CAJ | 학술논문

在17世纪法国学者了解和研究中国哲学的过程中，有三本书值得关注：一是1642年出版的拉莫特·勒瓦耶的《论异教徒的道德》，认为孔子和苏格拉底在哲学史上的地位相同，但孔子对中国的影响比苏格拉底对西方的影响更大，由儒家领导的中国乃是柏拉图“哲学王”理想的实现；二是费内隆在1687—1689年撰写的《死者的对话》，其中有一篇题为《苏格拉底与孔子的对话》，论述了苏格拉底与孔子的思想分歧，既不同意把孔子比作中国的苏格拉底，也完全不相信孔子的“圣王”理想或柏拉图的“哲学王”理想具有哲学学理上的合理性和实现的可能性；三是1696年出版的李明（勒孔德）的《中国近事报道》，该书不再将孔子与苏格拉底对举，而是把他比作古罗马斯多葛派哲学家、一位致力于培养“哲学王”式的统治者却并不成功的“帝王师”塞涅卡，并认为在研究中国哲学时应把孔子思想与宋明理学区分开来。这三部文献在一定程度上反映了17世纪法国思想界对中国哲学认识的过程。
재17세기법국학자료해화연구중국철학적과정중，유삼본서치득관주：일시1642년출판적랍막특·륵와야적《론이교도적도덕》，인위공자화소격랍저재철학사상적지위상동，단공자대중국적영향비소격랍저대서방적영향경대，유유가령도적중국내시백랍도“철학왕”이상적실현；이시비내륭재1687—1689년찬사적《사자적대화》，기중유일편제위《소격랍저여공자적대화》，논술료소격랍저여공자적사상분기，기불동의파공자비작중국적소격랍저，야완전불상신공자적“골왕”이상혹백랍도적“철학왕”이상구유철학학리상적합이성화실현적가능성；삼시1696년출판적리명（륵공덕）적《중국근사보도》，해서불재장공자여소격랍저대거，이시파타비작고라마사다갈파철학가、일위치력우배양“철학왕”식적통치자각병불성공적“제왕사”새열잡，병인위재연구중국철학시응파공자사상여송명이학구분개래。저삼부문헌재일정정도상반영료17세기법국사상계대중국철학인식적과정。
Three books should be paid attention to if we are wondering how French scholars understood and studied Chinese philosophy in the 17th century. The first is De la vertu des payens, by La Mothe Le Vayer, published in 1642. It saw Confucius and Socrates the same important in the history of philosophy and held that Confucius’influence on China is greater than Socrates’ influence on the Wes and Plato’s ideal of Philosopher King is come true in Confucian -dominated China. The second is The Dialogues of the Dead, written by Fran?ois Fénelon in 1687-1689. The chapter of The dialogue between Socrates and Confucius discussed the ideological differences between Socrates and Confucius, neither regarded Confucius as China's Socrates, nor believed that Confucius’ideal of Inner Sage and Outer King and Plato’s ideal of Philosopher King have a rationality in philosophy and a possibility in practice. The Third is New Memoirs on the Present State of China,by Louis le Comte, published in 1696. Instead of comparing Confucius with Socrates, it regarded Confucius as China's Seneca, a famous Roman Stoic philosopher, who devoted himself to train the philosopher king-like ruler and was unsuccessful. At the same time, he suggested that Confucianism and Neo-Confucianism should be separated in the study of Chinese philosophy. All in all, these three documents to some extent reflect French intellectual understanding of Chinese Philosophy in the 17th century.