지천 최명길의 {사문록]에 나타난 사서해석 경향과 사상적 특징(Ⅰ) - 「논어기의(論語記疑)」를 중심으로

Abstract

This study examined the tendency of interpretation of Analects (論語) and ideological characteristics observed in Noneogieui (論語記疑) of Jicheon Choi Myeong‐gil’s (遲川 崔鳴吉) Samunrok (思問錄). Jicheon Choi Myeong‐gil explored the original meanings of the scriptures, not following the academic trend in those days that took Zhu‐xi’s interpretation of the scriptures as a generally accepted view. In this course, he quoted old annotations (古註), and reviewed even Japanese versions of old annotations. Furthermore, he suggested his own original interpretations without relying on old or new annotations. First, cases citing and referring to old annotations include the interpretations of ‘才難不其然乎唐虞之際於斯爲盛云云’ in Chapter 20 of Taebaek (泰伯), ‘事父母幾諫云云’ in Chapter 18 of Yanghwa (陽貨), and ‘足食足兵民信之云云’ in Chapter 7 of Anyeon (顔淵). In addition, cases approaching Zhu‐xi’s new annotations critically and adding his own interpretations apart from old annotations include the interpretations of ‘不踐跡 不入於室云云’ in Chapter of 19 Seonjin (先進), ‘生而知之者上云云’ in Chapter 9 of Gyessi (季氏), and ‘上智與下愚不移 云云’ in Chapter 3 of Yanghwa (陽貨). Lastly, cases showing his ideological tendency that led him to affirm Yang‐ming Studies include the interpretations of ‘朝聞道夕死可矣云云’ in Chapter 8 of Li-in (里仁) and ‘君子所貴者三云云’ in Chapter 4 of Taebaek (泰伯). Choi Myeong‐gil’s ideological characteristic derived from these interpretations is that the mind (心) and the way (道) are inseparable from each other by nature, and in studying, the study of the root of the mental state is the essence and top priority. Although this view can be his tendency of reasoning that led him to affirm Yang‐ming Studies, however, it is not sufficient for determining whether he accepted Yang‐ming Studies or not or for explaining accurately how his philosophical characteristics were. In order to answer these questions, we need to review interpretations in the other parts of Samunrok, which are Maengjagieui (孟子記疑) and Daehakgieui (大學記疑). Research on Choi Myeong‐gil’s Noneogieui is meaningful in that it provides a case indicating diversity in the interpretation of the Four Books in those days, not confined in Zhu‐xi Studies, and that studying the ideological characteristics of Choi Myeong‐gil, who is regarded as a scholar of early Yang‐ming Studies, allows the review of the development of Yang‐ming Studies in Korea.