A Modern Interpretation of Zhu Xi’s Lixue (禮學): With a Special Focus on the Formal Characteristics of Zhu Xi’s Study of Rites

이승연 계명대학교 한국학연구원 2008 Acta Koreana Vol.11 No.2

Two varying opinions have emerged with regards to Zhu Xi’s lixue (禮學, study of rites). One of these argues that unlike Confucius’ lixue, Zhu Xi’s overemphasis on the formal features of li (禮, rites) caused the latter to become rigid and heteronymous. Moreover, Zhu Xi’s lixue eventually became the theoretical basis for the stagnation of Chosŏn society. Meanwhile, the other stance maintains that regardless of its standing as the main cause of rigid formality, the Zhu zi jia li (朱子家禮, Zhu Zi’s Family Rituals) constitutes an integral part of Korean traditions that must be preserved and passed on to future generations. For instance, the latter stance points to the fact that the guanli (冠禮, capping ceremony) and jili (笄禮, hair-pinning ceremony) prevalent amongst the sadaebu (士大夫, literati) class during the Chosŏn era, continues to be recreated in the present era. This study strives to reconsider Zhu Xi’s lixue from the standpoint of its formal nature. This undertaking can be construed as a reflection of the fact that the above-mentioned contrary evaluations of Zhu Xi’s lixue have failed to carry out sufficient theoretical examinations of the formal aspect of this study of rites. The importance of such an exercise lies in the fact that if the formal characteristics contained in Zhu Xi’s lixue are found to have constituted nothing more than an implement through which to suppress humans, then attempts to bring about the inheritance of this lixue in the modern era would effectively become futile. With this in mind, this study focuses on the formal characteristics of Zhu Xi’s lixue in order to analyze the implications of the formalism contained therein. Moreover, an attempt is also made to prove that Zhu Xi’s lixue was based on a compromise between ancient rites (古禮, guli) and current fashions (時俗, shisu), that is, the harmonization of tradition and modernity. Furthermore, the author also strives to shed light on the logic upon which Zhu Xi based his attempt to reach a compromise between ancient rites and current fashions. Ultimately, this study reaches the conclusion that the methodology employed by Zhu Xi to incorporate ancient rites can serve as a model when it comes to the incorporation of traditional rites in the contemporary era. This study as such attempts to identify the significance of the formalistic characteristics of Zhu Xi’s lixue, and to search for a modern methodology through which Zhu Xi’s lixue can be used to incorporate traditional rites.

韓儒宋時烈《朱子言論同異考》的方法論及四七之辯

채가화(蔡家和) (사)율곡학회 2016 율곡학연구 Vol.32 No.-

This paper investigates the book “Textual Criticism on Similarities and Differences in Zhu Xi’s Remarks (Zhu-Xi-Yan-Lun-Tong-Yi-Kao)” written by Song Si-yeol. This study includes two main topics: 1. How to deal with the contradictory remarks of Zhu Xi? 2. How to resolve the debates among Korean Confucianists caused by the contradictory remarks of Zhu Xi? Son Si-yeol wrote this book to raise questions about the inconsistencies in Zhu Xi’s remarks. However, Song did not give further explanations about the inconsistencies, and only offered more than twenty explanations. Afterwards, Song ordered his disciple Han Won-jin to re-edit “Textual Criticism on Similarities and Differences in Zhu Xi’s Remarks (Zhu-Xi-Yan-Lun-Tong-Yi-Kao),” which is richer in content compared with that written by Song. Therefore, there are two versions of “Textual Criticism on Similarities and Differences in Zhu Xi’s Remarks (Zhu-Xi-Yan-Lun-Tong-Yi-Kao).” One version is brief, and was written by Song Si-yeol. The other version includes more details, and was edited by Han won-jin. This study probes into the issues that these two versions of book intend to resolve. In particular, this study investigates the methodology for dealing with differences in internal interpretations of Zhu Xi learning, in order to resolve the contradictions in Zhu Xi’s remarks. People tend to be confused with the inconsistencies in Zhu Xi’s remarks and have no idea what the conclusions are when reading the works of Zhu Xi. Therefore, there are usually controversies about modern interpretations of Zhu Xi learning. However, such controversies are not only products of modern times, and were also discovered in Kingdom of Joseon. There were three major controversies in Korean Confucianism: 1) Four-Seven debate; 2) the similarities and differences between humanity and thingness in Ho-rak Debate – pure kindness of heart or existence of both the good and the evil; 3) whether Zhu Xi learning can be interpreted as learning of “mind is principle.” In general, the said controversies of Korean Confucianists were based on Zhu Xi’s remarks. It is difficult to immediately determine what the orthodox school is. Based on the above, this study found that Song had discovered the controversies, and thus wrote “Textual Criticism on Similarities and Differences in Zhu Xi’s Remarks (Zhu-Xi-Yan-Lun-Tong-Yi-Kao).” This study investigates this book, and mainly focuses on “Four-Seven debate.” 본 논문은 송시열(宋時烈)의 『주자언론동이고(朱子言論同異考)』에 대한 연구이다. 본문에서는 크게 두 가지 의제를 다루고 있다. 첫째는 주자의 언론이 서로 모순될 때에 어떻게 처리해야 하는가? 둘째는 주자의 언론이 서로 배척될 때 한국 유학자의 쟁론은 어떻게 해결을 보았는가이다. 우암이 이 책을 편찬한 이유는 전적으로 주자의 언론이 앞뒤가 일치하지 않는 문제에 대하여 의문을 제기하기 위함이다. 우암은 앞뒤가 서로 다른 부분에 대해서 설명을 많은 덧붙이고 있는데 무려 20여 개가 넘는다. 훗날 그의 제자 한원진이 『주자언론동이고』를 재편하였는데, 그 책의 내용에 우암의 내용이 많이 들어있었다. 그러므로 『주자언론동이고』는 두 가지 판본이 있다. 즉 하나는 우암이 편찬한 것으로 간략하며, 다른 하나는 남당이 편찬한 것으로 비교적 상세하다. 필자는 이 글에서 이 두 책이 해결코자 하는 문제를 논의하고자 한다. 특히, 주자학의 내부에서 발생한 문제를 해석함에 있어 어떤 방법론으로 처리하고 있는지 즉 주자의 언론의 모순에 대하여 어떻게 해결하는가이다. 주자 문헌을 읽을 때 사람들은 항상 주자의 언론 불일치에 곤란해 하며, 어떻게 그렇게 정론하게 되었는지 알지 못했다. 그렇기에 현대에 이르러 주자학을 해석함에 있어 항상 논쟁이 벌어지고 있다. 이는 현대에 생겨난 것만도 아니며, 한국의 조선조에서도 흔히 볼 수 있었다. 한국 유학의 3대 논쟁으로 1) 사칠논변(四七論辯), 2) 호락논쟁(湖洛論爭)의 인성물성(人性物性)의 동이(同異), 미발심체순선(未發心體純善) 혹은 유선유악(有善有惡), 3) 주자학을 심즉리(心即理)의 학으로 해석할 수 있는가가 있는데, 한국 유자들의 논쟁은 대체로 주자의 언론에 근거하고 있으나, 누가 정통이라고 단정하기 매우 어렵다. 이에 따라 필자는 우암이 이미 이를 알고 『주자언론동이고』를 편찬하였음을 발견하였고, 본문에서 이 책에 대해 연구를 하였고, 특히 「사칠지변」에 초점을 두었다.

The Image-Making of Confucian Scholars: The Impact of Zhu Xi Portrait on Korean and Japanese Art

선승혜 성균관대학교 유교문화연구소 2013 儒敎文化硏究(中文版) Vol.0 No.19

The portrait of Zhu Xi (朱熹, Chinese: 1130~1200) is one of the most predominant kinds of respected Confucian scholar images in East Asia. An explored aspect of Zhu Xi portraits is almost exclusively assigned to the realm of Neo-Confucian paintings. In almost all major portraits of the Korean Chosŏn period from the seventeenth to the nineteenth century,Confucian scholars portrayed themselves within the image of Zhu Xi. This phenomenon is examined here by taking a comparative approach to the image of Zhu Xi, focusing on the dress codes and postures. The portrait of Zhu Xi functioned as “the symbol of Neo-Confucian scholar” both for self-cultivation (修己) and Confucian rituals. For self-cultivation, Zhu Xi transcribed on his own portrait as self-warning (自警). After Zhu Xi passed away, his portrait was copied for Confucian rituals in China, Korea, and Japan for centuries. During the Chosŏn period, private academies, sŏnwŏn (書院), worshiped the portrait of Zhu Xi together with Korean Confucian scholars. In Japan, the portrait of Zhu Xi was displayed together with other Song Confucian scholars at the ceremony, especially in ‘Worship of Confucius’ (釋奠) at a Confucian temple called Yushima Seido (湯島聖堂), in the Genroku era of the Edo period. The portrait of Zhu Xi at Yushima Seido proves that cultural exchanges had been held between Korea and Japan. The professional Japanese painter Kanō Sansetsu (狩野山雪,Japanese: 1589~1651) painted one of the Confucian scholars portraits (歷聖大儒像), and Korean Confucian Kim Seryŏm (金世濂, Korean: 1593~1646)transcribed Wu Cheng (吳澄, Chinese: 1249~1333)’s poetry in 1636. The image-making of a Confucian scholar was based on two dress codes:“deep robe” (深衣) and “scarf-hat” (幅巾) from the text of Zhu Xi. With “deep robe” and “scarf-hat,” two postures of Zhu Xi portrait, showing a bust and a full-body standing, functioned as the standard portraits for Korean and Japanese Neo-Confucian scholars who learned and aspired the philosophy of Zhu Xi.

『御定朱書百選』 번역의 현황과 과제

신상후 한국고전번역학회 2021 고전번역연구 Vol.12 No.-

One Hundred Selected Letters from Zhu Xi by Jeongjo(Hereafter Hundred Letters) is, as the title reads, a collection of 100 letters that Zhu Xi had sent to his colleagues. In 1794, a selection that was overseen by King Jeongjo(1752-1800, r. 1776-1800) was completed and later circulated around Joseon both in moveable type and wood type editions. During the Joseon dynasty, there were multiple anthological works of Zhu Xi. Still, the most used ones were the Outlines and Explanations of Works of Zhu Xi (Hereafter Outlines of Zhu Xi) compiled by Yi Hwang (1510-1570) and Hundred Letters. The reason for their popularity is predictable. Outlines of Zhu Xi was not only the first but also compiled by one of the most prominent scholars of Joseon. On the other hand, Hundred Letters was a work of the king himself. The reason behind King Jeongjo's compilation was to re-establish his vision of scholarship and writing style. Therefore, King Jeongjo encouraged scholar-officials and students of the National Confucian Academy to read this, and thus the following generation of scholars after Jeongjo studied Hundred Letters. The significance of Hundred Letters in the history of thought is twofold. First, as Hundred Letters became an essential part of the curriculum regarding Zhu Xi in the later Joseon era, it enables us to understand the status of Zhu Xi studies during this time. Second, it shows the inner thoughts of King Jeongjo himself. The process of selection itself is a deliberate job. Thus, by examining the contents of these selected Zhu Xi’s works, we can understand the viewpoint of the selector himself, King Jeongjo. The letters included in Hundred Letters are vast and diverse, and it enables us to see how Zhu Xi envisioned the 1) world and personal relations, 2) politics, and 3) scholarship – among others. This article provided an overview of the currently available Korean translations of Hundred Letters, mainly categorizing my analysis based on the three areas of analysis above. Based on my analysis, I come to the following conclusion. Previously available translations have accomplished a commendable job as they have provided a complete translation of Zhu Xi's works without skipping challenging phrases. Thus, it has contributed significantly to the studies of Zhu Xi in the Joseon dynasty. However, there are noticeable and significant mistranslations and an overall lack of additional commentaries that could potentially help the reader. I believe that this is because previous scholarship has not fully incorporated the works of other reliable commentaries, such as Collections and Commentaries on the Complete Works and Letters of Zhu Xi. Thus, I hope there will be more accurate and detailed translations that utilize these commentaries in the future. 본 연구는 『御定朱書百選』의 번역 현황을 파악하고 각각의 번역을 검토함으로써 향후의 과제를 조명하려는 데에 그 목적이 있다. 『어정주서백선』은 조선조 22대 왕 正祖(1752-1800, 재위 1776-1800)가 편찬한 책으로, 朱子의 편지 중 학자들에게 특별히 긴요한 것 100편을 뽑아서 엮은 選集이다. 조선시대에 편찬된 選集類 중에서 가장 많이 활용된 것은 退溪 李滉(1501-1570)의 『朱子書節要』와 정조의 『주서백선』이다. 『주자서절요』가 널리 읽힌 이유는 최초의 선집이자 저명한 학자에 의한 편집이라는 것이었고, 『주서백선』이 널리 읽힌 이유는 임금에 의한 편집이라는 것이었다. 『주서백선』을 편집하고 간행ㆍ반포했던 정조의 의도는, 이를 통해 당시 학자들의 문체와 학술을 바로잡으려는 데에 있었다. 그래서 문신들과 성균관 유생들에게 이 책을 읽도록 적극적으로 권장하였고, 이 때문에 정조 이후의 학자들이 자연스럽게 『주서백선』을 탐독하게 되었다. 사상사적 관점에서 이 책의 의의는, 첫째, 조선조 후기 주자학자들의 연구 동향을 살펴볼 수 있다는 점, 둘째, 정조 사상의 성격을 가늠해볼 수 있다는 점이다. 정조가 선별한 글을 분석함으로써 그 선별기준을 추측할 수 있고 이로써 주자학에 관한 정조의 관점을 규명할 수 있는 것이다. 『주서백선』에 실린 편지들은 그 내용이 다양하여, 이를 통해 朱子의 세계관과 인간관[理氣心性論], 정치관[經世論ㆍ時事出處論], 학문관[工夫論ㆍ辨異端論] 등을 확인할 수 있다. 본 연구에서는 『주서백선』의 기존 번역 현황을 조사하고 각 번역서의 번역 사례를 검토하였는데, 서술의 편의를 위해 위에서 나열한 세 분야로 각 사례를 분류하여 검토를 진행하였다. 검토의 결과, 기존 번역은 난해한 부분도 빼놓지 않고 『주서백선』을 전량 번역하여 조선조 후기 주자학 연구에 이바지하였다는 의의가 있지만, 번역이 부정확하거나 해설이 미흡한 부분이 있다는 한계도 있었다. 이러한 한계와 문제가 발생한 원인으로 여러 가지를 들 수 있는데, 그중의 하나는 『朱子大全箚疑輯補』를 비롯한 여러 주석서가 충분히 활용되지 못했다는 것이다. 향후에는 여러 주석서를 참고한, 정확하고 상세한 번역이 출간되기를 기대한다.

[특집2: `실학`을 다시 생각한다] 조선 경학사적 맥락에서 살펴본 실학파 경학1) -정약용의 경학을 중심으로

이영호 ( Lee Young-ho ) 한국실학학회 2016 한국실학연구 Vol.0 No.32

일제시기부터 현재에 이르기까지 실학연구사에서, 실학의 특징에 대한 파악은 균일하지 않다. 그런데 조선경학 연구사에서는 실학파 경학이 주자의 경학에 대하여 독립적 위상을 가지느냐의 문제가 중요한 논쟁점 중의 하나였다. 특히 다산정약용 경학의 경우, 이 점은 매우 첨예하게 대립하고 있다. 다산 경학의 특징은 박학, 실천론, 경문중심, 주자 경학에 대한 수용과 비판등으로 정리될 수 있다. 그런데 이러한 다산의 경학과 주자학과의 관련성 여부에 대한 평가는 상이하다. 대체로 실학연구사 초기부터 현재까지 대세는 다산학과 주자학은 별개의 경학적(사상적) 현상이라는 것이었는데, 근래에는 다산학을 주자학의 연장선상에서 파악하는 연구가 국내외에서 제출되었다. 실상 다산은 주자와 견해를 달리 하는 경우도 있었지만 주자의 학문에 대하여 시종 존경의 념을 지녔다. 즉 주자에 대하여 지니는 자세가 양면적이다. 그런데 다산은 후대 주자학파에 대해서는 매우 비판적이었다. 다산은 후대 주자학파가 주자의 성리학을 繁多하고 空疎한 이론으로 추락시켰다고 비판하면서, 주자학파의 경설에 대해서는 철저하게 무시하였다. 여기서 우리는 탈(반)주자 혹은 친주자라 상반되게 평가되고 있는 다산학의 정체성을 확인할 수 있다. 바로 다산의 주자학에 대한 태도는 주자와의 연속성의 관점에서 보면 친주자이고, 후대 주자학파와의 단절적 측면에서는 탈(반)주자학파였던 것이다. 다산학과 주자학의 관련 양상에서 이 두 층위를 혼동하지 않는다면 우리는 다산학뿐 아니라 조선실학과 주자학(주자학파)의 관련 양상을 밝힐 수 있을 것이며, 이를 통하여 실학의 면모를 조금 더 실제에 가깝게 이해할 여지가 있을 것이다. 즉 문제의 초점을 주자가 아니라 조선주자학파의 경학과의 비교를 통해 다산 경학의 위상을 논의한다면, 이는 분명하게 단절적이라고 할 수 있다. 다시 말해 다산과 실학파 경학은 적어도 조선주자학파 경학과의 대비를 통해서는 자기 정체성을 확연하게 가지고 있다고 할 수 있다. Since the period of Japanese occupation until the present day, understandings about characteristics of the Silhak have not been uniformed in the history of the Silhak study. One of the most controversial issues in the history of the Silhak study is whether the Silhak School`s Kyunghak has an independent status comparing to Zhu Xi`s Kyunghak or not. Especially, in case of Dasan`s Kyunghak, there are sharp conflicts about this issue. The features of Dasan`s Kyunghak can be divided into erudition, theories of practice, the focus ofConfucian scriptures, and acceptances and criticisms of Zhu Xi`s Kyunghak. There are different evaluations about whether Dasan`s Kyunghak is relevant to Zhu Xi ` Kyunghak or not. Mostly, until the present day of the Silhak`s study since its beginning, the study`s general trend is dealing with Dasan`s Kyunghak and Zhu Xi`s Kyunghak as separate ideological phenomenon. Recently, however, there are some research appeared domestically and internationally about that Dasan`s Kyunghak is understood under the category of Zhu Xi`s Kyunghak. In fact, although Dasan had different points of view comparing to Zhu Xi `s views, he always had a reverence for Zhu Xi `s study. Namely, he had an ambivalent attitude toward Zhu Xi. However Dasan was very critical to the latter successors of Zhu Xi ` Kyunghak. Dasan criticized that they lowered Zhu Xi `s study to the level of onerous and hollow theories and he thoroughly neglected their theories. In this regard, we are able to realize an identity of the Dasan`s study which is evaluated as anti(Post)- Zhu Xi and pro- Zhu Xi at the same time. It can be said that Dasan is a pro-Zhu Xi scholar in terms of continuity with Zhu Xi and he is an anti(Post)-Zhu Xi scholar in terms of the disconnection with the latter successors of Zhu Xi . If we don`t confuse these two layers, we can reveal the related aspects of Joseon Slilhak and the Zhu Xi Study(the school of Zhu Xi) as well as the Dasan Study. This will leave a room for gaining more practical understanding of Slilhak. If we discuss the status of Dasan`s Kyunghak with the Kyunghak of Zhu Xi`s school in the Joseon Dynasty comparatively, it is clear that these two are very discrete. In other words, Comparing to the Kyunghak of Zhu Xi`s school in the Joseon Dynasty, it can be argued that the Kyunghaks of Dasan and the school of Slihak at least have their clear identities.

한국 주자학 연구의 두 시선 -철학자 주희 혹은 유학자 주희-

강경현 ( Kang Kyung-hyun ) 인하대학교 한국학연구소 2018 한국학연구 Vol.0 No.49

Since the modern age, the research on the study of Zhu-Xi in Korea has been deeply concerned with the interpretation of Korean tradition. This is because Joseon, which was faithful to the Zhu-Xi studies, is one of the points to be paid attention in order to understand the present and past of Korea. However, the research on the study of Zhu-Xi, which constitutes the main ideological and cultural foundation of tradition, have progressed in the color of Western philosophical interpretation strongly since the modern age. This approach is due to the historical experience of Korea, which is a severance of tradition, and simultaneously it is the method chosen to explain the implications of the study of Zhu-Xi in the present thoughts and language. On the other hand, the research on the study of Zhu-Xi in Korea is centered on the subject considered to be a traditional issue of Confucianism. In other words, the research on the study of Zhu-Xi in Korea explored the universal meaning of the Zhu-Xi studies through philosophy and established the identity of the Zhu-Xi studies within Confucianism. The purpose of this research is to ask questions that can be raised from the point of view of traditional Confucianism regarding the two viewpoints of the research on the study of Zhu-Xi since the modern age. Firstly, when the study of Zhu-Xi is analyzed in the perspective of the Western philosophy, it would cause the gap with the issues of Confucianism. Secondly, even if interpreting the study of Zhu-Xi within the range of tradition of Confucianism as much as possible, it is still possible that some of the important issues of Confucianism are missing. The understanding of the study of Zhu-Xi will be clearer by focusing on the traditional Confucianism, and from this point of view, the research on the study of Zhu-Xi in Korea will be the basis of a continuous and consistent understanding of Korea's past and present, which regarded Zhu-Xi studies of Joseon Dynasty as the main traditional resource.

韓儒宋時烈《朱子言論同異考》的方法論及四七之辯

채가화 ( Chia He Tsai ) (사)율곡연구원(구 사단법인 율곡학회) 2016 율곡학연구 Vol.32 No.-

본 논문은 송시열(宋時烈)의 『주자언론동이고(朱子言論同異考)』에 대한 연구이다. 본문에서는 크게 두 가지 의제를 다루고 있다. 첫째는 주자의 언론이 서로 모순될 때에 어떻게 처리해야 하는가? 둘째는 주자의 언론이 서로 배척될 때 한국 유학자의 쟁론은 어떻게 해결을 보았는가이다. 우암이 이 책을 편찬한 이유는 전적으로 주자의 언론이 앞뒤가 일치하지 않는 문제에 대하여 의문을 제기하기 위함이다. 우암은 앞뒤가 서로 다른 부분에 대해서 설명을 많은 덧붙이고 있는데 무려 20여 개가 넘는다. 훗날 그의 제자 한원진이 『주자언론동이고』를 재편하였는데, 그 책의 내용에 우암의 내용이 많이 들어있었다. 그러므로 『주자언론동이고』는 두 가지 판본이 있다. 즉 하나는 우암이 편찬한 것으로 간략하며, 다른 하나는 남당이 편찬한 것으로 비교적 상세하다. 필자는 이 글에서 이 두 책이 해결코자 하는 문제를 논의하고자 한다. 특히, 주자학의 내부에서 발생한 문제를 해석함에 있어 어떤 방법론으로 처리하고 있는지 즉 주자의 언론의 모순에 대하여 어떻게 해결하는가이다. 주자 문헌을 읽을 때 사람들은 항상 주자의 언론 불일치에 곤란해 하며, 어떻게 그렇게 정론하게 되었는지 알지 못했다. 그렇기에 현대에 이르러 주자학을 해석함에 있어 항상 논쟁이 벌어지고 있다. 이는 현대에 생겨난 것만도 아니며, 한국의 조선조에서도 흔히 볼 수 있었다. 한국 유학의 3대 논쟁으로 1) 사칠논변(四七論辯), 2) 호락논쟁(湖洛論爭)의 인성물성(人性物性)의 동이(同異), 미발심체순선(未發心體純善) 혹은 유선유악(有善有惡), 3) 주자학을 심즉리(心卽理)의 학으로 해석할 수 있는가가 있는데, 한국 유자들의 논쟁은 대체로 주자의 언론에 근거하고 있으나, 누가 정통이라고 단정하기 매우 어렵다. 이에 따라 필자는 우암이 이미 이를 알고 『주자언론동이고』를 편찬하였음을 발견하였고, 본문에서 이 책에 대해 연구를 하였고, 특히 「사칠지변」에 초점을 두었다. This paper investigates the book “Textual Criticism on Similarities and Differences in Zhu Xi’s Remarks (Zhu-Xi-Yan-Lun-Tong-Yi-Kao)” written by Song Si-yeol. This study includes two main topics: 1. How to deal with the contradictory remarks of Zhu Xi? 2. How to resolve the debates among Korean Confucianists caused by the contradictory remarks of Zhu Xi? Son Si-yeol wrote this book to raise questions about the inconsistencies in Zhu Xi’s remarks. However, Song did not give further explanations about the inconsistencies, and only offered more than twenty explanations. Afterwards, Song ordered his disciple Han Won-jin to re-edit “Textual Criticism on Similarities and Differences in Zhu Xi’s Remarks (Zhu-Xi-Yan-Lun-Tong-Yi-Kao),” which is richer in content compared with that written by Song. Therefore, there are two versions of “Textual Criticism on Similarities and Differences in Zhu Xi’s Remarks (Zhu-Xi-Yan-Lun-Tong-Yi-Kao).” One version is brief, and was written by Song Si-yeol. The other version includes more details, and was edited by Han won-jin. This study probes into the issues that these two versions of book intend to resolve. In particular, this study investigates the methodology for dealing with differences in internal interpretations of Zhu Xi learning, in order to resolve the contradictions in Zhu Xi’s remarks. People tend to be confused with the inconsistencies in Zhu Xi’s remarks and have no idea what the conclusions are when reading the works of Zhu Xi. Therefore, there are usually controversies about modern interpretations of Zhu Xi learning. However, such controversies are not only products of modern times, and were also discovered in Kingdom of Joseon. There were three major controversies in Korean Confucianism: 1) Four-Seven debate; 2) the similarities and differences between humanity and thingness in Ho-rak Debate - pure kindness of heart or existence of both the good and the evil; 3) whether Zhu Xi learning can be interpreted as learning of “mind is principle.” In general, the said controversies of Korean Confucianists were based on Zhu Xi’s remarks. It is difficult to immediately determine what the orthodox school is. Based on the above, this study found that Song had discovered the controversies, and thus wrote “Textual Criticism on Similarities and Differences in Zhu Xi’s Remarks (Zhu-Xi-Yan-Lun-Tong-Yi-Kao).” This study investigates this book, and mainly focuses on “Four-Seven debate.”

朴文鎬의 朱熹 『詩經』 ‘興’論의 수용과 개조에 대한 재탐구

스전타오 한국학중앙연구원 한국학중앙연구원 2024 장서각 Vol.- No.51

이 글은 박문호의 『詩經』학의 ‘興’론으로부터, 그가 朱子學을 어떻게 계승하고 발전시켰는지 탐구한다. 朱熹는 시경의 ‘흥’체를 ‘取義’와 ‘不取義’ 두 가지 유형으로 나누었으나, 박문호는 주희의 ‘不取義之興’을 ‘흥의 고유명칭’으로 삼고, 시구 중 ‘有’, ‘在’, ‘彼’ 등 虛字와 위 아래 두 구절의 허자·음절과 文勢가 상응하여 나타나는 것의 ‘흥’체의 성립 조건이라 보았다. 동시에 이 논점과 주희의 연관성을 강조하기 위해, 박문호는 실천적인 방면에서도 주희가 ‘흥’체시를 주해할 때 일부러 허자를 더함으로써, 『시경』 ‘흥’체의 작법 특징과 방법을 더 정확하게 파악하였음을 주목하였다. ‘取義之興’에 관해서는 박문호는 ‘興兼賦’와 ‘興兼比’의 賦와 比를 ‘取義’의 조건으로 나누어 이야기하였다. 즉 박문호는 ‘흥겸부’를 ‘興在賦外-흥이 부 밖에 있다’와 ‘所賦即興-흥이 부 가운데 있다’로 나누었는데, 이 작법과 운용은 『시경』 중 주희가 정의한 적 없는 방식이며, 동시에 중국의 輔廣, 朱善과도 다른 해석을 보여준다. ‘흥겸비’에 대해서 박문호는 ‘興在比外-흥이 비 밖에 있다’와 ‘取所興爲比-흥을 비로써 취하다 ’ 두 가지로 보고, 시경의 작법에 대해 주희와는 다르게 주장하였다. 이 외에도 ‘託物興辭’에 대해서도 주희와 다른 관점으로, 주희는 『시경』의 ‘物’에 대하여 ‘사물은 경험 현상의 표현’으로 해석하였으나, 박문호는 ‘사물’을 현상에서부터 본질로 전환하여 보았다. 그는 인성과 물성에 관하여 ‘賦與之性’과 ‘氣稟之性’ 두 가지 각도에서 비교하였는데, 박문호의 이런 관점은 주자학설에 대한 확장이라고도 말할 수 있다. 박문호의 『시경』 ‘흥’론을 통해, 그가 한편으로는 주희의 학설을 계승하면서도, 그 해석방식을 새롭게 개조하고, 자신의 견해를 더하여 『詩經』 ‘흥’체에 대하여 더욱 체계적인 관점을 보여주었음을 알 수 있으며, 이는 시경학과 주자학의 발전 과정에서 독특한 가치를 지닌다. This paper primarily investigates how Pak Mun-Ho has built upon and expanded Zhu Xi’s theory through his own concept of ‘implied comparison’ or ‘xing’ (興) in the study of the Classic of Poetry. Zhu Xi divides the concept of “xing” in the Classic of Poetry into two types: “qu yi” (取義) or “bu qu yi” (不取義). However, Bak Mun-Ho specifically refers to the concept of ‘bu qu yi zhi xing’ (不取義之興) as ‘xing zhi zhuan ming’ (興之專名). This means that the application of ‘xing’ depends on the presence of function words such as ‘you’ (有), ‘zai’ (在), or ‘bi’ (彼) within the lines. In addition, the function words, syllables, and ‘wen shi’ (文勢) in a line must be consistent with those in the subsequent lines. To strengthen the connection between his arguments and Zhu Xi’s theory, Bak Mun-Ho pragmatically highlights that Zhu Xi deliberately included certain function words when commenting on poems that use ‘xing.’ This deliberate choice was aimed to maintain consistency with the characteristics and techniques of ‘xing’ application found in the Classic of Poetry. Regarding the concept of “qu yi zhi xing” (取義之興), Bak Mun-Ho classifies it into two categories: “xing jian fu” (興兼賦) and “xing jian bi” (興兼比). These correspond to the use of “direct narration” or “fu” (賦) and “explicit comparison” or “bi” (比) as conditions for interpreting the meaning (qu yi 取義). Regarding the former, Bak Mun-Ho divides “xing jian fu” into “xing zai fu wai” (興在賦外) and “suo fu ji xing” (所賦即興). Not only does he apply this rhetorical device to those poems in the Classic of Poetry that are not defined in this way by Zhu Xi, but he also proposes explanations that differ from those of Fu Guang and Zhu Shan. Regarding the latter, Bak Mun-Ho divides “xing jian bi” into “xing zai bi wai” (興在比外) and “qu suo xing wei bi” (取所興為比), and corrects Zhu Xi's criteria for the rhetorical devices of a poem. Furthermore, Pak Mun-Ho brings up a different point of view to Zhu Xi’s theory of “tuo wu xing ci” (托物興辭). Zhu Xi’s explanation of objects in the Classic of Poetry is primarily how they are represented in the empirical world, but Bak Mun-Ho’s focus shifts from phenomena to the nature of objects. He explains the parallels and differences between the nature of human beings and objects in the Classic of Poetry at the levels of “fu yu zhi xing” (賦與之性) and “qi bing zhi xing” (氣稟之性), which can be seen as an extension of Zhu Xi’s theory. From Bak Mun-Ho's theory of "xing" in the Classic of Poetry, on the one hand, it can be seen that he is the successor of Zhu Xi's theory; on the other hand, his modification of Zhu Xi's interpretation, which outlines a systematic perspective on the application of "xing" in the Classic of Poetry, is of unique value for the development of studies of the Classic of Poetry and Zhu Xi's theory.

조선에 있어서 주자 종법 사상의 계승과 변용 ― ‘시제時祭’와 ‘묘제墓祭’를 중심으로

이승연 한국국학진흥원 2011 국학연구 Vol.0 No.19

As is generally known, Zhu Xi′s Confucian clan rules settled down in Chosun Dynasty through the acceptance of Family Rites of Zhu Xi. It is safe to say that strong efforts to estimate its significant impact on Chosun Dynasty almost reveal the whole process of accepting Family Rites of Zhu Xi. However, this article is to shed new light on the course of acceptance and settlement of Zhu Xi′s Confucian clan rules citing the criticism of Mo-kileong, famous anti-Neo-Confucianist over Family Rites of Zhu Xi and Confucian clan rules of Jung Yak-yong, the realist in the late of Chosun Dynasty, because they show the limits and meanings of Confucian clan rules. Limits of Confucian clan rules had not only been the process of overcoming the frustration of Neo-Confucianist who wanted to fulfill Family Rites of Zhu Xi, but also an important key to understanding the essence of Korean familism. The chapter of sacrificial rites of Family Rites of Zhu Xi is the essence of Confucian clan rules and consists of six parts such as Sije, Chojo, Sunjo, Ne, Giil and Myoje. Chojo and Sunjo were regarded as immoderate ceremony and excluded during the introduction stage of Family Rites of Zhu Xi, while Sije and Giil were originated with Zhu Xi. Only Myoje was widely accepted during that period but initially had been criticized for its impoliteness by Confucian Scripture including Yegi. That's why Myoje was prevalent throughout Chosun Dynasty while Sije of Zhu Xi had difficulty in settling down. That's the reason this article mainly focuses on Sije and Myoje. Mixing Sije with Myoje into the commitment of family by Confucianist of Chosun Dynasty was the process of naturalization and overcoming the limit of Family Rites of Zhu Xi criticized by Mo-kileong and other scholars. 주지하는 바와 같이, 주자의 종법 사상은 『주자가례』의 수용과 더불어 조선 사회에 수용‧보급되었다. 그리고 그 『주자가례』가 조선사회에 미친 지대한 영향 때문에 우리는 이미 오래 전에 그것이 조선사회에 수용, 정착해가는 과정을 탐구하여 왔고 이제 그 전모가 밝혀졌다고 해도 과언은 아니다. 그럼에도 이 글이 주자 종법사상의 수용, 정착과정을 새롭게 조명하고자 하는 것은 청대 반주자학자로 유명한 모기령의 『주자가례』 비판과 조선 후기 실학자 정약용의 종법사상이 주자 종법사상의 한계와 의의를 잘 보여주고 있기 때문이다. 주자 종법사상의 한계, 그것은 『주자가례』를 실천하고자 하였던 조선 주자학자들의 극복과 좌절의 과정이기도 했으며 동시에 한국가족주의의 본질을 해명하는 열쇠이기도 하다. 종법사상이 집약되어 있는 『주자가례』「제례장」은 사시제四時祭‧초조初祖‧선조先祖‧녜禰‧기일忌日‧묘제墓祭로 구성되어 있다. 그러나 이 가운데 초조와 선조는 『주자가례』 성립기에 이미 참례僭禮로서 배제되었고 사시제와 기일은 민간에 통용된 적이 없는 주자의 창안이었다. 그런가 하면 유일하게 당시에 통용되었던 묘제는 실은 『예기』를 비롯한 의례경전에서 비례非禮로 비판되었던 것이다. 주자의 창안인 사시제가 조선 사회에 제대로 정착하지 못했던 반면 묘제가 광범위하게 행해졌던 것은 그 때문이었을 것이다. 또 그것이 이 글이 시제와 묘제에 주목하고자 하는 이유이기도 하다. 조선 주자학자들이 이 시제와 묘제를 결합하여 이를 친족통합의 의례로 재편하여 가는 과정은 한편으로 『주자가례』의 한국화 과정인 동시에 모기령 등이 비판한 『주자가례』의 한계를 극복하는 과정이기도 하였고 주자가 추구한 ‘공公’으로서의 ‘가’가 좌절하는 과정이기도 하였던 것이다.

주희의 산수시와 강호가도(江湖歌道)의 미의식

신두환 ( Shin Doo-hwan ) 연민학회 2019 연민학지 Vol.31 No.-

This paper is a study on the aesthetics of the Zhu Xi (朱熹)'s ‘Mountain-Water poetry (山水詩)’. In China, Zhu Xi was respected as a philosopher, educator, and thinker, while being neglected to be considered a literary philosopher. But he is a great poet who has left over 2,000 poems. His poems were pre-examples of Joseon's Mountain-Water poetry literature, and they are great works that will shine in the history of Chinese literature. Zhu Xi's contains a Mountain-Water poetry of KangHogado (江湖歌道). KangHogado is a critical term for a series of works that are devoted to nature and singing Confucian ideas. Zhu Xi's Neo-Confucianism did not undermine but developed literature. Zhu Xi was absorbed in nature and created a poem and taught. Zhu Xi has been discovering new natural beauty based on the Neo-Confucianism art philosophy of China. Zhu Xi's poems were based not on literary works that expressed human emotions, but on the literature theory of Daoism and literature. Zhu Xi tried to pursue Confucian ideals through the creation of poems, while living among the mountains. Zhu Xi's poems are mainly composed of pubs. Daoism and literature are highly correlated. There was a sense of beauty in his poem. Zhu Xi's prose poetry mixes with the beauty of Confucian, creating a sense of beauty. Zhu Xi's daily activities of KangHogado are at work. Zhu Xi's poems are aesthetically inscribed with 'chungdamsosan (沖澹蕭散),' 'hanmichungjug (閒美淸適),' 'Yongeuijeongshim (用意精深),' 'jeongshimeuiweon (情深意遠),' 'gugsachunggun (格詞淸健),' and 'jeonggongmyoryreo (精工妙麗).‘ In Zhu Xi's ‘Mountain-Water poetry’, the Neo-Confucianism words melt like enamel and radiate their light.