong’s Reign ....................................................... 66 2.6 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 72 Chapter 3: The Great Plan..........................................................................................................74 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 74 3.2 The Classic of Documents ............................................................................................ 76 3.3 The Great Plan .............................................................................................................. 78 3.4 The Great Plan in Korea ............................................................................................... 81 3.5 Notes upon Reading the Book of Documents ............................................................... 85 3.6 Penetrating the Meaning of the Classic and Commentary on the Great Plan ............... 97 3.7 Practical Implications – The Application of the Great Plan in Real Life ................... 109 3.8 Conclusion – Commentary, Hermeneutics and Scriptures ......................................... 121 Chapter 4: Serving Heaven – Discussing the Doctrine of the Mean .....................................125 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 125 4.2 Notes Upon Reading the Doctrine of the Mean .......................................................... 126 4.2.1 The Introduction...................................................................................................... 127 4.2.2 The Division of the Text ......................................................................................... 130 4.2.3 The Minor Introduction........................................................................................... 141 4.2.4 Metaphysical Issues ................................................................................................ 148 4.2.5 Heaven .................................................................................................................... 158 4.3 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 169 Chapter 5: Ghosts and Spirits ..................................................................................................172 viii 5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 172 5.2 Yun Hyu on Ghosts and Spirits .................................................................................. 173 5.3 Methodological Concerns ........................................................................................... 186 5.4 Dead Kings.................................................................................................................. 192 5.4.1 The Ritual Controversy ........................................................................................... 193 5.4.2 The Main Arguments .............................................................................................. 198 5.5 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 216 Chapter 6: What Kind of Religion is That? ............................................................................219 6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 219 6.2 The Problem with Confucianism ................................................................................ 221 6.2.1 Evolutionary Perspectives on Religion and the Case of Yun Hyu ......................... 234 22.214.171.124 Surveillance Theory and the Fear of Heaven .................................................. 237 126.96.36.199 Terror Management Theory ............................................................................ 240 188.8.131.52 Religious influence on Group Dynamics ........................................................ 241 184.108.40.206 Analyzing Yun Hyu’s Religiousness .............................................................. 248 6.3 A Grand Narrative....................................................................................................... 254 6.4 Coda ............................................................................................................................ 257 Bibliography ...............................................................................................................................260 Appendices ..................................................................................................................................278 Appendix A Yun Hyu’s Family Tree...................................................................................... 278 Appendix B Translation of Yun Hyu’s Memorial to King Sukchong .................................... 279 ix List of Tables Table 1-1 Yun Hyu's Government Positions During Hyojong's Reign ........................................ 53 Table 1-2 Yun Hyu's Government Positions During Sukchong's Reign ...................................... 59 Table 3-1 The Division of the Doctrine of the Mean.................................................................. 140 x List of Abbreviations PHCS Paekho chŏnsŏ 白湖全書 xi Acknowledgements Confucians are deeply aware of the interconnected nature of scholarship. In this work I have relied on the wisdom, encouragement and support of others, for which I am grateful. I am indebted to my supervisor, Prof. Don Baker, for his ongoing guidance and intellectual demands, mitigated by wisdom and kindness. I am similarly indebted to my other two committee members: Prof. Bruce Rusk, who walked me through the writing of the first chapter and set a good writing model for me to follow, and Prof. Ted Slingerland, who opened new horizons by introducing novel methodologies, and encouraged me to push the boundaries of my scholarship. I wish to thank Dr. Prof. Adam Bohnet for suggesting Yun Hyu as a topic in the first place, and for being the first one to raise some of the questions at the core of this work. I wish to thank Prof. Alison Bailey for her suggestion that I take a look at ghosts and spirits, and for her provision of some much-needed background on the topic. I also thank her for ongoing emotional support in critical moments of this project. I wish to thank Prof. Josephine Chiu-Duke who explained the importance of Sima Guang and solved a mystery that puzzled me. Special thanks are due to Prof. Jessica Main for providing me a home in the Institute of Asian Research (IAR) for the entire duration of my research. During my years in the University of British Columbia various people have taken the time to help me and support me in times of need. Among them are Prof. Ahmed Rumee, who shared his thoughts and insights on religious studies, Dr. Tom Hunter, who introduced me to the idea of Pacific History and the broader context of history, and Prof. Harjot Oberoi for raising important questions on the nature of intellectual history. I wish to thank Dr. CedarBrough Saeji, for setting high standards of meticulous academic writing, and for her love and friendship at all xii times. I also wish to thank my friends and colleagues who supported, read and commented at various times, in particular Dr. Noelle Phillips, Dr. Dana Lloyd, Dr. Clayton Ashton, and my academic siblings Song Jee-yeon, Peder Gedda, and Sarah Basham. Last but not least, I wish to thank my family, who supported and encouraged me beyond anything I could imagine. Much gratitude goes to my parents, whose love was given in such a generous way. I also wish to thank my mother-in-law for her help and love, and to my siblings for their unequivocal support of my academic journey. In particular I thank my wife, Yael, for sharing the joys and hardships during this time. xiii Dedication This work is dedicated to Yael Livne. 1 Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Introduction In the summer of 1680, Yun Hyu 尹鑴 of the Namwŏn Yun clan 南原尹氏, was executed by poison for high treason while in exile. He was not allowed to write his farewells to his sons. A day later his writings were searched and sons exiled. His once-friend turned-enemy Song Siyŏl 宋時烈 dubbed him samun nanjŏk 斯文亂賊, “a traitor to this culture of ours”. This unique pejorative title was not given to anyone else during the five centuries of the Chosŏn dynasty. It took another two-hundred and twenty-eight years to clear Yun Hyu’s name, and even more to put his writings in print. Yet his writings were never really banned. Although rarely addressed, intellectuals did have access to them. Tasan 茶山 Chŏng Yakyong 丁若鏞 wrote about his writings, and so did Hwasŏ 華西 Yi Hang-no 李恒老, who served as the prime minister during the regency of the 1860’s. Thus, the Socratian death of Yun Hyu offers us a three hundred year old riddle. The life of Yun Hyu was just as paradoxical as his death. A year before his execution he was offered the position of Associate State Councillor or uchansŏng 右贊成 in the Office of Special Councillors 議政府, a junior first rank position.1 Since the reign of King Hyojong (r. 1649–1659), Yun Hyu had served in every possible office of the government, in spite of never attending any of the exams, and never formally asking for any government position. Just the 1 Kim Chunsik, “Chosŏnsidae p’umgyejewa hyŏndae han’gugŭi kongmuwŏn kyegŭpche pigyoyŏn’gu [A Comparative Study of the Civil Rank System of Chosŏn dynasty and the Civil Rank System of Modern Korea],” Proceedings of Winter Conference - The Korean Association for Public Administration (December 1999): 751-765. Junior first rank or chongilp’um 從一品 was the second of the eighteen civil-service ranks. The holders of the first five ranks (from senior first to senior third) wore red robes and were addressed as taegam 大監. 2 opposite, since 1636 he had renounced politics in favor of countryside scholarship. Following the death of King Hyojong, he became involved in a public controversy over the late King’s mourning arrangements, and quickly became the champion of the namin 南人. His relationship with Song Siyŏl soured, and his opponents (and often also his-own faction members) accused him of heresy or idan 異端 and subversion of the classics. Yet again, a quick scan of his writings does not reveal any immediate scandalous material. Yun Hyu’s scholarship is long, contemplative, and often prone to rigorous self-scrutiny. His terms are clearly defined and compared to their past application, and his insights often draw from a wide range of Confucian scholars. A deeper analysis shows real adoration of Zhu Xi. Even his enemies confirmed: Yun Hyu was a careful and thorough scholar. This work attempts to see Yun Hyu’s case as a challenge to some of our most prevailing ideas on Chosŏn intellectual life. On one hand, there are those claiming that the activities of the literati were only aimed at achieving political power, a legacy of Korea’s recent colonial past.2 Colonial period scholars legitimized the colonial project in Korea by describing Korean Neo-Confucianism as a matter of political factions in a zero-sum game. Others challenged the colonial challenge by seeking evidence of early modernity and nationalism starting from mid-Chosŏn period – the seventeenth century. These provide very compelling narratives. Past scholars who did write on Yun Hyu subscribed to these narratives and recruited Yun Hyu’s unusual story as an example of either political factionalism at its extreme or as an exemplar of critical and modern thinking. 2 See for example Yi Hŭijae, “Tak’ahasi toru-ŭi han’gŭlgwan-esŏ ponjosŏnyuhaksagwan-ŭi mosun [The Error of Analysis on Korean Confucianism by Takahashi Toru and His Viewpoint of Korean Language],” Kongjahak 29 (2015): 109-132. 3 In The Rise of Neo-Confucianism in Korea Miura Kunio described the conflict between Yun Hyu and Song Siyŏl in terms of heterodoxy and orthodoxy.3 He described the friendship and different intellectual paths that Yun and Song took, and concluded that “as both Song and Yun were active in the center of politics, the struggle on orthodoxy became a scramble for political power.”4 Later, in a paper titled “Controversy over Ritual in 17th Century Korea,” Andrei Lankov analyzed the controversy over the mourning rituals of King Hyojong (r. 1649–1659) in terms of factional struggle and political power.5 To a great extent, these two articles presented the two alternative-frameworks through which scholars in the West depict Yun Hyu. Mark Setton combined the two frameworks in “Factional Politics and Philosophical Development in the Late Choson”, where he presents the controversy in terms of political developments and its influence on the attitudes towards orthodox Neo-Confucian learning. 6 Both Miura and Lankov argue the the controversy is essentially political, but Miura stresses that the controversy was over the use of political power in the context of Neo-Confuciansim. In Culture and the State in Late Chosŏn Korea Martina Deuchler discussed the issue of orthodoxy in Chosŏn Neo-Confucianism.7 Deuchler surveyed three famous (or infamous) cases: 3 Miura Kunio, “Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy in Seventeenth-Century Koea: Song Siyŏl and Yun Hyu,” in The Rise of Neo-Confucianism in Korea, ed. Wm. Theodore de Bary and JaHyun Kim Haboush (NY: Columbia University Press, 1985), 411-43. 4 Miura, “Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy in Seventeenth-Century Koea”, 438. 5 Andrei Lankov, “Controversy over Ritual in 17th Century Korea,” Seoul Journal of Korean Studies Vol. 3 (1990): 49-64. 6 Mark Setton, "Factional Politics and Philosophical Development in the Late Choson," Journal of Korean Studies 8 (1992): 47-63. 7 Martina Deuchler, “Despoilers of the Way - Insulters of the Sages: Controversies over the Classics in Seventeenth-Century Korea,” in Culture and the state in late Chosŏn Korea, ed. JaHyun Kim Haboush and Martina Deuchler (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 1999), 91-133. 4 Yun Hyu himself, Pak Sedang and Ch'oe Sokchong (1648-1715).8 In her discussion she focused on the way orthodoxy suppressed and censored “deviant views.”9 The three cases illustrated the limits of personal interpretation allowed by the mainstream. In the same volume, JaHyun Kim Haboush discussed the Ritual Controversy again, presenting the rhetoric and symbols used by each side, and claims that with the fall of the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644) and the demise of the old order, Koreans were looking for new episteme and torn between two options: Either a “nationalist" solution or a "culturalist" view.10 According to Haboush, the controversy and the events around it were a sign of early national identity.11 Yun Hyu remained a favorite research topic of Haboush. She discussed in depth his ideas on the Rituals of Zhou vis-à-vis his Konggo chikchang tosŏl 公孤職掌圖說 (“Diagrammatic Treatise on the System of Councilors and Mentors”), where she once again connects Yun Hyu to what she calls “the movement to reimagine Korea” in the post-Manchu age.12 Haboush also provided a detailed translation of Yun Hyu’s letter to the king, in Epistolary Korea.13 The main issue of The Confucian Kingship in 8 Martina Deuchler, “Despoilers of the Way - Insulters of the Sages,” 91. 9 Martina Deuchler, “Despoilers of the Way - Insulters of the Sages,” 93. 10 JaHyun Kim Haboush, “Constructing the Center: The Ritual Controversy and the Search for a New Identity in Seventeenth-Century Korea,” in Culture and the State in Late Chosŏn Korea, ed. JaHyun Kim Haboush and Martina Deuchler (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 1999), 47-90. 11 JaHyun Kim Haboush, “Constructing the Center,” 89-90. 12 JaHyun Kim Haboush, “Yun Hyu and the Search for Dominance: A Seventeenth-Century Korean Reading of the Offices of Zhou and the Rituals of Zhou,” in Statecraft and Classical Learning, ed. Benjamin a. Elman and Martin Kern (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 309-329. 13 JaHyun Kim Haboush, Epistolary Korea: Letters in the Communicative Space of the Chosŏn, 1392-1910 (New York: Columbia University Press, 2009), 49-53. 5 Korea is King Yŏngjo, but Yun Hyu served again as a focal point for the discussion on orthodoxy.14 In the Korean language, Han Ugŭn 韓㳓劤 wrote in 1961 a survey of Yun Hyu’s life and thought, using the manuscripts to what later became (in 1974) Yun’s “Collected Works” (Paekho chŏnsŏ 白湖全書, PHCS from here on).15 Kŭm Chang-t’ae wrote on Yun Hyu on numerous occasions, mostly establishing his unique intellectual-system and focusing on Yun Hyu’s metaphysics and learning of the classics.16 With the availability of a translation of the Paekho chŏnsŏ online and digitized, we see a slow rise in the number of scholars who take interest in his work.17 Some focused on specific aspects of Yun Hyu’s scholarship. Kim You-Gon talked about Yun Hyu’s concept of Heaven.18 Kim Hyoung-chan shows that Yun Hyu truly inherits the philosophy of Yi Hwang (T’oegye) in many ways.19 In a somewhat different trajectory, Sŏng Yŏnghae traces back a manuscript titled kŭmbo 琴譜, in Yun Hyu’s handwriting.20 14 JaHyun Kim Haboush, The Confucian Kingship in Korea: Yŏngjo and the Politics of Sagacity (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001), 25. 15 Han Ugŭn, “Paekho Yun Hyu yŏngu (il) [A study of Yun Hyu (part I)],”1-29. 16 Kŭm Chang-t’ae, Chosŏn hugi-ŭi yuhak sasang [Neo-Confucian Though of Later Chosŏn] (Seoul: Sŏul taehakkyo ch’ulp’anbu, 1998). 17 Yun Hyu, Paekho chŏnsŏ [The Collected Writings of Paekho], Korean Classics Research Institute, accessed April 25, 2018, http://db.itkc.or.kr/dir/item?itemId=BT#/dir/node?dataId=ITKC_BT_0380B 18 Kim You-Gon, “chungyong-kwa taehak haesŏge nat’anan yunhyu-ŭi sach’ŏnjihak-ŭi kujo-wa sŏnggyŏk [The Structure and Characteristic of Yun Hyu's the Theory of Serving Heaven in Interpreting on the Doctrine of the Mean and the Great Learning],” Tongyang ch’ŏrhak yŏn’gu 76 (2013): 7-36 19 Kim Hyoung-chan, “hamnijŏk ihaewa kyŏnggŏnhan sŏmgim -Paekho Yunhyu-ŭi T’oegyehak kyesŭnge kwanhan koch’al [Rational Understanding and Pious Service - A Study of Paekho Yun Hyu`s Succession of Toegye`s Philosophy],” T’oegyehakpo 125 (2009): 143-73. 20 Sŏng Yŏnghae, “yunhyu kamunŭi ‘kŭmbo’-e kwanhan yŏn’gu [The Study on Geumbo of Yun-Hyu’s House],” han’gungmunhakkwa yesul 20 (2016): 239-83. 6 1.2 Argument and Structure of the Dissertation Yun Hyu is long due a proper survey in English, which is what I set to do here. I argue that we should think of Yun Hyu as a religious thinker. In other words, I would like to suggest that for the purpose of assessing Yun Hyu’s work as a whole, methodologies from religious studies have better explanatory power than either the social or the political explanation. Only when Yun Hyu is viewed under the scope of religious studies (in a sense, as if he were a theologian) can we appreciate the dramatic implications of his thought, and understand the strong reaction of his peers and opponents. What I call “the elephant in the room” is the failure of other approaches, the political and the factional-social, to explain various elements of his way. I further claim that by applying tools and insights from religious studies we can expose the specific religious interpretation of Chosŏn’s Neo-Confucianism that Yun offers. Yun Hyu witnessed challenges very similar to the those faced by the Western world in the early 21st century: A major climate change, radical shifts in the global powers outside and political unrest at home. Following Hideyoshi’s invasion in the late 16th century, the subsequent arrival of Ming forces, and the Manchu invasions of 1627 and 1636, Yun Hyu’s generation and the generation before saw more foreigners on the Korean peninsula than ever before. Most importantly, Chosŏn’s idealized worldview was challenged with new ideologies such as the Wang Yangming school which was generally not accepted in Chosŏn. Yun Hyu’s reaction was religious in nature, a form of a neo-classical revival movement that bears surprising similarities to the modern movement facing similar challenges: a return to some imagined antiquity, textual literalism and emphasis of simple and direct belief in an all-knowing moralizing Heaven, complemented with a military aggressive line. In lack of other terms, I call this approach a “fundamentalist” Neo-Confucianism. 7 I suggest a methodological approach which resembles Yun Hyu’s own way of studying the classics. Since Yun Hyu employed a “system-wide” approach for his studies, often looking at a cross-section of the classics to investigate a term or an idea, we should (or at least can) read his texts the same way. Specifically, the current scholarship seems to focus on particular aspects of Yun Hyu’s learning or political activities but rarely tries confronting those aspects with each other. While detailed analysis of a single text leads to many insight, it is only when viewed within the scope of his entire system that we can appreciate the far-reaching implications of Yun Hyu’s Learning of the Classics 經學 (kyŏnghak). In the first chapter I survey the history of Yun Hyu’s generation and his personal history, with emphasis on his career and eventually the events that led to his execution on the twentieth day of the fifth month of King Sukchong’s fifth year, or June sixteenth, 1680. My outline of Yun Hyu’s career and early life follows the outline proposed in his posthumous biography 行狀 (haengjang), and supplemented with the Veritable Records of Chosŏn Dynasty 朝鮮王朝實錄 (chosŏn wangjo sillok) and the Journal of the Royal Secretariat 承政院日記 (Sŭngjŏngwŏn ilgi). I present the major factional stresses that shaped public life of the seventeenth century, and position Yun Hyu within that complex system. I survey his meteoric rise in ranks, in part as a counter-balance to inter-factional politics and because he was an outsider to that system. Finally, I examine Yun Hyu’s original interrogation records, as reported directly from the garrison where he was being held, to show that the official accusations against him had to do with his close friendship with the three sons of Prince Pok (pokch’ang-gun 福昌君), and his active attempts to reinforce Chosŏn in preparation for a war with the Qing, an effort commonly known as a Northern Expedition or pukpŏl 北伐. 8 In the second chapter I review Yun Hyu’s relationship with the Confucian canon, by exploring his commentaries on the “Great Plan” chapter of the Book of Documents. For the reading of the “Great Plan” I use Michael Nylan’s reading of the chapter, and try to explicate Chosŏn scholars’ take on it. Generally speaking, the “Great Plan” had rhetorical significance in Chosŏn, but was not of unique exegetical importance. Yun Hyu’s choice to put it in the center of his teaching signifies his interest in antiquity as a source of authentic knowledge, but not without criticism. For Chosŏn scholars, the “Great Plan” implied a link to Kija 箕子, believed to be Korea’s ancient primogenitor, but Yun Hyu goes beyond that: he envisions a new order of the canonical texts in which the “Great Plan” has a major role. I will show how this role relates to other classics, and what purposes it serves. This is the first opportunity to see how Yun Hyu’s system of learning works in a real test case, which is crucial for the following chapters as well. Part of that system was a work in iteration, commenting and re-commenting on his own work (as well as others’). Finally, I demonstrate how Yun Hyu applied the text to real problems of his time. In the third chapter I investigate Yun Hyu’s most famous text, his commentary on the Doctrine of the Mean, a text which bore the brunt of Song Siyŏl’s anger and criticism. This allows me to demonstrate Yun Hyu’s attitude toward Heaven, his emphasis on Heaven as the Lord on High 上帝 (sangje) and his strong devotional belief in it. I use a close reading of Yun Hyu’s commentary to show some of Yun Hyu’s most unusual expressions of belief. Korean scholars such as Kim Hyoung-chan and Kim You-Gon have noted that this relationship is closer to pious service. I show that Yun Hyu differentiated two kinds of Neo-Confucianism, which I 9 call sŏngnihak 性理學, and Yuhak 儒學, and hypothesize on the way that some of this idea might have influenced future generations. In the fourth chapter I discuss Yun Hyu’s opinion on the afterlife, mourning rituals and ghosts. I follow up on the debate on whether ghosts and spirits exist or not, a seventeenth century offshoot of the famous “Four and Seven” debate of the sixteenth century. The debate on ghosts had implications both for metaphysics and for ritual, and I show some of those implications by discussing Yun Hyu’s position on the Rites Controversy 禮訟, the public debate over the mourning required from the Queen-Dowager Jaeui (1624–1688), who was not the mother of the late King Hyojong (r. 1649–1659). As mentioned earlier, both Western and Korean scholars had different theories on the Rites Controversies, but I will juxtapose Yun Hyu’s writing on ghosts with the controversy to suggest that this is a religious event par excellence. Finally, I suggest that beyond the political and social implications the controversy offers us a genuine demonstration of the incommensurability of religious language, as per Wittgenstein’s commentary in his “Lectures”. That is, I suggest that while the parties participating in the controversy use the same terminology, they give the terms different meanings in a way that cannot be compromised, a quality that Wittgenstein identified as inherent to the discussion between religious and non-religious people. The failure of Western scholars to recognize it is part of the same incommensurability. In the sixth and final chapter I suggest a different angle to see Yun Hyu’s work. I argue that using methodologies from religious studies to read Yun Hyu offers a consistent explanation to the various independent aspects of his scholarship, private life and public work, which answer some on the otherwise unanswered riddles in his life. In this chapter I survey briefly the problems with the definition of Neo-Confucianism as a religion and suggest various approaches 10 to that problem. Although scholars such as Tu Weiming and Julia Ching both described Confucianism as a religion, both had used reserved, apologetic language, and referred primarily to Christian theologians when attempting to explain why Confucianism deserves the religious title.21 I turn to cognitive-evolutionary explanations of religion as a way to avoid the circular nature of the traditional definition and demonstrate how Yun Hyu’s writings fit into that scheme. Finally, I suggest a narrative that claims that Yun Hyu’s religiousness is primarily a reaction to extreme condition, a combination of challenges that prompted the yangban Confucians to form smaller groups and increase the intensity of their religious performance. I compare that with modern fundamentalist movements to show that in spite of the many differences between Chosŏn’s Neo-Confucianism and modern Christianity, the model that fits Yun Hyu’s teaching the most is that of a book-literalist fundamentalism. 1.3 Background and Methodology The interdisciplinary nature of this work requires special attention to methodological aspects, in particular due to the limited and fragmented nature of our sources. Much of our information on Yun Hyu comes from his own work, and from the posthumous biography and timeline that his descendants composed. As such, this work, and particularly the first and last chapters, tend to have a biographical nature. In terms of methodology it is common to switch between “collective biography” and “prosopography” as if they were the same thing. I use the term prosopography as it was defined by Laurence Stone: the investigation of the common background characteristics of 21 Thus, in Centrality and Commonality Du Weiming refers to Paul Tillich, while Julia Ching refers to Whitehead in The Religious Thought of Chu Hsi and to Paul Tillich in Chinese Religions. 11 a group of actors in history by means of a collective study of their lives.22 In his discussion on the term, Stone addressed two functions of biographies, namely finding the roots of political actions and uncovering social structure and mobility. In this sense, the term is particularly apt for the study of mid-Chosŏn yangban. As it is used today, the term prosopography tends toward the larger scale study using large databases. The growing availability of digitized databases make this possibility viable, but it was not within the scope of this study.23 The term biography, on the other hand, tends to be focused more on the individual level. Biographers often deal with lack of sources, as is the case with Yun Hyu. Only some of his writings survived, 46 kwŏn (卷) altogether, compared with Song Siyŏl’s 215 kwŏn. Some texts (like Yun Hyu’s writing on the Zhu Xi Family Rituals or Zhuzi jiali 朱子家禮) have gone missing altogether.24 From others we have only an introduction. It is safe to assume that some of the texts were degraded over the years, and others were confiscated after Yun Hyu’s execution.25 Thus, the personal information on Yun Hyu is lacking when compared with the public aspects. When discussing Yun Hyu’s biography I have attempted to balance between these two aspects of biography, that he is an unusual individual and also a representative of a group, thus I have tried to apply a middle way between these two methodologies. I partially use Yun Hyu’s biography as a way to think about his generation and faction members, a notion that I borrow from Brian Harrison’s use of the 22 Laurence Stone, ‘Prosopography’, in Historical Studies Today, ed. Felix Gilbert and Stephen R. Graubard (New York, NY: W. W. Norton, 1972), 107. 23 There are two main issue with a large-scale study of the currently digitized material. Methodologically we have to deal with the issue of selection bias in the digitization and annotation of material. Technically, not all materials are digitized in the same way, and whereas some are digitized and annotated, others are only scanned. 24 Song Siyŏl had repeatedly argued against Yun Hyu’s commentary on this specific text, so we know that it existed and circulated. See for example Sukching sillok, 5th year (1679) 3rd month, 12th day, 7.11a-16b. 25 See “Haengjang [necrology],” in Yun Hyu, PHCS, purok 2, 2128. 12 terms group-biography and generation in his discussion of the British feminists between the wars.26 Another issue that we need to consider is time. Although public sources concerning Yun Hyu’s life are usually dated, many of his private writings are not, and the iterative nature of his work meant that he kept rewriting his own text. Of the public sources of information on Yun Hyu, the most accessible is the sillok or Annals of Chosŏn Dynasty, which brings into mind the French Annales school of history. Fernand Braudel, perhaps the most famous of the Annales historians, argued that historical time was characterized by the simultaneous presence of several layers of time. He describes three layers of historical time that corresponded to three different levels of human activity. The first is the short term which corresponds with individual activities, measured in days, months and years. This is what he calls “surface disturbances, crests of foam that the tides of history carry”.27 The second scope is the time of civilized constructs such as states and empires, measured in decades and centuries. Finally, there is the longue duree, a term coined by Marc Bloch, which describes a time that tells “the story of man’s contact with the inanimate.”28 The study of history and the writing of history is an important part of Confucianism, and Chosŏn sŏnbi were consciously participating in the creation of their own history. This included naturally the writing of biographies and other historical writing (Yun Hyu himself lamented the lack of sources regarding Sima Guang 司馬光 1019-1086) and their own 26 Brian Harrison, Prudent Revolutionaries - Portraits of British Feminists Between the Wars (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), 2-3. 27 Fernand Braudel, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1995), 21. 28 Fernand Braudel, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II, 23. 13 biographies, but also the selective editing of the sillok.29 Haboush claims that there were two opposing schools in Chosŏn, in regard to the concept of history itself. On Yun Hyu she says: One group essentially saw civilization as the entire span of human experience … Yun Hyu, a representative of this school, for instance, held that one should only keep the spirit of previous sages such as Confucius or Chu His but should not remain bound by their precepts or doctrines.30 The other group, represented in this study by Song Siyŏl, held a rigid position claiming that Zhu Xi was the peak of civilization and should be the main focus of historical studies.31 We can say that, in this sense, Yun Hyu himself was closer to the historians of the Annales than we could expect. He of course counted his own civilization from the time of the duke of Ji (Kija), as I show in the chapter on the “Great Plan”. However, knowing this tendency, we must also be aware that Yun Hyu is “tinkering” with the history records. This brings us to the third methodological issue, of narrative and language. The ‘narrative turn’ in the humanities and social sciences, means that we recognize that no historical source provides a direct and unmediated access to the past. As mentioned, the written records of Yun Hyu’s life (both public and private letters) form a complicated narrative. Most evidently is that the language involved is Classical Chinese (Literary Sinitic) which I see also as a form of a public performance (in the John Austin sense of the word). It is a privileged form of communication, and it constructs complicated narratives in the sense of the language and 29In this work I note specifically the editor’s comments in the sillok on a couple of occasions. 30 JaHyun Kim Haboush, The Confucian Kingship in Korea, 25. 31 Ibid. 14 its meaning. It is tempting to think of Classical Chinese as fixed and unchanging, but this is impossible for any language. Since neither Yun Hyu nor us are “native speakers" of Classical Chinese, there is a good incentive to be aware of incommensurability. Here, the term “incommensurability” serves in several capacities. As a problem of translation, there is a chance that we miss the nuances of the language game of Yun Hyu’s time. As a methodological problem in Philosophy and Religious Studies, it echoes the concerns of Ludwig Wittgenstein that an atheist reader might not understand religious language at all.32 This is particularly true since there is no reason to assume that the understanding of modern educated people from democratic industrialized countries is anything like the premodern mind.33 Validating my understanding of Yun Hyu’s thought vis-à-vis the reactions of his peers proved valuable and prudent, particularly when dealing with the abstract. Thus, I have noted Hŏ Mok’s emotional reaction to Yun Hyu’s reading of the Documents, confirming my intuition that Yun Hyu was indeed making some radical claims.34 1.4 A Notes on Sources One of the most important sources for this dissertation is the Annals of the Chosŏn Dynasty 朝鮮王朝實錄 (Chosŏn wangjo sillok), compiled upon the death of each King. I have used the 32 Ludwig Wittgenstein, “Lectures on Religious Belief,” in Lectures and Conversations on Aesthetics, Psychology, and Religious Belief, ed. Cyril Barrett (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007), 35-73. The standard reading of thr three lectures on religious belief suggests a hard model of incommensurability. Putnam, however, suggested a different reading of these lectures. See also footnote 124 on page 227. 33 I am following here the argument in: Joseph Henrich, Steven J. Heine, and Ara Norenzayan, "Most People are Not WEIRD," Nature 466, no. 7302 (2010): 29. 34 Hŏ Mok, “Tabyojŏn, Hongbŏm, Chungyong kojŏngjisilsŏ 答堯典，洪範，中庸考定之失書 [Response on the ‘Canon of Yao,’ ‘Great Plan,’ and ‘Examining the Order of the Doctrine of the Mean’ you previously wrote],” in Misu kiŏn 3.43b. I translate a part of the letter in the second chapter. 15 version that is now available online, but often complemented that version with the North Korean vernacular translation. To allow easy access to both versions, I have followed Edward Wagner’s system when citing it, using the full date, but also provided the page number. Occasionally I complemented the sillok with the Records of the Royal Secretariat 承政院日記 (Sŭngjŏng’wŏn ilgi), which tend to be longer and more elaborated. I have also used the Formal Investigation Records 推案及鞫案 (Ch'uan kŭp kugan) that Chosŏn government kept whenever nobility was investigated. The most important sources for this work come from Yun Hyu’s writings themselves. After the execution of Yun Hyu in 1680, and his 1689 rehabilitation and honors by the Chief State Councilor 領議政 (yŏngŭijŏng), his sons Yun Haje 尹夏濟 and Yun Kyŏngje 尹景濟 assembled his writing into a manuscript titled Hahŏn chib kobon 夏軒集稿本. However, even after the rehabilitation of his name, he was still considered a despoiler of the way and traitor by many, and the manuscript kept being listed as a banned book (kŭmsŏ 禁書) throughout the Chosŏn dynasty. It was not until 1927 that a Yŏngnam Confucian scholar and an 8th generation descendant of Yun Hyu named Yu Sin-hwan 尹臣煥 created the woodblocks for the Paekho chip (白湖集) in Chinju’s Yonggang Sŏdang. This book contains 30 kwŏn in 18 books. Yun Hyu’s descendants in Undal mountain, Kyŏngsang district, received the manuscript in 1924 and initially thought to keep it private. Additional material was listed in the appendix of this print. In 1935 Yu sin-hwan prepared a facsimile (mimeograph) version of Yun Hyu’s most important and controversial texts, collected under the name Paekho toksŏgi 白湖讀書記. Hong Sŭnggyun 洪承均 proofread the draft, with the help of Hwang Ŭidon 黃義敦 and a Japanese scholar named Andō Yūkan 安藤幽乾. This version contains some of Yun Hyu’s more 16 controversial texts, including his commentaries on the Doctrine of the Mean, Great Learning, Classic of Filial Piety, Book of Changes, Book of Rites, Annals of the Springs and the Autumns, but most importantly his commentary on Zhu Xi’s Doctrine of the Mean in Chapter and Phrase (中庸朱子章句) titled chungyong jujajanggu borok (中庸朱子章句補錄). In 1974 a team led by a 9th generation descendant named Yun Sunkyŏng 尹壽慶 compiled an extended edition of Yun Hyu’s texts and published it through Kyungpook University Press in Taegu. This edition, titled Paekho chŏnsŏ wŏnjip (白湖全書 原集) contains 46 kwŏn and another 5 kwŏn of appendices. This version contains, among other changes, Yun Hyu’s diagrams (kwŏn 35), and the entire 1935 toksŏgi 讀書記 (kwŏn 36–46). Particularly, this edition corrects issues in kwŏn 12, 23, 30 and 31 of the 1927 edition. The 1974 edition is attributed in the Library of Congress to the “Paekho Sŏnsaeng Munjip Kanhaenghoe” (Master Peakho’s Collected Work Publication Committee). All existing versions of this primary material are reprints of these efforts. These include two editions of the Paekho chŏnsŏ and four editions of the Paekho chip. One edition of the Paekho chip is from 1972, two editions from 1993, and a final edition from 1996. With regard to the Paekho chŏnsŏ, there is a newer version of this text from 1995, translated into Korean, and attributed to the Institute for the Translation of Korean Classics (韓國古典飜譯院) in Seoul. For this work I have used the printed version of the 1974 Paekho chŏnsŏ mentioned above. On two occasions I have used the Paekho chip. In addition, I have used sources from other Chosŏn scholars, including some editions of Hŏ Mok’s Misu kiŏn 眉叟記言, Song Siyŏl’s Songja taejŏn 宋子大全 and others. Unless stated otherwise, these versions are retrieved digitally from “Database of Korean Classics” (han’guk 17 kojŏn chongap DB), maintained by Institute for the Translation of Korean Classics 韓國古典飜譯院 (han’guk kojŏn chongabwŏn). 1.5 A Note on Names and Titles For the translation of official titles, I have followed James Palais’s Confucian Statecraft and Korean Institutions.35 I have also used The Annals of King T'aejo in the English translation of 2014.36 Chosŏn royalty changed their name whenever their position changed. I have mostly kept with the most common name (Royal name for Kings, and so on) to avoid confusion, unless called for by the text, as in the case of Queen-Dowager Jaeui (1624–1688). Korean authors make a habit of calling scholars by their name and penname (hŏ) interchangeably. Thus, Yi Hwang 李滉 (1501-1570) might appear in the same text also as T’oegye 退溪 and occasionally Yi T’oegye 李退溪. To avoid confusion I kept with the proper name, unless the text itself called for a change, most notably when Song Siyŏl calls Yun Hyu by his courtesy name (cha) Huijung 希仲. 35 James B. Palais, Confucian Statecraft and Korean Institutions: Yu Hyŏngwŏn and the late Chosŏn Dynasty (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2014). 36 Choi Byonghyon, The Annals of King T'aejo: Founder of Korea's Chosŏn Dynasty (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2014). 18 Chapter 2: Historical Background and Biography 2.1 Introduction Yun Hyu is best known for his involvement in factional politics. This involvement ended when he had to take poison under the orders of the King. He was officially killed for his commentary on the classics, a fact that gave him a Socratian ending and the epithet “Despoiler of the true Way” (斯文亂賊 ).37 The title remained, and two centuries after his death, he was still regularly referred to as the prime example of such an evil.38 The fact that his writings were in the banned books list until 1908 did not stop prominent thinkers across the board, from Chŏng Yakyong 丁若鏞 (1762-1836) to Yi Hang-no 李恒老 (1792-1868) from commenting on the complexity and relevance of his work, even when condemning him politically (as Yi Hang-no did).39 During the colonial occupation of Korea, Takahashi Tōru 高橋亨 (1878-1967) suggested that the Neo-Confucianism of the Chosŏn dynasty focused its energies on a narrow adherence to Zhu Xi and bitter factional rivalries. This narrative is still prevailing among Korean academics, and those who discuss Yun Hyu either condemn his involvement in “low” factional politics or praise his ability to rise above the Cheng-Zhu conditioning of the faction system. For example, Chŏng Chong-bok, commenting on his ability to criticize Zhu Xi, saying that “Certainly he stood out all alone in the history of Korean Confucianism which attached the highest importance to unconditional obedience to Zhu Xi’s doctrine”.40 Others have shown similar sentiments, 37 Sukchong Sillok, year 13 (1687), 2nd month, 4th day, 18.4b. 38 See for example: Ch'ŏljong Sillok, year 6 (1855), 8th month, 2nd day, 7.8b. 39 See for example: Yi Hang-no, “Yun Hyu hongnanbyŏn 尹䥴或難辨,” in Hwasŏ chip, 24.141a. 40 Chŏng Chong-bok, “Historical Review of Korean Confucianism,” in Main Currents of Korean Thought (Seoul, Korea: Si-sa-yong-o-sa Publishers, 1983), 73. 19 occasionally acknowledging that they must put factional rivalries aside to discuss philosophical points.41 In this chapter, I wish to take a different approach. Rather, I would like to put the factional and personal rivalries in the center, metaphorically speaking, before discussing any philosophical insights. In other words, I would like to introduce Yun Hyu’s background and history, as well as the history of his time, as a basic framework for his work. This methodology drives its methodological insights from several sources. First is the work of Ben-Ami Scharfstein, on comparative philosophy.42 Discussing what he called the ‘the dilemma of context’, he suggested that lack of context impairs our understanding. Too much context, on the other hand obscures and dwells on details. Personal history and psychological background becomes, therefore, my solution for the problem of incommensurability. Another is the pioneering work of Han Ugŭn 韓㳓劤 from 1961, who provided the first thorough overview of Yun Hyu’s life and philosophy.43 Han Ugŭn was able to consolidate many sources, including the raw material for the Paekho Chŏnsŏ which was published a decade later, but also the writings of Yun Hyu’s half-brother Yun Yŏng, and other sources.44 In his introduction, Han Ugŭn comments on the disparity between Yun Hyu’s importance and his deletion from written accounts. For him, writing Yun Hyu’s history is a political act.45 Even more than that, it corrects the false façade of Yun Hyu as an historical anomality, because presenting him in context shows both his interconnection with other thinkers from all factions and schools, and the background for his 41 Kŭm Chang-tʻae, Confucianism and Korean Thoughts (Seoul, Korea: Jimoondang Pub. Co., 2000), 113. 42 Ben-Ami Scharfstein, Preface to The Dilemma of Context (New York: New York University Press, 1991), xi-xii. Professor Scharfstein introduced Asian Studies in Israel. Many of his works dealt with issues of commensurability, whether it was in the fields of philosophy, religion or art. Both personal history and human psychology can provide bridges for understanding. See also Ben-Ami Scharfstein, The Philosophers: Their Lives and the Nature of Their Thought (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989). 43 Han Ugŭn, “Paekho Yun Hyu yŏngu (il),” 1-29. 44 Han Ugŭn, “Paekho Yun Hyu yŏngu (il),” 1-2. 45 Ibid. 20 thought. In terms of familial ties, Yun Hyu is related to three major clans: the Kyŏngju Kim, Andong Kwŏn and P’ap’yŏng Yun. All three dominated the civil service, and according to John Duncan were directly responsible for the Confucianization of Chosŏn.46 Yun Hyu was related, through family ties and friendship, to prominent members of all four factions. In terms of school loyalties, he was related to the line of Cho Kwangjo. To accurately present Yun Hyu’s background and context I will examine briefly the crises and challenges that the seventeenth century brought to Korean intellectuals. I will then focus in particular on the factional dynamics of Yun Hyu’s life, in which he was deeply involved, and for which he is mostly remembered. I will finish by presenting his life chronologically, with a focus on his ideological and political involvement, as well as those factors that influenced his studies. Yun Hyu’s life was marked by his unusual involvement in faction politics. While being an outsider to all factions, he was ensnared in the struggle between factions for political and ideological dominance. This struggle was aggravated by the stress of a climatic change, and political changes in East Asia. I will show that ritual correctness was one of the most important factors for the stress between yangban factions and between the yangban and the king. For Yun Hyu, ritual reform was also a solution for these problems. 2.2 Historical Survey - The Seventeenth Century in Korea It is customary to draw the demarcation line between “early” and “late” Chosŏn at the beginning of the seventeenth century, following the six years of Toyotomi Hideyoshi’s invasion of Korea. Indeed, the imjin war (as it is often dubbed, after the sexagenary name of 1592) was an extraordinary event in Korean history. The Japanese invasion was unusually cruel and of a scale 46 John B. Duncan, The Origins of the Chosŏn Dynasty (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2014), 73. 21 unprecedented in premodern East Asia.47 It left a long-lasting impact on the Korean economy in more than one way. It devastated the agricultural infrastructures of the country, disrupted the economy, and perhaps also damaged the status of the monarchy for many years. Arable land, for example, was reduced to third of what it was before the war, at least in the taxbooks.48 In addition, thousands of useful workers were lost - dead, captured or willingly migrated to Japan. Korean potters are the most famous group in this respect, and the war was later dubbed tojagi chŏnjaeng “the pottery war”.49 While loss of kilns and artisans meant a decline in Chosŏn pottery, some of the captured potters fared well in Tokugawa Japan, and were responsible for new techniques, such as the Takatori Wares.50 Even the graves of former Korean kings were rifled and desecrated. One famous outcome of the war was the burning of the slaves’ roster, the nobi-an 奴婢案, resulting in a sharp decline of public slaves. The effects of the war were so dramatic and overwhelming that in the early 1670s, some three quarters of a century after the war, Yun Hyu is still writing on it. Surprisingly enough, the status of King Sŏnjo personally did not erode as a result of the war, perhaps, as James Palais suggests because it was regarded almost as a type of natural disaster.51 Generally speaking it seems that both yangban landlords and the monarchy were allowed to go back to their places, mobilizing private resources and restoring the slavery system. Nevertheless, the yangban did suffer changes, as I will show later. It left later thinkers such as Yun Hyu with the task of finding ways to fix what was obviously broken, without breaking the system. 47 Kuno Yoshi Saburo, Japanese Expansion on the Asiatic continent: A Study in the History of Japan with Special Reference to her International Relations with China, Korea, and Russia, vol. 1 (Port Washington, N.Y.: Kennikat Press, 1967), 175. 48 This was probably more a function of lost records. See also James B. Palais, Confucian statecraft and Korean Institutions: Yu Hyŏngwŏn and the late Chosŏn Dynasty (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1996), 18-19. 49 JaHyun Kim Haboush, "Dead Bodies in the Postwar Discourse of Identity in Seventeenth-Century Korea: Subversion and Literary Production in the Private Sector," The Journal of Asian Studies 62, no. 2 (2003), 416. 50 Andrew L. Maske, Potters and Patrons in Edo Period Japan: Takatori Ware and the Kuroda Domain (N.Y.: Routledge, 2016), 13-66. 51 Ibid. 22 The first generation after the war was dedicated therefore to rebuilding the nation. As Palais suggests, in spite of all his failures, King Sŏnjo retained enough of a reputation to continue acting as a monarch. However, it seems that in the decade that followed the war, he lost the gusto needed for the monumental task of rebuilding the nation. He started moving responsibilities to his successor, the crown prince Kwanghae 光海, a son of a concubine. King Sŏnjo did manage to have a son from his queen in 1606, but in 1608 he passed the title to Kwanghae-gun, a succession that was not un-contested. If Sŏnjo’s late years were placid and accommodating, Kwanghae-gun’s reign started off with gusto. Internally he dedicated resources to rebuilding the army and the country, and these often required an additional burden of taxes and corvée work from peasants (since both yangban aristocrats and base-people were exempt from corvée work, and the yangban were also exempt from military tax). His foreign relations strategy was much more appeasing. Surrounded by three strong neighbors, he tended to keep neutrality. In 1609, he re-established commercial ties with Tokugawa Japan, after Korea’s requests were fulfilled: Tokugawa even sent back two prisoners, most likely common prisoners, as those responsible for the defilement of Korean Kings’ graves, and these were executed ceremoniously. Kwanghae-gun suffered from a shaky status of another reason: the Ming did not formally ratify his status as the crown prince until 1608.52 In fact, in the twelve years between 1592 and 1604, the Ming refused to affirm Kwanghae-gun five times.53 Kwanghae-gun’s position was indeed problematic, with both his full elder brother and his younger half-brother from the queen, having a better claim than him. Technically speaking, that latter prince was the chŏkchangja 嫡長子 and had the better claim.54 It seems however, that the Ming refusal was a result of the 52 Han Myŏnggi, “P’okkunin’ga hyŏn’gunin’ga kwangaegun tasi ilgi [A Tyrant or a Wise King? Reconsideration on Gwanghaegun],” Yŏksa pip’yŏng vol. 44 (1998): 156–227. 53 Sŏnjo Sillok, year 37 (1604), 11th month, 25th day, 181.24a. 54 Han Myŏnggi, Imjin waeran kwa Han-Chung kwan’gye [The Imjin Wars and Sino-Korean Relations] (Seoul: Yŏksa pip’yŏngsa, 1999), 187–195. 23 Ming’s own inheritance issues and complicated internal politics. Nevertheless, it colored him as somewhat less than a legitimate ruler, a fact which the opposition factions of his party were only eager to promote. It was foreign diplomacy, however, that pressed him the most, particularly the growing pressure on his northern borders. On Chosŏn’s northern frontier, the Jurchen, later called Manchu, gathered under the banner of Nurhaci, who declared himself Khan in 1616 and attacked the Ming empire in 1618.55 The Jurchen threat was a constant menace to the Chosŏn kings, and their policies differed. Kwanghae-gun was torn between his own tendency to play a safe game and wait to see how the confrontation between the Manchus and the Ming unfolded, and his generals who still remembered the crucial role of the Ming support in the Imjin war.56 In 1618, after a lot of controversy, Kwanghae-gun mustered a force of 13,000 soldiers under the command of Kang Hongrip 姜弘立 (1560-1627), to aid the Ming forces in the battle of Sarhu.57 The Ming army was obliterated, and Kang Hongrip became a captive of the Manchus. Kwanghae-gun remained reluctant to attack the Jurchen in full force, but was losing support quickly. Generals and intellectuals were pressing harder for a decisive action against the Manchus. It is possible, as Kim Sung-woo claims, that the sharp rise in government expenses, and additional burden it placed on the already overtaxed peasants, was the last straw.58 55 Kye Seung-Bum, “Hyangt’ongsa haseguk-kwa chosŏnŭi sŏnt’aek - 16~17 segi han yŏjinŏ t’ongyŏkkwanŭi samgwa chugŭm [Jurchen Interpreter Ha Seguk: His Life and Death in Northeast Asia around the Turn of the 1600s],” Manju yŏn’gu Vol. 11 (June 2011): 179-208. 56 Kye Seung-Bum, , “Hyangt’ongsa haseguk-kwa chosŏnŭi sŏnt’aek - 16~17 segi han yŏjinŏ t’ongyŏkkwanŭi samgwa chugŭm,” 180-1. 57 Kye Seung-Bum, , “Hyangt’ongsa haseguk-kwa chosŏnŭi sŏnt’aek - 16~17 segi han yŏjinŏ t’ongyŏkkwanŭi samgwa chugŭm,” 189. 58 Kim Sung-woo, “Kwangaegun chipkwŏn 3ki(1618~1623) kuk’kajaejŏng suyoŭi kŭpchŭnggwanongmin’gyŏngje-ŭi punggoe [Sharp Growth in Government Expenses and Collapse of Peasant Economy during the third phase of King Kwangaegun’s Reign (1618-1623)],” Taegu sahak-hoe 118.0 (2015): 77-112. 24 During his rule Kwanghae-gun was mostly supported by the Greater Northern faction, or taebuk 大北, a spin-off of the so-called Northerners (pugin 北人). In 1623, the other group of Northerners, called the Lesser Northerners faction (sobuk 小北), joined the Southerners (namin 南人) and Westerners (sŏin 西人) to depose the king. He was exiled to Cheju island and his nephew was crowned and replaced him as King Injo (r. 1623-1649). Yun Hyu’s father Yun Hyojŏn 尹孝全 suffered less than other pugin families, and following the coup was installed as the Magistrate of Kyŏngju.59 History is written by the winners, and Kwanghae-gun is remembered by Korean chroniclers as a tyrant, one of two deposed kings who receive the title gun, prince, instead of a temple name. Judging from his actions however, and the details left in his court records, it seems that he was a capable ruler even if somewhat of an authoritarian.60 Backed by three of the four factions of his time, Injo titled his coup d'état as “restoration” or panjŏng 反正, and no one dared say otherwise. Internally, he started by easing the burden of taxes and renovations. He declared a policy that he called “Letting the People Rest”, or yŏmin hyusik 與民休息, a term borrowed from the Han Shu, and a common-enough trope in Korean court records.61 Injo inherited the taedong tax system that his uncle promulgated in 1608, but struggled with it. The taedong was supposed to be a uniform land tax, replacing the previous tribute tax, but some provinces (like Chŏlla) struggled with it.62 Following the report of a secret 59 “Haengjang [Necrology],” in Yun Hyu, PHCS, purok 2, 1884. 60 One recent study used topic-modelling to map decision making in the Sillok. According to that study, Kwanghae-gun does receive higher than usual rate for what the authors call “Arbitrary Decisions” and a fairly low grade for “Discussion and Follow” type of interchanges. Curiously enough, this pattern is shared by Yŏnsan'gun (r. 1494-1506) and T'aejo (r. 1392-1398). However, they also claim that “… Gwanghaegun (0.0454) who is known as a tyrant has similar value mean distance from other kings (0.0434). It means his ruling style is quite similar to other kings, and this result supports previous results in Korean historical study that re-evaluate his reputation.”. Bak JinYeong and Alice Oh, "Five Centuries of Monarchy in Korea: Mining the Text of the Annals of the Joseon Dynasty," LaTeCH 2015 (2015): 10. 61 Kim Sung-woo, “Kwangaegun chipkwŏn 3ki(1618~1623) kuk’kajaejŏng suyoŭi kŭpchŭnggwanongmin’gyŏngje-ŭi punggoe,” 78-9. 62 James B. Palais, Confucian statecraft and Korean Institutions: Yu Hyŏngwŏn and the late Chosŏn Dynasty, 782-787. 25 censor in 1624, and the recommendations of others in his court, he reverted back to what was cruelly called “half taedong”. Injo and his two successors continued to struggle with the tax system, moving back and forth between systems, in what seemed to be a problem without resolution. The factional and political instability did not end with Injo’s coup. In 1624, less than a year after Injo’s installation, a general named Yi Kwal 李适 (1587-1624) orchestrated another attempted coup d'état. Yi Kwal was one of the main movers of Injo’s restoration, and as a general he was the one who captured the capital from the forces of Kwanghae-gun. Frustrated with what he saw as a minor reward for his contribution, he organized his own coup early in 1624. While Yi Kwal’s insurrection was eventually subdued, his ability to capture the capital, and the forces required to defeat him, made a strong impact on the relationship between monarch and literati. For the rest of the century Chosŏn kings would face strong yangban and complicated factional politics, partly as a result of this power balance. Being of the Lesser Northerners (sobuk小北), Yi Kwal’s defeat added an additional stress on Yun Hyu’s family, who found themselves migrating again.63 Injo continued to face the results of the political turmoil on his northern border. In 1627 he faced a Jurchen invasion, dubbed Chŏngmyo horan 丁卯胡亂 in Korean. Chosŏn was defeated and surrendered under relatively lenient conditions, but Injo’s Chosŏn remained inherently loyal to the Ming. When Hong Taiji changed the name of his empire from Later Jin 後金 to Great Qing 大清, Injo refused to meet his envoys. The furious emperor waited long enough to conclude his battle with the Ming and turned to invade Korea that very same year.64 After forty-seven days of siege in the Namhan Castle, King Injo capitulated. Hong Taiji forced Injo and his crown prince to capitulate in a humiliating protocol: wearing the commoners’ garb and 63 Han Ugŭn, “Paekho Yun Hyu yŏngu (il),” 7. 64 JaHyun Kim Haboush, "Dead Bodies,” 417. 26 kowtowing nine times on bare earth before Hong Taiji. After this, the Manchus retreated with the crown prince as a hostage. At the time, Yun Hyu was nineteen years old, and was in a meeting with Song Siyŏl and others in pokch’ŏn Temple 福泉寺 when they got the news. He describes in his writings how they cried bitterly at the news, vowing never to forget the day’s humiliation.65 The seventeenth century was marked by a series of Chosŏn kings with a problematic pedigree. So were both Kwanghae-gun and Injo, and so was King Hyojong (r. 1649 - 1659) who succeeded him. Prince Sohyŏn, Injo’s first son, died in the spring of 1645, shortly after his return from the Manchu captivity. He came back to Chosŏn armed with new knowledge from the Qing empire, as well as an acquaintance with Christianity, and soon died and was buried with no formal investigation of why he passed away so quickly after returning home.66 More curious still was the fact that Injo insisted on the exile of Sohyŏn’s children to Cheju, and the mourning rites of one year only.67 Injo named Sohyŏn’s younger brother, Pongnim, as his successor, and he later became King Hyojong. These events added weight perhaps to the problematic status of Hyojong’s legitimacy. He died in 1659, and after his funeral the sŏin faction, controlling the government at the time, had to decide what to do with the mourning etiquette of the Queen Dowager Cho, King Hyojong’s second wife. 68 The controversy was, in short, over the mourning arrangement of Queen Dowager Chaeui, Hyojong’s step-mother and five years younger than him.69 The sŏin, who occupied the power centers of the government at the time, argued that the Qween Dowager, since she was not Hyojong’s natural mother, should observe a mourning period of one year (朞年服). The namin however, argued for a period of three years, in two different 65 Han Ugŭn, “Paekho Yun Hyu yŏngu (il),” 7. 66 Na Chong-myŏn, “sohyŏnseja-ŭi chugŭm-kwa changyejŏlch’a [The Death and Funeral Procedure of Prince Sohyŏn],” Tongbanghak Vol. 14 (2008): 187-208. 67 Na Chong-myŏn, “sohyŏnseja-ŭi chugŭm-kwa changyejŏlch’a,” 198-206. 68 Andrei Lankov, "Controversy over Ritual in 17th Century Korea," Seoul Journal of Korean Studies 3 (December 1990): 49-64. 69 Na Chong-myŏn, “sohyŏnseja-ŭi chugŭm-kwa changyejŏlch’a,” 157. 27 ranks. Initially Hŏ Mok argued that since the deceased was the second eldest son (次長子), the queen should mourn the three-year period in trimmed mourning (齋衰服). On the second phase of the argument Yun Hyu argued for a three-year period in untrimmed mourning (斬衰服), the highest form of mourning, as befits the Qween Dowager mourning a late King.70 The Ritual Controversy of the Year Kyŏngja (庚子禮訟), as the event is sometimes called, quickly escalated beyond the realm of Confucian scholars debating the classics of ritual.71 It proved very quickly the limits of Confucian theory in the Korean environment. Even though the Chosŏn code endorsed primogenital inheritance, Chosŏn monarchs hardly ever felt limited by it. The search conducted by court historians yielded no example from the past for a situation just like Hyojong’s case.72 The ramifications of this debate quickly escalated beyond the realm of academic interest, as it implied that the king is less than legitimate. As Queen Dowager Jaeui’s year of mourning was rapidly drawing to its end, the matter became also urgent. The namin led by the aggressive Yun Sŏndo 尹善道 (1587–1671) suggested that the Song Siyŏl’s line of argument, claiming that there were not two “true” lines of succession, was on the verge of treason.73 Song Siyŏl actually fled the capital altogether, and only the decisive intervention of King Hyŏnjong (r. 1659 -1674) on the matter saved his life and career. Yun Sŏndo was banished from court, not for the first time in his career, and went back to his country home to resume his career as Chosŏn’s greatest Sijo poet.74 The events also drew Yun Hyu to politics, at the age of 70 Yun Hyu cited the Zhu Xi Family Rituals, arguing that the ritual for the royal family should not be regarded as the same as the mourning rituals of other families (王者士庶同不禮). 71 See for example Hyŏnjong Sillok, 13th year (1672), 12th month, 5th day, 26.34a. The sillok often uses just the term song 訟 (controversy), assuming perhaps the the context is known. See also: Song Sun-kwan, “The Resilience and Decline of Neo-Confucianism as State Ideology in Joseon Korea” (PhD Dissertation, University of London, 2013), 155-166. 72 Hyŏnjong Sillok, 1st year (1660), 3rd month, 21st day, 2.14b. 73 Andrei Lankov, "Controversy over Ritual in 17th Century Korea," 55. 74 O Hangnyŏng, “Kosan Yun Sŏndo-ŭi chŏngch’ihwaltonggwa kyŏngseron [Kosan Yun Sŏndo in the 17th century: From critic to calamity],” Hangul Sahakbo Vol. 46 (Feb 2012): 171-201. A translation of his most famous work is available in Kevin O’Rourke, “The fisherman's calendar, I & II,” Korea Journal 28 (1988): 57. 28 forty-two, without ever attempting the civil-service examinations.75 It marked the end of his friendship with Song Siyŏl and the beginning of an almost-legendary rivalry. The ritual controversy remerged in 1674, with the death of Queen Insŏn, King Hyojong’s widow. At the time, the late queen’s mother-in-law, Queen Dowager Chaeui, was still alive and thus a mirror image of the original problem arose. This time the court could not hide behind the words of the Great Code, which was clear enough on that matter.76 King Hyŏnjong forced his ruling on this case, asserting the legitimacy of his line through a mourning period of a full year. As far as ritual theory was concerned, there were no real insights on the ritual aspects, just a matter of clarifying the status of the king’s position in the succession. Unfortunately, the king died the very next month.77 His successor, King Sukchong was only 13 years old at the time, and his inexperience left the court wide open for yangban pressure. The pressure yielded a power struggle and factional shifts in the court over more important court positions. By the summer of 1674, Sukchong’s court started getting news of the Revolt of the Three Feudatories.78 The revolt, led by the traitor Wu Sangui 吳三桂 (1612-1678), was accepted in the Chosŏn court in a mixture of excitement and concern. It was quickly labelled a “counter rebellion” (反亂) by hopeful namin who argued as to the degree of agency that Chosŏn should show in the matter.79 Before his death, Hyŏnjong was reluctant to arm against the Manchus, even with the Qing facing revolt from within, in spite of Yun Hyu’s urgings.80 With Sukchong on the throne, Yun Hyu obviously renewed his attempts to revive the idea of a campaign against the 75 Nevertheless, when Yun Hyu appeared in the court when it was dealing with the matter of the sŏin’s treacherous line of argument he chose to stay silent perhaps out of concern for his friend’s life. The anonymous editor of the sillok left a reprimand there, complaining he exhibited cowardice. Hyeonjong Sillok, 1660. 5. 3. (2), 2.46a. 76 Song Sun-Kwan, "Intellectuals and the State,” (Phd, University of London, 2013), 164. Cf. Hyŏnjong Sillok, 15th year (1674), 7th month. 6th day. 22.24b. 77 Hyŏnjong Sillok, 15th year (1674), 8th month, 18th day, 22.54a. 78 Sukchong sillok, 1st year (1674), 11th month, 7th day, 1.24b. 79 Sukchong sillok, 2nd year (1675), 5th month, 28th day, 3.59b. 80 Hyŏnjong sillok, 15th year (1774), 7th month, 1st day, 22.22a. 29 Manchu, hoping perhaps to influence the young King, who seemed to be quite in favor of him. The rest of the court kept a much more conservative line, and Sukchong, in spite of his sympathy, did not yield. Even within his faction Yun Hyu was a minority, and the attack on the Manchus never happened. Other forms of defiance were more acceptable, and about a decade after Yun Hyu’s death, Song Siyŏl convinced his faction to venerate the late Ming Emperor Chongzhen (r. 1627 - 1644) in Chojongam 朝宗巖 and in Mandong-myo 萬東廟.81 This one time effort became later a regularly-held full-fledged ritual for three Ming emperors, aptly titled Sam hwangje paehyang 三皇帝配享.82 By 1704 King Sukchong established the Taebodan 大報壇 shrine for the ritual.83 2.3 Factionalism and Intellectual Trends It is impossible to discuss the seventeenth century in Korea without mentioning factions and factionalism. These became more dominant in the seventeenth century than ever before, and are particularly important for the understanding of Yun Hyu’s achievements. For the sake of this discussion I will differentiate between two kinds of factions, as they usually appear in academic literature. In the broader sense, there was the big division into major dominant political factions, often referred to as hakp’a 學派 or sasaek 四色. 84 In this sense, large factions, such as the namin or the sŏin, fought for political dominance, their members sharing many ideological presuppositions. In the narrow sense, the term hakp’a 學派 or tang 黨, denoted a smaller group of followers of a specific teacher, maintaining the transmission of teaching from one specific 81 David A. Mason, “The sam hwangje paehyang (Sacrificial Ceremony for Three Emperors): Korea’s Link to the Ming Dynasty,” Korea Journal 31, no. 3 (1991): 113-137. 82 David A. Mason, “The sam hwangje paehyang,” 122. 83 David A. Mason, “The sam hwangje paehyang,” 125. 84 The term sasaek 四色 that is so common in modern scholarship, is somewhat anachronistic, and hardly ever appears in formal discussions. 30 master. For example, Song Siyŏl’s ad-hoc sandang (山黨) faction, which dominated the political scene during Hyŏnjong reign, consisted of the students and relatives of Kim Chip 金集. Their name denotes their hometown area in Yŏnsan 連山.85 In all cases the existence of factions denoted a complicated network of relationships, family relationships and shared teachers. Donald Baker notes that there are many reasons for the expansion and radicalization of faction politics, including the socio-economical interest of small and medium land owners, and the natural bias of the Neo-Confucian ideology.86 Seen from this angle, loyalty and filial piety became very important, since they match both Confucian tenets and the natural organization of land-owners in kin-and-kith groups. In other words, loyalty and filial piety added ideological reinforcement to the political necessity of factions.87 These narrow and specific loyalties were made possible by the creation of private academies in the sixteenth century. The first private academy was the Paegundong Academy 白雲洞 書院, founded by Chu Sebung 周世鵬 (1495-1554) in 1553, and attached to a Confucian shrine dedicated to the scholar An Hyang 安珦 (1243-1306).88 It received a royal charter in 1550, with the direct intervention of Yi Hwang, and a significant state support. By the end of the century, many others were established along the same model, and their status was so unshakable that even during Hideyoshi’s invasion, King Sŏnjo was not able to convert some private academies to training grounds.89 Following the model of Chu Sebung’s first academy, the academies were constructed around a shrine, and thus created not only a shared sense of knowledge but also a shared sense of 85 Kim Chip 金集 was a student of Kim Changsaeng 金長生, himself a student of Yi I 李珥. Thus, in the broader sense Song Siyŏl shared loyalties and teaching 86 Donald L. Baker, “Factionalism in Perspective: The Nature and Cause of Political Struggles During the Chosŏn Dynasty,” in Factionalism in Perspective, ed. by Baek Eaun-jin (Toronto: University of Toronto, 1993), 2-10. 87 Donald L. Baker, “Factionalism in Perspective,” 6-7. 88 Ch’oe Yŏng-ho, “Private Academies and the State in Late Chosŏn Korea,” in Culture and the state in late Chosŏn Korea, ed. by Martina Deuchler, and JaHyun Kim Haboush (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2001), 15-45. 89 Ch’oe Yŏng-ho, “Private Academies and the State in Late Chosŏn Korea,” 19. 31 ritual. The students and teachers of any given academy had to perform the Confucian rituals together, and according to a prescribed interpretation. Modern studies suggest that those who share rituals regularly tend to trust each other more, and cooperate better.90 Even during the fifteenth century private academies differed in various details regarding ritual observance.91 It is hard to estimate the particular mix of high-intensity low-frequancy rituals (such as the munmyo cherye 文廟 祭禮, the memorial ritual for Confucius) and their opposite, low-intensity high-frequancy rituals in specific academies. It seems that the biannual nature of most Neo-Confucian ritual activity tended to focus more of the former type, which might have affected the willingness of the group to promote a parochial identity.92 In the most concrete form, all private academies contained a Confucian shrine where teachers and students would perform rituals together. These rituals would naturally vary according to the prescribed interpretation of the school, and would act as an immediate unifying stimulus, setting them apart from other schools and factions. It is not surprising therefore that the first major factional split starts as early as 1557.93 By the late sixteenth century groups of yangban started to be recognized as factions, during the reign of King Sŏnjo (r. 1567-1608). A dispute between Kim Hyo-wŏn 金孝元 (1542-1590) and Sim Ŭi-gyŏm 沈義謙 (1535-1587) led their followers to call themselves after their 90 Richard Sosis, “Religion and Intragroup Cooperation: Preliminary Results of a Comparative Analysis of Utopian Communities,” Cross-Cultural Research, Vol. 34 No. 1 (2000), 77-88. Sosis studied utopian communities such as Israeli Kibutzim to show that those who participated regularly in shared rituals (i.e., regularly went to the synagogue) were more likely to trust their peers. I suggest that a similar process is happening here. 91 For example, the debate over the enshrinement of the Koryŏ scholar Ch’oe Ch’ung 崔沖 (984-1068) and the development of his cult. See Yi Sŏngho, “Ch’oe Ch’ung-e taehan yŏktae insik pyŏnhwawa Munmyo chonsa onŭiŭi ihae [The Historical Changes in the Perception of Choe Chung and a Comprehension on the Discussion of the Enshrinement of Confucian Scholars],” Yŏksawa kyŏnggye 3 (2012), 95–135. 92 Harvey Whitehouse et al., "The Ties that Bind Us: Ritual, Fusion, and Identification," Current Anthropology 55, no. 6 (2014): 674–695. Whitehouse et al links ritual performane and social cohesion (group identification and identity fusion). They suggest that high-frequency, low-arousal rituals are related to social complexity and help creating social identity. 93 Mark Setton, "Factional Politics and Philosophical Development in the Late Chosŏn," The Journal of Korean Studies 8 (1992): 37-80. 32 leaders respective dwelling locations within the capital. The disciples of Kim Hyo-wŏn, who lived in the eastern side of the city, were called tongin 東人, whereas the followers of Sim Ŭi-gyŏm became the sŏin 西人. Philosophically, they were loosely affiliated with the teachings of Yi I (1536-1584) and Yi Hwang (1501-1570) respectively.94 These represented different approachs to some of the elementary metaphysical questions of Cheng-Zhu Neo Confucianism, such as the relations between material force and principle but these differences also manifested as different approaches toward ritual, exegesis and politics.95 For example, Yi Hwang and his followers regarded the task of differentiating the pure li 理 from the morally ambiguous ki 氣 as exceedinglyhard, and as a result shunned the political realm (the public domain as well as that of concrete events) in favor of quiet scholarship (the morally pure, private domain). Yi Hwang himself repeatedly resigned from office. The two schools were also divided geographically. Thus, the capital affiliated sŏin were titled kiho 畿湖 (standing for Kyŏnggi and Ch’ungch’ŏng provinces), and the tongin were dubbed Yöngnam 嶺南 (denoting Kyŏngsang Province).96 The tongin were further split into namin 南人 and pugin 北人 in 1591, over the issue of King Sönjo’s succession.97 The pugin were further split into teabuk 大北 and sobuk 小北, supporting Prince Kwanghae and Prince Yŏngch’ang, respectively.98 In 1623, the namin and the sŏin joined forces in a coup d'etat to install Injo (r. 1623–1649) on the throne. This maneuver, and the failed coup by general Yi Kwal 李适 (1587-1624), a year later, removed the two “northerners” factions from the political scene. 94 Mark Setton, "Factional Politics and Philosophical Development in the Late Chosŏn," 47. 95 Hwang Joon-yon, “Neo-Confucian Scholars of Chosun Dynasty and the Problems of Spiritual Cultivation in Case of the ‘Four-Seven Debate,’” in Tongyang ch’ŏrhak yŏngu 25 (2001:6): 217-234. 96 Mark Setton, "Factional Politics and Philosophical Development in the Late Chosŏn," 47. 97 Mark Setton, "Factional Politics and Philosophical Development in the Late Chosŏn," 48. 98 Kwanghae ilgi, ascend year (1608), 4th month, 14th day, 2.13a. 33 Further internal divisions occurred whenever prominent leaders of the ruling faction were at odds over high-stakes political issues. During Injo’s time the two prominent schools within the sŏin were the nakdang 洛黨 and the wondang 原黨.99Being part of the same faction, and of the intellectual lineage of Yulgok, the schools did not have big differences in matters of policy or study. However, when Hyojong assumed the throne the power structure changed. A new group within the sŏin, the so-called sandang (山黨) faction rose to power and eliminated the other groups.100 In 1650, they were able to point to a conspiracy between one of King Injo’s consorts, Cho Gui’in 趙貴人 and the leaders of the nakdang 洛黨. In 1652 the entire cadre of nakdang leaders, including Kim Chajŏm 金自點 himself, his son Kim Sik 金埴 and others were executed.101 A different kind of stress was applied on the handang (漢黨) over issues of taxation, and particularly the taedong tax system. The sandang’s aggressive approach to internal politics helped to secure their position within the faction and remove competition. Next came the namin that, in spite of political and ideological differences, were allied with the sŏin ever since they helped Injo assume power in 1623. The sŏin won the ritual controversy of 1660 and assumed significant political power. On the other hand, the namin remained important in the government of King Hyŏnjong (r. 1659-1674). Right before his death in 1674, the namin revived the ritual controversy. This time they managed to win the debate and assume political power, particularly after Hyŏnjong’s death. King Sukchong (r. 1674-1720) seemed to be closer to the namin and favored them in 99 The nakdang were the followers of Naksŏ 洛西, the penname of Kim Chajŏm 金自點. The wondang were called after Won Tup’yo 元斗杓. See Chŏng Manjo, "17 segi chungban handang-ŭi chŏngch’ihwaltong-kwa kukchŏngunyŏngnon,” Hanguk Munhwa Vol.23 (June 1999):107-146. 100 As mmenionted in other places, Song Siyŏl was the unappointed leader of the sandang. In a sense, some of the political rivalry between that school and other schools seems to be fueled by his emotional reactions. This topic deserves a longer discussion and its own research. 101 Sǔngjǒngwǒn ilgi, Hyojong year 2 (1651), 12th month, 16th day, article 3/16. 48a (kisa). A final word on the business as well as the exclusion of the nakdang from any power appears in Hyojong sillok, 3rd year (1652), 1st month, 23rd day, 8.13a. 34 court. As soon as they ousted the sŏin, the namin were divided over the question of proper retribution on the sandang and particularly on Song Siyŏl.102 The “hardliner” namin or ch'öngnam 淸南 advocated for severe punishment, whereas the conciliatory group or t'angnam 濁南 including Chief State Councillor 領議政 Hŏ Chŏk 許積 (1610-1680) opposed extreme measures.103 The conflict allowed the king to replace Hŏ Chŏk with Kim Suhang, which allowed in turn the purge of 1680. Just like the internal factions of the sŏin, the internal factions of the namin did not have great ideological differences between them, and differed mostly on this topic. The so called “pervasiveness of Chosŏn factionalism” allowed Japanese scholars during the colonial period to emphasize the impotency of the government against the yangban, and the interpretation is still regarded as tightly related to Korea’s colonial heritage.104 As a response to that notion, modern scholars attempt to show factionalism as more than a matter of power brokering. Mark Setton, for example, thinks that the events of the seventeenth century mark the struggle between an attempt to pursue adherence to the Cheng-Zhu orthodoxy, and the wish to break from that pattern. Thus he claims that events such as the two Rites Controversies had a significant impact on ideological orientation.105 In his analysis of the rivalry between Yun Hyu and Song Siyŏl, Miura Kunio reaches a similar conclusion, claiming that the controversy “became a struggle between an absolutist and relativist interpretation of Chu Hsi.”106 Finally, Martina Deuchler described it as “manipulated orthodoxy”, focusing on the big political factions.107 Deuchler claims that the big change of the seventeenth century was the movement of 102 Mark Setton, "Factional Politics and Philosophical Development in the Late Chosŏn," 61. 103 Ibid. Sukchong Sillok, year 1 (1675), 4th month, 14th day, 3.32b. 104 Mark Setton, "Factional Politics and Philosophical Development in the Late Chosŏn," 38-9. 105 Ibid. 106 Miura Kunio, “Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy in Seventeenth-Century Korea: Song Siyŏl and Yun Hyu,” in The Rise of Neo-Confucianism in Korea, ed. by Wm. Theodore de Barry and JaHyun Kim Haboush (NY, University of Columbia Press: 1995), 438. 107 Martina Deuchler, “Controversy Over the Classics,” in Culture and the State in Late Chosŏn Korea (Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2001), 128-30. 35 self-cultivation from the private to the public sphere. Thus, she recognizes factionalism with the attempt to turn factional interests to public concerns. This sudden urgency was very much a matter of constructing Korean identity in the wake of the Ming dynasty. Another line of inquiry, responding to the post-colonial challenges of factionalism, is to tie the major factional debates with the emergence of sirhak (practical learning) scholars, a century later.108 Setton again sees those who participated in factional controversies as forerunners of the so called sirhak movement. He places Yun Hyu in a line of namin-affiliated silhak scholars.109 The term sirhak is anachronistic, and to a great extent a product of the twentieth century, and a way to mitigate a problematic past while maintaining a sense of continuity.110 In other words, the people on the list of scholars that Setton recognizes as sirhak scholars never used this term to describe themselves. Nevertheless, we do see a common themes and interest that are shared among them, as well as a sense of intellectual continuity. All the factional splits of the seventeenth century are directly related to the growing ideological gap between yangban and the royal family, on the topic of inheritance. Even when it seems that factions were merely expanding the control of their own one kin-and-kith group, at the expense of another, inheritance had a major role. The range of topics, in this case, is a disguise for a deeper struggle. Starting from the end of the sixteenth century, yangban were going through a major change in the way that they understood inheritance, applying to themselves strict rules of primogeniture succession and agnatic principle 宗法.111 Zhu Xi’s entire ritual philosophy was based on the discriminative organization of the five ritual groups. Direct 108 A lot was discussed on the term and its problem elsewhere. James B. Palais, Confucian statecraft and Korean Institutions, 9-10. 109 Mark Setton, “Factional Politics and Philosophical Development in the Late Chosŏn," 42. 110 Donald L. Baker, "The Use and Abuse of the Sirhak Label: A New Look at Sin Hu-dam and his Sohak Pyon," Kyohoesa yŏngu 3 (1981): 183-254. 111 Martina Deuchler, The Confucian Transformation of Korea (Cambridge, MA.: Council on East Asian Studies, Harvard University, 1992), 130-1. See also Song Sun-kwan, “The Resilience and Decline,” 151-4. 36 relatives, he noted, had the same ki 氣 as their ancestors, allowing the main descendants to call back upon this ki when needed.112 This principle, valid both in the public and private spheres, was one of the founding principles of the dynasty, allowing the yangban to organize a tighter control over kin groups. From the sixteenth century, the yangban’s agnatic consciousness deepened, and a large body of scholarly work as well as legislation was focused on the meaning of a society adhering to primogenital successions.113 On the practical level, this was reflected in favoring adopted sons over the sons of concubines (sŏson 庶孫). Under the pressure of his ministers, King Myŏng-jong 明宗 (r. 1545-1567) ruled that it was illegal to sever one’s relations with an adopted son, once a real son was born.114 Ritual studies were not important during the first half of the Chosŏn dynasty, although we do find some interesting notes made by Yi Hwang and Yi I. Only from the beginning of the sixteenth century we see a rise in the writings on ritual studies, and a growing emphasis on the studies of inheritance. In 1626, the commentary of Qiu Jun 邱濬 (1420–1495) on Zhu Xi’s Family Rituals, finally appeared, and a century after that text had been written it was recommended for printing in Korea.115 It gave scholars such as Kim Changsaeng 金長生 (1548–1631), a member of the sŏin, renewed interest in ritual studies, and allowed the yangban to discuss the differences between original Chinese requirements and the actual Korean application. The emphasis on primogenital successions was quite foreign to Korea before the Chosŏn dynasty. Very few of the Chosŏn kings were the first legitimate son of a King. In the seventeenth 112 Martina Deuchler, The Confucian Transformation of Korea, 132-3. The five are ijong 禰宗, chojong 祖宗, Chŭngjojong 曾祖宗, kojojong 高祖宗 and taejong 大宗. 113 Song Sun-kwan, 152. In section 5.4 below I discuss the rift between the yangban who wished to follow a proper model of agnatic primogenital inheritance (based on their understanding of the classics) and the Chosŏn kings who did not feel that it was their prerogative to select a proper heir. 114 Myŏngjong sillok, 7th year (1652), 7th month, 16th day, 13.54b. See also Sŏnjo sillok, 14th year (1581), 2nd month, 6th day, 15.5a. One of the first public cases was of Ch'oe Myŏng'gil 崔鳴吉 (1586 – 1647) who asked specifically for his adopted son to be recognized as his legitimate successor. See Injo sillok, 4th year (1626), 1st month, 25th day, 11.22b-27a. 115 Song Sun-kwan, 152. 37 century, for example, King Sŏnjo was the third son of King Chungjong’s seventh son from a concubine.116 Both Kwanghae-gun and King Injo were sons of Sŏnjo’s concubines, and Hyojong was Injo’s second son. In fact, King Hyŏnjong was one of the few first-born sons to be Chosŏn Kings.117 As opposed to the image in the Ritual Classics, Chosŏn kings had the prerogative to choose their own successor, and often exercised it. For example, in 1689 King Sukchong executed Song Siyŏl for questioning the timing of Sukchong’s selecting his heir. In other words, the Neo-Confucian theory linked the primogenital succession of the royal house with legitimacy, but in practice it was rarely used in Chosŏn.118 For the yangban, however, the patrilineal lineage system was one of the major results of the “Confucian transformation” of Chosŏn, and as mentioned, became an important issue for the aristocracy.119 It is no surprise therefore that matters of the royal inheritance became key in factional disputes. In fact, most if not all of the factional splits can be traced to direct inheritance issues. The tongin split into namin and pugin in 1591 was over the issue of King Sönjo’s succession, and the pugin additional split into teabuk and sobuk just after Sönjo’s death.120 The two Rites Controversies were obviously directly related to the topic, but so were the power changes that followed them. As I will show later, the namin persecution of 1680 was directly aimed at the namin links with Prince Pokch’ang (pokch’ang-gun 福昌君) and his sons of Injo’s first son’s line. Almost all of the major factions and smaller schools and splits within those factions were advocating for a certain queen and her offspring at one time or another. King Sukchong’s mother Queen Myŏngsŏng明聖, for example, was the granddaughter of Kim Yuk 金堉 of the handang group within the sŏin.121 His first wife, 116 Song Sun-kwan, 151-2. 117 King Hyŏnjong‘s line, however, was not an agnatic line, which was the whole point of the two Rites Controversy. 118 Martina Deuchler, The Confucian Transformation of Korea, 283 – 285. 119 Martina Deuchler, 138. 120 Mark Setton, 48. 121 Sukchong sillok, “Sukchong taewang haengjang [Posthumous biography of King Sukchong],” 65.35a. 38 Queen in’gyŏng仁敬, was the daughter of Kim Mangi 金萬基, of the sandang. His second wife was Queen Inhyŏn 仁顯, the daughter of Min Yu-jung閔維重) of the namin. Yet another queen, Queen Inwon 仁元, was the daughter of Kim Chusin 金柱臣, later a member of the soron 少論, but also an associate of namin and particularly Park Sedang 朴世堂.122 The adoption of a stricter form of agnatic principles is an act with consequences in the ritual sphere, and therefore we should consider its meaning in a ritual community. In the terminology of Rodney Stark and Roger Finke’s Acts of Faith, enforcing a more demanding set of limitations on ritual is moving the ritual community toward higher tension.123 To the purpose of this analysis, factions act as what Stark and Finke would call a sect. Those tend to start off as an adaptation to a market niche.124 In the language of our discussion, some of the sects (factions), like the namin, adhere to more strict niches, whereas others lean toward the liberal end of the spectrum.125 Stark and Finke predict that sects will tend to move toward medium tension, which allows them to hold larger market niches.126 The type of movement that we see here, toward a smaller niche and higher tension, is more unusual, and indicates a relatively unregulated religious environment.127 In other words, the factionalization of the yangban indicates almost necessarily the relative weakening of the monarchy. Stark and Fink predict that in ideal “free 122 Park Sedang (1629–1703), pen named Sŏgye 西溪 was intellectually related to Yun Hyu. Like Yun Hyu, he was also dubbed as a rebel and destroyer of the Confucian Way buy Song Siyŏl’s desciples. See Martina Deuchler, "Despoilers of the Way-Insulters of the Sages: Controversies over the Classics in Seventeenth-Century Korea," in Culture and the State in Late Choson Korea, ed. JaHyun Kim Haboush, Martina Deuchler (Cambridge, Mass.: University Press, 2001), 94-5. 123 Rodney Stark and Roger Finke, Acts of Faith: Explaining the Human Side of Religion (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000). 124 Stark and Finke, Acts of Faith, 285 §81, §91. 125 Stark and Finke, 142-3. Stark and Finke follow the definition of Ernst Troeltsch and Max Weber, and use the Church/Sect dichotomy throughout the book. They ignore the “Cult” category that Weber uses, and clearly state that they do not intend to discuss political sects since these are non-religious in nature. This is clearly not true for our case, and perhaps for many other cases as well. Liberal here is used in the sense that Stark and Finke are using it, as less strict in terms of adherence and performance, and not in the contemporary-colloquial sense. 126 Stark and Finke, Acts of Faith, 285 §83. 127 Stark and Finke, Acts of Faith, 286 §99. 39 market” conditions, the dominant factions in terms of adherents will be the medium tension ones, whereas the very liberal and very strict will take smaller and more specialized niches. Although the conditions of Chosŏn Neo-Confucians were far from those of a free market, and mobility between factions was limited, the basic dynamics still apply, and in the limited scope of Neo-Confucianism as practiced by yangban we see greater mobility than what we usually assign to the period. Yun Hyu’s family was able to move between factions, and Yun Hyu himself was unaffiliated for a long time, which allows him to develop his system while interacting with different schools of thoughts. Although affiliated with the pugin, Yun Hyu’s ancestor was affiliated with Cho Kwangjo 趙光祖, and thus belong neither to the Yi Hwang nor to the Yi I schools. The personal history of Yun Hyu and his family allow us a peek into the real complexities of factional dynamics in the seventeenth century.128 2.4 Yun Hyu’s Family and Faction Yun Hyu was born in 1617, to the Namwŏn Yun clan, and came from a line of politically active yangban.129 His great-great-grandfather Yun Chagwan 尹子寬 (Pen name Samhyu 三休) was an associate of Cho Kwangjo 趙光祖 (1482 –1520) and was implicated along with him in the Third Literati Purge of 1519.130 Cho Kwangjo was at the center of the third wave of purges, when the reform he suggested encountered the resistance of the old meritorious elite (hun’gu 勳舊), which led to his execution in 1520 and the execution or exile of dozens of others. As a result, he had to build his house in Ssanggye-dong (A district of Yeongcheon, North Gyeongsang province) since 128 From Yun Hyu’s own example it becomes clear that by the seventeenth century it was no longer possible to hold a position in the civil structure without being actively a member of a specific faction. 129 Han Ugŭn, “Paekho Yun Hyu yŏngu (il),” 3-4. 130 The association of Yun Hyu’s ancestor with Cho Kwangjo helps establish a certain mind set among that specific lineage of scholars. He himself belonged to the intellectual lineage of Chŏng Mongju 夢周 (1338-1392) who died resisting the dynastic change and was later canonized in the Confucian shrine for that. Similarly, Cho Kwangjois and Yun Chagwan were persecuted by King Chungjong (r. 1506 - 1544) in the Literati Purges of 1519. 40 Cho Kwangjo’s group were no longer welcome in the capital. Yun Hyu’s great-grandfather Yun Hu 尹虎 (Pen name Nurhŏn 訥軒) passed the classics licentiate of the national academy by writing a critique of Cao Can 曹參 the famous second chancellor of Han Dynasty. His grandfather Hŭison 喜孫 (Pen name Chŏngjae 靜齋) and his father Hyojŏn 孝全(Pen name Kichŏn 沂川) both passed the Civil Service Examination in respectable places. In 1605 his father was appointed briefly to be the Crown Prince’s tutor but was later demoted to be an official of the Five Military Commands Headquarters for the Ch’ungch’ŏng governor. Yun Hyojŏn married the daughter of Damhyu 覃休(Pen name T’ongye 通禮) of the P’ap’yŏng Yun clan.131 However, she was infertile and he married again a woman from the Kyŏngju Kim clan. His father had a son named Yun Yŏng 尹鍈 (1612-1685) born from his second wife, the daughter of Yi Sun-shin (1545 –1598) and his concubine. Yun Hyu’s half-brother married the daughter of Yi Wŏnik 李元翼 (Pen name Oyi 梧里) and had descendants.132 Hyu was born on the 14th day of the 10th month of Kwanghaegun’s 10th year (1618), and received his childhood name Chŏng鍞 from his father’s life-long friend Chong Hah’gang 鄭寒崗 who happened to be visiting. Yun Hyu’s father was able to circumnavigate the political disaster of his faction and was installed as magistrate of Kyŏngju that same year.133 Yun Hyu himself chose the name Hyu 鑴 as his personal name (myŏng 名) when he turned twenty-five. His courtesy name was Hŭijung 希仲 and his pen names are Peakho 白湖 and Hagan 夏奸. At the age of 19 he married the daughter of Kwŏn U 權佑 (Pen name Yŏp’an 余判) of the 131 A clan which have been holding positions continuously since before the coup of 1170; See John B. Duncan, The Origins of the Chosŏn Dynasty (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2014), 133. 132 Yi Wŏnik was a prime minister and held prominent positions in the Chosŏn government for half a century, including the Imjin War, Injo’s “Restoration of Rectitude” (Injo Panjŏng 仁祖反正) in 1623 and the Manchu invasion of 1627. You can find a full account of his life in: Shin Byung-ju, “sŏnjoesŏ injodaeŭi chŏnggukkwa iwŏnik ŭi chŏngch’ihwaltong [Yi Wŏnik’s political actions in the time from Sŏnjo’s reign to Injo’s reign]” in Tongguk sahak Vol. 53 No. 0 (2012), 233-273. 133 The political tension at the time of Yun Hyu’s birth was a result of the split inside the so-called Northern faction or pugin 北人, following the void attempt to install Prince Yŏnghchang, in 1613. 41 illustrious Andong Kwŏn clan, and they had five sons and three daughters. His eldest son, Ŭije義濟 married the daughter of Kwŏn In 權認 (T’anong 炭翁), and his youngest son Kyŏngje 景濟 married a descendent of Yi Sugwang 李晬光 (1563-1629, chibong 芝峯).134 Besides that, Yun Hyu was involved with the important figures of his time, and they had family relations with each other. Yun Sŏn’gŏ 尹宣擧 (魯西, the grandson of Sŏng Hon 成渾 Ugye 牛溪) became related to Yun Hyu indirectly, through his son-in-law Yun Chŭng 尹拯 [who was from the P’ap’yŏng Yun clan, as was Yun Hyu’s grandmother] and through the marriages of his first son to the daughter of Kwŏn Si 權諰 (Pen name T’an’ung 炭翁). Kwŏn Si actually connected Yun Hyu and Song Siyŏl in family ties, through the marriages of his second son to the daughter of Song Siyŏl. Another family tie with Song Siyŏl came through Yun Pak 尹搏, Yun Chŭng’s cousin, who married Song Siyŏl’s second daughter. Two other prominent figures of the time, Hŏ Chŏk 許積 (1610-1680) and Yi Ha-jin 李夏鎭 (Yi Yik’s father), both had a double relationship with Yi Hang 李沆 (related to Prince Yangnyeong’s family line).135 This partial list demonstrates the interconnected nature of yangban marriage patterns in the seventeenth century. We can see the tight family ties across factions (namin and sŏin in this case), before their opposition and the so-called split of the sŏin into “old” and “new” doctrine (老論小論) and the split of the namin into “pure” and “muddy” factions (清南濁南).136 In other words, it gives us a glimpse to the state of things before clique opposition and political factures took place. Also, that many mutual relationships between what will be called as the factions (or “colors” in Korean) meant that a person could not make a point against a colleague even if that 134 Yi Sugwang李晬光was a famous historian and author, who commented as early as 1614 on Jesuit knowledge and particularly on their cosmology. See Shi Yunli, “The Yuzhi lixiang kaocheng houbian in Korea” in The Jesuits, the Padroado and East Asian Science (1552-1773), ed. Luis Saraiva and Catherine Jami (NJ: World Scientific, 2008), 208. 135 I provide a simplified diagram of Yun Hyu’s family tree in Appendix A . 136 This indicate the factional split between Kwŏn Daeun 權大運 and Hŏ Mok in 1675. 42 point would give his faction a significant advantage, making arguments that the various schisms and oppositions made impossible. Thus, a person like Yun Hyu, who did not belong to a faction (or rather, was accepted into another faction) had perhaps some sense of freedom that most scholars did not enjoy.137 Yun Hyu’s lineage, while providing excellent pedigree, was not related directly to the namin centers of power. This was later a cause for some activism on part of namin people who felt that his loyalties might be compromised. On the other hand, families of the two Northerner factions, were disappointed that they did not receive the proper support. Here is an example of one common lament, here provided as a memorial by Kim Munha 金文夏, a sŏbok yangban: classics licentiate Kim Munha and others appealed to Yun Hyu for help, to argue their case to the king. Hyu’s family background was originally sŏbok 小北, and at first he praised Song Siyŏl and his friends, and largely received praise when introduced to Min Chŏjŭng’s 閔鼎重 and his clique. Until they took sides in the issue of the mourning of King Hyojong 孝廟 , he had no problem receiving their empty honor on a daily basis. At that time people paid attention to the so-called sŏin. When the great funeral of 1659 arrived, he had a disagreement with Song Siyŏl, and also slandered Zhu Xi’s exegesis, so he was rejected by scholars. Now that namin are recommended for service for the first time, suddenly ascending to power, he has suddenly emerged as a worthy Confucian side 137 As I mentioned earlier, Yun Hyu’s family were of the pugin faction, even though his father was not harmed by Injo’s coup d'état as some other families did. As I will show later, from 1655 when he first received his first government position, he started to associate with namin scholars, and particularly after he champtioned the namin position in the Rites Controversy of 1660. Thus, Yun Hyu effectively moved a faction (just like Hŏ Mok). 43 by side with Hŏ Mok. Not only did people see Yun Hyu as a namin, but he himself adopted this pose, to the extent that people once again criticized his many faults. Thus, Yun Hyu’s peers are disappointed and angry at him, bringing up old grudges. Now, the people of the sŏbok use the opportunity to exert power, to cause Yun Hyu to return to their party. Chŏng Pak (鄭樸) already wrote about it personally. Kim Munha and other disciples of sŏbok families, because of that, would also follow the example of Chŏng Pak, at this time of opposition.138 On the other hand, some member on the namin were accusing him of keeping old loyalties to his native faction. In 1680, for example, Yi Sŏ-u 李瑞雨 (1633-1709, Pen name Song’guk 松谷) of the Office of Special Advisors (okdang 玉堂) specifically contacted Hŏ Mok, recommending that “descendants of the bugin suddenly should not be able to suddenly rise to key positions”.139 In spite of both hopes and allegations, Yun Hyu saw himself as a free agent, above faction politics, and to a large degree exercised this approach in his writings. Yun Hyu had good relations with members of all three factions from before 1659, and according to Han Ugŭn was either stubborn or obstructive toward the factions from the beginning.140 2.5 Yun Hyu’s Career 2.5.1 Early Life Yun Hyu was born in Kyŏngju, where his father served as a magistrate. When Yun Hyu was born, his father’s life-long friend Chong Han’gang 鄭寒崗 (1543-1620) visited and wrote “I have just visited a great man, whose son was born. Don’t we also benefit when one of our 138 Sukchong Sillok, year 2 (1676), 7th month, 8th day, 5.31b. 139 Sukchong Sillok, year 6 (1680), 10th month, 2th day, 10.44a. 140 Han Ugŭn, “Paekho Yun Hyu yŏngu (il),” 6. 44 personal friends has reason to be happy?”141 Both he and Jŏng Ku 鄭逑 (1543-1620, Penname Han’gan 寒 岡) came to celebrate the birth.142 During Yi Kwal ‘s 李适 attempted coup (1624) his family took refuge in Yŏju city (Kyŏnggido), with his grandparents. In 1627, when he was 11, he fled to Yŏju again, this time from the first Manchu invasion. At the time, he was living in Samsan (in North Chungcheong Province), which was directly on the path of the Manchu army. While in Samsan, he was invited to study under the tutelage of his maternal grandfather, Kim Dŏkmin 金德民 (of the Kyŏngju Kim clan) in his famous Bamboo Pavilion 竹軒. Following the death of his grandfather two years later, he moved to the capital. He married the daughter of Kwŏn U 權佑 of the Andong Kwŏn clan, and during the second Manchu invasion, in 1636, he was visiting in-laws in Songnisan 俗離山 (in the North Ch’ungch’ŏng province), meeting with Song Siyŏl and others in the pokch’ŏn Temple 福泉寺. According to Yun Hyu’s chronology they heard the news of King Injo’s surrender in Namhan Sansŏng there in Pokch’ŏn Temple. They cried and hugged each other, and vowed “From this day onward, we will no longer attend the examinations or be involved in politics, never forgetting today’s humiliation”.143 Yun Hyu’s reluctance to take the exam is interesting, since he was appointed to some important positions, and he served as a de facto faction leader. While a personal recommendation (ch’ŏngŏ 薦擧) and a protected appointment (ŭmgwan 蔭官) have always existed as ways to win an appointment to a government post, these tended to be somewhat limited in time and scope.144 It is general noted that Chosŏn scholars were divided around the question of the examination 141 Ibid. 142 Both scholars were related to Cho Sik 曺植 (1501-1572), a counter-current politician who opposed the two big names of his time –T’oegye and Yulgok, and had an astounding influence on the 18th century scholars loosely recognized today as silhak, or “practical learning.” 143 See “Haengjang [necrology],” in Yun Hyu, PHCS, purok 2, 1888. “自今以後 不復赴擧 或遇時從政 不忘今日之羞辱”. 144 There were, however, several famous cases, of people who received high profile offices without passing the third exam. One such case is discussed in Michael C. Kalton, Introduction to To Become a Sage: The Ten Diagrams on Sage Learning (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988), 16-18. T’oegye did pass the lower level exams. 45 system: while some saw it as a prime exmple of a balanced meritorious system, others pointed to the fact that a small cadre of people seemed to be manipulating the exams.145 As noted before, Yun Hyu’s great-great-grandfather Yun Chagwan was an associate of Cho Kwangjo and got involved in the Literati Purge of 1519 over that issue. Cho Kwangjo and his supporters planned to adapt a recommendation system, parallel to the examinations, effectively limiting its efficiency.146 We can think of the suspicion toward the examination system as reflecting the different ideologies of different schools.147 Unlike Yun Hyu, other people mentioned in that meeting, and most notably Song Siyŏl, did take the exams later. It is possible though that there were more pragmatic reasons for his reluctance, either because of his inability or because of his factional background, for him giving up on the exams. If nothing else, his pugin affiliation would not have allowed him to take any significant government position. A line in one of his poems, titled “Paekho,” reflects this sentiment: 學劍悲無術 屠龍愧近名 Learning is like swordmanship. Sadly, I have no skill with it. I Fail to live with the name of a dragon-slayer. 148 Yun Hyu however, went on to become a private scholar, shunning political involvement.149 In the following year, he moved to Yusan 柳山, Kongju (in South Ch’ungch’ŏng province), where 145 James B. Palais, Confucian statecraft and Korean Institutions, 144-9. 146 James B. Palais, Confucian statecraft and Korean Institutions,157-8. 147 In theory, the examination system relies on universally accepted readings and interpretations. In reality, there was always one school or factions dominating the exams, and thus the suspicion of all schools towars the process is understandable. 148 Yun Hyu, “Paekho [The while-lake],” in PHCS, kwŏn 2,29. A more accurate translation would be: I Study swordsmanship but gain no mastery / Failing to live with the name of a dragon-slayer. Here “learning swordmanship” is of course a metaphore for scholarship in general. The term “屠龍” is perhaps an allusion to Zhuangzi’s Lie Yu-kou 列御寇 chapter. 149 Han Ugŭn, “Paekho Yun Hyu yŏngu (il),” 6-7. 46 he became invested in the learning of the Classics. For a period of time, he maintained a network of correspondents, from all factions. These included some of the most important names of his time, including Kwŏn Si 權諰 (1604-1672), Yun Mungŏ 尹文擧 (1606-1672), Yun Kilbo 尹吉甫, and Kwŏn Ch’ido 權秀夫. Among his close friends were important sŏin figures, such as the “Two Songs” - Song Siyŏl 宋時烈 and Song Chun’gil 宋浚吉, Yu Kye 兪棨 (1607 - 1664), as well as Yi Yut’ae 李惟泰 (1607 – 1684), who was also a namin protected appointment. During this period, he wrote some of his more significant texts: Treatise on the Human-Mind and the Way-Mind in the Four Fonts and Seven Emotions (四端七淸人心道心說) at 22.150 At 25 he wrote kaemyŏngsŏl (改名說), Treatise on Changing One’s Name, where he explains why at 21 he changed his name from Kyŏng 鍞 to Hyu.151 In the following years he wrote short texts on The Great Plan (洪範說), on The Rites of Zhou (周禮) and The Doctrine of the Mean (中庸說). These were, in essence, the first iteration of what will become later his Notes Upon Reading or toksŏgi 讀書記. He revisited these writings periodically and updated them, and the version of the toksŏgi contains his own comments to all of them. 2.5.2 Government Service During Hyojong’s Reign King Injo died and Hyojong succeeded him when Yun Hyu was 34. During the early years of Hyojong’s reign, Yun Hyu started frequenting the capital more, and eventually moved there in 1649. It was during that time that he started associating with a prominent group of sŏin and namin scholars, such as Yi Yut’ae 李惟泰, Yun Sŏngŏ 尹宣擧, and Min Chŏng-jong 閔鼎重. In particular, he established a strong friendship and deep intellectual understanding with Yun Sŏngŏ, in spite of the factional and doctrinal differences between them. Some officials 150 Han Ugŭn, “Paekho Yun Hyu yŏngu (il),” 8. 151 Yun Hyu, “kaemyŏngsŏl,” in PHCS, kwŏn, 26, 1081. 47 considered him, and others like him, a good offset to the milieu of discontented junior officials. It was in that fashion that his name reached King Hyojong: 癸巳/上引見大臣及備局諸臣。 上曰: 臘月雷、三月雪, 皆亡國之兆, 而至於嶺東, 海水合氷之災, 甚可怪也。右議政沈之源曰: 古者遇災異, 則策免大臣。 臣今尸居重任, 請先策免, 以答天譴。副提學金益熙曰: 當此災異孔慘之日, 大臣固宜策勵, 交修不逮, 何必策免, 然後方可有益於修省之道乎。上曰: 卿言善矣。益熙曰: 《儀禮經傳》, 新印頒賜矣。 今若加印《續集》, 則可爲全書。 抄選年少文官有才學者, 使之講習, 則好矣。上曰: 卿言雖好, 而年少文臣輩, 徒事飮酒閑遊, 追逐儕流, 而至於專經, 亦多不通者, 有何學習禮經之望乎。之源曰: 臣聞許穆、尹鑴力學多藝, 行誼過人, 如此之人, 宜加擢用, 以爲勸奬矣。上曰: 尹鑴何如人乎。兵曹判書元斗杓曰: 鑴乃孝全之子, 而多讀古書云。 上曰: 言于該曹, 使之收用。禮曹判書李厚源曰: 掌樂院所藏 《樂學軌範》 三卷, 乃成廟朝成俔所撰也。 廟庭之樂, 皆用此制, 而此非閭家所有之書。 壬辰亂後, 掌樂院開刊, 而板本在本院。 請令校書館印出累件, 分藏史庫。從之。 The king met the great ministers and officials of the Border Defense Council. The King said: It stormed on the New Year and snowed on the third month: These are omens of the downfall of a state. Now, as far as Ryŏngdong 嶺東 the sea is dangerously iced, isn’t that strange? 48 Third State Councillor Chim Ji Won 沈之源 said: When the ancients met with unusual disasters, their policy was to remove the ministers from office. Those who are in charge now should be dismissed from office as a response to the wrath of Heaven. First counselor Kim Ik-hŭi said: At a time of a great disaster like this one, the great ministers are supposed to mutually work for the solution. Theres is no need to dismiss ministers. How they can help if they are dismissed and they only focus on cultivating the Way within themselves? The king said: Your words are good. Ik-hŭi said: A new version of the commentary on the Book of Etiquette and Rites (Yílǐ 儀禮) was printed. Now if we print the supplementary collection, we can make a comprehensive volume. If we can find a junior scholar with talent and have him lecture on it, will be good. The King said: Your words are good, but the junior scholar-officials of the current generation are interested in nothing beyond eating and drinking and idle leisure. They only follow their age-group, and most of them have hardly any specialized knowledge of the Classics. What hope is there that one of them may have mastered The Rites?152 152 Here the compound cheryu 儕流 is the same as tongbae 同輩 in the sense of peers from the same generation. 49 Ji Won said: I have heard that Hŏ Mok and Yun Hyu study hard and have notable talent, and their conduct is better than others. Why don’t we give them that task and encourage them? The King said: Yun Hyu – what kind of person is he? The minister of War Wŏn Tup’yo said: Yun Hyu is the son of Yubn Hyojŏn (尹孝全), and has read many of the ancient books. The King said: Talk to the appropriate ministry (haejo 該曹) and have them get him to work on that task The Minister of Rites Yi Huwŏn (李厚源) said: The Office for the Management of Music (掌樂院) stores three kwŏn of the Musical Canon (akhak gwebeom 樂學軌範). It was written by Sŏng Hyŏn 成俔, 1439-1504) at the time of King Sŏngchong 成宗 (r. 1469 – 1494). The music of the court Myojŏng 廟庭, takes this as a standard, but this is not a book many scholars or officials have access to. After the imjin war, the Bureau of Music 掌樂院 reopened, and the woodblocks for that text are stored there. Order the Office of Publication (kosŏgwan 校書館) to print and bind it, and keep a separate copy in the History Archive. That was done.153 This is an unusual record: it shows a cabinet meeting which includes both civilian ministers and 153 Hyohong sillok, 6th year (1655), 3rd month, 8th day, 14.16a. Yun Hyu was an avid gŏmungo player, and his name is also associated with a text titled kŭmbo 琴譜 (Scores for Geomungo), that was passed down as an heirloom in his family. See Sŏng Yŏng-ae, “Yun Hyu kamun-ŭi ‘kŭmbo’-e kuanhan yŏngu [The Study on Geumbo of Yoon-Hyu’s House],” The Korean Literature and Arts 20 (Nov. 2016): 239-283. 50 military people, and which starts with the chaos that the “little ice age” brought to Chosŏn.154 Kim Yŏnok, who mapped the “Little Ice Age” in Korea, has categorized that period into three main climatic events, and has noted that following the cold and humid period roughly between 1701 and 1750, came a period of extreme famine.155 These observations coincide with main incentives for the royal meeting. However, the meeting ends up with only one action item: hire Yun Hyu, in spite of him being unaffiliated, of the wrong lineage and not an exam passer. There is no direct evidence of course, but this seems to be well orchestrated. First Kim Ik-hŭi suggests a new compilation of the Yili 儀禮 and its commentary as measures against what Confucian statecraft usually considers as a bad omen for a kingdom.156 The King’s immediate response is a statement on the problematics of the junior scholars, to which the other ministers quickly agree. The King seems too much like a direct response to a future claim on Yun Hyu’s eligibility. The ministers are quick to vouch to Yun Hyu’s credentials, and the King orders to find how to hire that person. By the time that the new capital personnel list (tomokchŏng 都目政) is prepared, Yun Hyu is already registered as a consultant 咨議.157 As far as a job interview goes, this one seems particularly simple. Why would the King and high ministers arrange to hire a non-affiliated private scholar, into a system already overpopulated with unemployed scholars? Perhaps it is the fact the he was 154 Geoffrey Parker, Global Crisis: War, Climate Change and Catastrophe in the Seventeenth Century (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013), 318. Reacting to the weather of that year, Gaston Duke of Orléans and uncle of King Louis XIV said that “the monarchy was finished: the kingdom could not survive in its present state.” Even though Parker does not discuss Korea in his work, his argument applies to Chosŏn as well – the stress of the “little ice age” coupled with the unusual weather pattern of the 17th century (from increased seismic activity to the lack of sun spots) was reflected in unstable monarchies and bloody succession wars. 155 Kim, Yŏnok, “Han’gugŭi sobinggi kihu: yŏksa kihuhakchŏk chŏpkŭnŭi ilsinon [The Little Ice Age in Korea: An Approach to Historical Climatology],” in Chirihak-kwa chiri gyoyuk 14 (1984): 1-16. 156 Sǔngjǒngwǒn ilgi, Hyojong year 6 (1655), 2nd Month, 2nd Day, article 11/12. 48a (chŏngsa). A month before, Kim Chwamyŏng 金佐明 (1616 – 1671) suggested proof-reading for missing and erroneous characters in Chosŏn’s copy of Zhu Xi’s Complete Exegesis of the Ritual and Its Commentaries 儀禮經傳通解 and in the Precious Mirror for Succeeding Reigns 國朝寶鑑. That text was the basis for Zhu Xi’s Family Rituals, and as such had a very important role in Chosŏn. 157 Hyojong sillok, 7th year (1656), 1st month, 16th day, 16.2b. 51 not affiliated that made Yun Hyu particularly useful for the internal factional strife.158 There is one thing in common to all the people who dominate the conversation here: they were all of the sandang (山黨) faction within the sŏin, and all related to Kim Chip 金集 (1574-1656). Their faction had dominated the political scene since the first day of Hyojong’s reign and were able to absorb and dominate the previous sŏin factions. By 1651 they were able to eliminate their political rivals (the nakdang 洛黨). By the time that this conversation was taking place, they were already struggling with the newly emerged opposition from within, the handang (漢黨). It was Yi Huwon 李厚源 (1598-1660), the minister of Rites, who recruited Song Siyŏl to the government. Kim Ik-hŭi 金益熙 himself, of the Kwangsan Kim clan, was also one of the chief players in that straggle. 159 Similarly involved were Yun Chŭng 尹拯, Yun Hyu’s son-in-law, and all of the ministers of the time.160 If indeed Hyojong and his high ministers recruited Yun Hyu as a form of counter-measures in a time of unusual restlessness, we can say that the “Little Ice Age” was indirectly responsible for his career. Serving under Hyojong and in close affinity with sŏin officials gave Yun Hyu plenty of opportunities to prove himself. His name was mentioned to the King during the Mat Lectures by eminent scholars such as Min Chŏjŭng and Yi Kyŏng-hui 李慶徽, and with Wŏn Tup’yo’s recommendation he was promoted that very year to be a Keeper of Records in the Office of Royal Genealogy (宗簿寺主簿).161 Over the next several years Yun Hyu went through a cycle of 158 Sŭngjŏngwŏn ilgi, Hyojong 4th year (1653), 1st month, 17th day, article 2/14. Yun Hyu got a job as the Keeper of the Earth and Grain Altar (社稷參奉). 159 Kim Chongsu, “Chosŏn chung,hugi 4 taehakp’aŭi ch’ŏrhakkwa hyŏnsirinsik ; soronhakp’a(少論學派)ŭi yŏnwŏn’gwa chŏn’gae, ch’ŏrhakkwa hyŏnsirinsik [Philosophy and Realism in the Four Schools of Middle and Late Chosŏn: The Origins and Development of the Soron School, its Philosophy and Realism],” Han’guk ch’ŏrhak nonjip 32.0 (2011), 113-159. He was also the brother of Kim Ik-hun 金益勳 (1619-1689), the uncle of Sukjong’s queen, whose punishment became the deciding matter in the soron and noron split, in the 1680s. Song Siyŏl took his side in that struggle and became the leader of the noron. 160 Kim Chongsu, “Chosŏn chung,hugi 4 taehakp’aŭi ch’ŏrhakkwa hyŏnsirinsik,” 116-7. 161 Han Ugŭn, “Paekho Yun Hyu yŏngu (il),” 9. Hyojong Sillok, 7th year (1656), 3rd month, 19th day, 16.27b. Min Chŏjŭng and Yi Kyŏng-hui warn the King that Yun Hyu is brilliant but stubborn, so it may be difficult to get him to accept a government post. 52 resignations and reappointments, often advancing in rank with each appointment. The following table summarises Yun Hyu’s advancing through ranks during Hyojong’s reign, and hyŏnjong’s first year:162 162 Han Ugŭn, “Paekho Yun Hyu yŏngu (il),” 9-10. 53 Table 2-1 Yun Hyu's Government Positions During Hyojong's Reign Date Appointment Term Grade Comment Hyojong 4th year (1653),1st Month Keeper of the Altar to the Gods of the Earth and Grain 社稷參奉 9b sŭngjŏngwŏn ilgi Hyojong 7th year (1656), 1st month Consultant to the Crown Prince Tutorial Office 侍講院咨議 7a Hyojong sillok Hyojong 7th year (1656), 3rd month Keeper of Records in the Office of Royal Genealogy 宗簿寺主簿 6b Hyojong sillok Hyojong 7th year (1656), 6th month Junior secretary at the Ministry of Public Works 工曹佐郞 6a sŭngjŏngwŏn ilgi Hyojong 9th year (1658), 9th month Director of Ethics in the Crown Prince Tutorial Office 侍講院進善 4a Paekho haengjang (Yun Hyu’s necrology); Also mentioned in the sŭngjŏngwŏn ilgi. Hyojong 10th year (1659), 7th month First secretary at the Ministry of Public Works 工曹正郞 5a Hyŏjong sillok, enthronement year (1659) 7th month, 11th day, 1.33a Hyojong 10th year (1659), 8th month Second Censor at the Office of the Inspector-General 司憲府持平 5a Hyŏjong sillok, enthronement year (1659) 8th month, 14th day, 1.46a 54 By the time of Hyojong’s death, Yun Hyu was well received within the inner circle of scholars respected by the king. It was around that time that he became involved with the controversy that surrounded the mourning garments and length of mourning of Queen Dowager Jaui 慈懿 (1624–1688).163 As mentioned earlier the Ritual Controversy of 1659 created a rift between the factions and branded Yun Hyu as a namin leader, along with several other pugin refugees, such as Hŏ Mok.164 The core of the debate involved the lacuna that the Queen Dowager case exposed, since she was not Hyojong’s mother, and Hyojong was not the first-born son of King Injo.165 Two days after Hyojong’s death, Yun Hyu already argued that the Queen Dowager should follow the mourning procedure for the main descendent, three years of mourning with untrimmed mourning clothes or ch’amsoebok 斬衰服.166 Song Siyŏl and Song Chun’gil, on the other hand, opted for a mourning period of one year, kinyŏnbok 朞年服, since Hyojon was not Injo’s first son. A third option, a form of a compromise, was promoted by Hŏ Mok, who argued for three years of mourning in trimmed clothing, chaesoebok 齋衰服. Since the differences between Hŏ Mok and Yun Hyu seemed mostly cosmetic, the namin lined behind them, whereas the sŏin supported the one-year reading. As the first year of mourning was getting close to its end, the controversy became urgent, since the passing of the first year would make the whole issue irrelevant. The King met with the parties again. Major scholars of both sides set forth their arguments. Yun Sŏndo finally offered 163 Queen Dowager Jaui is Injo’s second queen, Queen Changnyŏl 莊烈. 164 Han Ugŭn, “Paekho Yun Hyu yŏngu (il),” 10. 165 Hyojong’s elder brother, prince Sohyŏn 昭顯 (1612-1645) died shortly after returning under suspicion after being held in captivity by the Qing. I include here the important historical details of the Rites Controversy of 1659, based on: Andrei Lankov, "Controversy over Ritual in 17th Century Korea," 49-64; Jahyun Kim Haboush, “The Ritual Controversy and the Search for New Identity” in Culture and the State in Late Choson Korea, ed. by JaHyun Kim Haboush and Martina Deuchler (Cambridge, Mass. ; Harvard University Press, 2001). 166 Song Sun-kwan, “The Resilience and Decline,” 157. 55 the opinion that what the “Two Songs” are voting for is very close to treason.167 Yun Sŏndo’s memorial was intercepted by a member of the Royal Secretariat (Sŭngjŏngwŏn 承政院) Kim Suhang (金壽恒), a sŏin minister, who turned it down and prevented an escalation.168 Following Kim’s criticism, the memorial was burned, and Yun Sŏndo was banished.169 After a few days King Hyŏnjong finally ordered them to burn Yun’s memorial, which resolved the issue just at the turn of the first year of mourning. By that time the two Songs have fled the capital to the countryside.170 Nevertheless, the matter was not decided for good, and into the next month, Yun Sŏndo’s memorial remained the most urgent topic on the schedule.171 Kwon Si 權諰 supported the memorial, and so did others.172 Yun Hyu did not follow the issue as eagerly as others, and when he did have the opportunity he did not attack Song Siyŏl publicly as others did, for which he is criticized by the anonymous editor of the sillok.173 Finally the King decided on the issued, based on the fact that the Great Code simply mentions a year of mourning for the mother, without further specifications, thus ruling in the favor of the sŏin.174 Nevertheless, the public debate and retribution continued, and in the following year became something of an intellectual watershed. 167 Hyŏnjong sillok, 1st year (1660), 4th month, 18th day, 2.27b-32a. He is repeating Song Siyŏl’s theory: By calling someone chŏk 嫡, first son, it means that one has no equal among his brothers, and by calling him “legitimate”, it means that he is considered the legitimate holder of the main-line of his lineage, and the best possible choice, that is supposed to be the next generation of succession, therefore - is it possible that the legitimate heir be another? If that son receives his father’s Mandate of Heaven, performs the ancestral rituals after him, how can he not be the legitimate heir 嫡統? is he a false heir apparent 假世子? A regent 攝皇帝?” 夫嫡者, 兄弟中無敵耦之稱也, 統者, 修緖業首庶物, 承上垂後之號也, 立次長爲後, 則復容嫡統之在他乎? 次長承父詔受天命, 體祖主器之後, 猶不得爲嫡統, 而嫡統猶在於他人, 則是假世子乎? 攝皇帝乎? 168 Ibid. 169 Hyŏnjong Sillok, 1st year (1660), 4th month, 14th day, 2.39a. 170 Hyŏnjong Sillok, 1st year (1660), 4th month, 28th day, 2.54a. 171 Song Sun-kwan, “The Resilience and Decline,” 162. In the next two months, the memorial was discussed more than 30 times. 172 Hyŏnjong Sillok, 1st year (1660), 4th month, 24th day, 2.38a. 173 Hyŏnjong Sillok, 1st year (1660), 5th month, 3th day, 2.46a-46b. 174 Ibid. 56 Some of the more notable reactions included a joint memorial from a thousand private scholars, as well as a detailed analysis of the debate by the students at the Sŏnggyun’gwan 成均館. Haboush argues that these last two demonstrate how critical the issue became, and that they “mark a turning point in political discourse in late Chosŏn Korea.” 175 2.5.3 Retirement During Hyŏnjong’s Reign Starting the year following the debate, disappointed with public life, Yun Hyu started to divide his time between Yŏju and his grandfather’s study in ssanggyedong 雙溪洞, at the outskirts of the capital, and started writing under the pen name hagan 夏軒, or “Summer Pavilion”, based on the name of that study.176 His great-great-grandfather have received that study from his teacher, Ch’oe Myŏngch’ang 崔命昌 (penname songsŏk 松石), who retired there after the 1519 literati purges. Han Ugŭn describes this phase of his life as “shutting the door and remaining inside to read books” (杜門不出讀書). In Yŏju he became involved with a project of a community granary, based on Zhu Xi’s theories.177 Later, in 1672, he established a similar mechanism in Paekho itself. 178According to his chronology, it was during this time that he expanded his studies to many other areas, such as geography or divination (by yarrow sticks, sŏlsi 揲蓍). He 175 Kim JaHyun Haboush, “Constructing the Center: The Ritual Controversy and the Search for a New Identity in Seventeenth-Century Korea,” In Culture and the State in Late Choson Korea, ed. by J. K. Haboush and M. Deuchler (MA: Harvard University Press, 1999), 60. 176 Han Ugŭn, “Paekho Yun Hyu yŏngu (il),” 10. The original name of the study was kuuhŏn 九友軒, the Nine Friends Pavilion. 177 “Haengjang [necrology],” in Yun Hyu, PHCS, purok 2, 1914-5. 178 Han Ugŭn, “Paekho Yun Hyu yŏngu (il),” 11. Yun Hyu’s contemporary, Yu Hyǒngwǒn 柳馨遠 (1622-1673) offered a very similar solution to the growing distress of farmers, and the corruption of the tax collectors. The Community Granary system was eventually reformed in the 19th century by the Taewŏn'gun, based on Zhu Xi’s she-cang Institution,. See James B. Palais, Confucian statecraft, 700-3. 57 also developed a methodology of commenting on commentaries. He would bring various commentaries and assign them equal weight, comparing and criticizing them.179 During that phase of reclusion Yun Hyu kept a tight network of scholastic relations with friends that he deemed worthy and loyal after the Rites Controversy. One of these friends was Yun Sŏngŏ 尹宣擧 (1610-1669). As mentioned earlier, they became acquainted when Yun Hyu first moved to the capital, a fact that later was criticized by Song Siyŏl, and indeed was the major cause for the factional rift within the sŏin. Yun Sŏngŏ belonged to Song Siyŏl group (sandang), being a student of Sŏng Hon (Yulgok’s student), through Kang Hang 姜沆 (1567-1618).180 Yun Hyu took his death in 1669 very personally, attending the funeral and writing back to his son Haje 夏濟 a long lament.181 He mentions in this lament that their friendship withstood the trial of Rites Controversy, a fact that later convinced Song Siyŏl to attack his son, Yun Chŭng 拯尹.182 In fact, his relationship with Song Siyŏl were the first casualty of the controversy. In the following years after the debate, the gap between the two seemed to grow, on almost every topic. Song Siyŏl rejected Yun Hyu’s conclusions as well as his methodology. In 1671 he published two texts, Additional Notes on the Ancient Version of the Great Learning 大學古本別錄 and Afterword to the Doctrine of the Mean and the Great Learning 中庸大學後說.183 The next year his summarized his main points in the ongoing debate with Song Siyŏl in two articles. The first was titled Explanations on Commenting at the age of 70 (七十老而傳說), whose title is based on 179 Ibid. 自書契以來 禮樂刑政治亂得失 無不演其義而極其趣 至於天文地理蕾撲穠 鈐之書 亦且研窮而思索之 至有疑奧未濃箋解異同之處 則皆折衷而論述之 與學者論其 得失 而不憚改易其所論 皆嶺前人所未發者也。 180 JaHyun Kim Haboush, Kenneth R. Robinson, Introduction to A Korean War Captive in Japan, 1597-1600: The Writings of Kang Hang (New York, Columbia University Press: 2013), xxi-xxii. 181 PHCS, 1917-8. 182 Ibid. Han Ugŭn, “Paekho Yun Hyu yŏngu (il),” 10.n26. 183 Both texts have been incorporated as chapters in his toksŏgi 讀書記 (Notes Upon Reading). 58 a citation from the Rites.184 The other, titled Explanations of Easiness and Un-easiness of the Human Mind (人心安不安說) narrates Yun Hyu’s main points in topics of metaphysics, and is directly related to his unique interpretation to the Doctrine of the Mean.185 Their relation finally reached a climax when Song Siyŏl (following a rumor), accused Yun Hyu of associating with Prince Pokch’ang-gun 福昌君 (Yi Chŏng 李楨, 1641-1680) the son of Prince Inp’yŏng (Hyojong’s younger brother).186 In juxtaposition with the Rites Controversy, this accusation amounted to an accusation of treason. Yun Hyu’s chronology gives a brief transcript of the questioning done by second inspector Kim Ching 金澄 (1623-1676) but that effort was intercepted by some of Yun Hyu’s friends.187 With this atmosphere, the Rites Controversy returned in 1674, this time over the death of Queen Insŏn, King Hyojong’s widow.188 This time, the Ministry of Rites changed its initial one year mourning period for the Dowager Queen over her daughter-in-law, to a nine-month mourning period or taegongbok (大功服).189 A memorial by Do Sinjing 都愼徵 (1604–1678), half way through the mourning year, opened the controversy again.190 This time the King ordered a detailed investigation, and the incoming report by Prime Minister Kim Suhŭng 金壽興 (1626–1690) reopened the original controversy again.191 Song notes that this time the controversy went through a very different life cycle, since Hyŏnjong was a seasoned king, and well versed in 184 PHCS, “ch’ilsimnoijŏnsŏl [Explanations on Commenting at the age of 70],” kwŏn 26, 1068. This is probably the citation of the Book of Rites 禮記, Rules of Propriety Part 1曲禮上, verse 12. 185Yun Hyu, “Insimanburansŏl [Explanations of easiness and un-easiness of the human mind],” in PHCS, kwŏn 26, 1071. 186 PHCS, “Haengjang [Chronology],” 1919. 187 PHCS, “Haengjang [Chronology],” 1919. The text names Chang sŏnch’ung 張善沖 (1619-1693), who became a decade later a minister in the resurgence of sŏin rule after 1680. 188 Han Ugŭn, “Paekho Yun Hyu yŏngu (il),” 11. Song Sun-kwan, 164. 189 Hyŏnjong Sillok, 15st year (1674), 2nd month, 27th day, 22.7a. 190 Hyŏnjong Sillok, 15st year (1674), 7th month, 6th day, 22.24b. 191 Hyŏnjong Sillok, 15st year (1674), 7th month, 14th day, 22.248a – 22.30b. [Four entries]. 59 Ritual Learning, and that he dominated the discussions. This time he firmly established his legitimacy through his insistence on one-year mourning. That was his last act as a ruler, since he died the very next month.192 In spite of his death the second round of the controversy marked the exclusion of sŏin from power, and the resurgence of namin.193 Table 2-2 Yun Hyu's Government Positions During Sukchong's Reign 192 Song Sun-kwan, “The Resilience and Decline,” 164-5. 193 Han Ugŭn, “Paekho Yun Hyu yŏngu (il),” 11. 60 Date Appointment Term Grade Comment Sukchong 1st year (1674),1st Month Director of Studies 司業 4a 2nd month Royal Secretariat - Sixth Royal Secretary 承政院同副承旨 3a 3rd month Ministry of Personnel - Second Minister 吏曹參議 3a 4th month Hanseong City Administration - third magistrate 漢城府右尹 2a 1. Border Defense Council – planning participant 2. second magistrate in the State Tribunal 籌司[備邊司] 參 劃 同知義 禁府事 -- Sukchong sillok, 1sy year (1674), 4th month, 29th day, 3.45a. 61 5th month 1. Inspector General 2. Sŏnggyun’gwan’s master of sacrifice 大司憲 成均館祭酒 2b Intercalary 5th month vice minister of Personnel 吏曹參判 2b Inspector-General 大司憲 2b 6th month Assistant State Councillor on the Left 左參贊 2a 35 Inspector-General 大司憲 2b 7th month Minister of Personnel 吏曹判書 2a 36 Ordered to compose King Hyŏnjong’s bibliography 顯宗大王行狀撰進之命 -- Resigned but was not allowed (辭而不許) 62 2nd year (1675),2nd Month Commander of the Five Guards Directorate 五衛都摠府都摠管 2a Sŭngjŏngwŏn ilgi, 2nd year (1675), 2nd month, 3rd day, article 4/32. 3rd month 1. Composed King Hyŏnjong’s bibliography 2. Council of State Affairs - State Councillor on the Right 撰進 顯宗大王 行狀 議政府 右參贊 -- 2a Resigned but was not allowed (辭而不許) 4th month Assistant State Councillor on the Left 左參贊 2a 5th month Inspector-General 大司憲 2b 63 6th month Visit to Ho-ŭm 湖陰 Chŏng Saryong(鄭士龍) (湖陰僑舍) -- 38 7th month Temporary leave of duty （許遞） 8th month Moved to his country home in the Mapo area194 (移寓麻浦村舍) 12th month Assistant State Councillor on the Left 左參贊 2a 3nd year (1676),1st Month Inspector-General 大司憲 2b 2nd month Inspector-General 大司憲 2b 194 The Mapo 麻浦 is today a district of Seoul, generally northwest of the Han River, but at Yun Hyu time it was outside the city walls. 64 3rd month Assistant State Councillor on the Right 右參贊 2a Tried to resign but resignation was not accepted (辭而不許) 6th month Inspector-General 大司憲 2b 40 10th month Classics Mat - special Entry officer 經筵 特進官 (41) -- 41 11th month Assistant State Councillor on the Right 右參贊 2a 4th year (1677),1st Month Inspector General 大司憲 2b 2nd month Minister of Public Works 工 曹 判 書 2a 3rd month Inspector General 大司憲 2b Intercalary 3rd month Inspector General 大司憲 2b 65 6th month Assistant State Councillor on the Right 右參贊 2a 10th month Inspector General 大司憲 2b 11th month Assistant State Councillor on the Right 右參贊 2a 12th month Inspector General 大司憲 2b 5th year (1678),1st Month Inspector General 大司憲 2b 3rd month minister of Justice 刑曹判書（卽遞） 2a Immediately moved to another post Assistant State Councillor on the Left 左參贊 2a 5th month Inspector General 大司憲 2b Tried to resign but resignation was not accepted (辭不許) 66 6th month Assistant State Councillor on the Left 左參贊 2a Tried to resign but resignation was not accepted (辭不許) 7th month Associate state councillor on the Right 議政府 右贊成 1b Presented a memorial asking to be allowed to resign (上疏辭職) 2.5.4 Government Service During Sukchong’s Reign The success of Yun Hyu’s position in the Rites Controversy of 1674 made him the unequivocal hero of the namin. It also gave him the opportunity to join the new government of Sukchong 肅宗 (r.1674-1720), who was only 13 at the time. He served under Sukchong intermittently for the next six years, usually appointed directly by the King’s request to short-term ad-hoc assignments. The sillok and the sŭngjŏngwŏn ilgi list some 40 assignments during that time, and most of them of the second rank. Some assignments were a one-time assignment, clearly meant to apply Yun Hyu’s mind as a generalist, like the call to participate in the meetings of the Border Defense Council (pibyŏnsa 備邊司).195 One of these assignments was to compile the bibliography of King Hyŏnjong, from which he resigned twice. The top position that he received during that time was that of an Associate State Councillor on the Right or uchinsŏng 右贊成, a junior first rank position.196 During that time, it was clear that the relationship between Yun Hyu 195 Sukchong Sillok, 1st year (1679), 4th month, 29th day, 3.45a. 196 Sukchong Sillok, 5th year (1679), 7th month, 6th day, 8.36b. 67 and the young monarch were amicable. In one case, the king sent a special messenger to confort Yun Hyu, saying: When the hardships and the worries of the state are more than my eyes can handle, how can a high-ranking official of talent suddenly change his mind and leave the business of the state for a countryside retreat, abandoning me the way one throws away an old shoe? You, Sir, must change your mind and come back quickly.197 The sillok states drolly that Yun Hyu returned the very next day. In 1680, Sukjong’s sixth year, things turned against Yun Hyu, who was implicated in serious charges. The previous year Yun Hyu’s close friend, Chief State Councillor Ho Chŏk 許積 (1610-1680) was accused by sŏin minister Kim Sŏkchu 金錫胄 of abusing his position and using the king’s pavilion without permission.198 Kim Sŏkchu was able to link the incident to the three sons of Prince Pokch’ang (pokch’ang-gun 福昌君), which marked the incident as treason. In 1675, after the failed attempt to implicate Yun Hyu with supporting the prince, queen Myŏngsŏng 明聖王后 punished the prince’s brothers for an incident with her court ladies.199 Prince Pokch’ang’s three sons the “Three Poks” (三福) had significant influence in the court through their relationship with the namin and the eunuchs of the court, and the queen mitigated that with her own family relations, installing sŏin people such as her cousin Kim Sŏkchu of the ch’ŏngp’ung 淸風 Kim clan. Kim Sŏkchu also implicated Hŏ Kyŏn 許堅, Ho Chŏk’s son from a 197 Sukchong Sillok, 3rd year (1679), 10th month, 8th day, 6.53b. 當國家艱虞溢目之日, 以卿之才, 何不幡然造朝, 與論國事, 而退臥江村, 棄予如脫弊屣乎? 卿須亟回遐心, 斯速入來。 198 Sŭngjŏngwŏn ilgi, Sukchong Sillok, 6th year (1680), 4th month, 10th day, article 5/14. 199 Han Chihŭi, “Sukchong ch’o ‘hongsu-ŭi pyŏn"-kwa myŏngsŏngwangu kimssi-ŭi chŏngch’ijŏk yŏkhal [Sukchong’s Disturbance of Hongsu and the Political Role of Queen Myŏngsŏng’s Kim Clan],” in Han’guksa hakpo 31.0 (2008): 145-176. As recalled, Yun Hyu managed to escape charges of association with the prince back in 1674. 68 concubine, and later on Yun Hyu himself. Yun Hyu had been very ill at the end of 1679, and the king tried to postpone dealing with this matter, but by the fourth month of 1680 he was accused and exiled to Kapsan 甲山, in Southern Hamgyŏng province.200 He was ordered to take poison on the twentieth day of the fifth month.201 He was not allowed to write his last words, but was allowed to drink alcohol (soju) before taking the poison.202 The next day his sons were exiled, his eldest son interrogated and Yun Hyu’s writing searched for incriminating materials, where two suspicious letters were found.203 Yun Hyu was later buried in the vicinity of the ch’ŏngnyong-sa (康熙寺). In the third month of 1689, as soon as the power exchange of the namin was completed, the court begun discussing the rehabilitation of those persecuted a decade earlier by the sŏin. When Mok Naesŏn 睦來善(1617-1704) and a disciple of Hŏ Mok commented on the injustice dealt Yun Hyu, the King comments “I already know that Yun Hyu was wronged”.204 Later Yun Hyu also received a formal offering 致祭, and the next year he was moved to his ancestral burial grounds in Changŭngdong, Yŏju. However, he was never fully exonerated, and his texts remained in the list of banned books until 1908.205 Why was Yun Hyu executed? Reading works on the ritual controversy and the political upheaval of 1680, one can assume that the main incentive was the huge ideological gap between Yun Hyu and his opponents, and particularly Song Siyŏl. The expression “despoiler of the way” (samun nanjŏk 斯文亂賊) is often associated with Yun Hyu, as well as with Pak Sedang 朴世堂 200 Sukchong Sillok, 6th year (1680), 4th month, 2nd day, 9.12b. “Haengjang ha[Chronology part 3],” in PHCS, purok 4, 2107. 201 Sukchong Sillok, 6th year (1680), 5th month, 19th day, 9.44b. 202 “Haengjang ha,” 2128. 203 ”Haengjang ha,” 2128. 204 Sukchong Sillok, 15th year (1689), 3rd month, 3rd day, 20.21a.予已知鑴冤。來善曰: "尹鑴固踈迂, 而照管二字, 用古文之故, 橫被構誣, 密箚又忤時輩, 竟致之死, 其亦冤矣" …… 上曰: "予已知鑴冤。 205 Sunjong Sillok, 1st year (1908), 3rd month, 21st day, 2.8b. 69 (1629-1703), his contemporary who was similarly executed.206 This draws a somewhat romantic picture, of the once-friends fighting to death. However, there is little indication that Song Siyŏl was a prime mover in this persecution, although his polemics clearly marked Yun Hyu as a traitor, as Miura Kunio clearly points out.207 He assesses both Yun Hyu and Yun Sŏn'go as “innocent victims to the factional strife,” driven into a corner by Song Siyŏl’s persecution.208 However, it is important to note that the personal aspect of this rivalry was never discussed in court. In spite of all the criticism that Song Siyŏl had against Yun Hyu, Yun’s writing were never destroyed (unlike Pak Sedang’s, for example).209 When he heard of Yun Hyu’s death he commented that “Sooner or later it will be asserted that Yun Hyu was falsely charged. Then another disaster will befall scholar-officials”.210 In other words, even if Song Siyŏl have promoted the image of Yun Hyu as a legitimate target, he did not actively participate in his persecution. According to Yang Sŏnbi the ritual controversy changed the power dynamics between the king and the dominant political cliques, the pungdang (朋黨).211 The ritual controversy allowed them to link immediately ritual study and political action, depicting effectively the sŏin not only as wrong academically, but also as rebellious and dangerous. Sukchung was happy to use the controversy to his benefit, actively promoting a small group of ch’ŏksin 戚臣, a tightly connected group of loyal ministers, as a means to counter the influences of the political factions 206 Martina Deuchler, "Despoilers of the Way-Insulters of the Sages,” 94-5. 207 Miura Kunio, “Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy in Seventeenth-Century Korea,” 423. 208 Ibid. 209 Martina Deuchler, "Despoilers of the Way-Insulters of the Sages,” 128. 210 Songa taejŏn, “Tap Han Yŏsŏk [Response to Han Yŏsŏk]”, 78:37a-37b quoted in Miura Kunio, 425. 希仲妙年自悟。有志於學。立心制行。不泥古人。讀書講義。不拘註說。而言論見識。實有超詣過人者。公以爲短長相補。要非世俗之儒。深與之。然未嘗不憂其才而戒其病。累以爲戒。而希仲竟不能從。以至於敗。 211 Yang Sŏnbi, “17segi chunguban yesong(禮訟)ŭi chŏn’gaewa chŏngch’ijihyŏng-ŭi pyŏnhwa [The Development of Ritual Controversy in the mid and late 17th Century and Change of Political Terrain],” in Han’guk saron 60.0 (2010): 239-294. 70 and perhaps also the power of the eunuchs and the courtiers.212 Yang Sŏnbi sees therefore the abrupt and violent change of office (hwan’guk 換局) as part of the new factional dynamic between the king and the ruling party, a means for the king to mitigate the almost absolute power that a ruling party wielded with such a firm ideological basis over court politics. The namin had a trump to play in order to have the King’s ear: since the late years of King Hyŏnjong’s reign, they were busy preparing to a proposed Northern Expedition against the Qing. This effort placed many namin figures in a position to mobilize and prepare military forces.213 As early as 1670, Hŏ Chŏk proposed to draft drifters for this purpose.214 He later became very involved in this project, recruiting his son from a concubine (sŏja) to the project. Yun Hyu himself was one of the main proponents of this approach, advocating aggressively for a military approach.215 At the first year of Sukchong’s reign he suggested that he can mobilize people to make ten-thousand chariots (萬乘) a suggestion that greatly alarmed Kim Mangi.216 Yu Hyŏgyŏn 柳赫然 (1616~1680) became the commander of the Taehŭng Mountain Fortress 大興山城 in North P'yŏng'an, one of the most important fortification of Chosŏn.217 The interrogation records of Yun Hyu himself confirms this claim. King Sukchong’s original warrant to arrest Yun Hyu states that: Furthermore, his crimes don’t stop at his ignoring propriety, he also misused his authority to gain power, and committed evil in the world. An honest person will not dare to think 212 Yang Sŏnbi,“17segi chunguban yesong(禮訟)ŭi chŏn’gaewa chŏngch’ijihyŏng-ŭi pyŏnhwa,” 275. 213 Kim Uch’ŏl, “Yu hyŏgyŏn-ŭi taehŭng sansŏng kyŏngyŏnggwa kyŏngsinhwan’guk [Yu Hyŏgyŏn’s Management of Taehŭng Mountain Fortress and the Political Change of 1680],” Han’guk inmulsa yŏn’gu 20 (2013): 3-35. 214 Hyŏnjong Sillok, 11th year (1670), 3rd month, 12th, 22.33a. 215 Hyŏnjong Sillok, 15st year (1674), 7th month, 1st day, 28.21a. 216 Sukchong Sillok, 1st year (1674), 1st month, 24th day, 2.21a-23b quoted in Kim Uch’ŏl, 9. 217 Hyŏnjong Sillok, 11th year (1670), 3rd month, 12th, 22.33a. The sillok notes that Yu Hyŏgyŏn and Hŏ Chŏk drafted soldiers, built fortification and had complete jurisdiction over the barracks. The anonymous editor notes that even after they were executed for treason, the fortress remained active. 71 the way he did. He was said to be ‘controlling the actions of the Queen’ carelessly, instead of advising the King filially, imitating the cunning ways of Yi Ich’ŏm 李爾瞻 and Chŏng Inhong 鄭仁弘.218 This is an interesting accusation, and one that has nothing to do with Yun Hyu’s commentary on the classics. Yi Ich’ŏm and Chŏng Inhong mentioned here, both of the taebuk faction, foiled the plan of Yu Yŏnggyŏng 柳永慶 (1550-1608) of the sobuk who planned to hide King Sŏnjo’s statement recognizing Prince Kwanghae as his heir, and promote Prince Yŏngch’ang instead. Revealing the plan in time was one of the deciding factors in the success of Kwanghae and the taebuk faction. However, to members of both sŏin and namin factions, allowing Kwanghae-gun to rule was misguided. In other words, Yun Hyu is accused of being “too loyal”, meaning that he planned to put one of the Pok brothers on the throne. Ironically, per the sŏin interpretation of the Ritual Controversy, Prince Pokch’ang and his son were the correct heirs of the throne, because they were the main-line holders. In the first actual interrogation, Yun Hyu is primarily asked about his military connections, quoting a letter from Hŏ Kyŏn to Chŏng Wŏllo 鄭元老 , the accuser, and Kang Manchŏl 姜萬鐵, linking Yun Hyu to the position of one of his two assistants.219 Similarly, the interrogation mentions Yun Hyu’s discussion with Yi T’aeso 李台瑞 (1614-1680), on making him responsible for both the Military Training Agency (hullyŏn togam 訓鍊都監) and the capital guard unit (ŏyŏngch’ŏng 御營). 218 Ch'uan kŭp kugan, kyŏng-sin (1680), 4th month, 28th day, 8:423. In idu: 罪不止於無禮者乎夤緣附托驟得大用世濟其惡罔念倫彛敢以管束慈聖動靜之語肆然陳達於聖孝之下無所顧忌欲襲爾瞻仁弘之餘奸若非. 219 Ch'uan kŭp kugan, kyŏng-sin (1680), 5th month, 12th day, 8:445-6. The text mentions the position of assistant 副貳之任, and mentions two of them titled hui 希 and yŏ 麗,, with Yun Hyu designated to be hui 希. 72 2.6 Conclusion How did Yun Hyu become a “despoiler of the Way,” and his writings the quintessential example of heresy? Pointing at the exegetical differences between him and his contemporaries is not sufficient, even though it is surely an important part of it. His writings, after all, were not banned completely as were those of Pak Sedang. In this chapter, I have looked at three aspects of the context that shaped Yun Hyu’s scholarship and thought: the challenges and changes that the seventeenth century brought, factional politics and Yun Hyu’s own involvement in factional politics, and finally his own history. The key to understanding Yun Hyu’s importance and challenge to his peers, even after his death, lies in ritual. With the rise of private academies in the sixteenth century, ritual became the most important issue at hand to all yangban. The role of the ritual books changed dramatically, a change that we can see in the rise of experts on ritual studies in the seventeenth century, and the attempt to print books such as the Ming edition of Zhu Xi’s Complete Exegesis of the Classic of Ritual and Etiquette and Its Commentaries 儀禮經傳通解. Yun Hyu himself was recruited to Hyojong’s government originally as a ritual expert. As I will demonstrate in the next chapters, Yun Hyu’s main asset was in his unusual methodology: his ability to access the old classics and learn by cross referencing between the classics. This, as I will show, was an essential part of his philosophy. In a world where exegesis was always limited by school loyalties, Yun Hyu did not belong to any faction or school, and had the freedom to correspond with many scholars and develop his own system. This too, as I have show, is directly related to ritual and ritual hegemony. The background to this intellectual activity was two urgent crises. One was the extreme climate changes that the last phase of the “little ice age” brought. The other was the growing gap between King and yangban, on ideological grounds: while the yangban saw primogenital 73 inheritance as an increasingly important social marker and a link to the Confucian past, the monarchs held the right to select a descendent as their royal prerogative. Schools and factions did support different queens and princes in order to exert direct power over the monarchy, but this is essentially a matter of grave ritual importance. The entire Zhu Xi scheme of ritual depended on locating each person accurately in the familial scheme, and without it Zhu Xi’s commentary on the books of rituals and Master Zhu’s Family Rituals 朱子家禮 (Chuja karye) that was based on these commentaries, was useless. The answer to both seems to be an increased emphasis on ritual studies and ritual purity, and with them of course an increased sense of the importance of accurate exegesis of the rituals. In this aspect Yun Hyu had an unusual edge over his colleagues. He inherited the teachings of both the Yi Hwang and the Cho Kwangjo schools, and was well exposed to other major schools in his years of apolitical work. Yun Hyu developed a system of exegesis that examined early sources and tried to collaborate information by making references across sources. In the next chapter I will examine how this system of exegesis played to re-examine the classics, and particularly the “Great Plan” 洪範 chapter of the Book of Documents 尚書. I will argue that Yun Hyu’s system indicates more than a methodological change, and that it bears ideological significance. 74 Chapter 3: The Great Plan 3.1 Introduction Yun Hyu’s expertise in the Learning of the Classics (kyŏnghak) is famous for the strong reaction that his commentary on the Doctrine of the Mean received. However, it is through his life-long involvement with the “Great Plan” chapter of the Book of Documents that we can truly assess his unique methodology and the importance he saw in the learning of the classics. First, because many aspects of his scholarship anticipate the “evidential learning” (kojŭng) which his faction members were known for during the eighteenth century. Chosŏn scholars often called these techniques pukhak or Northern Learning, denoting their foreign nature, but it seems that Yun Hyu stressed the orthodoxy of his methods and their origins in the Zhu Xi scholarship.1 Typical of his writing are specific definitions of key terms at the opening of the discussion, as well as cross-references to other classics in order to get a fuller and more accurate understanding. Yun Hyu claimed, for example, that his ideas on the Great Plan came from the terminology used in the Classic of Filial Piety.2 Second, because for Yun Hyu the classics were an object for a continual exegesis, and a true source for definitive answers on both philosophical and practical issues. In other words, for Yun Hyu hermeneutics were by default the correct way to approach the classics.3 It produced answers for real life problems. Moreover, the Classics were opened for an ongoing exegesis by 1 Martina Deuchler, “Despoilers of the Way - Insulters of the Sages,” 133. More on the concets of orthodoxy and heterodoxy in Don Baker, “A Different Thread: Orthodoxy, Heterodoxy, and Catholicism in a Confucian World,” in Culture and the State in Late Choson Korea, ed. JaHyun Kim Haboush, Martina Deuchler (Cambridge, Mass.: University Press, 2001), 199-230. 2 Yun Hyu, “Hongbŏm kyŏngjŏn t’ongŭi chon 洪範經傳通義存[Introduction to Penetrating the Meaning of the Classic and Commentaries of the Great Plan] ,” in PHCS, kwŏn 24, 995. 3 There are two issues here: one is the selection of exegesis as opposed to eisegesis. The other is the reliance on the entire corpus as a whole to draw meaning. In the Talmudic world this would be called the “Sepharadic” approach as opposed to the “Brisker” method. See also footnote 137 on page 267. 75 new generations of scholars. In this limited sense I would like to think of his approach as somewhat close in nature to the “sola scriptura” doctrine of the Protestant Reformation. Finally, because Yun Hyu managed to transform the Great Plan from a text that was nominally important but with little significance for Cheng-Zhu scholars – into a zone of contention. For him the “Great Plan” chapter deserved the status of a Classic and was equal and complementary to the Book of Changes. Indeed, after Yun Hyu we see an explosion in the number of writings on the Great Plan.4 This was without doubt a direct reaction to the link that Yun Hyu drew between the text and some questions that were important in the late seventeenth century, such as the place of Korean culture vis-à-vis its Chinese origins, or the relationship between monarch, bureaucracy and state. We tend to group those questions under the umbrella term “identity” but this might be a misleading terminology. Yun Hyu’s focus on the “Great Plan” is something of a conundrum. He wrote three different texts on the “Great Plan”, and two additional diagrams that were not dated and were grouped with his other diagrams in the PHCS. The three writings are generally considered all to be part of his Toksŏgi 讀書記 or Notes Upon Reading. This is an incorrect conclusion. Although all texts are of the sŏl 說 genre, they are of different natures. One of the texts, titled Hongbŏm kyŏngjŏn t’ongŭi 洪範經傳通義 (Penetrating the meaning of the classic and commentaries of the ‘Great Plan’), is methodological research. It moved away from the scope of simply reading notes, and makes some claims about the Cheng-Zhu tradition and its lack of insights regarding this text. Another text, written at the end of his career, is titled Konggo chikchang tosŏl 公孤職掌圖說, or “Diagrammatic Treatise on the System of Councilors and Mentor”. It provides a demonstration of the application of the Great Plan and Yun Hyu’s theories in real life. Only the 4 It is not surprising therefore that Kim Man-il’s study of the proliferation of commentaries on the Book of Documents in late Chosŏn begin with Yun Hyu. Kim Man-il, Chosŏn 17-18-segi sangsŏ haesŏk ŭi saeroun kyŏnghyang [New Trends in the Explanations of the Book of Documents in 17-18 Century Chosŏn], (Sŏul Tʻŭkpyŏlsi: Kyŏngin Munhwasa, 2007). 76 doksangsŏ 讀尙書 (Reading the Book of Documents) contains what we would expect of reading notes. 3.2 The Classic of Documents The Shujing 書經 (Classic of Documents), often called the Shangshu 尚書, is a collection of speeches made by mythical and real rulers, from ancient times until roughly the middle of the Western Zhou Period 西周. Since the Han Dynasty it has been one of the Five Classics.5 The word shang itself is usually explained as a homophone of the word shang meaning both “ancient”, and “hallow”.6 Before the Han dynasty, all reference to the book (or perhaps the genre) was simply as shu. The name Shangshu was first applied in the fourth century to denote the part of the text conceived as the most ancient, but later became synonymous with the entire text.7 The name Shujing was first used in the tenth century, by a group of classicists who tried to defend the text’s authority. The text is roughly organized by dynasties, with the first two parts attributed to the mythical emperors Yao 堯 and Shun 舜, and the following parts dedicated to the Xia 夏, Shang 商, and Zhou 周 dynasties. From the language of the text we can attribute at least part of the Shangshu 商書 (i.e., the part dedicated to the Shang Dynasty) to the early Zhou dynasty, perhaps to the scribes of the state of Song, ruled by the descendants of that dynasty. Many of the titles of the chapters in the book are derived from a particular form of speech (such 5 For the historical-summery of the Shangshu here I used several sources, notably: Michael Nylan, Five “Confucian” Classics (CT: Yale University Press, 2001); Knechtges, David R., and Taiping Chang, Ancient and Early Medieval Chinese Literature (vol. 2) a Reference Guide (Leiden: BRILL, 2013), 814-830. Shaughnessy, Early Chinese Texts: A Bibliographical Guide, ed. by Michael Loewe (SSEC and IEAS, 1993: 19.1), 376-89. Bernhard Kalgren, Glosses of the Book of Documents, Stockholm: Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities, 1970. 6 Shih Hsiang-lin, “Shang shu 尚書 – (Hallowed writing on antiquity),” in Ancient and Early Medieval Chinese Literature (vol. 2): A Reference Guide, ed. David R. Knechtges and Taiping Chang (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 814-830. 7 Michael Nylan, Five “Confucian” Classics, 126. 77 as dian 典 ", often translated as “canons", or ming 命 for "charge”), with others attributed specifically to a person’s name (such as the Jun Ya 君牙 chapter).8 It is hard to trace the book before the Han Dynasty. Supposedly, some twenty eight chapters of the book were saved from the “burning of the books” by Fu Sheng 伏勝 and discovered later.9 During the Han period there were three versions of the texts, the Ouyang Tradition 歐陽氏學, the Great (or Senior) Xiahou Tradition 大夏侯氏學, and the Small (or Junior) Xiahou Tradition 小夏侯氏學, all of which were written in Clerical Script of the late Zhou dynasty.10 These versions were often called the “new” text 今文, and this is also the way that Yun Hyu refers to them. Of the three versions, the Ouyang Tradition served as the basis of the Xiping Stone Classics 熹平石經. In the years following the discovery of Fu Sheng’s book, at least seven additional fragments of the text surfaced, all of them in Seal Script. Of these, the most notable is the text discovered in the Kong mansion by descendants of Confucius. Under the supervision of Kong Anguo 孔安國 (ca. 156 – ca. 74 BCE), a direct descendent of Confucius, this text was translated to the Han’s Clerical Script. This version, often called the “old” version, contains sixteen additional chapters.11 Finally, after several versions disappeared during the dynastic transitions, one Mei Ze 梅賾 submitted in the early fourth century the version that we know today, alongside with a commentary by Kong Anguo 孔安國 (ca. 156 – ca. 74 BCE). This version contained 33 chapters, but fragments from previous commentaries allowed the reconstruction of some of the missing chapters, resulting in the 58 chapters that served for the 8 Michael Nylan, Five “Confucian” Classics 125. 9 Michael Nylan, Five “Confucian” Classics, 128, 130. 10 Michael Nylan, “Introduction” to Five “Confucian” Classics 11-2. 11 There is some debate and guesswork regarding the identity of the author of these additional chapters. Yoav Ariel, for example, argues that the author of these chapters is Wang Su (195-256). Yoav Ariel, Kʻung-Tsʻung-Tzu: the Kʻung Family Masters' Anthology: A Study and Translation of Chapters 1-10, 12-14 (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1989), 67-8. 78 Tang Stone Classics 唐石經. The version that we have today is the result of the imperially commissioned work, which yielded in 653 the Correct Meaning of the Five Classics 五經正義.12 Given the heterogeneous nature of the text itself, Chinese intellectuals throughout the ages have been skeptical regarding the text. Mencius, for example, mentions it critically, particularly regarding the “Completion of War” chapter (Mencius 7b:3). Nylan notes that later classicists mistook this version as Kong Anguo’s version, perhaps because of the involvement of his namesake-descendent (d. 208 CE) in the production of another set. Later editors comment on the untrusted nature of this patch-work version. Yoav Ariel notes that the editors of the Siku quanshu zongmu 四庫全書總目 commented on the similarities between Kong Anguo’s version and the Kongcongzi 孔叢子.13 Seventeen century scholars such as Yan Ruoqu 閻若璩 (1636-1704) and Hui Dong 惠栋 (1679-1758) offered detailed proof that the pseudo-Kong chapters are a forgery.14 Others, such as Mao Qiling 毛奇齡 (1623-1707) were not so easily convinced. 3.3 The Great Plan In her analysis of the “Great Plan”, Michael Nylan argues convincingly that the “Great Plan” chapter, and particularly what she calls the “core text” of the chapter (i.e., section 5), is a Warring States text, dated perhaps to the early-third or late fourth century BCE.15 Specifically, she suggests the working hypothesis that the text originated as a form of Confucian rebuttal of Legalist political thought, and as such makes a certain compromise between the Confucian concerns with virtue and the Legalist concerns with realpolitik.16 In her analysis of the 12 Michael Nylan, Five “Confucian” Classics, 131. 13 Yoav Ariel, Kʻung-Tsʻung-Tzu, 33-4. 14 Michael Nylan, Five “Confucian” Classics, 132. 15 Michael Nylan, The Shifting Center: The Original “Great Plan” and Later Readings (Nettetal: Steyler Verl., 1992). 16 Michael Nylan, The Shifting Center, 32. 79 differences between the normal Legalist stand and that of the “Great Plan”, Nylan points to several important attributes.17 The “Great Plan” places the center of attention in the ruler, and not the law. To all practical matters, the ruler is the law, hence terminology such as the “Kingly Way”. The “Great Plan” also downplays the importance of rule and punishment, and suggests an array of complementary ruling aids. This is a serious attack on one of the core arguments of the Legalists.18 On the other hand the plan also rejects wu wei 無爲, which Nylan translates as “non-purposive activity”. Both Legalists and Daoists advocated wu wei for different reasons, but since the Confucians place the king in the center, they cannot advocate non-doing completely. Instead, the plan glorifies the responsive nature of the ruler. Another place where the text attacks Legalists directly was the debate on the monarch’s source of power, a topic of controversy among legalists themselves. Since Confucians thought that heaven imbues the monarch with absolute power, the plan urges the monarch to be visible. Nylan also sees two major upheavals in the role and place of the text. The first happened in Han times, where the plan became both the locus classicus text for the Han cosmological theories, and by the Eastern Han times – also as an outline for empire building.19 The plan envisioned the Son of Heaven at the center of the cosmos, manipulating cosmic patterns and applying the talents of his subjects to the welfare of the empire. This was not only expedient for the justification of the emperor’s rule, but also in tying various cosmological theories together. The Han revolution regarding the text was reflected in a shift of focus from the relationship between Ruler and Ruled, to the relationship between ruler and cosmos.20 While the original text suggested a plan for any “great one” (huang 皇), during the Han dynasty the term (specifically in the context of section 5) became intimately associated with the emperor. In this way, for 17 Michael Nylan, The Shifting Center, 39-40. 18 Compare for example with Han Fei-zi’s Two Handles 二柄 argument. 19 Michael Nylan, The Shifting Center, 46-7. 20 Michael Nylan, The Shifting Center, 47. 80 example, Fu Sheng 伏生 (fl. ca 220-170 BCE) glossed huang 皇 as wang 王, making the plan a matter related directly to the recipient of the Mandate of Heaven.21 The second revolution happened during the Song Dynasty, when the new elite were actively working to redefine their changing roles. Scholars of the twelfth century, such as Hu Yuan 胡瑗 (993-1059), Su Shu 蘇軾 (1009-1066), and of course Wang An-shi, helped to shift the focus of the Plan from the monarch to the literati.22 The term huang-ji 皇極 was no longer understood as the emperor mediating between the Heaven, Earth and Humans, but rather as a sign of a literati mediating between the monarch and the people. Thus, the term was now understood as Completion (成) or Cultivation (修) of the original moral Nature (性), while methods and terminology vary between various thinkers. The new understanding of the term associated it with social constructs, in the form of the Five Constants (五常) and so on. Another sign of the times was the focus on the importance of the shi 士 in advising the monarch, while downplaying all other roles (such as that of the common people and divination). A compatible argument is that the monarch himself is inactive and thus does not have a major role in the transformation of the people.23 By the time of the Southern Song dynasty, Zhu Xi solidified this approach into a doctrine. To a great extent Zhu Xi was busy refuting Wag Anshi’s legalistically minded approach to power. In his Critique of huang-ji (皇極辨) he stresses the term as an internal standard of perfection in the process of self-cultivation rather than a measure of power. Zhu Xi’s reading of the “Great Plan” as a discussion on virtue and self-cultivation, and his own assessment of the plan, finally demoted it as inferior to the other classics.24 His student Cai Shen蔡沈 (1167-1230) compiled all known commentaries in six juan, under the title Shu jizhuan 書集傳, in turn integrated into the Ming Dynasty’s Wujing daquan 五經大全, which served as a 21 Michael Nylan, The Shifting Center, 48. See Fu Sheng 伏生, Shang shu da zhuan 尚書大傳, 3:38. 22 Michael Nylan, The Shifting Center, 66-68. 23 Michael Nylan, The Shifting Center, 77-9. Wang An-shi, for example, compares the monarch with the Year Star. 24 Michael Nylan, The Shifting Center, 99. 81 textbook for candidates. This seems to be also the main source of information for Chosŏn scholars. 3.4 The Great Plan in Korea Not surprisingly, the first half of the Chosŏn dynasty saw little reference to the “Great Plan”. Few works mentioned the subjects, and fewer still were dedicated to it.25 Although one of the Five Classics, the Documents received only token interest from Chosŏn intellectuals. Kwŏn Kŭn權近 (1352 - 1409) did not mention the book at all in his 1390 iphak tosŏl 入學圖說 (A diagrammatic introduction to learning], though he briefly draws on it. 26 That book, a primer on Confucian teaching of the Cheng-Zhu tradition, provided an array of diagrams from various sources, with each diagram accompanied by explanatory text and occasionally a “questions and answers” section. The iphak tosŏl provides a two-part diagram of the “Great Plan.”27 In many cases Kwŏn Kŭn used diagrams from the Song Dynasty’s Diagrams of the Six Classics 六經圖, which was a major influence on Korean intellectuals. However, in this case he rejected the cosmological depiction that was based on the general scheme of the Luoshu 洛書. This representation of the plan had been the standard since Liu Xin 劉歆 (ca. 50 BCE – 23 CE) first came up with this association. This coupling is very intuitive, but Kwŏn Kŭn rejected it in favor of an exegetical tree-like structure, stemming from Heaven, branching through the different numerical descriptions, and ending in a clear dichotomy of good and evil. Kwŏn Kŭn’s short textual description does not give away any of his sources, and his terminology provides a general 25 Kim Man-il provides a comprehensive list of the Chosŏn texts on Book of Documents. We can see there that after Kwŏn Kŭn, references appear only in the second half of the 16th century. 26 For a general introduction on Kwŏn Kŭn see: The biography of Kwŏn Kŭn was taken from Michael C. Kalton,"The Writings of Kwon Kun: The Context and Shape of Early Yi Dynasty Neo-Confucianism." In Wm. Theodore de Bary and JaHyun Kim Haboush, eds. The Rise of Neo-Confucianism in Korea. New York: Columbia University Press, 1985. 219-232. 27 Kwŏn Kŭn, Iphak tosŏl [Diagrammatic introduction to learning], trans. Kwŏn Tŏk-chu (Seoul T'ŭkpyŏlsi: Ŭryu Munhwasa, 1974), 7.3a, 164. 82 reference to all the important Song dynasty scholars, such as Su Xun 蘇洵 (1009-1066), one of the Three Su 三蘇, and to Wang Anshi.28 Nevertheless, his main line of inquiry is loyal to the commentary of Zhu Xi (through Cai Shen), coupling Man with Heaven, and focusing on the “Great Plan” as means of personal development, and ignores any reference to the unique placement of the monarch.29 In the case of Kwŏn Kŭn, it is safe to assume that he was using Cai Shen’s text as a primer of the Confucian essentials work on the plan. For the next two centuries, we hardly see any reference to the “Great Plan” in the writings of Korean intellectuals. It seems that Zhu Xi’s attack on the text, combined with Kwŏn Kŭn’s primer, were good enough to leave things as they were. Sixteenth century scholars, such as Yi Hwang 李滉 (1501-1570) and Yi I 李珥 (1536 - 1584), focused on issues of moral cultivation and the inherent tension between the high Confucian moral standards and the fallibility of human psychology.30 When King Sŏnjo (r. 1567–1608) was crowned at the age of fifteen, Yi Hwang, a minister without portfolio at the time, was selected to educate the young king.31 Tired and ill, he soon retired, but left a summary of the essential Confucian teachings 28 The distinction between “皇極建” and “皇極不建” is derived directly from Su Xun. See Su Xun 蘇洵 (1009-1066), Hongfan luzhong 洪範論中 “bingtu” 並圖 (combined diagram) chapter. The phrase “following heaven’s way” 繼天道 refers to Wang An-Shi 王安石 (1021-1086). See Wang An-shi 王安石, “Hongfan zhuan 洪范傳“ in Linchuan xiansheng wenji 临川先生文集, 65.2. https://ctext.org/wiki.pl?if=gb&chapter=292656&remap=gb#p3. Su Xun wrote a short and very unusual text on the plan. He, and mostly his son, rejected Wang An-Shi’s grandiose plans, and his son also lost his political career for this cause, ending his life in a form of a house arrest. However, the few references to Wang An-Shi in the diagram are to those areas that Zhu Xi himself accepted as legitimate in his Huangji bian 皇極辨. 29 Cai Shen does sa however that “The Human huangji is ultimately constructed by the monarch.” (人皇極者君之所以建極也。) See Cai Shen, Shujing ji zhuan 書經集傳, 4.19b https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=en&res=595. 30 Michael C. Kalton and Oaksook Chun Kim, The Four-Seven Debate: An Annotated Translation of the most Famous Controversy in Korean Neo-Confucian Thought (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994), xv-xxxv. See also Edward Y.J. Chung, The Korean Neo-Confucianism of Yi T'oegye and Yi Yulgok: A Reappraisal of the 'Four-Seven Thesis' and Its Practical Implications for Self-Cultivation (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995). 31 Michael Kalton, To Become a Sage: The Ten Diagrams on Sage Learning (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988), 24-5. 83 under the title Ten Diagrams of Sage Learning (聖學十圖). The Ten Diagrams do not mention the “Great Plan,” but we can learn Yi Hwang’s line from an answer he gave as part of the Classics Mat Lectures in 1578.32 The topic of the lecture is the issue of privacy (私), perhaps better translated as private-mindedness or attending to personal matters. Yi Hwang’s text is true to his main concern with human nature and awareness of human fallibility. During the discussion he invokes the Great Plan, where he says: 箕子爲武王陳洪範。先言敬用五事。而後極讚皇極之道。則亦若無憂於有私邪矣。 Kija 箕子 transmitted the “Great Plan” to King Wu 武. First he talks about Reverence (敬) applied to the Five Ways of Conducting Yourself (五事), and after that praises highly the Way of the Huangji. Therefore, it was as if he did not worry about the corruption of self-centeredness. This short introduction of the texts is very much in line with Yi Hwang’s own beliefs that focusing on reverence was the key for successful quiet sitting meditations.33 While honoring the importance of Kija, it focuses on the problem of self-centeredness (私 sa), thus making the “Great Plan” an issue of self-cultivation even when it deals with the monarch directly. Followed by this introduction is a direct citation of the short poem from the “Great Plan”, which signifies 32 Yi Hwang “mujin kyŏngyŏn kyech’a yi 戊辰經筵啓箚二 [Second mat lecture of 1568]” in Tosan chŏnsŏ 陶山全書 vol. 2, 7.188a-191a. 33 Edward Chŏng pointed this as one of several major differences between Yi Hwang (and indeed his school) and Yi I. See Edward Y. J. Chŏng, The Korean Neo-Confucianism of Yi T'oegye and Yi Yulgok: A Reappraisal of the "Four-seven thesis" and its Practical Implications for Self-Cultivation (Albany, NY: State Univ. of New York Press, 1995), 134. See also Yi Hwang, “’Ch’o Ŭiryŏ sŏnsaeng chip’ pu Peaksa Yangmyŏng ch’o hu poksŏ kimal 抄醫閭先生集。附白沙，陽明抄後。復書其末 [Notes on Baisha and Yangming appended to the end of notes on the Yilüxiansheng ji],” in T’oegye chip 41. 420b. http://db.itkc.or.kr/inLink?DCI=ITKC_MO_0144A_0410_010_0080_2004_A030_XML Yi Hwang provides an explanation on the origin of his quiet sitting as a synthesis of several sources. 84 the core message of the text and according to Nylan might be older than the text itself.34 In Yi Hwang’s other great work on the classics, the Samgyŏng sasŏ sŏgŭi 三經四書釋義 (The Meaning of the Three Classics and Four Books) he provides something that is less than a commentary. In that text he provides explanations for gaps that he found in existing material, focusing on those passages that did not have an undisputed interpretation. Yi Hwang did not challenge any existing commentary and did not need to provide a comprehensive method for understand the classics.35 His sŏgŭi provided reading markers in vernacular Korean, and a large portion of his commentaries stemmed from translation issues. Nevertheless, he introduced some interesting textual techniques, such as using multiple sources to determine the meaning of specific sources. 36 It is only in the seventeenth century that we see a revival in the study of the “Great Plan”. Besides Yun Hyu, we find that some other scholars who wrote significant texts on the “Great Plan”, such as U Yŏ-mu 禹汝楙 (1591 - 1657), who wrote the Hongbŏm uik 洪範羽翼 (Assisting the Great Plan). 37 Others, such as Hŏ Mok and Song Siyŏl seemed to respond to the growing interest by adding their own short note on the subject.38 For the next two centuries we 34 Michael Nylan, The Shifting Center, 27-8. 35 Kim Man-il, Chosŏn 17-18-segi sangsŏ haesŏk ŭi saeroun kyŏnghyang, 24. 36 Kim Su-kyŏng, "T’oegyeŭi sigyŏng sŏgŭi koch’are taehan pŏnyŏkhakchŏk t’amsaek [An Exploration on Toegye's Analysis of Previous Korean Seokuis from the view of Translation Studies]," in han’guk hanmunhak yŏn’gu 55 (2014): 5-28. Sim Kyŏng-ho, “T’oegyeŭi sigyŏng haesŏkkwa kŭ t’ŭkching [T’oegye’s Philology in the Study of Shijing],”in T’oegyehakkwa yugyomunhwa 36 (2005): 31-66. 37 Kim Man-il, Chosŏn 17-18-segi sangsŏ haesŏk ŭi saeroun kyŏnghyang, 183. U Yŏ-mu, whose pen name was sokch’ŏn 涑川, passed his erudite examination at the age of 44, and consequently served in various government posts, most notably in the Office of the Inspector-General (Sahŏnbu), and as the magistrate of the Hadong county (河東, in Kyŏngsang-nam Province) . He is most known for his prodigious tome on the “Great Plan,” titled hongbŏm uik 洪範羽翼, among other factors for his unusual usage of punctuation. Sokch’ŏn remained less-famous because of his mostly-rural activity, and his writings did not receive a proper woodblock print version. The Sŏnggyun’gwan published a facsimile version of this text in 1993, and it still awaits a proper study. Yi U-sŏng, Introduction to Hongbŏm Uik, by U Yŏ-mu (Sŏul T'ŭkpyŏlsi: Sŏnggyun'gwan Taehakkyo Ch'ulp'anbu, 1993). 38 Hŏ Mok “Hongbŏm sŏl 洪範說 [Explaining the Great Plan],” in Misu kiŏn 眉叟記 ,31:8a. Hŏ Mok’s text is merely one paragraph long. 85 see a plethora of writings on the Book of Documents in general, and on the “Great Plan” in particular. It is therefore important for us to keep in mind, when we discuss Yun Hyu’s approach to the classics, that he represents a continuation of some existing lines of inquiry just as much as he innovates and breaks tradition. We can truly appreciate his work only when we think of the way that he is situated within what he considered to be orthodoxy. 3.5 Notes upon Reading the Book of Documents Notes upon Reading the Documents, or toksangsŏ 讀尙書 is a typical work of its genre: it is a non-thematic survey of various issues which supposedly arose when reading the Classic of Documents 尙書. It is supposedly a result of the intensive effort he made to study this classic in his year of seclusion in 1638. 39 As was the case with all of his systematic writings, Yun Hyu worked in iterations, reviewing and correcting his own text periodically. Of its fifty-eight chapters, Yun Hyu surveys twenty-three. Yun Hyu submitted this text for Hŏ Mok’s review and in 1666 received an outraged response from his colleague. Hŏ Mok starts his letter by addressing specific chapters of the Documents, namely the “Canon of Yao” and the “Great Plan.” He calls Yun Hyu’s attempt disgraceful 辱示, mainly because “pondering and deciding on these matters are not something done overnight, but a matter of extreme diligence”.40 But he later goes on into specifics and says: 洪範九疇。雖曰禹之所敍。禹疇箕訓。孔子編書。孔子不分。毀改經文。蓋亦前古之未聞。聖人之言。可畏不可亂也。天下可誣也。聖人之言。不可亂也。與考定武成。其事不同。如此不已。則六經無全經。古文無全文。經文之害。焚滅一也。毀 39 Yun Hyu, “Hangsang sang 行狀上 [Chronological Overview Part 1],” in PHCS, purok 2, 7. 40 Hŏ Mok “Tabyojŏn, hongbŏm, chungyong kojŏngjisilsŏ 答堯典，洪範，中庸考定之失書 [Response on the ‘Canon of Yao,’ ‘Great Plan,’ and ‘Examining the Order of the Doctrine of the Mean’ you previously wrote], ” in Kiŏn, 3.43b. 86 壞二也。豈不爲大可懼也。又不獨此也。旣以六經古文。毀改無難。則其視曾子子思。固已淺尠矣。固已淺尠矣。然萬萬無此理。 Regarding the Great Plan in Nine Sections, although it is said to have been recorded by Yu, it was Yu himself who made the categories, Jizi (Kija) who explained them and Confucius who organized the text. Confucius did not separate the parts of the text while editing it. Reshaping the classics was unheard of in the dynasties of the past. The words of the sages should be held in awe, not corrupted. You can insult the people of the world, but do not disturb the words of the sages. Collating it in conjunction with the “Completion of the War” (Wucheng), you say the events in the two do not match up. If you will not stop what you are doing, the Six Classics will lose their status as perfect classics. If the ancient texts are not seen as perfect classics, they will be greatly damaged. That will be just as bad as when they were burned. This would be the second time they are destroyed. Is this not something to be feared? But it is not only this: once the Six Classics and the old texts are changed and this easily destroyed, the work of Zengzi and Zisi will truly be rendered insignificant. Thus, that would be the end of principle anywhere.41 Besides the emotional tone of his comment, it seems that Hŏ Mok is making several different claims, addressing different levels. First, he is accusing Yun Hyu of remodeling the classics, which for him is unthinkable. This failure is equivalent in his eyes to corruption of the words of the sages of the past. A different type of critique is on the issue of timing: the events described in the “Great Plan” and the “Completion of the War” - do not add up. This has directly to do with one of Yun Hyu’s more important commentaries. I will show that Yun Hyu and Hŏ Mok take 41 Hŏ Mok “Tabyojŏn, hongbŏm, chungyong kojŏngjisilsŏ,” 3.44b. 87 opposing sides in this matter. For Hŏ Mok the internal contradictions in the text make it not trust worthy. For Yun Hyu it calls for additional interpretation through the aid of additional texts. Did Yun Hyu deserve such a rebuke? He did anticipate one, if we judge by the introduction. Yun Hyu’s introduction for this text is almost standard for his notes: he begins by explaining the need for a commentary, saying: 聖人垂六經.先儒發其義而暢之. 殆亦無遣憾矣. 然生於數千載之後. 而講討於數千載之上. 又烏能無待於後之人者. 蓋天下義理無窮也. 讀書之暇隨得隨筆因前人未發. 綴我謏聞. 用作就正之地云爾. The six classics the sages left for us - the scholars of the past transmitted their meaning clearly and freely, and with no regrets that they left anything out. However, living thousands of years later, and with thousands of years of discussion behind us, how can we wait for later generations to explain what is in them? Since under Heaven the principles of what is right can never be fully explored, when I have free time to read I casually note what predecessors have not yet explained; I enjoy weaving my limited knowledge to make corrections in what has been said. Mentioning past scholars or sŏn yu 先儒, is the usual way to indicate a controversy or disagreement. This statement appears in many of Yun Hyu’s commentaries, and particularly in the Toksŏgi.42 But this statement is not a mere disclaimer for Yun Hyu to provide before a controversial piece of commentary. It is essential for our understanding of Yun Hyu’s whole system, since he presents not only challenging theses on the classics, but also on the method of 42 Compare with the introduction for his commentary on the Great Plan, Doctrine of the Mean and Book of Filial Piety. Yun Hyu, “Toksŏgi Chungyong [Notes upon reading the Doctrine of the Mean],“ in PHCS, kwŏn 36, 1447; ; Yun Hyu, “Toksŏgi taehak [Notes upon reading the Great Larning],” in PHCS, kwŏn 39, 1552; Yun Hyu “Hyogyŏng oejŏn sokp’yŏn [Continuation of external commentaries on the Book of Filial Piety],” in PHCS, kwŏn 40, 1593 respectively. As I will show in the following chapters, it also indicates reverence. 88 addressing the classics. As Martina Deuchler showed, Yun Hyu characterized his role as a reader of commentaries as a repetitive process of re-reading and correcting.43 This he understood as a direct demand of Zhu Xi’s way of learning, as the opening of Yun Hyu’s own commentaries on Doctrine of the Mean, titled Toksŏgi chungyong (Notes upon reading the Doctrine of the Mean) clearly indicates.44 This tension is beyond the normal strain that different versions of the term “orthodoxy” meant to different power groups within Chosŏn yangban.45 We are assured that the following text will be controversial and challenging to the particular Namin orthodoxy. 舊說云 武王伐紂 以箕子歸既二年作洪範 攷武王立十三年克殷 命召公釋箕子之囚 因即就見之而問道 是洪範之所為作也。舊說蓋以書序武王十一年伐紂 十三年訪箕子故云爾 果然箕子之滯澗 。不亦有異於遼渡東走之心 而武王之求道亦無級汲之誠矣。仁山前編亦序 訪箕子於武王返周之後。亦因書序之誤爾。 The old explanation said that "King Wu conquered (King) Zhou. Two years later Jizi (K. Kija) submitted to his court and drew up the Great Plan." It took King Wu thirteen years to rise to power, after which he ordered the Duke of Shao (his brother) to release Jizi from his imprisonment, which is why as soon as they met and he (the king) asked about the Way, (Kija) was able to produce the “Great Plan.” This is therefore why the ancients said in the introduction to the Documents that it took King Wu eleven years to attack 43 Martina Deuchler, “Despoilers of the Way - Insulters of the Sages,” 100. The term “orthodoxy” here comes from chŏnghak 正學 or “correct learning”, and sometime it is contrasted with the Confucian idan 異端. 44 Yun Hyu, “Toksŏgi chungyong 讀書記 中庸 [Notes Upon Reading the Doctrine of the Mean],” in PHCS, kwŏn 36, 1447. Part of Zhu Xi’s way of working, as Yun Hyu characterize it, was to “collect many explanations and compile them into an acceptable explanation” (旣集衆說而折衷之有成說矣). 45 I am following here Duncan’s insight on the Chosŏn Orthodoxies. John B. Duncan, "Examinations and Orthodoxy in Chosŏn Dynasty Korea," in Rethinking Confucianism: Past and Present in China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam (2002): 65-94. 89 King Zhou (of the Shang). If that is indeed so, it took him 13 years to meet with Jizi. When Jizi was thus being ignored, he did not yet think about crossing the Liao River eastward. So, King Wu's asking about the Way was not sincere. In his original preface, Insan 仁山 also claims that after his visit with Jizi, King Wu returned to Zhou, and this is why the introduction to the Documents makes that mistake. The first part of the text refers to the relationship between King Wu and Jizi and start with the theory that Jizi was indeed locked up under the Zhou admisintration and mostly ignored. This, as I will show below is tightly related with Chosŏn’s veneration of Jizi, Kija in the Korean pronounciation, as a national progenitor. Next Yun Hyu follows the Shangshu dazhuan to reconstruct Kija’s story: 書大傳箕子不忍於武王之釋而走之朝鮮 蓋箕子。 未嘗至周 自紂都而東出耳 紂都朝歌 其地固與燕遼相接也。史記武王訪以箕子問殷之所以亡 箕子不忍言。 武王亦醜之 乃訪問箕子以天道 箕子乃以洪範陳之。 其所謂天道 即今見於經 惟天陰隲以下也 。 According to the Shangshu dazhuan 尚書大傳 (The great commentary on the Documents), Jizi could not bear the explanation of King Wu for what he had done and went to Chosŏn.46 He did not go back to Zhou. Instead, he simply went eastward straight from the capital of King Zhou, Zhāogē. Zhāogē itself was taken by the Yan state (of 46 The Shangshu dazhuan 尚書大傳, was an alternative version of the Shangshu written by the Han scholar Fu Sheng 伏勝, and commented on by Zheng Xuan 鄭玄. It is lost, bu several reconstructions of it exist today. 90 Zhou) and incorporated into Liao. The Records of the Historian say "When King Wu met Jizi he asked him why Yin lost, and Jizi could not bear to answer. King Wu was also ashamed of it thus he asked a question about the Way of Heaven, and therefore Kija laid out the ‘Great Plan’." This so-called 'Way of Heaven' is what we see today in the classics as "Heaven secretly providing blessings". Next Yun Hyu focuses on one aspect of the Grear Plan which he sees as central to Kija’s speech, that is term ilun 彝倫 which he sets out to explain. Yun Hyu sees the term as a standard of normative behavious and a major component in his understanding of the text. 經中所謂彝倫 即率陶所謂天敘五典 帝舜所謂五品 孟子所謂人倫是也。曰彝者 若禮所謂五常 詩所謂秉彝也。傳言彝倫指九疇而言 收其名義 未見可驗於經者。 況論治道而不及於倫綱 豈所謂經綸天下大經者哉。洪範者 敘彝倫之大怯而非所謂彝倫也。彝倫者 即天之陰隲乎下民者也。其理則仁義禮智。道則君臣父子夫姍兄弟朋友之交也。 According to the Classics, what we call “ilun” 彝倫, is what Gao Yao (Shun's minister) called the "five duties from Heaven", and Shun called the "five orders of relationship" and what Mencius called "human relations". This normative behavior (彝), is what the Rites call "five constants" and the Book of Odes calls "the normative nature". The Commentary (Cai Shen's) says that the words "maintaining human relationships" 彝倫 suggests the nine categories 九疇, but I cannot find the meaning of this name from what I see in the classics. Moreover, while discussing the "Way of governing" 治道, if it doesn't mention "guidelines of human relations" 倫綱, what could the so-called "adjust 91 the great invariable relations of mankind" [Doctrine of the Mean] mean? The "Great Plan" talks about how great proper human relations are but doesn’t specific what proper human relations specifcally are. Human relations are therefore the mystery of heaven handed down to the people: Its principle is only humanity, righteousness, ritual and wisdom; Its way is only the interactions of monarch and minister, father and son, husband and wife, elder and younger, and that of friends. Finally, Yun Hyu concludes his historical survey by criticizing the ideas expressed in the Da Ming yelu 大明野錄 (Private records of the Great Ming), blaming Zhu Xi’s disciple Cai Shen in propagating misunderstandings pointing to what he sees as major failures in Cai Shen’s commentary. This frontal attack on Cai Shen is the main purpose of this survey, and Yun Hyu’s most daring argument since it points to major failures in the transmission of Zhu Xi’s teaching. He says there: 得《大明野錄》 高皇帝嘗讀洪範 以爲陰隲者天事也 。若風雨霜露調均四時 五穀結實是也。相協厥居君道也。若敷五教明五刑使天下各安其居是也。斥蔡傳不能圾其意 遂命儒臣更撰 書傳會選 以示被世云云 海外下臣 無缘伏讀大訓 以窺聖謨之所極 謹竊論蔡傳之可疑者。以竢君子爾 。 In the Da Ming ye lu 大明野錄 (Private records of the Great Ming), it says when the emperor (Hongwu) was reading the “Great Plan,” he thought that "secretly providing blessings" 陰隲 refers to the work of heaven, such as bringing wind and rain, frost and dew properly in the four seasons, and making the five grains bear fruit, and that "helping 92 them live together harmoniously" is the Way of the King, such as spreading the 'Five Teachings' and explaining the 'Five Punishments' to ensure that everyone plays their proper roles. I blame Cai Shen's commentary for us not being able to discard this idea, which eventually led the Confucian minister (i.e., Liu Sanwu 劉三吾) to compile the shuzhuan huixuan 書傳會選, which has been passed down to later generations. This inferior minister across the sea without cause humbly studies these great teachings, exploring to their depths the plans of the Sages. I clumsily point out areas in Cai Shen’s commentary which are questionable and wait for an exemplary person to clear them up. In his discussion on the “Great Plan,” Yun Hyu seems to be dealing with three different issues, the largest of which is a lengthy discussion on timing. Why is it important for Yun Hyu to find out the exact timing of Kija’s journey to the East? Yun Hyu went to great pains to show us that it took two additional years between the Zhou’s conquest of the Yin Capital and Kija’s meeting with King Wu. To do so, he corroborates and crossed referenced four different sources. First, there are two versions of the text itself, the popular addition of the Documents, and the Shudazhuan 書大傳, one of its alternative versions.47 In addition there are also references from Sima Qian’s Records of the Historian and from Master Insan 仁山. The latter is Jin Lüxiang 金履祥 (1232~1303), the Song and Yuan commentator who is the alleged author of two different volumes of commentaries on the Documents and criticized both Zhu Xi and the Shujizhuan.48 Yun Hyu also quotes from Shuzhuan huixuan 書傳會選 that was compiled under the orders of 47 As mentioned earlier, this is the shangshu dazhuan 尚書大傳, and alternative version to the shangshu. It was reconstructed by the Qing scholar Sun Zhilu 孫之騄 on the basis of fragments. Later, during the 18th century, it served as the basis for the version provided by Lu Wenchao 盧文弨. Sun's version is also called the Yayu Studio version 雅雨堂本, and it survived in his collected works (孫晴川八種). See Vankeerberghen Griet, "Rulership and Kinship: The" Shangshu dazhuan"'s Discourse on Lords." Oriens Extremus 46 (2007): 84-100. 48 Kim Man-il, “Yun Hyu ŭi toksangsŏ yŏn’gu [A Research on Paekho’s ‘Notes Reading the Documents’]”, Yugyo sasang yŏn’gu 23.0 (2005), 58. 93 Nurhachi. Kim Man-il deduces from this that Yun Hyu was influenced, or at least familiar with, contemporary Qing scholarship.49 As far as the “Great Plan” is concerned, it seems that Yun Hyu is mostly concerned with the correct timing of the compilation of the “Great Plan” by Kija. According to Yun Hyu, this is the proper order of the events: In his eleventh year, King Wu defeats Zhòu, the last king of the Shang dynasty, and takes over the capital. Kija, a noble and relative of King Zhou who had been imprisoned by Zhou, remains in prison for additional two years, during which he compiles his famous text. Finally, at his thirteenth year, King Wu orders his brother, the Duke of Shao, to release Kija. The meeting that follows is awkward, not legendary. The King asks Kija why should Yin lose the throne post-factum, to which Kija cannot reply. Finally, King Wu asks about the Way of Heaven, and Kija provides his ready-made text. Once released Kija flees from Zhou eastward, across the Liao. Yun Hyu’s account is not only a matter of intellectual interest: in the past, Kija played an important role in the way that highly esteemed figures of Korean Confucianism imagined their own culture. Han Young-woo explains that Kija worship has been an important aspect of Korean culture, in several roles.50 According to Han, Chinese have already reported the worship of Kija as a deity during the Koguryŏ dynasty.51 In his survey he shows that the Kija worship throughout the Koryŏ and Chosŏn dynasties oscillated between two set of opposite poles, between political independence and subservience to China and between cultural distinctiveness and uniformity with China.52 Opposite to the worship of Kija, was the worship of Tangun 檀君, as an example 49 Kim Man-il, “Yun Hyu ŭi toksangsŏ yŏn’gu,” 58. 50 Han Young-woo, “Kija Worship in the Koryŏ and Early Ui Dynasties: A Cultural Symbol in the Relationship between Korea and China” in The Rise of Neo-Confucianism in Korea, ed. W. M. Theodore de Bary and JaHayun Kim Haboush (New York: Columbia University, 1985), 349-74. 51 Han Young-woo, “Kija Worship in the Koryŏ and Early Ui Dynasties,” 350-1. 52 Han Young-woo, “Kija Worship in the Koryŏ and Early Ui Dynasties,” 371. 94 of a local mythology (naturally stressing cultural uniqueness and independence).53 Han’s survey ends with Yulgok (1536-1584), that is, a century before Yun Hyu, where he notes that during the sixteenth century Yulgok as a representative of the Kiho school 畿湖學派 affirmed the importance of Kija as a model of cultural assimilation.54 Politically speaking, Yulgok tended to emphasize the importance of Realpolitik, in ways that were tightly connected with his opinion on matters of metaphysics, focusing on the importance of ki 氣. He used Kija in this sense to emphasize the role of Confucians in the realization of the Kingly Way or wangdo 王道. The Yŏngnam School 嶺南學派, on the other hand, stressed the importance of loyalty above all.55 The Yŏngnam School had in mind a dualism of ki 氣 and li 理 that had huge implications on their views on practical matters.56 Yi Hwang 李滉 (1501-1570), the progenitor of the Yŏngnam School, stressed the frailty of human morals. He has repeatedly given up prestigious offices in favor of life of contemplation in the countryside. In the framework of the Yŏngnam School, Tangun makes a much better model of a ruler. Indeed, some Yŏngnam scholars have made this link in the past.57 In this sense we can see Yun Hyu as an unusual example of his school. Yun Hyu does provide Kija as the model of Korean assimilation of Chinese culture, but as a refugee. In his story Kija was not enfiefed by King Wu, but rather ran away from the complications of the dynastic change. It is clear to see that this story reflects the wide sentiments of Chosŏn Confucians following the collapse of the Ming Dynasty by the 53 These dynamics seem to carry on in modern Korea. See for example Suh Youngdae, " Kŭndae han’gugŭi tan’gun insikkwa minjokchuŭi [Ideas on Tangun and Nationalism in Modern Korea]" in Tongbuga yŏksa nonch’ong [Journal of North-Eastern Asian History] 20 (2008): 7-51. 54 Han Young-woo, “Kija Worship in the Koryŏ and Early Ui Dynasties,” 366-371. 55 Han Young-woo, “Kija Worship in the Koryŏ and Early Ui Dynasties,” 367. 56 Hwang Joon-yon, “Neo-Confucian Scholars of Chosun Dynasty and the Problems of Spiritual Cultivation in Case of the ‘Four-Seven Debate,’” in Tongyang ch’ŏrhak yŏngu 25 (2001:6): 217-234. Hwang contrasts T’oegye and Yulgok as representatives of their schools, and shows how their differences in matters of metaphysics lead to practical differences in matters of self-cultivation. 57 See for example Ch’oe Ip 崔岦, (1539-1612) who made this direct link in his text on the great plan in Ch’oe Ip, “Hongbŏm hakki 洪範學記 [Records of learning the Great Plan],” in Kani chib, 9.29a. 95 Manchus. Yun Hyu’s Kija anticipates King Yŏngjo’s sentiments that “the Central Plains [China] exude the stenches of barbarians and our Green Hills [Korea] are alone”.58 It is also clear why this makes Hŏ Mok so uncomfortable. Hŏ Mok himself focused on Tangun as a dynastic model, and even wrote a text titled tan’gun sega 檀君世家 or the House of Tangun.59 Hŏ Mok wrote a similar text on the House of Kija, titled appropriately kija sega 箕子世家 or “the house of Kija”. It seems that the model that he provided was a hybrid mode of the Kija-like cultural assimilation and Tangun-like unique identity. This seems to be the consensus for the Yŏngnam people (Ch’oe Ip’s text mentioned above is working along very similar lines). From that point on it seems that Yun Hyu moves to talk about other topics. These however eventually join the discussion on Kija to make one solid argument. First he mentions the topic of ilun 彝倫 which James Legge translated as “unvarying principles” and I have rendered here as “normative human relationships”.60 Yun Hyu responds directly to the way that Cai Shen defines the term.61 In his great commentary, Cai Shen explains that the introduction to the “Great Plan” poses a real question, and that it is not immediately clear why the term ilun was the one being used.62 Cai elaborates and as an answer to the question of the term he tells the story of Great Yu and his battle in the flood. According to Cai, it was Gun 鯀, Yu’s legendary father, 58 Martina Deuchler and JaHyun Kim Haboush. Culture and the State in Late Chosŏn Korea (Cambridge, Mass. ; Harvard University Press. 2001), 70. 59 Hŏ Mok, “Kiŏn tongsa sŏ 記言東事序 [Introduction to records of words on Eastern affairs],” in Kiŏn 32.1b. 60 Some of Yun Hyu's contemporaries did dwell on this term. One interesting case is the Japanese Sekigo Matsunaga 松永尺五 (1592-1657) who wrote in 1640 his influential book Irinsho 彝倫抄. Yun Hyu has many similarities to Sekigo, such as his reliance on the explanations of terms and nuances, as well as the political affiliation of his text. There are no direct evidences in the text that Yun Hyu knew about Sekigo Matsunaga and his work, but it is obvious that both Tasan and Park Chaega knew about him and his work. For his influence on later Korean thinkers see Park Pyŏnsŏn, "Ch’ojŏng pakchega,yunam ihŭigyŏngŭi toja insik", in misul sahak yŏn’gu 239.0 (2003): 213-234. See also John A. Tucker, "The Meaning of Words and Confucian Political Philosophy", in Dao companion to Japanese Confucian philosophy, ed. Huang Chun-chieh and John Allen Tucker (Springer, 2014), 31-68. 61 Cai Shen, Shangshu jizhuan 書經集傳, 4.19a. 62 Cai Shen, Shangshu jizhuan, 4.19a. “我不知其彛倫之所以敍者 如何也。” 96 who understood how to use the Five Phases in order to stop the water.63 Yu however, was working under a different imperative derived from the “Great Plan”. He was furious at the active action against a force of nature. Heaven solved this problem by revealing the Luoshu 洛書. According to Cai, the words ilun were added to the text to solve this specific concern. What we can understand from Cai Shen is the term was added to the “Great Plan”. In effect, the addition makes a distinction between Heaven, which deals in absolutes, and the human (or kingly) realm, which deals in normative behavior. For Yun Hyu, Cai Shen’s story seems like a narrow understanding of the text (i.e., the “Great Plan”), one that sees the focus of the text in one sphere alone. A similar critique is directed toward Cai's understanding of the term zhi dao 治道 or Way of governing. For Yun Hyu the “Great Plan” is a meta-text - it does not inform you of the particulars of human relationships, but rather it shows you the great pattern. For Yun Hyu, on the other hand normative human behavior is also “revealed”, and one cannot draw a clear line between the world of absolutes and the relative, normative mundane. This is why he is saying that one needs Guidelines of Human Relations 倫綱 in order to understand the Way of Governing 治道. Finally, we reach the last argument that Yun Hyu is making against Cai Shen’s understanding. Yun Hyu is reading one of the Ming Dynasty court records, from which he understands that the Hongwu emperor 洪武 (r. 1328 - 1398) was instructed on the “Great Plan.” It was Cai Shen’s understanding that reached the emperor, through the shuzhuan huixuan 書傳會選 compiled by the minister Liu Sanwu 劉三吾 (b. 1313). Yun is concerned that the specific reading that was inherited through the Ming emperor, is one that will discourage ministers from dealing in absolutes, but rather they will focus on technicalities, and thus discourage reading in the classics. The paragraph is dense, and there is more than one possible reading for it - perhaps 63 Cai Shen, Shangshu jizhuan, 4.19b. 97 on purpose. However, one plausible reading is one that accuses Cai Shen for the eventual fall of the Ming! We have the tendency to think about the learning of the classics in terms of intellectual capacities, the symbolic capital of the yangban. In this case we are reminded that these are revealed texts in the religious meaning of the word. Cai Shen’s text is writing exactly about the creation myth of the text itself. Yun Hyu equates the “Great Plan” with the Doctrine of the Mean, suggesting that the one term ilun 彝倫 implies on the relationship between them – that of a general plan vis-à-vis detailed instruction. In fact, Yun Hyu’s approach to the text implies a reverence reserved to a revealed text. Yun Hyu is using the Names and Meaning 名義 technique, to draw integrated meaning from several sources in the classics.64 This implies that the classics as a body hold integrated coherent truth, as opposed to what Hŏ Mok says explicitly. It also it implies that the “Great Plan” has the status of an independent classic. This become even more evident in light of the second text we investigate, titled Hongbŏm kyŏngjŏn t’ongŭi 洪範經傳通義 (Penetrating the meaning of the classic and commentary on the Great Plan). 3.6 Penetrating the Meaning of the Classic and Commentary on the Great Plan Yun Hyu wrote the Hongbŏm kyŏngjŏn t’ongŭi 洪範經傳通義 when he was twenty-six, and revised it with additional notes when he was forty-six.65 This process is evident by the embedded comments, providing a sense of a commentary on the commentaries. The introduction of the text was published originally in the 1935 version (the Paekho chip) without the body of the text. In the Paekho chŏnsŏ it remained separated from the main body of the text, and in many ways 64 Yun Hyu mentions this fact I directly in his introduction to Hongbŏm kyŏngjŏn t’ongŭi 洪範經傳通義 or Penetrating the Meaning of the Classic and Commentary on the Great Plan. 65 Kŭm Chang-tae, Chosŏn hugiŭi yuhak sasang [The Neo-Confucian Thought of Later Chosŏn] (Sŏul-si: Sŏul Taehakkyo Ch'ulp'anbu,1998), 118-9. 98 seems to be its own work indeed. Although the text itself is grouped with the rest of Yun Hyu’s Toksŏgi 讀書記, it does not belong there. These are not occasional notes on a text, but rather a systematic review of the “Great Plan” as a classic. As noted in the conclusion, Yun Hyu himself consider this text to be of the sŏl 說 genre.66 This introduction makes a quick summery of the main issue presented in the toksangsŏ without dwelling on details. It also makes an explicit challenge: 洪範者。聖人治天下之大法也 。經曰 天乃錫禹洪範九疇。彝倫攸敍。則 彝倫者。五常之大倫也。洪範者。所以敍是道焉而已。疇以九之 。法以用之 。然後王道備焉 。天德章焉。抑先儒所以發明之者。猶有待於後之人也。 余旣竊推前人說。考論洪範餘意。平原聖人之心法 。又次序孝經內外傳義。以益闡敍倫之微言。庶幾二經相須。而明傳諸學者。亦有以識余之樂道堯舜之道而願學者焉耳。67 The “Great Plan” is the sage's great rules for governing all under Heaven. The Classic [of Documents] say "To him [Great Yu] Heaven gave the ‘Great Plan’ with its nine divisions, and the unvarying principles (of its method) were set forth in their due order". Accordingly, the term ilun 彝倫 refers to the Five Constants of the great human relationships.68 The “Great Plan,” is only that by which this order 敘 is explained as the Way 道. Only after dividing them into nine categories can they be applied. Only then is the Kingly Way (王道) complete and the Virtue of Heaven (天德) made the standard. In the way past scholars explained that, but there is still something that awaits clarifications 66 PHCS, 1681. 67 PHCS “Hongbŏm kyŏngjŏn t’ongŭi chon 洪範經傳通義存,” kwŏn 24, 995. 68 James Legge roughly translates the term ilun 彝倫 as "unvarying principles", but I chose to translate it here as normative human relationships 99 I humbly further develop the words of earlier men, discussing and pondering the meaning of the “Great Plan” further, to go straight to the mind of a sage (心法).69 I have already put in order the external and internal commentaries to the Classic of Filial Piety (孝經). I used it to explain and express the intricacies of morality. The two similar classics need each other, and enlighten the commentaries of various scholars. Also, having this knowledge I take delight in the Way of Yao and Shun, and hope that those who wish to learn will listen to it. What can we learn from this introduction? First, that for Yun Hyu the “Great Plan” is now considered a classic. Yun Hyu claims that he uses the “Great Plan” and the Classic of Filial Piety as two complementary texts. However, there is neither a direct reference to the Filial Piety in the text, nor the other way around. Even so, this shed some light on his methodology, cross-referencing different texts dealing with similar classics. Second, the reference to past scholar means that Yun Hyu makes a direct challenge. The nature of the challenge is kept to the opening of the text, where Yun Hyu says: 洪範九疇 先儒之說所以探象數之原 發聖人之蘊者 固以詳且備哉.70 The ‘Great Plan in Nine Categories’ are the means by which the explanations of earlier scholars explore the origin of Images and Numbers, and reveal the Comprehensiveness of the Sage. 69 The term sinfa 心法 or simbŏp in Korean, is Yuan term used throughout the Ming, to describe the mind of the sage (specifically denoting that the emperor is the sage) 70 PHCS, “Hongbŏm kyŏngjŏn t’ongŭi 洪範經傳通義,” kwŏn 41, 1661. 100 And this is of course the challenge - The xiang-shu 象數 was one of the two major schools interpreting the Changes, and the one that Zhu Xi advocated. 71 The Comprehensiveness of the Sage is the title of chapter twenty-nine of Zhou Dun-yi’s Tongshu 通書, where Zhou Dun-yi correlates that expression with the hexagrams of the Book of Changes. Zhu Xi discusses the same expression in the Zhuzi yulei 朱子語類 (Selected Conversations of Master Zhu), where he is providing a direct reference to Zhou, but also correlates this expression with the "numerological images" in the Diagram of Early Heaven. The phrase that Yun Hyu is using here – “reveals the Comprehensiveness of the Sage” (發聖人之蘊者) is a direct reference to the Zhuzi yulei book of Master Zhou 周子之書 where Zhu Xi is discussing Zhou Dun-yi and the xiang-shu thought.72 Generally speaking, it seems that Yun Hyu is at odds with Zhu Xi on this topic. When discussing the issue of divination and the whole xiang-shu mysticism he is reluctant to give it any primacy. When his student Shu Qi 叔器 asks “Are the Good and Evil obtained by divining the yarrow stalks wrong?”73 He goes on to remind Zhu Xi that the “Great Plan” clearly states the importance of divination by tortoise shells and yarrow sticks, Zhu Xi rebukes him and says: 然而聖人見得那道理定後，常不要卜。且如舜所謂『胼志先定，詢謀僉同，鬼神其依，龜筮協從』。若恁地，便是自家所見已決，而卜亦不過如此，故曰：『卜不習吉。』 71 Cheng Chung-ying, “The Yi-Jing and Yin-Yang way of thinking” in History of Chinese Philosophy, vol. 3. Ed. Bo Mou (NY: Routledge, 2009), 94. This sudden interest in the topic might actually be a response to Jesuit challenges. See Joachim Kurtz, “Framing European Technology in Seventeenth Century China” in Cultures of knowledge: technology in Chinese history, ed. Dagmar Schäfer (Leiden: Brill, 2011). 216. 72 See also Li Jingde, Zhu Xi Yulei 朱子語類, 62:9 (Changes 2) – where Zhu Xi provides some additional insights on the topic. 73 Li Jingde, Zhu Xi Yulei 朱子語類, 65.11b. 101 The sages however, always determine the Principles of the Way (道理) first before making any decision, and so never uses divination. Moreover, it is what Shun called for: first harden your determination, inquire and plan together, comply with supernatural beings and follow the divination of the tortious and stalks harmoniously. It seems such that one sees what he already decided, and divination is just the same. This is why it says: “It is not good to study divination”.74 In the two “comprehensiveness” chapters of the tongshu 通書 (i.e., Chapters 29 and 30) Zhou Dunyi investigates the idea that by nature the Sage is incomprehensible to others, and that we need some external means in order to get access to his comprehensive access to reality. In the Comprehensiveness of the Sage chapter, it is Master Yan 言子 who gives us access to the sage.75 In the Essence and Comprehensiveness chapter, the sage is Fu Xi 伏羲 and the Book of Changes gives access to his mind.76 Zhu Xi understands “comprehensiveness” in this sense as moral content but argue that even if this moral content have already existed in Fu Xi’s writing in potential, it has not yet manifested (發見). Zhu Xi also focused on the importance of the Zhouyi as opposed to the Ten Wings. The act of divination was mainly a “way of learning” that was open to a broader audience (due to its visual nature) and that provided spiritual background to embrace change.77 Yun Hyu understood the “Great Plan” and the Changes as two complementary texts, in a way that correspond with the two mythological diagrams: the Hetu 河圖 being responsible for 74 Li Jingde, Zhuzi yulei 朱子語類, 66.11a. The last verse is a quotation from the “Counsels of the Great Yu” chapter. 75 Joseph A Adler, Reconstructing the Confucian Dao: Zhu Xi's Appropriation of Zhou Dunyi, (Albany, NY, USA: State University of New York Press, 2014), 284-5. 76 Joseph A Adler, Reconstructing the Confucian Dao, 285-6. 77 Geoffrey P. Redmond and Tze-Ki Hon, Teaching the I Ching (Book of Changes) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 178-9. 102 the images, while the Luoshu is related to the numbers.78 since the two diagrams were long associated with the eight trigrams 八卦 and the numerology of the Nine Halls 九宮, respectively.79 In this sense, even when not stated so directly, they should be read in tandem.80 Indeed, this is exactly what Yun Hyu is doing. He spends a large part of his text elucidating the generally overlooked second verse, where each number is acted upon (yong 用) in a different action. Yun Hyu negotiates these actions by contrasting them with the changes. He is using primarily the Xicizhuan 繫辭傳 (Commentary on the Appended Statements) of the Ten Wings.81 The association of the “Great Plan” with the commentary is natural, since the Xicizhuan was the first to correlate the two diagrams with the two mystical systems.82 Yun Hyu uses the two texts and the two numerological system to explain each other, by focusing on the symbolic meaning of the numbers. His usual technique is to select specific verses to explain each other, using for example synonymous verbs to illuminate a specific snippet of his text. We can see a good example of this technique in his treatment of the seventh item – the “examination of doubts” (稽疑). This item is associated in the “Great Plan” with the two divination techniques, the turtle shells and the yarrow stalks. First Yun Hyu outlines the epistemological problem that he associates with this section: 蓋天下之事理有所不可側。有所不可側、心有所不能知、一人之知識有限也。 78 Yun Hyu, “Toksŏgi Chungyong [Notes upon reading the Doctrine of the Mean]” in PHCS, kwŏn 36, 1677-8. 79 A good general survey of the diagrams and their usage is available in Stephen L. Field, “The Numerology of Nine Star Fengshui: A Hetu, Luoshu Resolution of the Mystery of Directional Auspice,” in Journal of Chinese Religions, 27:1 (1999): 13-33. 80 Yun Hyu, “Toksŏgi Chungyong,” 1677-8. 81 This fact alone denotes that Yun Hyu sees that Ten Wings as a stage in the evolution from graphic representation to abstract moral thought, as Wang Bi and Cheng Yi thought. See Redmond, Geoffrey P. and Tze-Ki Hon, 178. 82 Stephen L. Field, “The Numerology of Nine Star Fengshui,” 18. 103 有心知謀。或不能無適莫之私也。苟非明目達聰。以考乎天下之公議。極數觀變、以決乎爻象之貞朕、則固無以開物成務定天下之吉凶也。 Generally, there are under Heaven things whose why and wherefore is impenetrable. There being impenetrable matters, there is that which the mind cannot understand, hence the knowledge of any single person is limited. The mind has to ability to learn and strategize but some people are unable to avoid having their perspective biased by self-centeredness. If one does not perceive and understand things clearly even if you take into account all impartial discussions under Heaven and observe carefully the changes in the ultimate of numbers 極數 and even if you use the hexagrams in the Changes to try to predict the future, still you will not be able to comprehend what is happening around you clearly enough to foretell good and bad fortune anywhere in the world.83 The concern over the fragility of the human mind was always a main concern of the namin School. The disciples of Yi Hwang (T’oegye) were worried about private or selfish 私 interests (as opposed to being public minded 公).84 Here Yun Hyu is bothered by the epistemological aspect of this issue, in a way that is very Cartesian in nature: what if your selfish thoughts mislead you (to take the wrong action)?85 To a degree, it seems that Yun Hyu takes the position that no matter how objective your sources are, selfish biases will hinder your ability to see them 83 Yun Yun, “Toksŏgi Chungyong,” 1667. 84 Donald L. Baker, "A different thread: Orthodoxy, heterodoxy, and Catholicism in a Confucian world," Harvard East Asian Monographs (1999), 212-3. 85 In the first meditation, Descartes recognizes that the senses have deceived him on occasion and thus doubts them entirely. Even though there is no “misleading demon” here, it is interesting to note the process of doubt in the physical as a foundation of philosophy. John Cottingham, “Meditatio Prima: De iis quae in dubium revocari possunt,” in René Descartes: Meditations on First Philosophy: With Selections from the Objections and Replies, ed. John Cottingham, ed. John Cottingham (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 22-31. 104 clearly. However, we can also read this paragraph as suggesting that the shapes and numbers offer some objective “anchor” in reality. In other words, the power of numerology is conceived here as a natural force and therefore consistent. This, of course, will not help against delusional thoughts. Using the Xicizhuan in the context of divination makes particular sense, since it offers a reading on both images 象 and numbers 數. In his analysis of the Xicizhuan, Willard Peterson shows that the text is making a claim of completeness: not only does the Book of Changes replicate universal processes at work, the commentary itself claims completeness and all-inclusiveness.86 If Peterson is correct, this claim is similar in nature to the argument that Yun Hyu is trying to make on the “Great Plan.” From the Xicizhuan Yun Hyu selected two verses that are close in nature to the verse that he examines, mainly by suggesting to the ruler (or sage) a methodology of inspecting each strata of society in its own respectful way. He is also mirroring the various terminology that both texts use to say “examine”. From the “Great Plan” he is quoting the verb “to inspect, to check” 稽, and the verb “to plan, to consult” 謀. 故其謀及乃心盡乎已也。謀及卿士 欲其詢乎人而公也。謀及庶民 為其合聽之則聖也。87 Therefore, the classic said “consult with your own mind” to the fullest extent, “consult with your high ministers and officers” if you wish to inquire about the people and the common good, and “consult with the people.” Being able to hear from all of them together is sageliness. 86 Peterson, Willard J. "Making Connections: "Commentary on the Attached Verbalizations" of The Book of Change." Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 42, no. 1 (1982), 116. 87 Yun Hyu, “Toksŏgi Chungyong,” 1667. 105 In this case the verb chin 盡, translated here as “fully express” (following Legge’s translation) serves as an axis point connecting the text with the Xicizhuan. He follows this explanation with a longer citation from the Xicizhuan, which echoes the same sentiments on the need to consolidate sources of information using other synonymous expressions: 故曰明於天之道。察於民之故 是興神物鍛前民用。然非清明在躬 志氣如神 使吾方寸之間 湛然無一毫之蔽 有足以熱契乎神明 。亦安能極深研幾 探賾索隱 有以通天下之志 決天下之疑也哉 Hence it is said that “Therefore (those sages), fully understanding the way of Heaven, and having clearly ascertained the experience of the people, instituted (the employment of) these spirits and things, as a provision for the use of the people.” That being the case, if you don’t have a clear and bright mind and god-like spirit 志氣 (resolution), you will have to clear your mind of all impediments to understanding, so that you will be able to link your mind with that of the spirits of heaven and earth . Also, a calm and quiet mind will allow you to engage in a deep and detailed investigation of things,88 “explore what is complex”, “penetrate forthwith to all phenomena and events under heaven”, and “resolve all doubts”!89 In this case the process of divination serves a dual purpose of “fully understanding the way of Heaven,” but also bringing the mind to a certain equilibrium and clearness that are required for 88 Here “極深研幾” is an idiom denoting a deep and detailed investigation. The terms drives from the Xici 繫辭 (The Great Treatise), verse 10. 89 Here I draw on James Legge’s translation. James Legge, “The Great Treatise I”. http://ctext.org/book-of-changes/xi-ci-shang 106 deep investigation. As mentioned, this later meaning is the primary action of divination according to Zhu Xi – but not for Yun Hyu. For him the numbers are the various processes of divination are mystical means to assert the will of heaven. As such, he is also giving them a great importance as part of the “various verifications” (庶徵) segment of the “Great Plan,” linking the two together: 曰其以範數為合於河圖者 亦豈數之自然乎? 曰然。自一至九以虛數合之而為大衍之數 自 五行至一福極 以實數抱之而為天地之數者 朱子之說也。擔實數為五十 別六極用十數亦古人之說也。 是固皆有說也。 抑竊謂稽疑為四為九。 曰卿士也。曰庶民也。曰龜也。曰筮也。又曰 一卿士也。庶民也。五也。占二也。庶徵也。為九曰: 雨也。暘也。燠也。寒也。風也。歲也月也。日也。 When we say that the numbers of the plan coincide with what we see on the River Map, do we mean that they are the way they are in and of themselves? Yes, from one to nine, the imaginary numbers 虛數 are combined to make the numbers of the Great Expansion; from the Five Phases (article one) to happiness and perfection (numbers nine and five), the real numbers 實數 are brought together to make the numbers of Heaven and Earth that Zhu Xi spoke of. The Real Numbers add up to fifty [the sum of all the numbers in the River Map], which are different from the six (occasions of) Suffering and the method of counting by tens that the ancients write about. There are indeed theories about all of this. Humbly I claim that what we call the Investigation of Doubts is conducted with four and nine types. [The four are] the high ministers and officers, the common people, the turtle shells and the yarrow talks. That is to say, the high ministers and officers, the common people, the five (divinations in turtle 107 shell) and the two methods of forecast (with yarrow stalks). The numerous phenomena are made of nine, namely rain, sunshine, warmth, cold, wind, harvest, moon, sun, and stars. Here we add the final layer of this mystical arrangement, as Yun Hyu understands it. The mystical two diagrams are correlated each to a different classic (the Changes and the Great Plan).90 The numbers in the Luoshu are called here “imaginary” or “empty” (虛) and correlated with the numbers. They form the plan or blueprint, aspect of nature. The numbers of the Hetu 河圖 are called here “real” (實), and correlated with the images, or detailed aspect of the divination. The terms that Yun Hyu used are not used here as a reference to real and imaginary numbers, in their mathematical sense. In late Koryŏ and early Chosŏn the terms were used to describe the “real” Confucian teaching as opposed to the “empty” (虛) Buddhist teachings.91 It is interesting to note that in this specific context the term appears only once, in the writing of Chŏng Chedu 鄭齊斗 (1649-1736), better known under the pen-name Hagok 霞谷, and infamous for his involvement in the teaching of Wang Yangming in Korea.92 Talking about the two diagrams, Chŏng Chedu refers to the “real” and “empty” points of the compass, meaning the four cardinal points and the four interim points as they correlate with the p’algwae 八卦.93 Like Yun Hyu, Chŏng Chedu connects the two diagrams, and the numbers and images with the Book of Changes and the “Great Plan”. However, it doesn’t seem that there was any link between the 90 Here in italics to denote its status as a separate classic. 91 Michael Kalton, “An Introduction to Sirhak,” Korea Journal 15: 5 (May, 1975): 29-46. See for example the memorial presented by Kwŏn Kŭn (1352–1409) to King T’aejong: T’aejong Sillok, 1:388 (the 24th day in the 3rd lunar month of 1407). 92 Chŏng Chedu, “harak yŏksang 河洛易象 [The River Diagram and the Images of the Changes],” in Hagok chip, 20.508b. 93 Chŏng Chedu, “harak yŏksang,” 20.510a. He is saying for example that “In the diagram Heaven, Earth, Water and Fire are located in the four real points, whereas Lake, Thunder, Wind and Mountain are located in the four empty points”. 在圖乾坤坎离居四實。兌震巽艮居四虛。 108 two. Just the opposite – he was a student of Kim Chib 金集, and belonged to the same intellectual lineage as Song Siyŏl. Yun Hyu starts his analysis of the Great Plan and its commentary, tracing the numerical elements in the plan from the second to the ninth.94 According to Kŭm Chang-tae, Yun Hyu sees the Great Plan as unique in the sense that it illustrates the relationship between the principles shown in the classics and their application.95 Indeed, on the first half of the text, Yun Hyu focuses on the eight of the nine numerical elements of the Great Plan, focusing on the application 用 of each.96 However, the status of the first clause, dealing with the Five Phases, is unique because it does not use the term application (or “use”) to describe it.97 Instead he thinks of the Five Phases as having unique status, originating in heaven and manifesting on earth. He therefore regards some physical manifestations to be beyond mere physical expressions of the Principle within the limitations of Material Force: … 然經之於五行也 不言其用 又止言潤炎之性 酸甘之味而已何哉 曰五行者 天道之綱陰陽之事也 其氣運於天 而不息 則四時之謂也 其理賦於人 黑而不武 則五常之謂也 98 … However, what is the reason for not using the word mentioning the use (yong 用) of the Five Phases in the Classic, and instead just talking about the Nature of dry or moist, and the taste of sweet or sour? I Say: It is because the five phases are the guiding principle of the Way of Heaven and the affairs of Yin and Yang. Its ki 氣 moves in the 94 Yun Yun, “Toksŏgi Chungyong,” 1662-1669. 95 Kŭm Chang-tae, Chosŏn hugiŭi yuhak sasang, 118-9. 96 Yun Yun, “Toksŏgi Chungyong,” 1678. 97 Yun Yun, “Toksŏgi Chungyong,” 1669. 98 Yun Yun, “Toksŏgi Chungyong,” 1669. 109 heavens ceaselessly, and so we call it the four seasons. Its Principle is bestowed on men, hidden and non-violent, and so we call it the Five Constants. What is the significance of the omission of the character yong 用? Since Yun Hyu regards the Great Plan chapter as a classic, a received text, each character is important. The Five Phases represent the direct influence of Heaven in various forms, for those who can decipher them – from the Five Constants to the various elements of weather. Hence the importance of the direct reference to weather patterns that Yun Hyu is making further along this paragraph.99 While the discussion on this aspect of the Great Plan remains theoretical in this text, we do have a chance to see its application, during the short period that Yun Hyu was a government official, in 1675. 3.7 Practical Implications – The Application of the Great Plan in Real Life In 1674 king Hyŏngchong (r. 1659 - 1674) died and his son, King Sukchong 肅宗 (r. 1674 - 1720) came to the throne with a grudge against the Sŏin faction.100 The new king installed a Namin administration in the last month of 1674, and Yun Hyu started his government tenure as the Third Magistrate of Seoul (hansŏngbu uyun 漢城府右尹).101 He was quickly promoted to be rank of Inspector General (taesahŏn 大司憲). On the agenda were two events of immense importance to the new regime. First were the news on Wu Sangui’s 吳三桂 (1612 - 1678) rebellion against the Qing empire, which renewed the hopes for a Northern campaign among Koreans and others.102 In this context, Yun Hyu consistently promoted a hawkish line, urging the 99 Yun Hyu,“Toksŏgi Chungyong,” 1669. 100 JaHyun Kim Haboush, "Yun Hyu and the Search for Dominance: A Seventeenth-Century Korean Reading of the Offices of Zhou and the Rituals of Zhou," in Statecraft and Classical Learning, pp. 309-329. Leiden: Brill, 2009. 101 “Yŏnbo 年譜 [Necrology]”, in PHCS, purok 5, 2147. 102 Haboush, "Yun Hyu and the Search for Dominance,” 317-9. Haboush also mentions the diplomatic letter from the governor of Tsushima to the Chosŏn court, which expressed similar sentiments. Sukchong Sillok (2nd day of the 6th month, 1675) 4.16a. 110 king to seize the opportunity and attack the Manchus. The young King Sukchong (he was thirteen at the time) seemed to view Yun Hyu’s line unfavorably, and hesitated to attack.103 The second item on the national agenda was the foreboding weather that threatened to color the tenure of the new king and his new government. In the early spring of 1675 it was already clear that it was a bad year, with a combination of drought and cold.104 Being the first year of King Sukchong (r. 1674–1720), the weather was particularly concerning. Yun Hyu got his opportunity to publically address the issue of the drought when presented to the king. The events described in the Veritable Records demonstrate how Yun Hyu applied the Great Plan in real life, but also tell us something about the court life of Chosŏn. According to the entry, Hŏ Mok, a member of the State Council, handed his resignation letter to the King – taking personal responsibility for the draught. The King, unaware of the ritual nature of Yangban resignation notes, accepted the resignation and unknowingly created a minor crisis.105 Furthermore, the members of the Royal Secretariat who met with the King made their appointments look as if they were presenting the formal opinion of the secretariat, even though Second Royal Secretary Yi 103 Haboush, "Yun Hyu and the Search for Dominance,” 318. 104 King Sukchong addressed this issue. See Sukchong sillok, 1st year (1675), 9th day, 4th month), 3.27b. 105 Sukchong sillok, 1st year (1675), 5th month, 2nd day, 3.45b. 庚申/左副承旨李宇鼎、右副承旨趙威明、同副承旨金賓, 請對留許穆, 上不許。 再請,上乃命以勿爲下往之意, 自政院敦諭, 三人喜而起。金賓往諭穆, 穆不行。 時, 司憲李翊相發論之後, 上不卽罪翊相, 穆黨勸穆以去要君, 實無行意。 上不知其意而許之, 穆狼狽。 Kyŏngsin. Fourth Royal Secretary Yi U-jŏng 李宇鼎, Fifth Royal Secretary Cho Ui-myŏng 趙威明, Sixth Royal Secretary Kim Bin, asked the King to reject Hŏ Mok's 許穆 resignation but the king did not approve their request Once again, they made that request. The king then ordered him (Hŏ Mok) to withdraw his resignation, as requested by the Royal Secretariat. The three left satisfied. Kim Bin ordered Hŏ Mok not to proceed so Hŏ Mok did not withdraw from court. At this time, after Great Inspector General Yi Yik-Sang (李翊相) presented his opinion on the matter, the king condemned Yik-sang., Hŏ Mok’s supporters encouraged him to leave, but he actually did not want to leave. The King did not know all this and allowed it (the resignation), putting Hŏ Mok in a difficult situation. 111 Dong-no (李東老) and Third Royal Secretary Yi Ha (李夏) were never consulted.106 Fourth Royal Secretary Yi U-jŏng 李宇鼎 used the occasion of the meeting to introduce Yun Hyu. Prompted by the King, Yun Hyu addresses the issue of the draught directly.107 The following dialog between Yun Hyu and the King provided an opportunity for Yun Hyu to practice the same theories he preaches in his discussion on the Great Plan.108 He focuses on various elements of public policy that can all be traced to elements in the Great Plan itself but are mainly pragmatic. For example, he focuses on prisoners’ amnesty, particularly of those prisoners who burden the judicial system but will face light punishment anyway. Finally, he says: 鑴曰: 前史有三月雪而無四月雪, 甚可畏也。 以臣之思, 政令間豈有召災之事, 而乃如此? 此乃北方之氣, 前頭似將有北人之憂, 故朔氣先見, 宜可念也。謹按人君警懼, 只在於天災, 於此忽焉, 無可幾矣。 此《洪範》之五咎徵, 垂戒於百王; 而金陵之三不足, 流毒於當時者也。109 According to the history books, there is cause for concern when there is snow in the third month but not in the fourth. According to the thinking of your servant, if there happen to be any government decrees that invite (召) disasters, still would it be like this? Now wind (氣) from the north makes it look like some people from the north will cause us to be 106 Ibid. 宇鼎等固請得允, 而後乃退。 左承旨李東老、右承旨李夏未嘗與議, 而宇鼎等詐以院中僉議白上。 Yi U-jŏng and the others made their request only after the position was vacated. Second Royal Secretary Yi Dong-no (李東老) and third royal secretary Yi Ha (李夏) were never consulted, and U-jŏng and the others. 107 Ibid. 是日上曰: “見備局座目則開坐矣。 事有稟定者, 則使之入侍, 如無可言之事, 則勿爲入侍事諭之 …… ”宇鼎又言右尹尹鑴請對, 上引見, 鑴曰: “遇旱疏決, 乃國家故事。 On that occasion the king said: "By looking at the list on the seats of officials I can see officials began working. Thus, if they have something to decide by reporting to me, allow them to come to see me. If they don't have something to talk to me about, let them know that they don't need to come to see me." … U-jŏng ordered Third Magistrate Yun Hyu to spreak promptly. Pulling up his gaze Hyu said: "One of the old practices of the country, was to pardon prisoners…” 108 Sukchong sillok, 1st year (1675), 5th month, 2nd day, 3.45b-46a. 109 Ibid. 112 concerned.110 But it is prudent to wait until a northern cold air (朔氣) is coming before we think about what to do. It is prudent for rulers to be concerned only about natural disasters. If you ignore the warning signs, then you won’t understand what they are a portent of. Now the Great Plan talks about the five warning signs, telling future generations of kings to take notice of strange weather patterns as a response by nature to a lack of virtue. Yet, Nanjing’s “three insufficients” (Wang Anshi’s text) did a lot of harm in his time.111 Yun Hyu’s brief comment touches upon one major controversy of the eleventh century. Michael Nylan described the major disagreements between Wang Anshi and his major opponents.112 Nylan suggests that Wang Anshi saw his commentary to the Great Plan as an ideological underpinning to his famous reform.113 Moreover, she claims that Wang wanted to convince his patron, the Emperor Shenzong of Song (r. 1067-1085), that inauspicious omens reported by political opponents is not necessarily an indication to a malfunctioning government.114 He used the “three insufficients” 三不足, a term that Wang Anshi borrowed from Buddhist terminology, to summarize this exactly idea: 天變不足畏 祖宗不足法 人言不足恤115 110 Traditionally in Chosŏn the north was associated with Jurchens (yŏjin 女眞) and other invading tribes. See for example T’aejo sillok, “General Introduction (ch’ongsŏ),” 1.17a. 111 The three things that we can never have enough of are clothing 衣, food 食, and sleep 睡眠. See Charles Muller, "Sān Bùzú [三不足]," Digital Dictionary of Buddhism. July 19, 2002. Accessed March 30, 2016. http://www.buddhism-dict.net. 112 Michael Nylan, The Shifting Center, 81. 113 Michael Nylan, The Shifting Center, 66. 114 Michael Nylan, The Shifting Center, 81. 115 Tuo Tuo 脫脫, Songshi 宋史 (Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 1974), 327. 10550. http://hanchi.ihp.sinica.edu.tw/ihpc/hanjiquery?@18^1721183553^807^^^60202020000400860001^24@@1454806050 113 The change of Heaven is not sufficient enough for us to fear, the rule of the ancestors is not sufficient enough for us to model ourselves upon, and the criticism of other people is also not sufficient for us to feel concerned with. Most of Wang Anshi’s work on the Great Plan, including three commentaries, was lost.116 We can learn its importance from what we have left, as well as the extensive refutations that some of his contemporaries provided, as well as the fact that Zhu Xi himself used some of his theories. In spite of his disclaimer, Yun Hyu does share many of Wang An-shi’s ideologies. Like Wang, he is also focusing on the centrality of the monarch as a symbol and in essence, and like Wang he is also taking a mid-way approach on omens.117 Wang addressed the criticism of his time by attacking the equation of morality and politics, by coupling major terms in opposition.118 The first of each term serves as a precondition to the second, its dialectic oppositions (反). As we have already seen, this is in essence the basis of Yun Hyu’s approach to the text.119 Specifically, Yun Hyu does not see omens as an immediate indication for government failure. It seems that he suggests that it is the role of the ministers and not of the King to interpret the omens. The author of the Sillok-entry picked up on the similarities between Yun Hyu and Wang An-shi. Following Yun Hyu’s statement above, the author has added his own commentary on the text, rebuking his approach. In his comment he says: 今鑴不以修省之道陳戒于上, 而反謂政令無闕, 噫! 當時政令, 果皆無可言者歟? 人君忽災之意, 斯言有以啓之, 面諛之態, 可勝痛哉?120 116 Michael Nylan, The Shifting Center, 66. 117 Michael Nylan, The Shifting Center, 80. 118 Michael Nylan, The Shifting Center, 87. 119 We have seen earlier how Yun Hyu treats the dyad sang-su 象數 (xiang-shu in Chinese) in much the same way. Other couplets, such as Chŏng-ch’i 政治 receive a very similar treatment. 120 Sukchong sillok, 1st year (1675), 5th month, 2nd day, 3.45b-46a. 114 Now, Hyu did not present to the king the way of self-examination and cultivation, regarding instead the government-ordinance as if there is nothing to improve. Alas! Is it really the case that government policy at that time has no issues that deserve to be discussed? One can explain that a disaster means that the monarch failed by neglecting his duties, rather than adopt this deplorable attitude of praise in the King’s face. Followed by this comment is Yun Hyu’s own recommendation to the King.121 He argues that the King should be able to make his own decisions; otherwise the whole concept of regal sovereignty is meaningless. Furthermore, it is the king’s prerogative to choose or deny advice from his counselors, regardless of the consequences. Since this sentence follows directly his statement on the Great Plan and Wang An-shi, we can only understand from that that he indeed sees Wang’s reading of the Great Plan as valid. In other words, for the king must have moral and judicial autonomy in order to fulfill his role in the Great Plan. This is the core of the Song Dynasty debate on the Great Plan, which Yun Hyu revives since it has significant implications for the situation in the late seventeenth century Korea. It is only appropriate to conclude this survey with Yun Hyu’s last text on the Great Plan. In 1679, less than a year before his exile and death, Yun Hyu presented the king Sukchong with a text titled A Diagrammatic Treatise on the System of Councilors and Mentors, a three kwŏn 121 Ibid. 鑴又曰: “御樓一事, 上有意則問于大臣而行之, 不爾則只令行其事, 如御樓也。向日禮論, 朝廷罪異論者, 承旨沈光洙以當行三年之說, 廢錮而死。 此乃學行之人, 而先王禮遇之臣似當褒贈。 士人李𣞗亦以禮論見廢, 宜一體褒贈, 議于大臣, 何如?” Hyu said again: If the king has the intention to do something, he will consult the high officials, and then will do it. Otherwise, he just orders that those matters be executes, and it will be done. If the king has to ask for recommendations every time he has to decide if someone is guilty or innocent, than it is not the law of the king that rewards the good and punishes evil, and he cannot pardon a person who committed a crime against the state. In the past, the court condemned 沈光洙 (1598 - 1662) as heterodox on the issue of Ritual Theory, because he argued for a mourning period of three-years [in the ritual controversy of 1659]. He was banned from government office and died. This was only a man of learning, yet ancient kings gave differential treatment to ministers and bestowed praise and presents upon them. The scholar Yi Yu 李𣞗 was likewise eliminated for his part in the ritual controversy. He should also be bestowed honors. How about doing that? 115 reform proposal. Yun Hyu based his text on the “Officers of Zhou” (Zhouguan 周官) chapter of the Book of Documents, which was also the source for the system of Three Councilors (samgong三公) and Three Mentors (samgo 三孤) system. Yun Hyu addresses the obvious contradictions between the systems proposed in the “Officers of Zhou” and in the Rites of Zhou (Zhouli 周禮), and between those two and the actual systems implemented in Chinese history. JaHyun Kim Haboush surveyed the text systematically, focusing on its relevance for Yun Hyu’s political reformation.122 Haboush juxtaposed the text with Yun Hyu’s earlier Leisurely Writings 漫筆 (manp’il), a three kwŏn long survey of Korean History.123 According to Haboush, Yun Hyu’s reaction to the imminent threat of the Manchu “barbarians” was an examination of Korean history and its failures. One of Yun Hyu’s insights was that both the Chosŏn political system and the examination system failed by narrowing the channels of speech (ŏllo 言路) to the king.124 In Diagrammatic Treatise Yun Hyu suggests a reading of the Documents that supports his political reform by applying his methodology for the Learning of the Classics into a real-life problem. It is therefore an opportunity to see his theory in action, but also to see how the place and importance that he gives to scriptures in general. What we learn from this particular case is that Yun Hyu’s approach is more than a system to analyze the classics. He promotes the Great Plan to a status of a general text, applicable due to the universal power of its numerology (which is in essence a natural-law like element) to every mundane case, or as a general guide to understand the other classics. According to Haboush, Yun Hyu’s main task was to attack the Chosŏn administrative system, showing that the current political system was bankrupt. This was well within his jurisdiction as the Inspector-General 大司憲. As mentioned above, Yun Hyu claimed that the 122 Haboush, "Yun Hyu and the Search for Dominance,” 309-329. 123 Haboush, "Yun Hyu and the Search for Dominance,” 323. 124 Haboush, "Yun Hyu and the Search for Dominance,” 324. 116 complex hierarchies of the Chosŏn government prevented a clear channel of speech (ŏllo 言路) to the king.125 His reform required consolidation of authorities at the higher levels of the government. Yun Hyu’s concern was not baseless: in the Rites Controversy of 1660, it was the Royal Secretary Kim Suhang (1629-89), the protégé of Song Siyǒl, who skewed the debate by actively controlling the memos that reached the King. 126 On the other hand, in 1674 it was the support of the Royal Secretariat that tipped the scales toward the Namin, and caused the replacement of a Sǒin Councilor and many censors with Namin people. 127 However, Yun Hyu needed a good reference from the classics if he wanted to change a political system that was based, with changes, on a Chinese model. He chose to focus on the apparent contradiction between the system proposed in the “Officers of Zhou” chapter of the Documents and the Rites of Zhou. The “Officers of Zhou” was attributed to the Duke of Zhou, but according to the Rites of Zhou he was in fact the only one in power. Yun Hyu’s solution was that de facto the Duke of Zhou embodied all the positions by himself, and that this had some benefits. 128 For the purposes of this study, the interesting aspect of Yun Hyu’s solution is that it exposes some of his presuppositions on the classics. Specifically, that he assumes the integrity and completeness of the classics. In other words, for Yun Hyu the classics as a whole contain answers and moral insight for every case. This is directly related to the mentioning of the Comprehensiveness of the Sage chapter (of Zhou Dun-yi’s T’ongshu) in the introduction to the toksangsŏ.129 We can understand from the text of the introduction as well as Hŏ Mok’s response that this is a direct challenge to the teaching of Zhu Xi. Indeed, for Zhu Xi the term 125 Haboush, "Yun Hyu and the Search for Dominance,” 324. 126 Andrei Lankov, "Controversy over Ritual in 17th Century Korea," Seoul Journal of Korean Studies 3 (December 1990), 55. 127 Andrei Lankov, "Controversy over Ritual in 17th Century Korea," 58. 128 Yun Hyu, “Konggo chikchang tosŏl sang 公孤職掌圖說上 [Diagrammatic Treatise on the System of Councilors and Mentors],” in PHCS, kwŏn 28, 1180. 129 Yun Hyu, “Konggo chikchang tosŏl sang,” 1681. 117 “comprehensiveness” means that the hexagrams (attributed to Fuxi) may be used perhaps to outline every moral concern, but definitely do not contain by themselves moral teachings.130 Zhu Xi’s metaphor is that of a worn-out robe, one that covers perhaps the wearer, but do not do him justice. Yun Hyu however, holds the same position of the xiang-shu 象數 school, meaning that the classics and the hexagrams are whole and complete in a way that is mystical.131 This holistic approach to the text seeks to explain apparent contradictions in terms of the text itself. Yun Hyu, takes a unique approach in regards to the Song Dynasty controversy around the term huangji 皇極 (hwanggŭk in Korean). Scholars of the twelfth century (Notably Wang An-shi, which Yun Hyu quotes on the matter) shifted their reading of the term from the emperor to the literati. 132 According to this reading, the Great Plan is all about the power of the literati to mediate between the monarch and the people. Furthermore, in his Critique of huang-ji (皇極辨) Zhu Xi goes further toward making this a text on self-cultivation, by stressing its role as an internal standard. 133 Yun Hyu uses the language of sovereignty and rulership in regards to the term, saying that establishing the huang-ji means “the authority to govern the world alone and to wield the power of punishment or leniency”.134 The term receives a scant reference and it is obvious that both here and in Penetrating the Meaning it is relatively marginalized. If that was the only treatment that issue received in the text, we could have said that Yun Hyu takes a fundamentalist approach, in the sense of going back to the historical (and perhaps imaginary) 130 Joseph Alan Adler, Reconstructing the Confucian Dao: Zhu Xi's Appropriation of Zhou Dunyi (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2014), 286-7. 131 This mirrors a basic understanding of Jewish rabbinical teaching. Tractate Avot (“Forefathers”) of the Mishna says: “Turn it, and turn it again (the Torah), for everything can be found therein” (Mishna, Avot 5:25). This is traditionally understood as permission for continuous exegesis of the text. 132 Michael Nylan, The Shifting Center,66-68. 133 Michael Nylan, The Shifting Center,99. 134 Yun Hyu, “Konggo chikchang tosŏl sang,” 1195. 皇極建用 御世惟權 而威福運於上矣。 118 foundations of Confucianism.135 In this sense we could have assumed that Yun Hyu returns to Kong Anguo’s reading of the text as a guide to the Emperor as a mediator between the Three Greats (Heaven, Earth and Humanity). However, Yun Hyu brings back the term Prime Minister 冢宰 (zhongzai in Chinese, ch’ongjae in Korean) from the Rites of the Zhou 周禮 the chapter with the same name.136 In terms of his proposed political reform, Yun Hyu is suggesting the Duke of Zhou as the epitome of that specific model, wielding the positions of all three councilors and three mentors. The benefit of that, according to Yun Hyu, is that it exactly solves the problems that he sees in the current political system. For example, he claims that in the old days the Prime Minister and the king would control expenses directly, whereas now the separation between the Royal Treasury內需司 and private funds mean that the King has no real knowledge of what happens outside of court.137 Philosophically speaking, the introduction of the Prime Minister to the discussion marks a middle–path between placing the monarch or the literati as the main players of the text. On the other hand, Yun Hyu need to show that the text is not monarch-specific, if he wants to keep claiming that together with the Changes, the “Great Plan” is a framework for all the other classics (as he did in the introduction to Penetrating the Meaning). He achieves that by showing that there is no single, monolithic concept of the Way 道. Instead, he demonstrates several different “Ways”, relevant to the various readers of the text. First and foremost, the most important Way is the Way of Heaven 天道, which is directly relevant for the Sage. Yun Hyu 135 Lindsay Jones, “Evangelical and Fundamental Christianity” in Encyclopedia of Religion, 2nd ed. (Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007), 2887. The term is mostly used now pejoratively in the Western culture, but it seems to me that Yun Hyu’s ideals and methodology of reading the classics make that term applicable to him. 136 Yun Hyu, “Konggo chikchang tosŏl sang,” 1203. 137 Yun Hyu, “Konggo chikchang tosŏl sang,” 1270-1. He says there “Also, in the old days, it was the Prime Minister (冢宰) and the King who governed over issues such as food and clothes, money etc’, since what we call the private treasuries 私藏 did not exist; Now, there is no involvement between the outer court (outside court?) and the Royal Treasury, and meanwhile because private illegal and illicit activities cannot be detected, national dignity is damaged and it causes complaints from there as well.” 119 uses the Way of Heaven to bring again the term ilun 彝倫, as a cardinal aspect of the Sage’s involvement: 臣又按 洪範九疇者, 聖人治天下之心法也。所以克相上帝敘民彝倫者也。彝倫者五品 之大倫也。言用不言用者。又所似用夫九疇之道也。故不言用者所以見天道之自然其 言用也。 所似言人事之有為也。 138 The Great Plan in Nine Sections is the Sage’s way of promoting the cultivation of the mind of all under heaven. It is that by which he is able to assist the Lord on High 上帝 to teach ilun 彝倫 morality to the people. This ilun is the great principle of the five cardinal relationships. Whether the word “use” is mentioned or not, all these cases are example of the application of the Way of the Nine 九疇 [i.e., in the case of the first section dealing with the Five Phases 五行]. It did not say “use” because the Way of Heaven 天道 will have shown its usage by itself. That term is being used only when Human Action is needed [i.e., for the other eight categories]. As far as the Way of Heaven is concerned, Yun Hyu correlates it directly with the nine items of the Great Plan. Of these, the first item, concerning the Five Phases, is not accompanied by the word yong 用, and thus (claims Yun Hyu) it is not related to the realm of human actions which compose the activities of the Sage. We can also understand from this, that they are not covered by the Doctrine of the Mean.139 As far as Yun Hyu is concerned, the Way of Heaven is directly related to the normative regulation of human relationships. But there are other “Ways” in the text. Yun Hyu uses a case from Mencius to negate a connection between the Royal Way 王道 138 Yun Hyu, “Konggo chikchang tosŏl sang,” 1270-1. 139 Which might explain why there is no reference to the theory of Five Phases, or any other ki 氣 related theory in the Doctrine of the Mean. 120 with Way of Ruling by Might 覇道.140 Similarly there are references to other ways, such as “the way of raising the People” 畜民之道.141 He goes on and explains the teachings of various Confucian figures (such as Yanzi and Mencius) and texts (such as the Classic of Filial Piety) in terms of a Way. 140 Yun Hyu, “Konggo chikchang tosŏl sang,” 1198. Yun Hyu is addressing Mencius’s response to the question of King Xiang of Liang on Duke Huan of Qi and Duke Wen of Jin (Mencius 1A7). In this case, Mencius responds that none of Confucius’ disciples discussed these two, who were important feudal lords, and the first two of the so-called Five Hegemons 五霸. Mencius’s comment the he “heard nothing” of these two cannot be taken literally: He is making a case to distinguish “true” monarchy from lord-protectors. See P. J. Ivanhoe and Irene Bloom, Mencius (New York: Columbia University Press, 2009), 6 n.19. 141 Yun Hyu, “Konggo chikchang tosŏl sang,” 1192. 121 3.8 Conclusion – Commentary, Hermeneutics and Scriptures In this long survey of Yun Hyu’s writings on the Great Plan, I was aiming to expose what I see as the unique aspects of Yun Hyu’s theory. While noted for his infamous commentary on the Doctrine of the Mean (the official reason for his capital punishment), his long-term work on the Great Plan tells us a lot on how he imagined the study of the classics should work. Yun Hyu attempted to revitalize Neo-Confucianism, and the Great Plan reveals a lot of details of this attempt. I would like to suggest that Yun Hyu’s approach to the classics is fundamentalist in nature. In this I do not mean the modern derogatory usage of the term, but rather a system of ideas about text and textuality that were prominent in the American Christian movement with the same name in the early twentieth century. In his Fundamentalism and American Culture, George M. Marsden notes that in the first two decades of the twentieth century, the Bible played a role for which there is no European parallel.142 The Protestant Church, says Marsden, was uniquely united behind the principle of Scriptura Sola [sic], the principle that the scriptures should be held as the supreme authority in all matters. The principle of Scriptura Sola was an important theological teaching of Martin Luther himself, but here it was held as the sole key for what Marsden calls Biblical primitivism. As we have seen, Yun Hyu asserts the importance of the Great Plan specifically in three different ways. In his Penetrating the Meaning he introduces the Great Plan as a classic, as the name itself reveals, and tightly connects it to the Changes. In that introduction, he ties the Great 142 George M Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth Century Evangelicalism, 1870-1925 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), 223-4. 122 Plan to the “Comprehensiveness of the Sage” chapter of the Tongshu 通書. In fact, he is already hinting his proposal by saying that the Great Plan “reveals the Comprehensiveness of the Sage” (發聖人之蘊者). As I have shown, he later suggests that the Great Plan is an overlaying structure, whereas the Changes provide the details. In this sense, these two are the two primary classics, whereas the other texts provide the details in their relative realms: ethics, history, ritual and so on. This is a simple and elegant structure, one that draws its logic exactly from the Xiangshu School’s mode of reasoning. Here, the Great Plan provides the shu 數, the numerical element, while the Changes naturally provide the xiang 象 or images. This brings up the issue of textual authorities. This is the real importance of Yun Hyu’s interest in Kija’s captivity, and his calculation of the time Kija spent in King Wu’s imprisonment, since it allows him to stress Kija as the real source of moral authority for his suggested canon. John B. Henderson comments on the importance that Confucian scholars gave to the arrangement of authorities in writing, hence also the importance of anthologies.143 As an example he brings the case of Yi Hwangs's reading of the Western Inscription, noting that we should consider the role of each reference in its new position. Specifically, Confucian scholarship arranges textual authority in layers of antiquities. Mark Lewis, another author on textual authority, notes that this division of antiquities comes each with a figure of authority, the apotheosis of that age.144 He traces for example, the authority of the Book of Changes from Fu Xi, as a representative of the non-political age of early antiquity, to the Duke of Zhou in the so- 143 John B. Henderson, Scripture, Canon, and Commentary: A Comparison of Confucian and Western Exegesis. (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1991), 82. 144 Mark Edward Lewis, Writing and Authority in Early China (Albany: State Univ. of New York Press, 1999), 165-8. 123 called middle-antiquity, and finally Confucius as a representative of a late antiquity. According to Lewis, the evolution of relationship between textuality and kingship, is a process of gaining textual authority by converting these figures to pure textual entities. Establishing a canon and the idealization of a textual antiquity was the first step in the creation of an empire.145 Reading Yun Hyu’s treatment of Kija and the Great Plan in this light, it seems that he is trying to redress the existing canon by going back to antiquity earlier than the Confucius of Zhu Xi, in this case Kija, as a representative of an alternative authority. As we have seen, Yun Hyu believes that Kija’s sagely advice allowed King Wu to rule, and it is clear that morally Kija is the superior in this story. This is in effect of the same essence as what Marsden calls the Biblical primitivism. Yun Hyu is not exactly a pioneer with this approach: Zhu Xi’s own reformation was done in much the same way, relaying on Zisi 子思 as his source of authority. As Martina Deuchler noted, Yun Hyu based his entire approach to the learning of the classics on Zhu Xi’s own efforts, thus consciously putting himself in Zhu Xi’s shoes.146 That is exactly the purpose of Yun Hyu repeatedly narrating the transmission of his daotong 道通.147 Finally, in his discussion on textual authority, John Henderson brings up another aspect of textual authority: the canonization of commentaries is also an important aspect of authority.148 Henderson tracks the similarities between several traditions, from Chinese Confucianism to Islam, noting on the similar aspects of this specific process of regarding an author as the 145 Mark Edward Lewis, Writing and Authority in Early China, 338. 146 Martina Deuchler, “Despoilers of the Way Insulters of the Sages,” 99-100. 147 Such as the one depicted in the chapter titled kun’guk ch’ungmin chido 君國畜民之道. See Yun Hyu, “Konggo chikchang tosŏl sang,” 1192. 148 John B. Henderson, Scripture, Canon, and Commentary, 84. 124 apotheosis of commentaries. For our purposes, the difference the mediaeval Hinduism is making between shruti and smtri, revelation and recollection, provides useful terminology. The unique power of the Bible for the fundamentalists, the origin of Scriptura Sola, is exactly in its revelatory nature. Yun Hyu’s reversal to the xiang-shu colors the Great Plan as a revelation of natural laws, reflected in the unchanging natural nature of numbers. 125 Chapter 4: Serving Heaven – Discussing the Doctrine of the Mean 4.1 Introduction Yun Hyu is notoriously a “despoiler of the Way”, a translation of the derogative samun nanjŏk斯文亂賊. The term, as it appeared in the sillok, was directly associated with Yun Hyu’s commentary on the Doctrine of the Mean. The sillok states specifically that Song Siyŏl rebuked him as a “despoiler of the Way”, along with others who went against Zhu Xi, for his traitorous commentary on the Doctrine of the Mean.1 However, on first glance there is nothing controversial in Yun Hyu’s Notes Upon Reading of the Doctrine of the Mean. Yun Hyu begins with the traditional apologetic introduction, and continue on with the usual issues associated with the text: its structure, terminology, and so on. The discussion itself is not radically new or outrageous. A reader might ask – why was Yun Hyu dubbed a traitor over such a text? In this chapter, I will explore Yun Hyu’s main text on the Doctrine of the Mean, his Notes Upon Reading of the Doctrine of the Mean (toksŏgi chungyong), and demonstrate how Yun Hyu provides a radically different reading of the text. To do so, I will analyze the text in parts, under the presupposition that these are separate texts joined together. According to his chronology, as well as his own introduction to the text, Yun Hyu studied the Doctrine of the Mean throughout his life, often returning to his old texts to add comments or corrections. This makes the analysis of his text asynchronous in nature. In my analysis, I would therefore focus less on the relationship between the text and the realpolitik of his time, and more on the way that 1 Sukchong sillok, 42nd year (1716), 12th month, 29th day, 58.52b. 惟其如是, 故凡於背朱子之說, 輒皆嚴辭痛闢, 當賊鑴之改註《中庸》也, 時烈斥之以斯文亂賊, 而獨拯之父宣擧, 力加庇護, 至謂之高明之過。 126 Yun Hyu conceived the intellectual politics of the Song dynasty, no doubt while paralleling his time’s politics. In this text Yun Hyu demonstrates his innovative approach to the study of the classics, applying many methods that we usually associate with later scholars of the so-called “Practical Learning”. I will focus specifically on Yun Hyu’s approach to the li-ki scholarship that in the Cheng-Zhu school is tightly associated with this text. I will then show how Yun Hyu adopted some Heaven-related terminology from Yi Hwang, making it the centerpiece of his analysis. Yun Hyu focuses on “fear” related expression, demonstrating that it is the fear of Heaven that constructs the Exemplary Person and allows self-cultivation. Finally, I will focus on the Heaven-Centered aspects of Yun Hyu’s commentary and show how he advocated Neo-Confucianism in a way that is extremely religious, while trying to consolidate two very different approaches to Confucianism: The approach stemming from the “Classical” Confucianism and the Neo-Confucianism of the Cheng-Zhu school, as it was understood in Korea. 4.2 Notes Upon Reading the Doctrine of the Mean Yun Hyu’s Notes Upon Reading 讀書記 of The Doctrine of the Mean 中庸 is a composite text. It takes up the entire 36th kwŏn of PHCS, and is composed of several different texts. Moreover, as per Yun Hyu’s regular method of writing, the text was re-edited with additional comments embedded at a later date. This editing reflects the nature of the text as personal learning journal (as its name reflects) rather than an edited text. The text starts with a short preface 序, immediately followed by a section titled Chungyong changgu ch’aje 中庸章句次第 or The Sequence of the Doctrine of the Mean in Chapter and Verse, a simple transcription of the version of The Doctrine of the Mean that Yun Hyu is using.2 It is followed by a lengthly essay on the 2 Yun Hyu, “Toksŏgi chungyong 讀書記中庸,” in PHCS, kwŏn 36, 1447. 127 divisions of the text, titled punjang taeji 分章大旨.3 That, in turn is followed by Chungyong Chuja changgu porok 中庸朱子章句補錄 (Supplement to Master Chu’s Mean in Chapters and Verses), the main core of Yun Hyu’s exegesis and arguments on the text, which contains its own short preface.4 Finally, the text ends with a short conclusion that can be seen either as a part of the last chapter or as a conclusion to the entire text.5 Of these, only the introduction to the last part is dated to 1668.6 According to Yun Hyu’s chronology, in 1644, when he was 28 years old, he wrote the chungyongsŏl 中庸說, which is likely to be the first iteration of this text.7 4.2.1 The Introduction Yun Hyu introduces his text in a personal tone, that imitates, I think quite consciously, the opening of Yi Hwang’s chasŏngnok 自省錄.8 This perhaps is incidental, but the tone and content of the opening seem to reflect the well-known opening of that diary. Whereas in the rest of the text and in other treatises on the subject Yun Hyu is not particularly loyal to Yi Hwang’s system, here in the introduction he is playing to his namin audience. In spite of the first impression, it is not an apologetic introduction. It presents the gist of Yun Hyu’s argument on the role of exegesis as presented before. The introduction is dense and presents a mature Yun Hyu. I chose to bring here the full introduction as it is to provide the full impact of Yun Hyu’s own words:9 3 Yun Hyu, “Toksŏgi Chungyong,” 1456. 4 Yun Hyu, “Toksŏgi Chungyong,” 1461. 5 Yun Hyu, “Toksŏgi Chungyong,” 1499-1500. 6 See discussion below. 7 Yun Hyu, “Yŏnbo 年譜,” in PHCS, purok 5, 2135. 8 Edward Y.J. Chung, A Korean Confucian Way of Life and Thought the Chasŏngnok (Record of Self-Reflection), (Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press: 2016), 49. T’oegye sŏnsaeng sokchip, “Chasŏngnok sosŏ 自省錄 小序,” 8.205a. 9 Whereas separate sentences allow analysis, I think that only the text as a whole provides the flow of Yun Hyu’s argument, and allows a glimpse into his unique writing style. 128 始余既讀中庸 略錄所見大指序次章句 姑以備遺忘 竢討論焉耳 讀去讀來餘歟十年 鑽仰 研究 未嘗志于心也。 而顧見其無甚異同也。 甚愧余學之無進也。 抑古人所謂挽弓不開 更難 求之力分之外者也歟。今姑更疏平日記取於心者。 并前後錄為一編。 思以就正於有道。 且來 者有日。 未知自此以往。 更加十年之功。 又復如何也。 昔程叔子嘗著中庸解。 既自以為不滿意 而焚之。 古人之不自滿足。 無輕言道如此。 此是余之有愧于古人者也。 抑晦翁之釋諸經書也。 既集眾說 而折衷之 有成說矣。 然猶每與門人講習 而身體驗之 或有說未透見未到行未得處 又必為之討論更定。 不住修改 至于屬纊而末己焉 常曰比因朋友辨質 始覺某前說有未安者 如是者 不一不再 其取善求是 不憚遷徙 又如此 此又余之所則效而思勉焉者也 中庸章句次第 天命之謂性率性之謂道修道之謂教道也者不可須臾離也可離/非道也是故君子戒慎 白湖全書卷之三十六雜著一10 After reading The Doctrine of the Mean for the first time, I wrote down the general meaning and order of the “Chapters and Phrases” so that I would not forget. I have read and read about it for decades and have always studied it without forgetting it, but it is not much different from what I saw at first. I was very embarrassed to learn that my studies were not progressing. 10 Yun Hyu, “Toksŏgi Chungyong,” 1447. 129 The ancients said that “if you cannot pull a bow, looking for external force is even harder”, and this is exactly the case.11 Now, that I had some time, I went back and added to my notes some things from memory, and bound it all into one book. Thinking to submit it for comments to someone who attained the Way, one day in the future, not yet known in the past, after studying for a decade, I will inspect it again. A long time ago Chŏng Sukja 程叔子 (Cheng Yi) wrote the Zhongyong jie 中庸解, but later became dissatisfied with it and burned it. The people of the past were not easily satisfied with themselves and did not speak about the Way carelessly. It makes me ashamed in front of the ancients. This is why Huiweng 晦翁 (Zhu Xi) compiled the theories of many people in his commentaries, gathered the various ideas and found the middle way by their persuasion. However, to do so, one has to be instructed by learned people, and experience everything for himself. If there is any explanation that one cannot come up with, or one’s opinion is still insufficient, it should be revised. But if you do that, you will always have to study with educated people and experience for yourself. If there is any explanation that you cannot find, or your opinion is still insufficient, you need to discuss it again until all loose ends are weaved together. He always said: “Only with friends can I discuss and correct the discrepancies of my former theories,” until there is not a single discrepancy. Thus, I also seek what is good and true, and do not hesitate to correct my mistakes for the sake of honor. This is also what I wish to imitate and inspire me. 11 I was not able to find the quote. However, even today there are several idioms in Chinese that share that structure. 130 Soffel and Tillman mention this story of Cheng Yi’s allegedly burning the Zhongyongjie as a way to legitimize rhetoric which allows a certain degree of textual skepticicism. 12 In particular they are interested in this story in relation with issues regarding transmission of the Way.13 Soffel and Tillman note that Zhu Xi was aware of two different accounts on this matter, and reasons that Zhu Xi could probably not accept a report that downplays Cheng Yi’s opinion on the Zhongyong.14 Yun Hyu accepts the story and uses it to explain that questioning your predecessors is the proper transmission of the Way. He is doing so again in his discussion on the division of the text, as discussed below. 4.2.2 The Division of the Text As mentioned before, the first of the two treatises, punjang taeji 分章大旨, deals primarily with the breakdown of the text into chapters. This topic is not incidental and have been indeed one of the main point of contention both in Chosŏn and in China, an intellectual mine-field into which Yun Hyu enters knowingly. Since Zhu Xi’s original compilation of the classics was his sishu zhangju jizhu 四書章句集注, the division of the classics into segments was an inherent aspect of Neo-Confucian thought from the Song dynasty. 15 As an object of intellectual disputes, The Doctrine of the Mean did not even offer a clear structure (as The Great Learning does) and instead offers a possibility for many alternative structures. From the beginning of the Chosŏn dynasty, Korean scholars have been aware of the various divisions of the text and the important influence that these differences had on meaning. 12 Christian Soffel and Hoyt Cleveland Tillman, Cultural Authority and Political Culture in China: Exploring Issues with the Zhongyong and the Daotong During the Song, Jin and Yuan Dynasties (Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 2012), 55-6. 13 It is quite likely that Yun Hyu was aware of the rhetorical usage of the story on the burning of the zhongyongjie and uses it here as leverage to propose his on divergence from Zhu Xi. It coincides with the way that Yun Hyu justifies his changes in other places. 14 Ibid. 15 Soffel and Tillman, Cultural Authority and Political Culture in China, 71. 131 Zhu Xi divides the text into essentially four parts, culminating in the introduction of Sincerity (sŏng) as they linchpin of the text. He sees chapters 1 to 11 as a direct transmission of Zisi’s own teaching, at least in spirit, followed by citations of Confucian tradition (chapters 12 to 20). Inside that part, the text first discusses the Minuteness of the Way of the Exemplary Person, followed by its greatness. Those two finally merge in chapter 20, with the introduction of Sincerity. The next part (chapters 21 to 32) compares the Way of Humans (indo) with the Way of Heaven (chŏndo), allowing Zhu Xi to introduce his metaphysics. Finally, Chapter 33 is considered as a separate chapter, due to its different style of writing. Riegel quotes the late Gustav Haloun, thinking of this division as two distinct aspects – the Confucian “logia” (λογια) until chapter 20, and schólion (σχόλιον) or commentary from chapter 21.16 In the late Song Dynasty, Zhu Xi’s disciples were not shy about offering their own divisions, and respective understandings of the text. Wang Bo 王柏 (1197-1274), a three-times removed disciple of Zhu Xi, also provided a break-down of the text.17 Wang summarized his own division in the tupulüe 圖譜略, dividing the text into “branches” 支. This division was not however, his most daring attack on his Zhu Xi’s breakdown of the text. In the now-lost text titled guzhongyong 古中庸, he attempted to reconstruct the original text, re-arranging it, and presenting it as two manuscripts (which he calls gang 綱) joined at the hip.18 Wang Bo’s reconstruction is in essence the same insight as Gustav Haloun’s. According to his report in his Zhongyong lun 中庸論, he received the insight for this reconstruction of the old text while reading Hanshu 漢書 (The History of Former Han), which was clearly talking about the text in two parts. Another influential commentator was Rao Lu 饒魯 (Penname Shuangfeng 雙峯), who 16 Jeffrey K. Riegel, “The Four "Tzu ssu" Chapters of the Li Chi: an Analysis and Translation of the Fang chi, Chung yung, Piao chi, and Tzu I” (PhD diss., Stanford University, 1978), 85-100. 17 Soffel and Tillman, Cultural Authority and Political Culture in China, 71-86. 18 Soffel and Tillman, Cultural Authority and Political Culture in China, 78-81. 132 broke the text into six segments 節.19 This was by no means unusual, and other students of Zhu Xi had similar reservations on the structure offered by Zhu Xi. 20 Chosŏn scholars were immersed in debates, since the early years of the dynasty. The year following Yi Sŏnggye’s ascent to the throne, Kwŏn Kŭn 權近 (1352-1409) compiled his iphak tosŏl 入學圖說, as a primer for his students. Kwŏn Kŭn offered two breakdowns, roughly based on Wang Bo’s commentary. One was a rough breakdown of three parts, and the other a finer structure of five parts. Others of his time offered different structures. In fact, in his exhaustive study of that diagram alone, Ch’oe Sŏkki introduced more than fifty diagrams of the structure of The Doctrine of the Mean, each offering the logic and legitimization for a specific breakdown.21 Generally speaking, it seems that Chosŏn thinkers were particularly fond of the three specific breakdowns of the text offered by Zhu Xi, Wang Bo and Rao Lu, and attempting to consolidate the three or to choose a favorite were the main efforts expressed in these diagrams. By the seventeenth century, there was a tradition of divisions, and the few new diagrams produced in his time were mostly rendering of Kwŏn Kŭn’s diagram, based in turn on Wang Bo’s diagrams.22 Even in the late nineteenth century, prominent scholars such as Yi Chinsang were still trying to consolidate these division systems, as I have discussed in other places.23 Seen in the context of what other Chosŏn commentators, Yun Hyu’s division is indeed daring and scandalous, as it strays away from common wisdom to the point of breaking the text 19 Soffel and Tillman, Cultural Authority and Political Culture in China, 79. 20 Ibid. 21 Ch’oe Sŏkki, Chosŏn sidae Chungyong tosŏl [Chosŏn era’s diagrammatic treatises on the Doctrine of the Mean], Sŏul: Pogosa, 2013. 22 Ch’oe Sŏkki, Chosŏn sidae Chungyong tosŏl, 9. See for example the diagram that Ko Yŏhŭng 高汝興 (1617-1678) titled simply Chungyongjido 中庸之道. It is basically Kwŏn Kŭn’s diagram, which means that he accepted the structure from the iphak tosŏl with no challenge. 23 Yi Chinsang, “Chungyong saji yukjŏl [The Diagram of Four Branches and Six Sections of the Zhongyong],“ in Hanju chŏnsŏ, 4:120a. 133 mid-chapter, as was done by pre-Song commentators.24 Yun Hyu opens his text with what looks like a reference list, but is in fact an index of his textual division. Simply put, each chapter is given a title follow by a list of key words which identify its main topics and the perimeters of the paragraph. Followed is an explanation, stating that “listed above, is the corrected breakdown of The Doctrine of the Mean from chapter ten to chapter twenty-eight”.25 Usually, commentators divide the text into the Classic 經 part, supposedly containing the knowledge transmitted by Zisi and the “Commentary” 傳. The classic part is the head chapter, which includes what is thought to be a direct transmission of Zisi’s teachings. Yun Hyu describe this chapter as the learning of Zisi, thus a direct transmission from Confucius: 其首章則蓋子思子述傳受之大旨也而天人之道 學問之功聖神之能事備矣 The first chapter broadly outlines what Zisi have learned, about the Way of Man and Heaven, the achievements of learning and the abilities of sages and spirits are all well written. 26 Whether or not that text was actually Zisi’s own text was often doubted, but was often accepted at least as a transmission of his teaching. Soffel and Tillman noted the fact that stressing the authenticity of Zisi in the text, is by default decreasing the importance of the Mencius, for example.27 Yun Hyu stresses the authority and authenticity of the text as Zisi’s transmission, by literally saying that “Zisi Zi narrated the great theme of the oral tradition passed down to him” (子思子述傳受之大旨).28 As mentioned earlier, the core of the text is divided into seven chapters, each with a title and a list of key words. These are described in terms of key words which also dictate the range of 24 Soffel and Tillman, Cultural Authority and Political Culture in China, 79. 25 Yun Hyu, “Toksŏgi Chungyong,” 1457. 右校中庸章序如此 凡十章二十有八節。 26 Yun Hyu, “Toksŏgi Chungyong,” 1457. 27 Soffel and Tillman, Cultural Authority and Political Culture in China, 84. 28 I read chŏnsu 傳受 as chŏnsu 傳授 which fits the rest of the text. 134 verses included. Later on, comes a detailed description of that range as well. The first structural revision that Yun Hyu makes to distance himself from the structures offered by all three “classical” commentators is to divide the piŭn 費隱 (“everywhere, yet inconspicuous”) into three parts, and adds a fourth chapter from the following chapters. These four new chapters reflect, according to Yun Hyu, the three key sentences in the opening statements (Zhu Xi’s first chapter). Thus, the piŭn 費隱 chapter itself covers chapters 11 to 13 and is discussing how “That which is called the Way cannot be separated from for an instant”.29 The second part is called haengwŏn 行遠 (“to go far”) and is similarly discussing the “Nothing is more visible than the hidden” sentence. The last part is dedicated to King Wen 文王, covering chapters 17 and 18, and corresponds with the Mean 中 and Harmony 和 phrase.30 Finally the next chapter, titled “study it broadly” (博學) deals with the closing statement of the original first chapter.31 This division is challenging in the sense that it makes the first half of the text an elaboration on the first chapter, and a closed self-referential unit. Yun Hyu’s reading of his fourth chapter focuses on the transmission of the Way (tot’ong道統), making King Wu and the Duke of Zhou cardinal figures in the realization of the Way, but notes also the Duke of Ai as a key point in the transmission of the Way. Nevertheless, it is the Duke of Zhou who provided the key for the actualization of the way, by formalizing the rituals. These rituals, according to Yun Hyu, help us extend the filial piety of King Wen to Heaven and Earth (our father and mother, as per the Zhang Zai’s Western Inscription), thus deducing the Way. This is an interesting approach because it aims to resolve the idiosyncrasy of the text, and incorporate Neo-Confucian tenets into a Pre-Han text. He says on that chapter that: 29 Yun Hyu, “Toksŏgi Chungyong,” 1458-9. 30 A. Charles Muller Tr., “The Doctrine of the Mean”, “The Mean is the great root of all-under-heaven. “Harmony” is the penetration of the Way through all-under-heaven”. 中也者、天下之大本也。和也者、天下之達道也。 31 Yun Hyu, “Toksŏgi Chungyong,” 1459. 135 四曰文王論大本達道也 。文王之孝 光乎祖宗 而子孫保之。周公之禮 達乎貴賤 而天下行之 此蓋天下之達道 而所謂天命之本體者 實不外乎是也。由是焉而之 敬所尊而愛所親 以至乎父天母地 義有所本也。由是焉而充之 思知人思知天 似達乎為天下國家 道有所推也。富有之謂 大 旁通萬物出焉 天下由之 此之謂大本達道也。32 The fourth called “King Wen” discusses the “great source” and “penetration of the Way,” King Wen’s filial piety, glorifyiing his ancestors and protecting his descendants. The Duke of Zhou’s ritual reached noble and low-born, and the conduct of everything under heaven. This, generally speaking, is the penetration by the Way of everything under heaven, and what is called the essential root (本體) of everything under Heaven, and really nothing but that. What follows from this is respect for our elders and love for our parents, reaching to our father-Heaven and mother-Earth, which is the root of righteousness. Expanding from this, knowing men and knowing Heaven, as though reaching all nations under Heaven, we deduce (推) the Way. Full of what is called Great, penetrating everything, reasoning all under Heaven, is what we call the great source of the all-pervading Way. I find this insight of Yun Hyu to be the linchpin of his reading of text. Located in the middle of the text physically, and metaphorically between Zisi Zi at the beginning and Confucius at the end, it is this reference to the length of mourning at the end of the 18th chapter that shows how to actualize the Way. At the same time, this statement, composed well after the first Rites Controversy, reaffirms the importance of the discussion over death rituals to the Confucian 32 Yun Hyu, “Toksŏgi Chungyong,” 1459. 136 vision – since chapter 18 is mentioning the mourning period explicitly as the main achievement of the Duke of Zhou. The other major potentially controversial structural decision that Yun Hyu makes is to break down the second half of the text. Zhu Xi calls the section that runs from chapter 21 to 32 Heaven and Man 天人. This part of the text is where Zhu Xi introduces the idea of Sincerity as the central point of his system, but Yun Hyu takes the interpretation away from that aspect. Zhu Xi explains that the character zì 自 (cha in Korean) means here “spontaneous” 由. For Zhu Xi the “Way of Heaven” is our natural tendencies, and education is a process of internalization and realization of this nature. 33 Yun Hyu on the other hand highlight the expression “self-completion” 自成 instead of Zhu Xi’s expression “comes from sincerity” 自誠, claiming the term indicates a double meaning – being sincere to oneself and completing others, just as the self-Way (or what comes from the Way) is cultivating oneself and showing the Way to others.34 六曰自成 論天地位萬物育也 自成者 誠己而成物也。自道者 修己而道物也。 誠之配天不息而無彊也。 天地之所以位也。道之及物 不貳故不測也。 萬物之所以育也。 蓋天未始不為人 而人未始不為天也。 我未始 不為物 而物未始不為我也。 故天地之道 不貳不息而已矣 聖人之 33 Zhu Xi, "Zhongyong Zhangj [The Doctrine of the Mean in Chapter and Verse]," in Sishu zhangju jizhu 四書章句集注 2.8a. 自誠明，謂之性；自明誠，謂之教。誠則明矣，明則誠矣。自，由也。德無不實而明無不照者，聖人之德。所性而有者也，天道也。先明乎善，而後能實其善者，賢人之學。由教而入者也，人道也。誠則無不明矣，明則可以至於誠矣。 The enlightenment that comes from sincerity is our own nature. The sincerity that comes from enlightenment is called “education.” If you are sincere you will be enlightened. If you are enlightened, you will be sincere. “Comes from” 自means “originates from” 由. The Virtue that is truly solid and bright is the Virtue of the Sage. That which is in our natural tendencies is the Way of Heaven. First illuminating what is good, and after that enabled to realize goodness, is the learning of the Excellent Person 賢人. What arises after education is internalized is the Way of Man. If you are sincere, then you will be enlightened to everything. If you are enlightened, then you can achieve sincerity. 34 Yun Hyu, “Toksŏgi Chungyong,” 1459. 137 心 純亦不己而已矣。 學者之事 敬時慎幾而已矣。 故「勃天之命 惟時惟幾」 天德王道 其要謹獨而已 此之謂一言 而已可也。 The sixth chapter is called “Selfhood” 自成 (Not 自誠 as Zhu Xi phrased it), arguing that when Heaven and Earth are established in their place all things grow. The term “completing oneself” means to be sincere to oneself, and to complete others. The term “Way of oneself” means to cultivate oneself (修) and lead others (to the Way).35 Sincerity is pairing one’s actions with Heaven without a break and without limits; It is that which establishes Heaven and Earth. The Way extends to others, is loyal and therefore is unchanging. The Myriad Things are thus reared. Generally, one cannot say that Heaven is not Man, and that Man is not Heaven. One cannot say that I am not others and that others are not me. Therefore, the Way of Heaven and Earth is unchanging and without limits. The mind of the Sage is pure without a stop. The actions of the Scholars are in all times with reverence and caution. Therefore “We must deal cautiously with the favouring appointment of Heaven, at every moment and in the smallest particular”. The Virtue of Heaven or the Kingly Way is to be “Cautious when alone”.36 This is the single expression that sums it up.37 This is the core of the text, and Yun Hyu places his focus on the reciprocal nature of self-cultivation. Completion, he says, is self-cultivation but is also nurturing others, and only this 35 Yun Hyu explains the opening statement of the 25th chapter that “A sincere person had made himself so, and the Way is the Way in and of itself” (誠者自成也、而道自道也), by clearly separating the self-cultivation aspect from the cultivation of others. 36 The Book of Documents, “Yi Ji 益稷,” 6. 37 This is a reference to chapter 26 of The Doctrine of the Mean: “The Way of Heaven and Earth can be perfectly expressed in a single phrase” (天地之道、可壹言而盡也。). 138 double-perspective leads to the three aspects of the Way that he recognizes in the text: The Way of Heaven and the Kingly Way (which here look synonymous), the mind of the Sage and the Learning of the scholars. What I see as the most important difference between Yun Hyu’s structure and other versions, is his treatment of the chapters ranging from chapter 21 to chapter 32. Zhu Xi made that one chapter titled tian ren 天人 or Heaven and Man, and as mentioned used that chapter to introduce some of his key terminology. Following Wang Bo, Kwŏn Kŭn and others have often adopted the division of the second half of the text into the Way of Heaven 天道 and Way of Human 人道. It even appeared as a separate diagram topic, as well as a key feature of various debates, as it related to many of the major debates of Neo-Confucian thinkers. 38A complementary theme, the Mind of Heaven 天心 and the Mind of Man 人心, stand in the center of Zhu Xi’s system, who opens the zhongyong zhangju with a quote from the Book of Documents: “The mind of man is restless, prone to err; its affinity to what is right is small. Be discriminating, be uniform, that you may sincerely hold fast the Mean.” 39 Yun Hyu, on the other hand, broke that range into the chapters chasŏng 自成 (self-completeness), chunghwa 中和 (the Mean and harmony), and Chungni 仲尼(Confucius). His text is devoid of any reference to these terms, and instead focuses primarily on the Exemplary Person 君子 and the Sage 聖人. It seems that Yun Hyu moves away from the metaphysical discussion on li 理 and ki 氣 and so on, toward a breakdown of the gradual process from the Way (on the first chapters) down to the Sages, ending with Confucius himself. 40 38 Ch’oe Sŏkki, Chosŏn sidae Chungyong tosŏl, 11-17. For example, Kim Manhyu 金萬烋 (1625 - 1694) and Kim Manyŏng 金萬英 (1624 - 1671), both contemporaries of Yun Hyu, each produced a different diagram on the topic. A century later Yu Wimok 柳懿睦 (1785 - 1833) returned to the topic with a much more elaborated diagram. Many more included it in their actual breakdown or under the title ch’ŏnsim insim 天心人心. 39 Zhu Xi, "Zhongyong Zhangju,” 2.1a. Zhu Xi is citing from the Shangshu, book 2, chapter 2 (大禹謨 Counsels of the Great Yu), here in Jame Legge’s translation. 40 In the first phrase of his introduction, Zhu Xi quotes from the Book of Documents the citations which he sees as the key for the understanding of the text “The mind of man is restless, prone to err; its affinity to what is right is 139 The text concludes with a reference to the Book of Odes, thus bracketing the main body of the text with canonical references. Since both the Odes and Zisi’s teachings are related directly to Confucius, they have a different epistemic value. I have mentioned elsewhere the difference that Yun Hyu sees in a directly transmitted text, somewhat similar to the difference between Śruti and Smtri.41 Yun Hyu refers to the ode mentioned at the opening, seeing it as a direct explanation of the introduction: 末章則因尚絅之義 而發君子戒慎之意 以極乎天命之理而一篇之大義終焉 The last chapter is therefore the paragraph “covered her brocade gown with a plain robe,” explaining why the Exemplary Person should always be “cautious in the place where he is not seen,”, this chapter narrates the li 理 of the Mandate of Heaven, so this is the concluding chapter. Yun Hyu regards the text as a coherent whole, with an internal logic. He explains the internal structure in its own terms, by providing cross-references between chapters, as the last quote demonstrated. In that Yun Hyu is making a statement on authorship and exegesis. We can cautiously say that his approach to the text is hermeneutic in the sense of Friedrich Schleiermacher's approach: Understanding the text as a coherent whole, while recognizing its parts. This is definitely different from Wang Bo’s approach (seeing the text as different texts “glued” together), or even Zhu Xi who raised questions of authenticity and authorship by manipulating the text. The following table presents Yun Hyu’s own division vis-a-viz other important divisions. small. Be discriminating, be uniform, that you may sincerely hold fast the Mean (人心惟危， 道心惟微， 惟精惟一， 允執厥中),” (in Legge’s translation). 41 In short, that one is a received text and the other transmitted. In the context of this discussion it is enough to say that one is considered unmediated, and therefore more sacred. 140 Table 4-3 The Division of the Doctrine of the Mean Ch. Yun Hyu Zhu Xi Rao Lu Wang Bo, Kwŏn Kŭn 1. 天命之性 中和 一 中和 2. 二 中庸 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 費隱 12. 費隱 三 費隱 13. 14. 行遠 15. 16. 17. 文王 18. 19. 博學 20. 四 21. 天人 天道 22. 141 Ch. Yun Hyu Zhu Xi Rao Lu Wang Bo, Kwŏn Kŭn 23. 24. 25. 自成 26. 27. 中和 五 人道 28. 29. 仲尼 30. 31. 32. 33. 極致 六 反包首章天命 4.2.3 The Minor Introduction The second half of the toksŏgi, the so called Chungyong Chuja changgu porok, is a later composition, and one that attracted without doubt the majority of criticism. Its introduction places it in 1668, at the peak of Hyŏnjong power, and Yun Hyu’s influence in that court. The text is fragmented and layered, in the form of insights on Zhu Xi’s Zhongyong zhangju, and comments on those insights. The introduction, however, is a coherent and single text, where Yun Hyu can present his approach to the text and to the interpretive work of a commentator. The apologetic style conceals a frontal attack on Chosŏn literal adherence to Zhu Xi. It presents an alternative approach to the transmission of the Way, one that sees later scholars as a source of 142 new ideas, rather than strict adherence to the sages of the past. In short, it is looking forward rather than backwards. As I did before, I bring here the full text of the introduction: 中庸之書 孔門傳道之書也 。烏可易以言哉 況伊洛諸君子 既發明之 晦菴朱夫子 從而訓釋之 無遺蘊矣 是又奚以言為也哉 然鐫自早歲 受讀潛心 受積三十年于今矣 每於諷誦之際 恍然有會於心 不自知世之久近 地之遠邇也 。 書不盡言 言不盡意 即其章句文字之間 猶可 以得前聖授受之意者 而殆先儒未之究言也 。 蓋天下之義理無窮 而聖賢之言 旨意淵深 。前人既創通大義 後之人又演繹之 。因其所己言 而益發其所未言 此文武之道 不墜在人而道之所以益明也。 言之 固非以求多于前人不言 又非前人俟後人之意也 。 今輒據所見 第其文弘 其義 庶幾哉子思傳道之意 朱子羽翼斯文之旨 益闡以明於千載之下 而或者有裨於來學 雖愚且僣 有不敢避也。後之君子 其亦有以識余之心矣乎。 其朱子章句既有成書 不敢援引分裂 有所取舍於其間 且其宏綱大體既已舉之矣。今只略錄愚諛聞淺見 發其餘詢遺義 名之以朱子章句補錄 用致余祖述前賢之意 且欲與同志討論焉。 倘同志之士 恕余狂簡 而與之共評其得失 實亦朱子所謂天下公義理 且從大家商量之旨云爾 崇禎後著雍裙灘正月日天水後人書于漢陽之夏洞42 42 Yun Hyu, “Toksŏgi Chungyong,” 1461-2. 143 The book of The Doctrine of the Mean is a text of the School of Confucius containing lectures on the Way. What can be easily said about it? Moreover, what the exemplary men of the Yi-Luo school have created, Master Zhu Xi succeeded in explaining it fully and without omissions.43 What more is there to say? But I have been reading this book from childhood, 30 years by now, but whenever I recite it something suddenly comes to my mind that I did not know myself: The distant becomes near and the ancient becomes recent. I have more to say that can be written here. Words cannot fully express what is in my mind. Namely, inside the text of these Chapters and Phrases, I exchange ideas with some future sage, but only with the words that earlier sages have not yet investigated. Generally, the principles of righteousness under heaven are inexhaustible, and the words of the sages point us toward the profound. Our ancestors understood great righteousness, and those who come later can once again infer it, based on what have been said, and what have not yet been said. This Way of King Wen and King hasn’t abandoned people, but has become more illuminated. In fact, this is neither saying anything beyond what the ancients said, nor did the ancients anticipate the ideas of those who followed them. Now, according to my observation, originally this text was created by Zisi as a commentary on his ideas on the Way, and Zhu Xi tried to clarify what it means. Even though I might be overstepping my authority, I cannot avoid the thought that the text was not interpreted until more than a thousand years after it was written, and perhaps there is something to benefit from what was learned since. I wonder if some Exemplary Person in the future will be able to understand me. Because Zhu Xi’s Chapters and Phrases is 43 The Yi-Luo 伊洛 is a reference to Zhu Xi’s Yi-Luo yuanyuan lu 伊洛淵源錄 "The Sources and Origins of the Rivers Yi and Luo," the text recording the conversations of Zhou Dunyi, the Cheng brothers and Shao Yong. The names of the rivers Yi and Luo are a reference to Luoyang 洛陽. The opening statement is therefore that the Doctrine of the Mean is a product of the Luoyang school. 144 already complete and published, I don’t dare to take excerpts out of context. I merely lay out my humble opinion, and wrote down what I read and understood, so I call it “Supplement to Zhu Xi’s Doctrine of the Mean in Chapters and Sentences.” Therefore, I would like to discuss my opinions with others, while explaining my idea of what wise men of the past said. If my fellow scholar will forgive my being so uncouth, and will be willing to publicly discuss the merits and demerits of this, this is really what Zhu Xi would have called “A covenant with all the people of the world.” 1668, New year day, Seoul, Hadong After Chongzhen, the year 著雍涒灘 chŏong kunt’an (musin 戊申 in the Erya year counting 爾雅歲名 used by Sima Guang), Ch’ŏnsuhuin in hanyang’s hadong This introduction evokes, as Yun Hyu did in other places, three main theses. First, that the iterative nature of self-reflection and commentary is a core value of Confucianism. Second, that the transmission of the Way is done through careful application of new insights and occasionally raw criticism of existing commentaries. Thus, he says that “the principles of righteousness under heaven are inexhaustible” and continues to say that “those who come later can once again infer it, based on what have been said, and what have not yet been said”.44 Finally, he suggests that he is the real successor of the great scholars of the Song dynasty, and he is encoding that statement into his very signature. The signature at the end of the text is unusual. Literally it states “After Chongzhen, the year chŏong kunt’an 著雍涒灘, New Year day, the successor of tianshui 天水, written in 44 Yun Hyu, “Toksŏgi Chungyong,” 1461. 145 Hanyang’s hadong”.45 The most apparent thing in this signature is that it is dated to the calendar of Emperor Chongzhen of Ming, some twenty-four years after his death. No doubt that this is a loyalist statement, and very typical of Yun Hyu, but it also sets the backdrop for some mythological concepts of time.46 The next words verify it, because the years are counted in the Erya year counting 爾雅歲名 that is typical to the historical writing of Sima Guang 司馬光 (1019-1086).47 Finally, the name ch’ŏnsu huin 天水後人, can only see as a reference to the Tianshui 天水 in modern-day Gansu province, the home of the Song emperors. It is therefore a calculated provocation. Yun Hyu was indeed fascinated with the figure of Sima Guang, for several reasons. First, Sima Guang’s Comprehensive Mirror for Aid in Government (通鑑舉要歷) was an extensive discussion of the relationship between rulers and their ministers, which of course was a major concern of Yun Hyu throughout his career. More important to the issue at hand, he was the first to separate the zhongyong and the daxue as independent texts (in his Zhongyong guangyi 中庸廣義 and Daxue guangyi 大學廣義), which Zhu Xi have adapted through the Cheng brothers. 48 Zhu Xi have also adopted his method of writing history by providing an outlining narrative (gang 綱) and filling in the details (mu 目). Zhu Xi edited his version of Sima Guang’s masterpiece, calling it tongjian gangmu 通鑒綱目. Nevertheless, Sima Guang was not included in Zhu Xi’s Transmission of the Way, perhaps because of his detailed-oriented 45 崇禎後著雍裙灘正月日天水後人書于漢陽之夏洞. 46 JaHyun Kim Haboush "Contesting Chinese time, nationalizing temporal space: temporal inscription in late Choson Korea," in Time, Temporality, and Imperial Transition: East Asia from Ming to Qing, ed. by Lynn A. Struve (University of Hawaii Press, 2005): 115-41. One might think that the Chosŏn adoption of Ming era names for their calendar was an act of veneration of the (lost) Ming Dynasty, but Haboush argues that it was more an assertion of the Chosŏn independence and the hegemony of the yangban elite. 47 Kim t’aewand and Kwŏn Yongch’ae, " kapkolmun-e poinŭn sibijiji-wa yŏltu tti. [The sexagenary cycle and Chinese zodiac of oracle bone inscriptions]," Tongbuga munhwayŏn’gu 25 (2010): 459-478. 48 Tsai Cheng-fang, “Chong Yangyong’s Four Books Learning” in Confucian Ethics in Retrospect and Prospect, ed. by Qingsong Shen, Kwong-loi Shun, 229-304 (Washington, D.C.: Counci
You may notice some images loading slow across the Open Collections website. Thank you for your patience as we rebuild the cache to make images load faster.
UBC Theses and Dissertations
Life and death of a despoiler : the Confucian reformation of Yun Hyu Shababo, Guy Shimon 2019
Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.
- 24-ubc_2019_september_shababo_guy.pdf [ 3.07MB ]
- JSON: 24-1.0378579.json
- JSON-LD: 24-1.0378579-ld.json
- RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0378579-rdf.xml
- RDF/JSON: 24-1.0378579-rdf.json
- Turtle: 24-1.0378579-turtle.txt
- N-Triples: 24-1.0378579-rdf-ntriples.txt
- Original Record: 24-1.0378579-source.json
- Full Text