본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

동아시아 전통 ‘檢驗’ 지식의 계보: 檢驗 서적의 편찬ㆍ전파ㆍ변용을 중심으로

The Genealogy of Knowledge on the Practice of Autopsy in Pre-Modern East Asia: Focusing on the Production, Circulation, and Transformation of the Texts regarding the Practice of Autopsy

0

조회

0

다운로드

6

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

초록

The production of knowledge regarding the practice of autopsy had been shared in each region of East Asia and had been developed through a process of transmission and transformation before western concept and knowledge of “forensic science” came in. Especially, Xiyuanjilu(洗冤集錄), published by Songci in the Southern Song period and Wuyuanlu(無冤錄), published by Wangyu based on Xiyuanjilu in Yuan period had formed largely two types of knowledge on the practice of autopsy. And these two traditions had been handed down to Ming, Qing, Joseon and Japan respectively and widely utilized. Their results include Xinzhuwuyuanlu(新註無冤錄) of the early Joseon, Lvliguanjiaozhengxiyuanlu(律例館校正洗冤錄) of Qing, Zengxiuwuyuanludaquan (增修無冤錄大全) of the late Joseon, and Wuyuanlushu(無冤錄述) which was translated into Japanese in the 18th century. In conclusion, in the East Asian context, the traditional knowledge on the practice of autopsy had been produced through Xiyuanjilu and Wuyuanlu respectively. And they had been selectively adapted by each region, and it demonstrates that the knowledge on the practice of autopsy had embarked on its own genealogical trajectory that was beyond its original tradition. For example, Wuyuanlu, due to its emphasis on legal institutions, was especially welcomed in both Yuan when administrative documentation was developed and Joseon when system of autopsy was set up. However, since then, as a wide range of attention had been paid to the texts of autopsy per se in understanding the role that these autopsy related books play in the practice of autopsy. In this regard, Xiyuanjilu which led to publish Jiaozhengxiyuanlu, was welcomed in the late Joseon when Zengxiuwuyuanludaquan was published. In Japan, it could be found that the limit of Wuyuanlu was overcome by eliminating a section relating to “criminal law.” Xiyuanjilu had become more influential than Wuyuanlu, and it can be interpreted as a process that shows Wuyuanlu had withered due to its emphasis on the specific laws and systems bounded in a particular time and space.

Abstract

The production of knowledge regarding the practice of autopsy had been shared in each region of East Asia and had been developed through a process of transmission and transformation before western concept and knowledge of “forensic science” came in. Especially, Xiyuanjilu(洗冤集錄), published by Songci in the Southern Song period and Wuyuanlu(無冤錄), published by Wangyu based on Xiyuanjilu in Yuan period had formed largely two types of knowledge on the practice of autopsy. And these two traditions had been handed down to Ming, Qing, Joseon and Japan respectively and widely utilized. Their results include Xinzhuwuyuanlu(新註無冤錄) of the early Joseon, Lvliguanjiaozhengxiyuanlu(律例館校正洗冤錄) of Qing, Zengxiuwuyuanludaquan (增修無冤錄大全) of the late Joseon, and Wuyuanlushu(無冤錄述) which was translated into Japanese in the 18th century. In conclusion, in the East Asian context, the traditional knowledge on the practice of autopsy had been produced through Xiyuanjilu and Wuyuanlu respectively. And they had been selectively adapted by each region, and it demonstrates that the knowledge on the practice of autopsy had embarked on its own genealogical trajectory that was beyond its original tradition. For example, Wuyuanlu, due to its emphasis on legal institutions, was especially welcomed in both Yuan when administrative documentation was developed and Joseon when system of autopsy was set up. However, since then, as a wide range of attention had been paid to the texts of autopsy per se in understanding the role that these autopsy related books play in the practice of autopsy. In this regard, Xiyuanjilu which led to publish Jiaozhengxiyuanlu, was welcomed in the late Joseon when Zengxiuwuyuanludaquan was published. In Japan, it could be found that the limit of Wuyuanlu was overcome by eliminating a section relating to “criminal law.” Xiyuanjilu had become more influential than Wuyuanlu, and it can be interpreted as a process that shows Wuyuanlu had withered due to its emphasis on the specific laws and systems bounded in a particular time and space.

참고문헌 (30)

  1. 律例館, "律例館校正洗冤錄" (1997), 上海古籍出版社
  2. 謝深甫, "慶元條法事類" (2002), 黑龍江人民出版社
  3. 徐松輯, "宋會要輯稿ㆍ刑法" (2011), 河南大學出版社
  4. 宋慈, "洗冤集錄譯註" (2008), 上海古籍出版社
  5. 宋慈, "洗冤錄校譯" (1980), 群衆出版社
  6. 송철의, "譯註增修無冤錄諺解" (2011), 서울대학교출판문화원
  7. 王與, "無冤錄校注" (1987), 上海科學技術出版社
  8. 왕여, "신주무원록" (2012), 사계절
  9. 왕여, "無冤錄述", 와세다대학 도서관 소장, ~
  10. 鄭克, "折獄龜鑑譯注" (1988), 上海古籍出版社
  11. 陳高華, "元典章" (2012), 中華書局, 天津古籍出版社
  12. Sung Tz'u, "The Washing Away of Wrongs: Forensic Medicine in Thirteenth-Century China" (1981), The University of Michigan
  13. 賈靜濤, "中國古代法醫學史" (1984), 北京群眾出版社
  14. 小関恒雄, "明治法醫學編年資料斷章" (1995), 玄同社
  15. 閻曉君, "出土文獻與古代司法檢驗史硏究" (2005), 文物出版社
  16. 郭東旭, "宋代檢驗制度探微", 河北法學 (2008)
  17. 김호, "新註無錄과 조선전기의 檢屍", 법사학연구, (27), pp.195~230 (2003), 한국법사학회
  18. 石川重雄, "南宋期におけゐ裁判と検死制度の整備 -「検験(験屍)格目」の施行を中心に-", 立正大学東洋史論集, 3 (1990)
  19. 楊奉琨, "元代大法醫學家王與生平著述考略", 浙江學刊 (1985)
  20. 余德芹, "略述王與的≪無冤錄≫", 貴州民族學院學報 (2009)
  21. 余德芹, "元朝法醫檢驗制度初探", 貴陽中醫學院學報 (2009)
  22. 熊思量, "宋慈與 『洗冤集錄』之硏究", 석사, pp.2007
  23. 이영택, "近世朝鮮의 法醫學的裁判과 無寃錄에 關한 硏究", 서울대학교논문집, 4 (1956)
  24. 張哲嘉, "“中國傳統法醫學”的知識性格與操作脈絡", 中央硏究院近代史硏究所集刊, 44 (2004)
  25. 정재영, "정조시대의 한글문헌" (2000), 문헌과해석사
  26. 諸葛計, "宋慈及其洗冤集錄", 歷史硏究 (1979)
  27. 최해별, "宋代 檢驗 제도의 운영 - 「檢驗格目」을 중심으로", 역사학보, (220), pp.125~156 (2013), 역사학회
  28. 최해별, "宋代 檢驗 제도에서의 결과보고: “驗狀”類 문서를 중심으로", 이화사학연구, (47), pp.153~188 (2013), 이화사학연구소
  29. 최해별, "宋⋅元 시기 ‘檢驗지식’의 형성과 발전: 『洗冤集錄』과 『無冤錄』을 중심으로", 중국학보, (69), pp.79~104 (2014), 한국중국학회
  30. 최해별, "南宋 시기 지방관이 알아야 할 ‘檢驗’ 관련 법률 ― 宋慈의 『洗冤集錄』 「條令」에 대한 분석 ―", 동양사학연구, (129), pp.107~143 (2014), 동양사학회

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (14건)