이덕무의 청대고증학 수용 = Lee Deok-Mu`s accommodation of Qing Dynasty Period documental archaeology

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Lee Deok-Mu is a scholar well known for erudition in the late Joseon period. His erudite aspect is identified in his writings with a strong documental archaeological tendency in his 30s and thereafter. Lee Deok- Mu``s academic tendency as such has been understood as a result of the effects of Qing Dynasty Period documental archaeology. However, is it really so? Lee Deok-Mu encountered Hwang Jon-Hee, a scholar specialized in Qing Dynasty Period documental archaeology in his mid-20s and enthusiastically read the books of scholars specialized in Qing Dynasty Period documental archaeology including Goh Yeom-Mu and cited the contents in his writings in his mid-30s thereafter. Therefore, the fact that Lee Deok-Mu was greatly interested in Qing Dynasty Period documental archaeology and enthusiastically read the books of scholars specialized in Qing Dynasty Period documental archaeology is indisputable. However, scholars specialized in Qing Dynasty Period documental archaeology encountered by Lee Deok-Mu were Hwang Jong-Hee, Goh Yeom-Mu, Mo Gi-Ryeong, Ju Ee- Jun, and Seo Geon-Hak who acted in the early part of the Qing Dynasty Period when documental archaeology was being formed. Mentions about Dae Jin, Jeon Dae-Heun, and Jang Hak-Seong who acted in the prime of documental archaeology in the Qing Dynasty Period cannot be found anywhere in the collection of his works. Given Lee Deok-Mu``s birth and death date, it is natural that the documental archaeology accessed by Lee Deok-Mu is part of the documental archaeology during the period of Qianlong in the early part of the Qing Dynasty Period. Therefore, although Lee Deok-Mu was greatly interested in Qing Dynasty Period documental archaeology and wanted to obtain and read the books of scholars specialized in Qing Dynasty Period documental archaeology, he was not in a position to completely understand the stream of the entire Qing Dynasty Period documental archaeology but could accommodate only part of the documental archaeology at the beginning of Qing Dynasty Period. Lee Deok-Mu is known to have been affected the most by Goh Yeom-Mu among scholars specialized in Qing Dynasty Period documental archaeology. However, though the titles of books enthusiastically read by Lee Deok-Mu and the contents cited by them, it could be identified that the effects of Mo Gi-Ryeong, Ju Ee-Jun, and Seo Geon-Hak were not small. However, the academic orientation and course of life of Goh Yeom-Mu /Seo Geon- Hak and those of Mo Gi-Ryeong/Ju Ee-Jun are completely different. Whereas Goh Yeom-Mu was royal to Ming Dynasty and strongly advocated neo- Confucianism, Mo Gi-Ryeong not only had been in government service for Qing Dynasty but also argued against those who were royal to Ming Dynasty and thoroughly criticized Chutzu. Despite that Lee Deok-Mu was royal to Ming Dynasty and regarded the position of advocating Chutzu as being important, he evaluated highly, the erudition and documental archaeological academic methods of Mo Gi-Ryeong and Ju Ee-Jun. This should mean that when Lee Deok-Mu was accommodating Qing Dynasty Period documental archaeology, he regarded important, the ‘documental archaeological academic methods based on elaborate historical evidence.’ It is said that Lee Deok-Mu had a habit to think over history for notes and seek for historical evidence for doubtful contents from when he was young, had wide knowledge as he read diverse books, in particular, had profound knowledge of studies of grass and trees, birds and beasts, mountains and rivers, and customs, and carefully sought for historical evidence and demonstrated when he was writing books. He planned to write encyclopedic books such as <Tongji> of Jeong Cho and, <Munheontonggo> of Ma Dan-Rim when he was young. Through this, it can be seen that Lee Deok-Mu already had deep interest in and affected by speciality studies before he encountered Qing Dynasty Perioddocumental archaeology. When he was accommodating Qing Dynasty Period documental archaeology in his 30s, Lee Deok-Mu deeply sympathized with documental archaeological methods in particular probably because these methods were well consistent with erudition and the academic methods of seeking historical evidence and demonstrating that he pursued at normal times. Therefore, the documental archaeological tendency of Lee Deok-Mu``s studies should be understood as a results from the combination of his meticulousness and tendency toward seeking historical evidence and demonstrating that he had from when he was young and his accommodation of Qing Dynasty Period documental archaeology rather than just a result of accommodation of Qing Dynasty Period documental archaeology.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 심경호, "조선후기의 경학연구법 분화와 毛奇齡 비판" 29 : 37-69, 1999

2 심경호, "조선후기 지식인과 顧炎武" 우리한문학회 19 : 509-533, 2008

3 김문식, "조선후기 毛奇齡 경학의 수용 양상" 38 : 123-145, 2006

4 손혜리, "조선 후기 문인들의 顧炎武에 대한 인식과 수용 ―硏經齋成海應을 중심으로―" 대동문화연구원 (73) : 33-62, 2011

5 이성무, "이덕무의 실학사상" 31 : 93-105, 1967

6 류재일, "이덕무의 시문학연구" 태학사 1998

7 권정원, "이덕무 초기 산문의 공안파 수용양상 연구" 부산대학교 2006

8 김채식, "이규경의 『오주연문장전산고』 연구" 성균관대학교 2009

9 길진숙, "열하일기" 그린비 2008

10 벤저민 엘먼, "성리학에서 고증학으로" 예문서원 2004

11 권정원, "顧炎武의 『日知錄』과 조선후기 고증학 -李德懋의 학문경향을 중심으로-" 한국실학학회 (15) : 7-32, 2008

12 近藤光男, "淸朝考證學の硏究" 硏文出版社 1987

13 梁啓超, "淸代學術槪論" 동방출판사 1996

14 李德懋, "國譯靑莊館全書" 민족문화추진회 1989

15 노대환, "18세기 후반~19세기 전반 名物學의 전개와 성격" 한국학연구소 (31) : 541-572, 2013