http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
조선 후기 성리학에서 『맹자(孟子)』 ‘호연장(浩然章)’ 논란과 그 의의 - 송시열(宋時烈)의 「호연장질의(浩然章質疑)」를 중심으로 -
문석윤 서울대학교 규장각한국학연구원 2009 한국문화 Vol.47 No.-
Through his essay 「Questions on the “Haoran Chapter” of Mencius」(浩然章質疑), Ouam(尤庵) Song Siyeol(宋時烈:1607∼1689) stressed the centrality of Xin(心) in constructing the self-identity as a Confucianist in his period, so to speak, Shidafu(士大夫). According to him, Xin(心) has the governance-priority over the Qi(氣) and generation-priority to Yan(言: language), and has infinitude in its originality. Song Siyeol suggested that in such perspectives Xin could be construed as Li(理). Song’s this suggestion provoked many critics even from his secondary disciples, Oeam(巍巖) Yi Kan(李柬:1677~1727) and Namdang(南塘) Han Wonjin(韓元震:1682~1751). They consented with Song on the centrality of Xin, but thought that Song’s identification of Xin and Li on the contrary could make the status of Xin as moral-subjectivity insecure as the result of obscuring the uniqueness of Xin from Li and Qi. Their such efforts contributed to elucidate the uniqueness of human being as moral-subjectivity who aimed at the absolute Idea in the natural world.
南塘 韓元震의 「題寒泉詩後」에 대한 泉門의 대응 (1): 崔祏의 『泉門俟百錄』을 중심으로
문석윤 서울대학교 규장각한국학연구원 2021 한국문화 Vol.- No.96
Ho-Rak Controversy(湖洛論爭) can be considered to have been formed and developed through four stages. The Controversy as a debate between the Hohak(湖學) school and Rakhak(洛學) school, rather than as a debate about related topics such as the uniqueness of Human Nature contrasting Animal Nature, and the uniqueness of the sages’ mind-heart contrasting the commoners, can be seen to have actually started in the 3rd period. In the 3rd period, the main protagonists of the debate were Doam(陶菴) Yi Jae(李縡: 1680-1746) and his disciples on the one side of Rakhak, and Namdang(南塘) Han Won-jin(韓元震: 1682-1751) and Byunggye(屛溪) Yun Bong-gu(尹鳳九: 1681-1767) and their disciples on the other side of Ho-hak. Especially Choi Seok(崔祏: 1714-?) played a major role in the start of the 3rd period. As a disciple of Li Jae, he visited Han Won-jin in 1746 with the goal of reconciling the differences between the two camps and returning to unification. After his visit he reported to his master Yi Jae and Yi wrote the poem, Hancheonsi(寒泉詩), and responding to it Han Wrote the epilogue of it, JeHancheonsihu(題寒泉詩後) and a letter Useo(又書) to criticize the views of Yi and Choi. When Han Won-jin wrote the articles, Yi Jae had already passed away, and the response to it became an task of his disciples, that is, Cheonmun(泉門). And In the process of it, the Ho-Rak Controversy developed in earnest as a confrontation between Hohak school and Nakhak school. It has had the character of competition over an academic orthodoxy and at the same time of a political hegemony struggle within the Roron(老論) Party. This thesis summarizes the facts related to Choi Seok‘s visit to Han Won-jin and fundamentally analyzes the Cheonsabaekrok(泉門俟百錄) by Choi, which developed a critical response of Han Won-jin’s criticism against Yi Jae. .
退溪 文集의 정본 편성 과정에 대한 일 고찰 - 惺齋手筆 『退溪先生書』에 수록된 자료들을 중심으로
문석윤 영남퇴계학연구원 2015 퇴계학논집 Vol.- No.17
惺齋 宗家에 보존되어 온 惺齋手筆 ?退溪先生書?는 퇴계가 惺齋 琴蘭 秀(1530-1604)에게 보낸 書簡과 詩들을 성재 스스로 작성 날짜순으로 정리하고 淨書한 자료로서, 퇴계 사후 문집 편성 작업이 시작되었을 때 납본되었다가 中草本이 편성된 후 다시 성재 종가로 반환된 것으로 추정 된다. 그것은 이후 수차례에 걸친 퇴계 저작의 定本 편성 사업에서 母本 의 역할을 한 中草本 ?退溪先生集?의 편성을 위한 祖本으로 활용되었으 며, 또한 특히 續集의 편성에서는 底本의 역할을 담당했을 가능성이 크 다. 그것을 통해 우리는 해당 자료에서 퇴계 저작의 원형에 가장 근접한 자료들을 확보할 수 있으며, 아울러 문집의 中草本 편성이 어떤 방식으 로 진행되었는지에 대해 그리고 이후의 定本들의 편성 상황에 대해 어느 정도 이해를 깊이 할 수 있다. 더욱이 그에 수록된 시 3首는 아직 세상 에 알려지지 않은 逸詩라는 점에서 그것의 자료적 가치가 매우 높다고 하겠다.