《逸周書·度訓解》譯註

강혜진,고정정 한국아시아학회 2023 아시아연구 Vol.26 No.3

“Ill Ju Seo(逸周書)” is a document that records historical events from King Mun to the time of King Kyeong. There are a total of 70 sections within Ill Ju Seo, and “Do Hoon Hae(度訓解)” is the first of them. Also within this section are the “Myeong Hun Hae” and “Sang Hun Hae”, these along with the Do Hoon Hae Section are also collectively referred to as the “Sam Hun”. The Sam Hun provides guiding principles and a foundation for examining the rest of the document. The Do Hoon Hae section discusses methods for governing the people and the state as a whole. Specifically, the Do Hoon Hae explains that in order to maintain social order and carry out desirable politics, it is necessary to consider human nature first, and then establish a system suitable for society, accounting for these considerations. It also explains that there must be certain standards followed in the creation of systems of governance and institutions. In this way, the Do Hoon Hae section presents the most basic and large framework for governing a country, and alongside the contemporaneous document known as “Sang Seo”, it is of great help in understanding the political ideology of the Warring States period and gives a glimpse of the Confucian ideology of the time. Ill Ju Seo has been handed down since the Ju Dynasty, and has a similar academic value to that of the Sang Seo. However, the contents of Ill Ju Seo are complicated and disorganized, and the system of each section is not standardized meaning each has varying characteristics. In addition, there is little connection between sentences, making it difficult to understand the content. However, the annotated and translated data of Ill Ju Seo can be highly advantageous in understanding the thoughts of those within the Warring States period and to study other Chinese literary works. For this reason, this paper translates the commentaries of many generations using the collation and annotation of Ill Ju Seo(逸周書彙校集注) as a base. This is supplemented by referring to other literature works of the same period and translates the original text based on these. In addition, explanations are added to each part of the text to assist the reader in understanding the contents.

『해동사부(海東辭賦)』의 수록(收錄) 작품(作品) 양상(樣相)과 편찬(編纂)의 지향성(志向性)

김진경 ( Jin Kyung Kim ) 한국한자한문교육학회 2007 漢字 漢文敎育 Vol.18 No.-

본 논문은 『海東辭賦』에 수록되어 있는 작품들의 양상을 살피고, 그를 통해 편찬방향과 그것이 韓國 辭賦 문학에서 지니는 의의를 밝히는 것을 목표로 하였다. 『海東辭賦』는 韓國 辭賦 작품 가운데 고려시대~조선중기(17세기 중엽)까지의 작품들을 가려 뽑아 모은 辭賦 選集으로서 여기에는 古賦(騷體賦, 漢大賦, 抒情小賦), 文賦, 六言 등 다양한 체제의 작품들이 수록되어 있다. 그러므로 이를 통해 고려시대부터 17세기 중엽까지 유행했던 辭賦의 구체적인 양상을 살펴볼 수 있다는 점에서 『海東辭賦』는 韓國 辭賦 문학을 연구하는 데에 있어서 매우 중요한 자료이다. 『海東辭賦』에는 고려시대 작품 7편과 조선시대의 작품 50편, 총 57편의 작품이 수록되어 있다. 이 작품들은 다양한 체제에 失意한 自我에 대한 鬱鬱한 情懷, 道가 제대로 행해지지 않는 世態에 대한 恨歎, 죽음과 이별에 대한 哀悼의 情恨, 역사 회고에서의 悲憤, 인생의 무상함에 대한 哀傷, 景物에 대한 예찬 등 다채로운 주제를 담고 있다. 이러한 작품의 양상을 통해 김석주가 『海東辭賦』를 편찬하면서 지향했던 것은 크게 두 가지 임을 엿볼 수 있다. 형식에 있어서는 다양한 체제의 작품들을 수록하려 한 점이고, 내용에 있어서는 작자의 眞情이 담긴 작품들을 선호하였다는 것이다. 이를 통해 韓國 辭賦 문학에서의 『海東辭賦』의 의의를 다음과 같이 정리할 수 있다. 첫째, 다양한 체제와 내용의 작품을 수록하여 당대와 후대 문인들에게 辭賦 문학의 전범을 제시하는 교과서 역할을 하였다는 것이다. 둘째, 특히 작품의 내용면에서 작자의 眞情을 토로한 작품들을 선호하여 수록하였다는 것에서 辭賦가 지니는 문학성을 검증하는 중요한 단서가 되는 자료라는 점이다. 셋째, 李荇의 「哀朴仲說辭」, 鄭斗卿의 「劍賦」 등 개인 문집에는 전하지 않는 작품들이 수록되어 있어 辭賦 자료의 보전이라는 측면에서 가치를 지닌다는 것이다. The present paper intended to examine the aspects of the works documented on 『Hae-Dong Cifu』 in order to identify its directivity of the compilation and its literary significance in Korean Cifu literature. 『Hae-Dong Cifu』 is a Cifu selection, consisting of the works from the Goryeo Dynasty through the middle years of the Chosun Dynasty (the middle years of the 17th century). It includes a variety of styles, making it possible to examine specific features of popular Cifu until In this regard, 『Hae-Dong Cifu』 boasts the importance as a data base in studying Korean Cifu. 『Hae-Dong Cifu』 lists the total of 57 works, including 7 works from the Goryeo Dynasty and 50 works from the Chosun dynasty. Various styles were used for these works in dealing with diverse topics. Based on these works, what Kim Seok-Ju oriented himself to may be inferred. He tried to record various styles of works as much as possible and preferred those works which carried authors`` true feelings. The significane of [Hae-Dong Cifu] in the Korean Cifu literature may be summarized as follows: First, the diversity of styles and contents in the works of 『Hae-Dong Cifu』 has served as a textbook, presenting a model of Cifu literature to future as well as contemporary writers. Second, the contents with true feelings of 『Hae-Dong Cifu』 in particular provide important resources for verifying the literary quality of Cifu. Third, the fact that 『Hae-Dong Cifu』 contains those works which are missed out of well-known personal collections is worthy of notice with regard to preserving Cifu data.

향화인의 조선 정착 사례 연구 - 여진 향화인을 중심으로

원창애 동양고전학회 2009 東洋古典硏究 Vol.37 No.-

고려 말에 동북면에 들어와서 거주하던 토착여진과 요동 지방 내륙에서 남하하여 두만강 유역 부근에 자리잡은 알타리⋅올량합⋅올적합 등의 여진족이 향화하였다. 향화한 여진인에게 경제적⋅사회적⋅정치적 우대 정책이 시행되었다. 특히 향화인에게 과거 응시를 허락한 것은 이들을 조선의 백성으로 인정한 단적인 예이며, 이들이 과거를 통해서 자신들의 신분을 상승시킬 수 있는 길을 열어놓았다. 향화인 가운데 성공적으로 조선에 정착하여 양반으로 성장한 사례가 있는데, 청해 이씨와 전주 주씨이다. 청해 이씨는 여진의 대추장으로서 관하민도 500호나 되었으며, 개국공신⋅회군공신⋅배향공신으로서 조정에서 경제적 사회적 정치적 혜택을 충분히 받았다. 게다가 이지란의 아들 이화영 역시 공신으로서 그의 정치적 입지를 굳혀갔고, 종친과의 혼인으로 왕실과 관계를 돈독히 하였다. 이지란과 이화영이 마련한 기반 위에서 양반 가문으로서 계속 성장된 것은 이화영의 아들 李孝讓과 李孝綱 집안이다. 이 두 가문에서 배출된 과거 급제자는 문과 7명, 무과 15명, 생원⋅진사시 16명 등이다. 청해 이씨의 주된 거주지는 서울과 경기 지역이었으며, 일부 함경도 지역에도 남아있었다. 전주 주씨는 함흥에 같이 정착했던 朱萬은 개국원종공신에 책봉되었고, 朱仁은 중앙으로부터 서반직을 제수받았다. 전주 주씨는 함흥에 토착하여 재지 세력으로 성장되었다. 16세기부터 문과 급제자가 배출되기 시작하여 17세기 이후로 문과 급제자 22명, 생원⋅진사시 입격자 40명을 배출한 문인 가문으로 성장하였다. 전주 주씨의 관직 진출을 보더라도 서북 인사에게 통청되기 어려웠던 언관직 진출이 많았다. 전주 주씨는 함흥을 중심으로 재지 기반을 확고히 하고 언관과 같은 청직에 진출되면서 함경도의 명문 성관으로 부상되었다. In the late Koryo period, until 14th century, there had been at least two groups of Manchurians who were conferred citizenships; one group was living as an original inhabitant in the coastal area of north­eastern part of Korean peninsular, long time ago, and they were over one thousand households. The other was coming down from inland, eastern part of Yoha River, to the area of Tuman River to settle down and they were at least around one hundred and sixty households, including such tribes as Al-tha-ry, Ol-lyang-hap, Ol-jok-hap and others. They were treated courteously, from the early days of Choson dynasty, with governmental policies in an economic, political, and social ways. They were given, for instance, a house, a land, household furniture, and clothes. They were allowed to get marry with a native Korean to settle down. They were educated how to cultivate their lands. It was also possible for them to be given an official position politically or allowed to take a National Civil Official Examination. The fact they could take such an Examination, in particular, means they were treated fairly and equally, because they also had a privilege to improve their social positions through the formal system as much as common people. Two typical families were scrutinized, in this paper, family Chong-hae Lee and family Chon-ju Ju. All of them were successful to settle down with different backgrounds each other. The former were from a headman, Lee Jee-ran, who controlled his tribe, over five hundred households. He was given three titles of a meritorious retainer at the founding of Chosun dynasty, at the retrieval of armies, and an enshrined retainer. His son, Lee Wha-yong, was also given a vassal of merit who kept a close tie successfully with the king's family through a marriage. Upon the foundation of their ancestors, their grandsons, family Lee Hyo-yang and family Lee Hyo-gang, each, had taken solid root as an aristocratic Yang-ban class. The former became a high officer family, generation by generation, while the latter changed into a civil official family through Civil Official Examinations. They lived mainly around Seoul, Kyong-gi Province and some lived in their original places, Ham-kyong Province. Chu-man, the first ancestor, was given a meritorious retainer at the founding of the dynasty and Chu-in was also given a high officer position from the government. They kept living at the original place, Ham-heung, Ham-kyong Province, and then became an outstanding local family there. They began to pass the Civil Official Examinations. After 17th century on the passers were 17 in Civil Official Examinations and 40 were passed in lower civil examinations. The positions in government they attained usually were remonstrance which position was prohibited particularly to North­Western people at that time. The Chosun dynasty was open to Machurians widely through the system of envoy, convoy, and naturalization. It was intended to build up an enclosure policy through a friendly diplomatic relation with them against any possible invasion from outside. This is one reason why they were supported fully that much in a various way.

皇侃 論語義疏의 유입과 18-19세기 조선 학계의 반응

오보라 고려대학교 한국언어문화학술확산연구소 2014 Journal of Korean Culture Vol.27 No.-

The aim of this article is to analyze the influence of Huang Kan(皇侃)’s Lunyu yishu(論語義疏) on the late Chosŏn Dynasty. Lunyu yishu disappeared since Nan Song(南宋) Dynasty in China. In China, the Lunyu xhushu(論語注疏) was widely read instead of Lunyu yishu. However, the Lunyu yishu, that had been believed to disappear, was found in Japan. A manuscript of Lunyu yishu remained in Japan. The Japanese scholar, Nemoto bui(根本武夷) published the manuscript of Lunyu yishu in the mid-eighteenth century. Then, the published Lunyu yishu was impo rted into China from Japan. This book was also imported into Korea. But it is not clear how Lunyu yishu was imported into Korea. There are two assumptions on the distribution channel of Lunyu yishu. First, the Lunyu yishu might deliver to Korean by the Korean embassies of 18th century. Second, the Lunyu yishu that was republished in China might be imported into Korea. There are many evidences that support these assumptions. Therefore, the Lunyu yishu was read in the late Chosŏn Dynasty by some scholars such as Kim Jung-hee(金正喜), Shin Jak(申綽), Seong Hae-eung(成海應), Hong Suk-ju(洪奭周), Jung Yak-yong(丁若鏞) and so on. After the Lunyu yishu was imported into Korean, the Korean scholars discussed on the authenticity of the Lunyu yishu. For example, Seong Hae-eung insisted that Lunyu yishu was faked by the Japanese. On the other hand, Hong Suk-ju said that he also doubted about the authenticity of the Lunyu yishu, but there was no evidence to substantiate for fake. So he thought that the Lunyu yishu was real. The Lunyu yishu had great effects on the China and Japan, but it didn’t so in the Chosŏn Dynasty. In the Chosŏn Dynasty, Cheng-Zhu school had an authority. So the Lunyu yishu, that included annotations against Cheng-Zhu school had, didn’t have a great influence on the late Chosŏn Dynasty. 본고는 皇侃(488-545)의 『論語義疏』가 조선에 유입된 과정 및 그것을 둘러싼 논의를 살핌으로써, 18-19세기 학술사의 단면을 고찰해 보았다. 황간의 『논어의소』는 중국에서 南宋 대에 이르러 散逸되었고, 그 대신에 중국에서는 何晏의 注에 邢昺의 疏가 달린 『論語義疏』가 널리 읽혔다. 그런데 중국에서 없어진 것으로 간주되었던 황간의 『논어의소』가 淸 대에 이르러 돌연 등장하였다. 일본에 남아 있었던 舊鈔本 『논어의소』가 根本武夷(네모토 부이)에 의해서 간행되었는데, 이것이 중국에 역수입된 것이다. 이후에 『논어의소』는 중국에서 다시 간행되었는데, 그 간본으로는 사고전서본, 무영전본, 지부족재총서본의 3종이 있다. 이 책은 조선에도 유입되었으며, 京畿 學人들을 중심으로 유통되었다. 황간의『논어의소』가 조선의 지식인들에게 읽혔던 것만큼은 분명하지만, 정확이 언제, 어떻게 들어왔는지는 확언하기 어렵다. 이에 『논어의소』의 유입 경로를 두 가지로 가정하고, 각각의 가능성을 검토해 보았다. 두 가지 가능성을 검토해 본 결과, 조선에 유입된『논어의소』는 중국에서 간행된 지부족재총서본일 가능성이 크다. 당대 조선 학계는 상대적으로 일본의 학술보다는 청나라의 학술에 큰 관심을 보였다. 일본 원간본이 아니라 중국 간행본『논어의소』가 조선에 유입된 데에는, 이러한 조선 학계의 분위기가 영향을 미쳤을 수 있다. 조선에 『논어의소』가 유입된 이후, 조선 학계에서 나타난 반응은 크게 두 가지 범주로 나눌 수 있다. 첫째, 일본에서 나온『논어의소』라는 책이 과연 眞書인가 하는 문제에 대해 논란이 일었다. 논의의 중심에 있었던 이는 성해응과 홍석주였다. 성해응의 경우 문헌·자구의 고증을 통해 『사고전서총목』의 해제를 반박하고 『논어의소』를 위서로 단정했다. 이와 달리 홍석주의 경우는 문맥의 정합성에 근거하여 『논어의소』를 진서라 판단했다. 홍석주와 성해응 모두 고증학의 방법론을 채택하기는 하였으나, 『논어의소』의 진위에 대해서는 상이한 결론을 내렸다. 즉 『논어의소』를 둘러싼 논의를 통해, 두 사람의 학문 경향의 차이점을 엿볼 수 있었다. 둘째, 조선 지식인들이 실제 경학 연구에서 황간의 설을 얼마만큼 활용했는가 하는 문제이다. 『논어의소』는 일본의 경우 고학파들의 경전 해석에 큰 영향을 끼쳤고, 청나라의 경우 고증학자들의 字句 고증에 적극 활용되었다. 하지만 『논어의소』가 우리나라에 들어왔을 때에는 중국이나 일본에 비해 그 영향이 크지 못했다. 이는 조선 학계의 분위기가 중국·일본과 달랐음을 부각시켜 준다. 즉 조선의 학계가 중국·일본과 대별되는 특징을 지니고 있었기 때문에, 중·일 양국에서 큰 화제였던 서적이 조선에서는 주목을 받지 못한 것이다. 조선은 당대 청나라과 일본에 비해, 상대적으로 정주학에 많이 경도되어 있었다. 따라서 老莊의 색채가 짙은 『논어의소』는 수용보다 비판의 대상이 되었다. 물론, 古注를 활용하여 경전을 고증하려는 학자들에게 『논어의소』가 이용되기는 했다. 하지만 이 역시 청나라 고증학자들의 경우와 비교하면 미미한 수준이라 할 수 있다. 조선 학계는 청나라 고증학의 방법을 수용하기는 하였으나, 청나라 고증학의 지나친 자구 천착에 대해서는 비판의 목소리가 높았다. 때문에 청나라와 달리, 조선에서는 『논어의소』가 부분적으로 활용되는 ...

일반 논문 : 계보에 비추어 본 이주홍 아동문학의 특질-카프 시기의 성과를 중심으로-

원종찬 ( Jong Chan Won ) 한국문학교육학회 2012 문학교육학 Vol.38 No.-

Lee Ju-hong is one of major writers representing history of Korean children`s literature. He highly contributed to establishment of realism of children`s literature which might be a historical character of Korean children`s literature-he had ever acted in KAPF in the Japanese ruling period.His representative works have been listed on collection for Korean children`s literature published by famed publishing company. And his main literary collections are widely read in the book form even today. Although he had a career as a member of KAPF which had been considered taboo for long time, he is the only person who is assessed as writer of canon. Most of studies on his works have two key words of ``reality`` and ``pleasure``. When considering situation of Korean children`s literature that in most of the works, by emphasizing ``reality``, ``pleasure`` disappeared, while, by emphasizing ``pleasure``, ``reality`` disappeared, his literary world with both ``reality`` and ``pleasure`` takes a unique position.This study investigated his literary world to figure out such a unique aspect from historical context of ``genealogy of realism`` and ``genealogy of pleasure`` in Korean children`s literature. As a result, his juvenile novel showed ``tendency of Choi Seo-hae in children``s literature` where rich realistic description in experience style is distinguished while children`s song and fairy story showed ``tendency of describing in comic way producing laugh`` which was very rare in realism children`s literature.

중국 연변 문화대혁명과 주덕해의 실각 : 북한 특무 혐의를 중심으로

염인호(In-Ho Yeom) 독립기념관 한국독립운동연구소 2005 한국독립운동사연구 Vol.0 No.25

영화 〈여자, 정혜〉와 〈한공주〉 비교 연구

구수경(Koo, Soo Kyung) 원광대학교 인문학연구소 2017 열린정신 인문학연구 Vol.18 No.1

본 연구는 성폭력을 모티프로 하고 있는 영화 〈여자, 정혜〉와 〈한공주〉를 대상으로 두 영화의 표현방식 및 주제 형상화의 기법을 비교, 고찰하고 있다. 두 영화에서 성폭력을 당한 여주인공의 현실은 상당한 차이를 보인다. 〈여자, 정혜〉에서 정혜는 열세 살 때 당한 성폭행 사실을 혼자만의 비밀로 간직한다. 하지만 어른이 된 지금도 그 때의 정신적 상처로인해 외부와의 접촉을 두려워하며 불행하게 살고 있다. 반면에 〈한공주〉에서 아직 종결되지 않은 집단성폭행 사건의 피해자인 공주는 성폭력의 상처와 함께 여성피해자를 단죄하는 사회의 폭력적인 시선으로 인해 이중적으로 유린되고 있다. 두 영화의 결말은 주인공들이 자기식의 출구를 찾아가는 모습을 보여준다. 〈여자, 정혜〉는 오랫동안 자신의 감정을 억압하며 살아온 정혜가 조금씩 자신의 감정과 의사를 표현하는 행위를 시도함으로써 과거의 상처에서 벗어나고 있다. 〈한공주〉의 경우 성폭력 피해자를 오히려 죄인처럼 취급하는 사회의 냉대와 폭력적인 시선에 내몰린 공주는 수영을 배워 투신했던 한강에서 헤엄쳐 나왔듯이 자신의 방식으로 삶을 새롭게 만들어갈 것임을 암시하고 있다. 두 영화는 모두 과거와 현실의 몽타주라는 편집의 미학이 돋보인다. 〈여자, 정혜〉는 치유에 초점을 둔 편집과 핸드-헬드 카메라에 의한 근접 촬영을 통해 주인공을 위무하는 관찰자적 시선을 창출하는 데 성공하고 있다. 〈한공주〉 역시 공주의 현재의 삶 사이사이에 과거의 사건과 환상 신을 거칠게 삽입하는 몽타주기법을 통해 의미를 구축한다. 또한 유사한 장면이 과거와 현재에 반복되는 중첩구조를 보여주는데, 이것은 공주가 반복되는 상황에서 어떻게 행복과 불행 사이를 오가는지를 드러내는 데 초점을 맞추고 있다. 이처럼 두 영화에서 성폭력을 당한 피해여성의 대응방식과 이를 바라보는 감독의 관점은 차이가 있다. 〈여자, 정혜〉는 정혜라는 한 여성이 과거의 상처에서 벗어나는 치유의 과정을 통해 기다림의 미덕과 침묵의 미학을 강조한다. 반면에 〈한공주〉는 공주에게 가해지는 외부의 폭력적인 관점들을 부각시킴으로써 그녀를 둘러싼 현실에 대한 비판과 자성을 끌어내고 있다. The object of this thesis is to compare the narrative strategy between the two films “A Woman, Jung-Hae” and “Han Gong-Ju”. The objective is to examine the difference of expressive methods and aesthetic characteristics in these films which is based on sexual violence. In these films, the life of the female characters who suffered sexual violence is clearly distinct. “A Woman, Jung-Hae” describes the life of Jung-Hae, a woman who is unhappy in the present because of the memory of being raped in the past. She kept the memory of being raped to herself. The film shows how her old wound has a bad influence on Jung-Hae"s present life. On the other hand, in the film “Han Gong-Ju,” Gong-ju is a victim of multiple sexual violence which has not yet been judged. She was suffered both from the shock of sexual violence and from the partial point of view of a male-dominated society. The last scenes of these two films describe protagonists, who improve life in their own way. “A Woman, Jung-Hae,” focuses on the inner change of Jung-Hae who tries to be friends with the world through the healing processes of her emotional wounds. In particular, the film, “A Woman, Jung-Hae” expresses the theme well through cinematic techniques such as montage, hand-held camera photography, and extreme arrangement of shots. “Han Gong-Ju” focuses on the self-awareness of Gong-ju who realizes the absurdity of society. “Han Gong-Ju” uses the montage technique, which inserts a past scene or fantasy scene in the present scenes. This film also depicts a duplicated structure which shows motives in the past that were revived in the present. This means that the life of Gong-ju was unfortunately influenced by the environment and people who surrounded her. “A Woman, Jung-Hae” takes a pitiful emotion out of audiences by focusing on the protagonist’s daily life, which is full of loneliness and fear. On the other hand, “Hang Gong-Ju” imparts criticism on society and requires a self-reflection out of audiences by focusing on the unfair dealing of society with a victim of sexual violence.

김수장의 김천택 시조 수용에 대하여

김선기(Kim, Sun-kee) 한국언어문학회 2012 한국언어문학 Vol.83 No.-

Cheontaek Kim and Sujang Kim were in a senior-junior relationship, walking the same path during a similar period in the Korean sijo (three-verse Korean poem) literature history. Cheontaek Kim published ‘Cheong-Gu-Young-Ean’by compiling his sijos and passed-down sijos in 1728. From his own works, he carefully selected and included 30 sijos that intensively show his life. Sujang Kim carefully selected already existing sijos and his own sijos, and published a collection of sijos called ‘Hae-Dong-Ga-Yo’ over two times. In ‘Hae-Bak’ in 1755, he assigned a certain number of works of each artist to be included, however, in 1767 in ‘Hae-Ju’, he did not put limits on the number of works to include. Sujang Kim exhibited his desire to exceed the achievements of Cheontaek Kim by publishing ‘Hae-Ju’. As a result of deleting unnecessary partsfrom Cheontaek Kim’s works in ‘Cheong-Gu-Young-Ean’ and publishing such works in ‘Hae-Ju’, 16 sijos were exchanged to new sijos, and Sujang Kim did not hesitate on criticizing Cheontaek Kim’s sijos. In addition, Sujang Kim showed confidence by including 117 of his own sijosin ‘Hae-Ju’, which is a significantly higher number than the 57 sijos of Cheontaek Kim. In addition, by drastically revising Cheontaek Kim’s sijos when accepting the works, he expected to lower Cheontaek Kim’s status while enhancing hi sown. Sujang Kim’s insight in selecting sijos shown when selecting Choentaek Kim’s sijos receive a positive response from compilers, as shown by the frequency of citation in future poet compilations. However, including a significantly higher number of one’s own works in a book published by oneself while arbitrarily fixing another’s works fitting to one’s own taste will not be able to evade the criticism that such act was an excessive overstep of one’s authority.

회암정혜의 『법집별행록절요병입사기』에 대한 관점

이병욱(Byung Wook Lee) 보조사상연구원 2022 보조사상 Vol.64 No.-

이 글에서는 회암정혜의 『법집별행록절요사기해』를 살펴보고자 한다. 회암정혜는 교학의 방면에서 18세기 부휴계를 대표하는 인물이다. 회암정혜의 『법집별행록절요병입사기』에 관한 관점은 3가지로 나누어서 접근할 수 있다. 첫째, 『법집별행록절요병입사기』를 ‘체중현’과 ‘구중현’으로 접근한다. ‘체중현’과 ‘구중현’은 원래 ‘삼현’에 속하는 것인데, 그는 ‘체중현’과 ‘구중현’이 ‘삼현’에서 핵심적 내용이라고 본다. 그리고 그는 ‘무심합도문’에 독특한 지위를 부여한다. 그것은 ‘체중현’의 극치로서 ‘구중현’에 나아가는 길이라는 것이다. 그런데 보조지눌의 두 저서, 곧 『법집별행록절요병입사기』와 『간화결의론』을 살펴보면, ‘무심합도문’에 대한 평가가 다르다. 회암정혜는 이런 점에 고심하면서 ‘무심합도문’에 독특한 위치를 부여한 것으로 보이고, 이는 그의 독자적 관점으로 해석된다. 둘째, 회암정혜는 『법집별행록절요사기해』에서 ‘구중현’을 강조하는데, 이 ‘구중현’을 설명하기 위해서 『간화결의론』의 설명에 의존하고 있다. 이는 『법집별행록절요병입사기』의 미진한 대목을 『간화결의론』의 내용에 의지해서 보완하고자 한 것으로 보인다. 셋째, 회암정혜는 ‘체중현’과 ‘구중현’의 관점으로 조선후기 선사상에서 쟁점이 되었던 사항에 대해 자신의 관점을 제시한다. 그는 조선후기의 통설을 수용하면서 그것을 ‘체중현’과 ‘구중현’으로 다시 설명하고 있다. 이는 회암정혜의 독자적 관점으로 판단된다. 끝으로 회암정혜의 이러한 관점은 『법집별행록절요병입사기』가 간화선을 강조하기 위한 저술임을 보여준다. In this article, I would like to examine Beobjib byeolhaeng nog jeolyo sagi hae(法集別行錄節要私記解) by Hoeam jeonghye(晦庵定慧). Hoeam jeonghye is a representative figure of Buhyu line in the 18th century in the field of gyohag. Hoeam jeonghye's perspective on Beobjib byeolhaeng nog jeolyo byeongib sagi(法集別行錄節要並入私記) can be divided into three parts. First, he approaches Beobjib byeolhaeng nog jeolyo byeongib sagi(法集別行錄節要並入私記) with ‘ti zhong xuan(體中玄)’ and ‘ju zhong xuan(句中玄)’. 'Ti zhong xuan(體中玄)' and 'ju zhong xuan(句中玄)' originally belong to 'san xuan(三玄)', and he sees 'ti zhong xuan' and 'ju zhong xuan' as the core contents of 'san xuan'. And he bestows a unique status on the 'wu xin he dao men(無心合道門)'. It is the culmination of 'ti zhong xuan' and it is the way to go 'ju zhong xuan'. However, if we look at Bojo jinul(普照知訥)'s two books, that is Beobjib byeolhaeng nog jeolyo byeongib sagi(法集別行錄節要並入私記) and Ganhwa gyeolui lon(看話決疑論), the evaluation of 'wu xin he dao men(無心合道門)' is different. It seems that Hoeam jeonghye has given a unique position to 'wu xin he dao men(無心合道門)' while contemplating this, and this is interpreted to be his own point of view. Second, Hoeam jeonghye emphasizes 'ju zhong xuan' in Beobjib byeolhaeng nog jeolyo sagi hae(法集別行錄節要私記解), and to explain this ‘ju zhong xuan’, he relies on the explanation of Ganhwa gyeolui lon(話決疑論). This is the attempt to supplement the incomplete contents of Beobjib byeolhaeng nog jeolyo byeongib sagi(法集別行錄節要並入私記) by relying on the contents of Ganhwa gyeolui lon(看話決疑論). Third, Hoeam jeonghye presents his point of view on issues that have been controversial in the late Joseon dynasty from the perspective of ‘ti zhong xuan’ and ‘ju zhong xuan’. While accepting the prevailing opinion of the late Joseon dynasty, he reexplained it as ‘ti zhong xuan(體中玄)’ and ‘ju zhong xuan(句中玄)’. This is judged to be Hoeam jeonghye's own point of view. Finally, this view of Hoeam jeonghye shows that Beobjib byeolhaeng nog jeolyo byeongib sagi(法集別行錄節要並入私記) is written to emphasize the ganhwa seon(phrase-observing meditation).

19世紀末 在朝鮮 未開口岸의 淸商 密貿易 관련 領事裁判案件 硏究

이은자(Lee Eun-ja) 동양사학회 2010 東洋史學硏究 Vol.111 No.-

This study examined the realities of Korean?Chinese bargaining by analyzing the procedure of settling three cases of consular jurisdiction through non?open port that took place during the period of Yuan Shi?kai as the General Commissioner of Negotiation and Trade with Chosun (1885?1894) before the Sino?Japanese War. For this study, we analyzed Cheongan (Asia Research Center of Korea University), documents of Chinese diplomatic offices in Korea during the late Qing Dynasty (Modern History Research Institute Archives of Taiwan’s Academia Sinica), and governmental documents in Hwanghae?do (Gyujanggak of Seoul National University). In the first case of ‘smuggling by Qing merchant Woo Ahn?dang,’ Qing merchant Woo Ahn?dang was arrested and his cargoes were confiscated for smuggling at Taetan Port in Jangyeong, Hwanghaedo in September, 1889. In the second case of ‘smuggling by Qing merchants Hae Chung?hyeon and Ju Dong hae,’ Qing merchants Hae Chung?hyeon and Ju Dong?hae were arrested and their cargoes were confiscated for smuggling at Bi?yeon Port in Jangyeong, Hwanghae?do in October, 1890. In the third case of ‘smuggling by Qing merchants Jang Eui?seong and Seo Geuk?geun,’ Qing merchants Jang Eui?seong and Seo Geuk?geun were arrested and their cargoes were confiscated for smuggling at Sukdo Ferry in Hwanghae?do in December, 1890. In the three cases of consular jurisdiction above, Korean?Chinese bargaining was initiated as the Chosun government detected Qing merchants’ illegal acts of smuggling and requested Yuan Shi?kai to punish them and to confiscate their cargoes, but the procedure went in an unexpected direction. For the first case, Yuan Shi?kai ruled Qing merchant Woo Ahn?dang to be a smuggler but he regarded the other crew members as fishermen and, rather, rebuked the Chosun government for seizing their boat. For the second and third cases, he called to account Chosun officers’ illegal taxation (on the Qing merchants’ smuggling) rather than the smuggling acts, and demanded to punish the officers and to compensate for the confiscated cargoes. In the process that Korea and China dealt with the cases of smuggling by Qing merchants through non?open ports, there are two noteworthy points. One is that these cases show well how Korea and China invoked the Regulations for Maritime and Overland Trade between Chinese and Korean Subjects. The other is that these cases suggest what networks smuggling by Qing merchants through non?open ports. The reason that Yuan Shi?kai’s claim was accepted by Chosun government in the process of bargaining is not irrelevant to Chosun officers’ unchecked illegal taxation in coastal cities of Hwanghae?do such as Jangyeon, Haeju and Hwangju, which were non?open ports but visited frequently by Chinese fishing boats. Of course, it is needless to say that Yuan Shi?kai utilized the provisions of consular jurisdiction over Qing merchants in Korea.