This blog post reflects on whether moral judgment is truly an essential condition or unnecessary interference in historical narration, focusing on the historical perspective of Yi Ik, a Silhak scholar of the late Joseon period.
The orthodoxy theory was first formally proposed in late Joseon historiography through Hong Yeo-ha’s Dongguk Tonggam Jeegang. This emerged in the mid-17th century amid the fundamental upheaval of East Asian order brought by the transition from Ming to Qing. At that time, recognizing the disappearance of the center of Chinese civilization, Joseon sought legitimacy as the inheritor of civilization by proclaiming itself the ‘Little China,’ having inherited Neo-Confucianism and practiced the Way of the Sage. This consciousness became widespread in Joseon society, intertwined with the Northern Expedition theory of King Hyojong’s reign. Noron thinkers also came to assert that the criteria for Huayi (Chinese and barbarian) lay not in geography or ethnicity, but in culture and morality, declaring, “Today, we are the very essence of China.”
Consequently, the traditional Huayi concept—that ‘Hu’ (Chinese) was established by Chinese land and the Chinese people—underwent a transformation. This new understanding evolved into a ‘culture-centered Huayi theory,’ asserting that ‘China’ was not necessarily confined to China itself, and that status could be conferred based on the practice of culture and ritual propriety. This perception was reflected in historiography, giving rise to the orthodoxy theory emphasizing Joseon’s historical legitimacy and subjectivity, and strengthening the consciousness of revering Joseon through Gangmok-style (綱目體) historical writing.
Yi Ik (李瀷) inherited this understanding, systematizing it more logically and deepening it qualitatively. He stated, “The present China is merely a piece of land,” criticizing the traditional China-centered view of the world and proposing the perspective that each nation is an independent organism. According to Yi Ik, the China-centered order as the ‘sole world’ had disintegrated, and each nation could exist as an individual historical world. From this perspective, Joseon was also regarded as an independent civilization and historical world, thereby establishing the ‘Three Han Orthodoxy Theory’ within his thought.
Unlike the economic debates of Malthus and Ricardo, Yi Ik’s orthodoxy theory was not merely a logic of external substitution. Whereas existing proponents of the ‘Small China’ theory had argued for Joseon as China’s proxy—that is, from a self-centered perspective—Yi Ik emphasized Joseon’s autonomy on the basis of rejecting the China-centered order. He took the realization of ritual and music (禮樂) as the criterion for civilization, yet acknowledged that Confucian order could be established even in non-Chinese states like the Yao, Jin, and Yuan dynasties. This perspective differed from the existing ‘lesser China’ theory, which included even the unique customs of the Chinese ethnic group within ritual and music, instead focusing on the universal diffusion and practice of Confucian culture.
Furthermore, Yi Ik criticized moralistic interpretations of history and developed a historical philosophy that emphasized objective conditions and the prevailing circumstances (時勢). He viewed the unfolding of history as governed more by the times than by human will or morality, arguing that the times—uncontrollable, contingent, and specific conditions—constituted the driving force of history. Thus, he sought to separate human actions in history from moral evaluation, distinguishing the realms of fact and morality.
Yi Ik identified two prevailing approaches to historical narration at the time. The first involved glorifying victors and distorting the evaluation of the vanquished based on predetermined outcomes. The second assessed historical events according to criteria of good and evil or the character of individuals. He regarded both approaches as biased and failing to reflect reality, maintaining that historical writing should objectively describe facts themselves, separate from notions of good and evil.
This historical perspective led to an approach separating moral good and evil from actual historical facts. Yi Ik believed that while human moral actions could be criticized or praised, they were not the direct factors determining the course of history. Therefore, he centered his criteria on ‘ritual propriety’ (禮) as an actual social norm rather than Confucian morality, considering this the measure for judging the maturity of a culture.
Thus, Yi Ik’s orthodoxy theory represents a paradigm shift: it positions Joseon not merely as a substitute for China, but as an independent civilization and a historical subject in its own right. His historical perspective elevated the level of late Joseon historiography, moving beyond the traditional moral-centered narrative and enabling a more realistic and structural approach.
