석재(碩齋) 윤행임(尹行恁)의 『신호수필(薪湖隨筆)』 경사류(經史類) 해석의 『역(易)』 활용양상과 그 의미
The Aspects and Significance of Suk-Jae Yoon Haeng-im’s Usage of the 『I Ching』 for the Interpretation of the Confucian Classics and Histories in 『Shinho-Essay』
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The I Ching is a central book that Yoon Haeng-im preferred to use, which can show his perspective on the study of Confucian Classics. In his essay Shinho-supil, with the I Ching, Yoon Haeng-im attempted to interpret a variety of Confucian Classics and histories (gyeongsa), such as the Analects, the Mencius, the Great Learning, the Doctrine of the Mean, the Shangshu, the Mao Odes, the Lesser Learning, the Book of Rites, the Zuo zhuan, the Summary of the Nineteen Histories, the Tongjuan waiji, the Shiwu yaoyi, and the Jingchuan tongyi. Yoon Haeng-im had his own method of interpreting these Confucian Classics and classical Chinese histories with the I Ching. On the one hand, while interpreting the Confucian Classics, Yoon Haeng-im selected phrases that he believed were needed to be explained in detail, and matched them with the corresponding passages in the I Ching. On the other hand, Yoon Haeng-im used excerpted passages from the I Ching to help to better understand classical Chinese histories such as the Summary of the Nineteen Histories. Furthermore, with the I Ching, he raised his doubts about some specific passages from these history books and argued whether or not these passages were written based on historical facts. The early interpretation of the Confucian Classics and classical Chinese histories was confirmed at King Jeongjo’s lecture on gyeongsa, called gyeongsa-gangui. In this lecture, there were a series of questions posed by the king about the Confucian Classics and histories, which were answered by his civil servants. The king and his civil servants believed that the I Ching was an essential precondition for the interpretation of gyeongsa. Yoon Haeng-im appears to have further developed this method of interpretation, resulting in him using his own methods to explain almost all of the Confucian Classics and histories in detail. This can be considered as an important criterion for understanding the characteristics of Yoon Haeng-im’s interpretation of gyeongsa. To conclude, in the history of the study of Confucian Classics, Yoon Haeng-im’s usage of the I Ching seems to have represented a paradigm of methods in interpreting the Confucian Classics and classical Chinese histories during the era of King Jeongjo.
Abstract
The I Ching is a central book that Yoon Haeng-im preferred to use, which can show his perspective on the study of Confucian Classics. In his essay Shinho-supil, with the I Ching, Yoon Haeng-im attempted to interpret a variety of Confucian Classics and histories (gyeongsa), such as the Analects, the Mencius, the Great Learning, the Doctrine of the Mean, the Shangshu, the Mao Odes, the Lesser Learning, the Book of Rites, the Zuo zhuan, the Summary of the Nineteen Histories, the Tongjuan waiji, the Shiwu yaoyi, and the Jingchuan tongyi. Yoon Haeng-im had his own method of interpreting these Confucian Classics and classical Chinese histories with the I Ching. On the one hand, while interpreting the Confucian Classics, Yoon Haeng-im selected phrases that he believed were needed to be explained in detail, and matched them with the corresponding passages in the I Ching. On the other hand, Yoon Haeng-im used excerpted passages from the I Ching to help to better understand classical Chinese histories such as the Summary of the Nineteen Histories. Furthermore, with the I Ching, he raised his doubts about some specific passages from these history books and argued whether or not these passages were written based on historical facts. The early interpretation of the Confucian Classics and classical Chinese histories was confirmed at King Jeongjo’s lecture on gyeongsa, called gyeongsa-gangui. In this lecture, there were a series of questions posed by the king about the Confucian Classics and histories, which were answered by his civil servants. The king and his civil servants believed that the I Ching was an essential precondition for the interpretation of gyeongsa. Yoon Haeng-im appears to have further developed this method of interpretation, resulting in him using his own methods to explain almost all of the Confucian Classics and histories in detail. This can be considered as an important criterion for understanding the characteristics of Yoon Haeng-im’s interpretation of gyeongsa. To conclude, in the history of the study of Confucian Classics, Yoon Haeng-im’s usage of the I Ching seems to have represented a paradigm of methods in interpreting the Confucian Classics and classical Chinese histories during the era of King Jeongjo.
참고문헌 (31)
- 尹行恁, "碩齋稿 附錄", pp.403~
- 尹行恁, "碩齋稿 附錄", pp.394~
- 남윤덕, "碩齋 尹行恁의 四書學 硏究", 박사, pp.2018
- 」․「薪湖隨筆_『易』․「繫辭傳」」을 중심으로 -, "한국한문학연구", 2016, 157~192, pp.한국한문학회, 10.30527[DOI]
- 송호빈, "정조의 역학관과『주역』해석", 석사, 국어국문학, pp.2007
- 서근식, "正祖의 易學思想 硏究- 『經史講義』 『易經』의 問答을 중심으로 -", 퇴계학보, (133), pp.185~215 (2013), 퇴계학연구원
- 김영우, "정약용과 모기령의 역학 사상 비교 연구", 동방학지, (127), pp.287~314 (2004), 국학연구원
- 정병석, "象數에 대한 朱子와 李退溪의 觀點", 민족문화논총, (56), pp.359~386 (2014), 민족문화연구소
- 正祖, "弘齋全書", ~
- 신원봉, "正祖의 주역관", 동양문화연구, 3, pp.97~127 (2009), 동양문화연구원[DOI]
- 尹行恁, "碩齋別稿", ~
- 胡廣, "周易傳義大全", ~
- 韓元震, "南塘集", ~
- 조장연, "남당 한원진의 인물성론과 그 정치적 성격", 한국철학논집, (17), pp.309~329 (2005), 한국철학사연구회
- 유봉학, "조선후기 학계와 지식인", pp.117~ (1998), 신구문화사
- "書經集傳", ~
- 신성수, "卜·筮와 『易』의 關係에 관한 硏究 - 『周禮』·『書經』·『周易』의 내용을 중심으로 -", 어문연구(語文硏究), 39(1), pp.389~414 (2011), 한국어문교육연구회[DOI]
- 朱熹, "大學章句", ~
- 朱熹, "中庸章句", ~
- 揚雄, "揚子雲集", ~
- 朱熹, "論語集註", ~
- 邵雍, "擊壤集", ~
- 李瀷, "星湖先生僿說", ~
- 李圭景, "五洲衍文長箋散稿", ~
- 朱熹, "詩經集傳", ~
- 鄭玄, "毛詩注疏", ~
- 李昉, "太平御覽", ~
- 曾先之, "古今歷代標題註釋十九史略通攷", ~
- 朱熹, "晦庵集", ~
- 祝穆, "古今事文類聚前集", ~
