普德의 思想과 活動

盧鏞弼 한국상고사학회 1989 한국상고사학보 Vol.2 No.-

韓國 古代의 『文選』 受容과 그 歷史的 意義

노용필 호남사학회 2015 역사학연구 Vol.58 No.-

The ‘Wenxuan’ (文選, compilation of selected works) is the oldest compilation of selected literary works existing in China. It is composed of 30 volumes edited by the Crown Prince Zhaoming Taizi (昭明太子) Xiao Tong (蕭統, 501-531), who was the son of Emperor Wudi (武帝) in ancient Chinese kingdom Liang (梁). There are 761 writings by 130 authors from Zhou Period (周代) till Liang Period (梁代) in ‘Wenxuan’. Since the writings contain knowledge in various human study fields including literature, historical study and philosophy, ‘Wenxuan’ can be said a comprehensive collection of human study writings. The ‘Wenxuan Xuey’, which exclusively studied ‘Wenxuan’, was extremely advanced in Tang Period (唐代) and ‘Wenxuan’ had big influence in all literary fields as represented by the ‘pianti’ (騈體, unique writing style during ancient China). In addition, ‘Wenxuan’ had absolutely big weight in the government officer recruiting examination including the ‘jinshike’ (進士科). It has been proved that this ‘Wenxuan’ had been also accommodated and utilized in ancient Korean kingdoms, the Goguryeo and the Shilla. In Goguryeo Kingdom, ‘Wenxuan’ was the most favored and precious literary work of the people; while ‘Wenxuan’ was utilized in preparing diplomatic documents by Gangsu (强首) in Shilla Kingdom. ‘Wenxuan’ was also taught at the ‘gukhak’ (國學), the higher education institution of Shilla, and the persons who had good knowledge on ‘Wenxuan’ was recruited as government officers. Among the ‘dokseo-sampum’ (讀書三品), ‘Wenxuan’ was the most important work to study. The actual literary work written by utilizing ‘Wenxuan’ at the time is the ‘sasan-bimyeong’ (四山碑銘, the epigraph of 4 mountains), which is the representative epigraph written by Choi Chi-won (崔致遠,857-?) of Shilla Kingdom. It is possible to find four historical significances in the accommodation of ‘Wenxuan’ by the ancient Korean kingdoms. First, ‘Wenxuan’ was an important and big opportunity for the cultural leap by accommodating the new Chinese culture by way of close diplomatic relation with the ‘Nanchiao’ (南朝) dynasties in China, especially the Liang (梁) dynasty. Second, ‘Wenxuan’ greatly contributed to the advance in overall human studies including literature, historical study and philosophy. ‘Wenxuan’ promoted the advance in the literature focusing on historical facts and it made the publishing of individual biography or the writing of epigraph popular. Third, when Koreans went to China for study, ‘Wenxuan’ enabled them to build academic foundation for studying in China. Fourth, ‘Wenxuan’ greatly contributed to higher education by being taught in education institutions such as the ‘gyeongdang’ of Goguryeo and the ‘gukhak’ of Shilla. In Shilla, ‘Wenxuan’ greatly contributed to the fostering of talented persons by taking the most important position among the ‘dokseo-sampum’ (讀書三品) of Shilla. 『문선』은 중국 양나라 무제의 아들 소명태자 소통(501-531)이 30권으로 편집한 현존하는 가장 오래된 중국의 종합적인 문장 선집으로, 주대에서 양대에 이르기까지 130인의 작가가 쓴 761편의 글이 실려 있다. 여기에는 문학ㆍ사학ㆍ철학을 위시한 인문학의 여러 분야에 관한 지식이 담겨 있으므로, 종합적 인문학 선집이라 할 수 있다. 이를 연구하는 문선학이 당대에 이르러 극히 발달함으로써, 『문선』은 병체를 중심으로 문학의 모든 분야에 크게 영향을 끼쳤을 뿐더러 진사과를 위시한 과거제도 전반에도 절대적인 비중을 차지하게 되었다. 이러한 『문선』이 한국 고대에도 수용되어 고구려와 신라에서 활용되었음이 입증된다. 고구려에서는 이 책을 가장 좋아하고 소중히 하였을 정도였다. 그리고 신라에서는 강수가 이를 익혀 외교 문서 작성에 활용한 바가 있었다. 더욱이 국학에서 이 책을 교수하였을 뿐만 아니라 독서삼품를 통해 이에 능통한 자를 관리로 발탁하였는데, 이 과정에서 다른 서적들에 비해 가장 중시되었다. 한편 『문선』을 실제로 활용하여 문장을 작성한 구체적인 사례는 신라의 최치원(,857-?)으로, 그의 대표적인 금석문 자료인 「4산비명」에서 잘 드러난다. 한국에서의 이와 같은 『문선』 수용의 역사적 의의로는 다음의 4가지를 들 수 있겠다. 첫째, 중국의 남조 그것도 양과의 긴밀한 외교 관계에서 이루어져, 새로운 문화의 수용을 통한 문화적 도약에 커다란 계기가 되었다는 점이다. 둘째, 문학ㆍ사학ㆍ철학 등의 인문학 전반의 발달에 크게 기여하여, 개인의 전기 및 금석문 저술의 유행으로 역사적 사실 중심의 문학이 진흥되었던 것이다. 셋째, 당시의 한국인들이 특히 중국으로 유학을 갈 때 그 학문적 토대 마련에 『문선』 수용이 기여해주었다는 것이다. 그리고 넷째, 고구려의 경당 및 신라의 국학 등의 교육기관에서 교수 과목으로 채택됨으로써 교육의 내실화에 크게 공헌하였을 뿐더러, 신라의 독서삼품에서 중시됨으로써 인재의 양성에 크게 기여하였다는 사실이다.

新羅 金仁問의 道敎思想 受容과 그 特徵

노용필 호남사학회 2023 역사학연구 Vol.89 No.-

Kim In-mun, who was the second son of Kim Chun-chu (later King Taejong Muyeol) and younger brother of Kim Beop-min (later Kim Moonmu), visited Tang for the first time in Queen Jindeok's fifth year (651) - before the father and brother became kings in Silla. He lived at Tang for totally 22 years repeating six times' visits and returns to Tang. He died at Tang in King Hyoso's (great-grandson) 3rd year (694) and was buried at Gyeongju, Silla. This Kim In-mun mastered not only Confucianism but Taoism and Buddhism, according to his biography. His mastership in three thoughts of Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism as such seemed to be common among then Tang's intellectuals since Wei Jin North and South China Period. While studying at Silla in his youth, he must have majored in Confucianism but after entering Tang, he seemed to have ''delved into theories of Chuang-tzu/Lao-tzu and Buddhism as well''. Here, mentioning of Chuang-tzu first particularly was interpreted as clearly showing Kim In-mun thought more highly of book Chuang-tzu than Lao-tzu. Meanwhile, his epitaph inscribed "Have seen something from Heaven". This Heaven didn't appear at all in Lao-tzu and only could be seen at Chapter of 'Tian Xia'(天下) from Chuang-tzu. This showed that, while accommodating Chuang-tzu, Kim In-mun put importance to this 'Tian Xia'. The monument erected by Tang after conquering Baekje mentioned about him as "There was high spirit as a noble man without mean act of a small man." From here, the study believes the essence of his being a noble man was based on 'Wai Wu'(外物) of Chuang-tzu he accommodated. 김춘추(후일의 태종무열왕)의 둘째 아들이자 김법민(후일의 문무왕)의 동생인 김인문은, 그의 아버지와 동생이 왕위에 오르기 이전인 진덕여왕 5년(651) 처음으로 入唐하여 宿衛하였다. 이후 그는 6번의 귀국과 입당을 반복하며 도합 22년 동안 在唐하다가 증손인 효소왕 3년(694) 당에서 사망하였고 시신으로 귀국하여 경주에 묻혔다. 이러한 김인문은 유교는 물론이고 도교 및 불교까지 섭렵하였음이 그의 傳記에 잘 드러나고 있다. 그가 이같이 유ㆍ도ㆍ불 삼교에 정통했음은 中國 魏晉南北朝 시대 이후 당시 唐 지식인들의 보편적인 양상과 같았다. 그가 어려서 신라에서 공부할 때에는 유교를 위주로 삼다가 특히 입당 이후에는 “겸하여 장자ㆍ노자ㆍ불교의 학설도 섭렵하였던” 것 같다. 그런데 이 대목에서 굳이 ‘莊老’라 한 것은, 그가 장자 를 노자 보다 더 중시하였음을 분명하게 보여주는 것이라 해석된다. 한편 그의 개인 碑文에서 “天人의 □□을 접하였다.’라고 했음에서, 이 ‘천인’이 노자 에서는 전혀 등장하지 않을뿐더러 장자 중 「天下」篇에서만 찾아진다. 따라서 그가 장자 를 수용하면서 특히 이 「천하」편에 높은 비중을 두었음이 드러난다. 그리고 唐이 百濟를 정복하고 세운 비문에서 그에 관하여 “小人의 자잘한 행위는 없었고 君子의 孤高한 風貌가 있었다.”라고 기술한 바는 곧 그의 ‘군자’다움의 要諦가 바로 그가 수용한 장자 「外物」편에 근거하는 바였음을 입증해준다고 여겨진다.

百濟의 鍾繇 書法 수용과 서법ㆍ金石學의 발달

노용필 진단학회 2023 진단학보 Vol.- No.141

현재 전해지는 돈황을 위시한 중국ㆍ일본의 사본ㆍ서첩 및 각종 서적 등을 구득해서 그 자료의 기록을 섭렵하고 정리하여 백제의 종요 서법 수용과 서법ㆍ금석학의 발달과 관련된 역사적 사실을 규명하였다. [위] 종요의 『천자문』이 돈황은 물론이고 일본에까지 보편적으로 수용되어 있었던 사실이 증명되므로, 그 무렵 백제에도 그랬음을 것임이 틀림없다. [당] 이섬의 『천자문』 주석본 서문에서도 그 사실에 관한 매우 구체적인 기록이 상세하게 정리되어 있기에 이는 더욱 분명하다. 또한 중국ㆍ일본의 모든 서법 관련 자료들을 조사하여 종요의 墨蹟을 찾은 결과, 오늘날 진품으로 가장 정평이 있는 『순화각첩』 2권에서 발견하여 제시하였다. 그런 뒤 종요의 이러한 서체에 능숙했던 [양] 소자운의 행적을 검증하였다. 그리하여 그가 『천자문』을 필사한 적이 있으며, 또한 그것을 注解한 사실도 확인할 수 있었고, 그것을 일본 왕실에서 소장하고 있었다는 기록도 찾아냈다. 그리고 소자운의 묵적 역시 샅샅이 조사하여 『순화각첩』 제4권에서 그것을 찾아냈다. 소자운의 서체는 과연 종요의 해서 書蹟을 모범으로 삼은 게 분명하다. 그리고 『남사』 「소자운전」의 기록에 그가 백제의 使人에게 3일간 글씨 30지를 써주었다고 한 사실에 근거하여 소자운의 바로 그 書蹟을 통해 백제에 종요의 해서 서법이 직접 수용되었음이 입증된다. 그리고 그 서체가 곧 백제 무령왕 왕릉의 지석 탑본과 흡사하므로, 소자운의 종요 해서 서법 ‘서삼십지’가 백제의 서법ㆍ금석학 발달에 결정적인 계기가 되었다. In addition to the “Manuscripts of the Dunhuang Caves", which are currently handed down, China and Japan's Manuscripts calligraphy and various books were examined, and the records of the materials were compiled and organized to identify historical facts related to Baekje's acceptance of Zhong Yao's method of writing and epigraphy. The Thousand-Character Text compiled by Wei Zhong Yao, proved to have been published in Japan as well as in The Dunhuang Caves, so it must have been the same for Baekje at that time. This is all the more evident in the preface of Tang Li Xian's The Thousand-Character Text Annotated Commentary, which details a very specific account of the fact. In addition, after examining all relevant materials in China and Japan, Zhong Yao's handwriting was found, and it was found and presented in the second volume of the Chunhua Imperial Archive of Calligraphy Exemplars, which is the most reputed authentic today. The deeds of Liang Xiao Ziyun, who was proficient in Zhong Yao's calligraphic style, were then verified. Thus, we were able to confirm that he had transcribed The Thousand-Character Text that he had annotated commentary on it, and that it was in the possession of the royal family of Japan. And Xiao Ziyun's handwriting was also combed through and found it in the fourth volume of the Chunhua Imperial Archive of Calligraphy Exemplars. It is clear that Xiao Ziyun's calligraphic style is modeled after Zhong Yao's regular script handwriting. And based on Nan shi's Xiao Ziyun biography that he wrote 30 pieces of writing to Baekje's envoy in three days, his handwriting proves that Baekje directly accepted Zhong Yao's regular script calligraphic style. And since the calligraphic style is very similar to King Muryong's Zhishi(誌石, Hand-written stone) rubbing of inscription, Xiao Ziyun's “30Pieces of Writing in 3Days" was a decisive factor in Baekje's acceptance of Zhong Yao's method of writing and the development of calligraphic style & epigraphy.

新羅 金志誠의 道敎思想 受容과 그 特徵

노용필 고려대학교 민족문화연구원 2022 民族文化硏究 Vol.97 No.-

김인문과 김지성은 신라가 삼국통일을 달성하기 전후한 시대에 42년이나 함께 생존했지만, 둘 사이에는 사회적 처지에 상당한 격차가 있었다. 태종무열왕의 둘째 아들인 김인문은 唐에 의해 新羅王에 봉했다가 철회한 적이 있었고, 훗날 사망하였을 때 신라의 최고위 관등을 부여받았던 眞骨이었다. 이에 반해, 金志誠은 唐에서 皇室의 齋戒를 지낼 때 동참하는 직책을 지냈고, 귀국 후에는 執事部의 侍郞職을 지내다가 은퇴한 六頭品이었다. 그럼에 불구하고 이들은 사상적인 면에서는, 당시 唐의 지식인들이 그러했듯 儒佛道를 섭렵하는 普遍性을 띠기도 하였다. 첫째, 유교에 있어서 어려서부터 학문을 배워 儒家의 서적을 많이 읽었다는 점, 둘째 도교 경전에 있어서 『老子道德經』을 수용하여 애독하면서 중시하였다는 점 등에서 그러하다. 그렇지만 그 이외에는 서로 個別性을 띠었다. 특히 도교사상에서 두 사람은 『莊子』를 애독하면서도 김인문은 그 「天下」편을, 김지성은 그 「逍遙遊」편을 중시하였음이 확인되는 것이다. 김인문과 김지성이 지닌 이러한 도교사상의 특징은 그 자신의 사회적 처지에서 비롯된 것이었다고 가늠된다. 김인문은 唐 皇室과 긴밀한 관계를 유지하면서 지식인들과의 교유하던 신라의 왕족으로서 적어도 중국의 사상 맥락을 제대로 알고자 했기에 그런 내용이 담긴 『장자』의 「천하」편을 중시하였던 것이라 이해된다. 반면에 김지성은 현실 정치 속에서 “지략도 없이 세상을 바로잡으려다 겨우 刑과 法에 걸리는 것을 면한” 체험이 있었을 뿐만이 아니라 종국에는 6두품으로서 오를 수 있는 최고의 관직을 역임하고 퇴임하기에 이르게 되자, ‘悠悠自適’의 이상을 추구하는 『장자』의 「소요유」편을 중시하였던 것으로 여겨진다.

丁若鍾의 『쥬교요지』와 利類思의 『主敎要旨』比較 硏究

盧鏞弼 한국사상사학회 2002 韓國思想史學 Vol.19 No.-

Up to now Jeong Yak - jong(1760∼ 1801)'s Jugyoyozi seems that it was translation of Li Lei -ssu's Chu -chiao yoo -chih, because they had the same title of the books. But this dissertation make obviously that it has been wrong, through not only Yak - jong's Jugyoyozi andLi Lei-ssu's Chu-chiao yoo-chih contents composition but also their comparison and analysis. That is, when Jugyoyozi was written by Jeong Yak-jong, Gyoyoserlon(敎要序論) is taken in korea already which it was written by Nam Hoi-inn() who was Li Lei-ssu's colleague Jesuit. Therefore, Jeong Yak - jong wrote Jugyoyozi refer to Chinese Catholic doctrine books, and it was contained with Li Lei - ssu's Chu-chiao yoo -chih. Jeong Yak-jong's Jugyoyozi is distinctive feature that it subdivide to explanation concretly about Catholic doctrine. As real example had Presented, this method, it made some effectively missionary work. For the ignorant people who became a convert to Catholic believer, the book was published in Korean. It was the purpose of propagandizing Catholicism as well as the sure inner education which was believed to Catholic people. In short, essentially Jeong Yak - jong's Jugyoyozi had made more important use of a domestic efficiency among devotee. Speacially, Jugyoyozi was focusing on refuting Taoism and Buddhism. and alsohis work mentioned that Catholic was superior. So, meanwhile Jugyoyozi criticized the Taoism and Buddhism, it was concerned with actual problem. When converse Catholic believer goes to a village shrine and exorcise, the book call a their attention to surroundings in order to restore faith to their old past. Jugyoyozi conclude at very end in the last volume, in addition, the book emphasize and recommendation that people should have faith instantly and penitent, who are apostate and keep back for a later occasion as faithful life.

李基白 『國史新論』・『韓國史新論』의 體裁와 著述 目標 (上)

노용필 한국사학사학회 2009 韓國史學史學報 Vol.0 No.19

李基白 『國史新論』・『韓國史新論』의 體裁와 著述 目標 (下)

노용필 한국사학사학회 2009 韓國史學史學報 Vol.0 No.20

Lee Kibaik(李基白) became estimated as the first Korean historian after the liberation of Korea to write the most outstanding Korean history by publishing Kuksa Sillon (國史新論, A New History of Our Nation) in 1961, which well reflected past historical achievements and emphasized the nation's independence. Only two years after the publication, he revised and complemented his work and published a second edition of Kuksa Sillon and then in 1967, just four years after the second edition, when Prof. Wagner in Harvard Univ. suggested that he will publish the book in English, Lee Kibaik changed the title and revised the entire work to publish the first edition of Han'guksa Sillon (韓國史新論, A New History of Korea). There were two objectives behind his decision. One was to organize the development of Korean history based on the change of ruling powers and the other was to maximize the originality of Korean history. Still not satisfied with the editions, he published a revised edition in 1976 which reflects his strong willingness to liquidate the vestiges of Japanese imperialism after thirty years past the liberation. He then published a new edition of Han'guksa Sillon once again, to manifest his recent findings and to clearly state his opinion on the new achievements. In 1999, entering the new millenium, he came to publish a Korean version of his work, with the intention to share the history with the Hangul generations and in the hope that his work will be of value in assessing the present and forecasting the future not only recognizing the past. The characteristics of Lee Kibaik's Kuksa Sillon and Han'guksa Sillon are; One, Content wise, it was an introduction of which historical treatise took precedence; Two, Narrative wise, it fully reflected prior findings with the intention of unbiased description through concrete facts; Three, Format wise, it is a good primer for people who wished to study further Korean history by explicitly providing references; Four, In the aspect of what he focused on as the center of history, he espoused the understanding of mankind as a social power across his work. Furthermore, of the many significances of Lee Kibaik's Kuksa Sillon and Han'guksa Sillon, at least three points should be highlighted; One, that he wrote an introduction reflecting all past historical achievements; Two, that he organized the development of Korean history with unique periodization by obtaining conformity with comparative history; Three, that he put great deal of weight on living-cultural history through human-centered understanding rather than politics or social systems. And one thing to keep in mind is that even the same block book consists of different contents, and this can not only be found in the revised edition but also in the new edition and even the Korean version. In other words, he always had Han'guksa Sillon at his beside along with a bible and revised it at any time. Lee Kibaik(李基白) became estimated as the first Korean historian after the liberation of Korea to write the most outstanding Korean history by publishing Kuksa Sillon (國史新論, A New History of Our Nation) in 1961, which well reflected past historical achievements and emphasized the nation's independence. Only two years after the publication, he revised and complemented his work and published a second edition of Kuksa Sillon and then in 1967, just four years after the second edition, when Prof. Wagner in Harvard Univ. suggested that he will publish the book in English, Lee Kibaik changed the title and revised the entire work to publish the first edition of Han'guksa Sillon (韓國史新論, A New History of Korea). There were two objectives behind his decision. One was to organize the development of Korean history based on the change of ruling powers and the other was to maximize the originality of Korean history. Still not satisfied with the editions, he published a revised edition in 1976 which reflects his strong willingness to liquidate the vestiges of Japanese imperialism after thirty years past the liberation. He then published a new edition of Han'guksa Sillon once again, to manifest his recent findings and to clearly state his opinion on the new achievements. In 1999, entering the new millenium, he came to publish a Korean version of his work, with the intention to share the history with the Hangul generations and in the hope that his work will be of value in assessing the present and forecasting the future not only recognizing the past. The characteristics of Lee Kibaik's Kuksa Sillon and Han'guksa Sillon are; One, Content wise, it was an introduction of which historical treatise took precedence; Two, Narrative wise, it fully reflected prior findings with the intention of unbiased description through concrete facts; Three, Format wise, it is a good primer for people who wished to study further Korean history by explicitly providing references; Four, In the aspect of what he focused on as the center of history, he espoused the understanding of mankind as a social power across his work. Furthermore, of the many significances of Lee Kibaik's Kuksa Sillon and Han'guksa Sillon, at least three points should be highlighted; One, that he wrote an introduction reflecting all past historical achievements; Two, that he organized the development of Korean history with unique periodization by obtaining conformity with comparative history; Three, that he put great deal of weight on living-cultural history through human-centered understanding rather than politics or social systems. And one thing to keep in mind is that even the same block book consists of different contents, and this can not only be found in the revised edition but also in the new edition and even the Korean version. In other words, he always had Han'guksa Sillon at his beside along with a bible and revised it at any time.

杜牧 『樊川文集』・宋祁 『新唐書』・金富軾 『三國史記』의 「張保皐鄭年傳」 比較 檢討

노용필 한국사학사학회 2017 韓國史學史學報 Vol.0 No.36

T’ang Dynasty’s Du Mu’s writing on “Lives of Chang Po-go-Chŏng Nyŏn” described Chang Po-go and Chŏng Nyŏn equally in that they, practising Confucian ‘benevolence and righteousness’ consistently, had prevented the ‘fall of their country’. Du Mu’s writing as such stood out by its more faithful description compared with that of Song Qi’s New History of the T’ang Dynasty. At his “Lives of Chang Po-go-Chŏng Nyŏn”, Song Qi quoted the whole text even by modifying Du Mu’s description partly. And ultimate intention of Song Qi’s writing on and including it at chapter of Silla of his New History of the T’ang Dynasty seemed to propagate the openness and generosity of the T’ang Dynasty. Meanwhile, Kim Pu-sik’s “Lives of Chang Po-go-Chŏng Nyŏn” not merely didn’t show full text of Du Mu but also excluded some parts intentionally. This was possible because of Kim Pu-sik’s standpoint and criteria that historical facts needed to understand the T’ang’s history but not needed to do Silla’s history might be excluded. This aspect is deemed to have been built on Kim Pu-sik’s ‘real world-centered rational thought’. Kim Pu-sik’s view of history as such as contained in his writing of “Lives of Chang Po-go-Chŏng Nyŏn” is, out of biographies at his Samguk sagi(History of the Three Kingdoms), one of the most typical examples showing his Confucian-rational writing performed based on ‘real world-centered rational thought’. Therefore, his intention of writing “Lives of Chang Po-go-Chŏng Nyŏn”, exemplifying the thought of ‘Support the state and save the world’, might have been to realize Confucian rationalism based on ‘real world-centered rational thought’. 당唐 두목杜牧의 「장보고정년전張保皐鄭年傳」에서는 장보고와 정년을 유교적 ‘인의仁義’를 일관되게 실천하여 ‘망국亡國’을 방지했다는 측면에서 동등하게 기술하였으며, 송宋 송기宋祁의 『신당서』 「장보고정년전」보다도 충실한 서술이었다는 데에 특징이 있었다. 이에 비해 송기의 「장보고정년전」에서는 굳이 두목의 그것을 부분적으로 손질해가면서까지 전문을 인용하였는데, 그렇게까지 해서 송기가 그것을 저술하여 『신당서』 신라전 속에 포함시킨 궁극적인 의도는 당나라의 개방성과 포용성을 선양하려는 데에 있었다고 여겨진다. 한편 고려 김부식金富軾의 「장보고정년전」은 두목의 그것에 등재된 내용일지라도 전재한 게 아니라 때로는 부분적으로 제외시키기도 하였다, 이는 당나라의 역사를 이해함에 있어서는 필요할지라도 신라의 역사를 이해함에는 불필요하다고 여겨지는 사실은 제외시킨다는 나름대로의 기준 설정에 따른 것이었다. 이러한 측면은 김부식의 ‘현세現世 중심의 합리적 사상’에 기초한 것으로 이해된다. 김부식의 「장보고정년전」 저술에 담긴 이러한 사관은 『삼국사기』 열전 가운데 현세 중심의 합리적 사상에 입각해서 행한 유교적 합리주의 서술의 가장 대표적인 사례의 하나이다. 따라서 김부식의 「장보고정년전」 저술 의도 역시 ‘보국구세輔國救世’의 표본으로서 이와 같은 현세 중심의 합리적 사상에 입각한 유교적 합리주의 사관의 구현에 있었다고 하겠다.

李睟光ㆍ李瀷의 利瑪竇 ≪交友論≫ 受容 樣相 比較 檢討

노용필 중앙대학교 중앙사학연구소 2017 중앙사론 Vol.0 No.46

During King Gwanghae's sixth year of rule (i.e., 1614), Lee Su-kwang compiled the encyclopedia Jibonguseol, in which he mentioned On Friendship by Li Madou or Matteo Ricci. During the seventeenth century, he included content of On Friendship. He acquired Chinese books directly from writers of the Qing Dynasty during visits to China and placed emphasis on friendship as a western custom, describing the content of Xuertan (續耳譚) as "very queer." Based on analysis of the accommodating aspects of On Friendship during the latter part of the Chosǒn Dynasty, Lee Su-kwang's perspective was that these were a “simple-minded understanding.” Lee Ik mentioned in detail the content of On Friendship in a letter sent to one of his students in King Youngjo's thirtieth year (i.e., 1754), stating his view that accommodation in On Friendship would not continue into the eighteenth Centuryd. He never visited China and was learned of the content of On Friendship by reading the book. Nevertheless, he not only perceive friendship as a topic of study but appraised the work as a "sharp and penetrating discourse," stating that "what it says is substantial, real and worth musing." Thus, accommodating aspects of On Friendship during the latter part of the Joseon Dynasty constituted “in-depth understanding.” Lee Su-kwang's and Lee Ik's perspectives of On Friendship strongly contrast and describe different characteristics.