퇴계학파 경전주석經傳註釋의 전승과「논어석의論語釋義」

Abstract

This thesis was intended to analyze Saseogilyue(四書質疑) by Kum bo(琴輔), Saseogilyue(四書質疑) by Lee dughong(李德弘), Geoseogilyue (諸書質疑) and Daehakdongjamundab(大學童子問答) by Jo hoic(曺好益) among Toegye school's interpretations on Chinese classics from 16th to 17th century. In addition to it, it was also intended to study on the characteristics and meaning of the interpretations of Chinese classics. Kum bo(琴輔)’s Saseogilyue(四書質疑) was written when he lived in after his mentor, Lee hwang(李滉) resigned his post in an office. Therefore, it was concluded that the book profoundly influenced Lee hwang’s Saseosukyue(四書釋義). To support this, it was made clear that more than half of Saseogilyue(四書質疑) the Analects of Confucius(四書質疑 論語) was integrated into Nonoesukyue(論語釋義). The contents of the Korean Annotation of the Analects of Confucius should be discussed. In this dissertation, the works are limited from the middle 16th century to the early 17th century which originated the Korean Annotation of the Analects of Confucius as it is not possible to examine all those 310 kinds of the Korean Annotation of the Analects of Confucius. Then, the text for the Korean Annotation of the Analects of Confucius was based on NonEoJipJuDaeJun(論語集註大全) and annotated versions published are NonEoSukY’e(論語釋義) by Lee Hyaung, NonEoGilY’e(論語質疑) by Lee Duk Hong. Lee dughong(李德弘)’s Saseogilyue(四書質疑) was mistaken for Toegye’s writing by Giho school scholars. As a result, much of Saseogilyue(四書質疑)’s original text was deleted. Nonetheless, Saseogilyue(四書質疑) is succeeded to Lee hwang(李滉)’s Saseosukyue(四書釋義). Therefore, it is a very important material for the study on the interpretation of Chinese classics by the disciples right before the Toegye school ties. Besides, it was found significant in that Jo hoic's interpretations of Chinese classics showed the variety of Toegye school. Furthermore, Geoseogilyue(諸書質疑) is the subject of Saseodaejun(四書大全) analysis. Lastly, much effort was put to exceed the limits of comment(小註) by the way of both Saseogilyue(四書質疑) and SaseoSukyue(四書釋義). The interpretation of Chinese classics of 16th and 17th century by Toegye school has a key importance in that it was achieved very creatively. In other words, contemporary scholars at that time was deeply biased in the way they followed only Zhuxi’s theory, however, these scholars took a different way from them.