조선과 청의 경전 수용 비교 — 퇴계와 건륭제의 사서 편찬 특징과 지향 — = A Comparative Study of the Reception of the Four Books in Joseon and Qing: Toegye and the Qianlong Emperor’s Interpretive Strategies

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study compares Yi Hwang’s Saseoseokui(四書釋義), published in sixteenth- century Joseon Korea, with the Qianlong Emperor’s Imperially Commissioned Manchu Translation of the Four Books(御製滿文四書), produced under imperial decree in eighteenth-century Qing China. Although both works engage the same Confucian classics, they serve distinctly different functions: in Joseon, the Four Booksacted as a vehicle for individual moral self-cultivation, whereas in the Qing empire they were reframed as a tool for consolidating state ideology and imperial authority.
Yi Hwang carefully guarded against arbitrary exegesis, systematically reorganizing the Four Booksaccording to Neo-Confucian principles. His commentary begins with the cultivation of the self and extends that moral practice outward to family, society, and state governance, presenting interpretation itself as an ethical praxis. Conversely, Qianlong fully endorsed Zhu Xi’s commentaries yet reasserted interpretative authority through their translation into Manchu. This linguistic transformation did more than bridge two languages: it recast the Four Booksas texts of the empire, embedding imperial virtue at the core of their reception.
Formally and stylistically, the two works diverge markedly. Yi Hwang’s prose is concise and introspective, augmented by Hangul annotations to aid comprehension. Qianlong’s Manchu translation, by contrast, embodies a restrained grandeur, articulating the emperor’s message and the Qing order in the language of empire. The differing readings of Zhongyong 1—“Sincerity is the Way of Heaven; the effort to be sincere is the human path” versus an explicit imperial virtue for both Manchus and Han to emulate—exemplify how interpretation shapes a text’s ideological function. Ultimately, these parallel projects underscore that a classic’s vitality depends not on text alone but on the authority and purpose of its interpreters.