석정 이정직의 《시경》론에 대한 해석학적 접근― 《詩經日課》 三卷의 분석을 더하여

Abstract

The main purpose of this paper is to analyze the aspects of Sŏkchŏng’s writings related to the Book of Songs and the characteristics of the perception of the Book of Songs by analyzing of the three volumes of Shigyŏngilgwa(詩經日課) which have not been made public yet. This paper pays special attention to the fact that the commentators’ intention has a very important weight in Sŏkchŏng’s commentary on the Book of Songs, and the related interpretation has a unique approach angle. From a hermeneutic angle, the significance of Sŏkchŏng’s perception of the Book of Songs can be summarized as follows. First, while recognizing the diversity of interpretations of the Book of Songs in its historical context, Sŏkchŏng paid attention to grasping the grounds and origins of the succession and transition process of the Book of Songs. In this process, Sŏkchŏng wanted to find the value of Zhuxi’s interpretation of the Book of Songs in its ‘eclectic character’ rather than in its ‘originality’. This view is in stark contrast to the academic attitude that emphasizes its original side and rejects its opposite side. This is attributed to the compromise through precise comparison and analysis of tradition and existing theories, which can be effectively referenced in understanding the reason why Sŏkchŏng still valued traditional learning and perspective even during the modern transition period. Second, Sŏkchŏng’s approach to trace the validity and origin of the interpretation of the Book of Songs is significant in that he pursued an academic approach that did not blind or reject the interpretation of specific commentators. Third, Sŏkchŏng differentiated the interpretation of the Book of Songs by focusing on the context of the interpreter(or commentator)’s perception. It is considered to be of great significance in the history of interpretation of the Book of Songs in Korea in that he showed interest in capturing the flow of the interpreter’s consciousness about the way he commented, rather than in judging whether the commentator’s contents were right or wrong.