퇴계학파(退溪學派)와 율곡학파(栗谷學派)의 《사서석의(四書釋義)》 간행(刊行)과 그 의의

Abstract

The book of SASESUKYEI(四書釋義) is understood to be Josun(朝鮮)’s Style, which is the name of Neo-Confucianism introduced in the early Joseon period, and it is evaluated as a text that faithfully reflects Lee's unique view. Lee Yulgok(李栗谷)'s SASESUKYEI(四書釋義) provided guidelines for the Joseon Dynasty' s Writings and had a great influence on the interpretation of the later scholars' accounts. However, the same two signatures were misleading because of the publishing process, compilation process, internal conflicts, and uncertain distribution channels. The purpose of this paper is to clarify the differences between the Toegye(退溪) school SASESUKYEI(四書釋義) and the books published in the Yulgok school and to illuminate the academic meanings of them. The order of the discussion is as follows: First, I analyze the data related to the interpretation of the Yulgok school of the Toegye school of the 16-17th century. Second, we trace the compilation process of books published in both schools. Third, the effects of the two data on the present and future periods were analyzed. There are five books on the interpretation of the Toegye school book. A SASESUKYEI(四書釋義) held in a national institute, TOEGUEYOUNGHAKSUKYI (退溪庸學釋義辨吳) held in a Sosoo Museum(紹修博物館), A SASESUKYEI(四書釋義) held in a Kyungpook National University Library, SASEGILYEI (四書質疑) by GumBo(琴輔), SASEGILYEI(四書質疑) by YiDukHong(李德弘). Most of these materials were presumed to have been compiled by Yi Hwang, or were directly or indirectly involved in the compilation by the disciples just before the eruption. This book was published in the Toegye school and the Yulgok school in the same way, but its history and purpose of compilation started from different points. The book of Yiwang is the collection of the result of the old result which circulated in the present day. However, Lee 's book has no record of his involvement in the compilation of this text, and his point of view is the correct interpretation of the soju and the interpretation of the. Therefore, the two texts are only the same as the signatures, but they are different data for purpose of compilation, personality, history, and tradition. In addition, the two texts have different meanings within the school.