안정복의 『자치통감강목』 書法 이해와 『동사강목』 마한정통론의 강목체 필법

Abstract

This thesis examines An Jeongbok’s Comprehension of the historiographical method(Seobub, 書法) of Zizhi Tongjian Gangmu and how the gangmok style was applied to writing the Mahan legitimate in Dongsa Gangmu. The analysis would be a great help to know how the Gangmok Style was applied to writing Dongsa Gangmu. The main points in this thesis are as follows. How the keynote of Dongsa Gangmu, the legitimate dynasty(正統論) of the inheritance of Kija Chosun – Mahan, was related with the Seongho’s(星湖, 李瀷 1681~1763) theory of Samhan legitimate dynasty and what was different characteristics between An Jeongbok’s applying Gangmok Style to Dongsa Gangmu and the books devoted to Mahan history. As a result, legitimate dynasty tradition and Gangmok Style were an inseparable relation. Research materials are writing and letter in the Collection of An Jeongbok's Works about knowledge on Chunchu, Zizhi Tongjian, Zizhi Tongjiangangmu, legitimate dynasty tradition, historiographical method of Zizhi tongjian gangmu and so on. The controversy over the Historiographical Method of Zizhi Tongjian Gangmu are as follows ①As the death was described with a term of Jol(卒) or Sa(死) and the death was written with his office, there are some subtle differences between praise and blame. ②As someone who killed another person was described with Sal(殺) or To(討) and Ju(誅), there are also differences. ③When mother killed her son crowned king, could it be written as regicide(Si 弑)? ④The death of the righteous person must be written as Saji(死之) in Gang(綱). ⑤A posthumous epithet must be written in Mok(目). ⑥What is the difference between Ban(叛) and Bun(奔). ⑦What is the difference between Dosal(盜殺) and Ju(誅), Bokju(伏誅) and so on. In addition I undertake the study the key differences of gangmok style writing method between on the Mahan legitimate in Dongsa Gangmu and other Dongsas such as Samguksagi(三國史記) Dongguktonggam(東國通鑑), Dongsahoegang(東史會綱) etc. The conclusion of this researh are as follows: Seongho emphasized that the history of the eastern region of the Liao-ho River called Sojunghwa(小中華) had progressed evenly with china history, and he argued that the history of three kingdom’s country building era must be rewritten Mahan as Legitimate dynasty by the Gangmok Style(綱目體), as a result this history would be a good lesson to future generations. An Jeongbok took over the Seongho’s theory of Mahan legitimate dynasty to write Dongsa Gangmu. The difference between old Korean history books and Dongsa Gangmu came from regarding Mahan as legitimate dynasty. As An Jeongbok regarded Silla and Kogoryo as Gunguk case(建國例), Baekje as Yeolguk case(列國例), the writing terms on Chronology(紀年, 歲年), naming a emperor and king(名號), accessing the throne(卽位), death and funeral(崩葬), etc was changed. ①Mahan's chronology in Dongsa Gangmu was applied large font as legitimate dynasty, and three kingdom's chronology applied small font. In old Korean history books Mahan's chronology was omitted and three kingdoms' chronology were applied small font as illegitimate dynasties. ② Naming a king of Mahan in Dongsa Gangmu at first year was written country name Mahan+king(王), from next year the country name was omitted and only written king(王), the other country, Goguryeo and Baekje was written country name+Gun(君), and Sila was written country name Saro(斯盧)+Geoseogan(居西干) or Chachaung(次次雄) which was the original name itself. ③The death of king and queen was written Hung(薨) in old Korean history books. But in Dongsa Gangmu the death of Mahan king was written Hung(薨), the other of three country was written Zol(卒). ④In old Korean history books accessing the throne(卽位) was written Rip(立) which means illegitimate dynasty. In Dongsa Gangmu Mahan king was written Jeukwi(卽位), Goguryeo was written Sa(嗣), and Sila was written Rip(立).