艮齋 田愚의 臼山先生風雅의 체재와 구성

김보성 동방한문학회 2022 東方漢文學 Vol.- No.91

Gan-Jae Jeon-u (1841-1922) was a representative scholar of the late Joseon Dynasty. In the meantime, many academic papers have been published on Gan-Jae's Confucianism and Philosophical Thoughts. And a few papers on Gan-Jae's collection of literary works and literature were published. Gan-Jae is a representative Confucian scholar who believed that the crisis of the country could be overcome through Neo-Confucianism. Therefore, it is only natural that there are relatively many studies on his Confucianism and philosophy. However, in order to fully understand the scholar Gan-Jae, it is necessary to study the literary works that contain his thoughts. This paper focuses on the poetry of Gan-Jae, which is particularly lacking in research. Gan-Jae's collection of literary works is divided into three types. One is the Yongdong version published in Yongdong (Nonsan) by Lee In-gu, and the other is the Jinju version published in Jinju by Oh Jin-young. And there is Hwa-Do Su-Jeong version, which was completed by copying the texts compiled in 1922 by Choi Byeong-shim and Kim Taek-sul. The poetry of Gan-Jae, published in three different books, differs in the order in which the poems are arranged, the titles of the poems, and the words of the poems. The poetry of Gan-Jae is not only divided into several books, but also exists as a separate book. That's GuSan-SeonSaeng-PungaA (two volumes, one book). GuSan-SeonSaeng-PungaA is the only collection of poems by Gan-Jae that exists separately, and contains various poems. In GuSan-SeonSaeng-PungaA, there are four types of unpublished trials. In general, these poems are poems given to unspecified number of disciples, poems in response to poems by writers with both moral and literary aptitude, poems about really personal things, or poems of a turbulent individual in a transitional period of civilization. As it were, GuSan-SeonSaeng-PungaA contains all of the poems that show the aspects of famous Confucian scholar, good writer, great teacher, caring father and emotionally rich individual. Therefore, GuSan-SeonSaeng-PungaA can be said to be a reference showing various aspects of Gan-Jae rather than the three types of books. 艮齋 田愚(1841~1922)는 조선 말기 대표적인 학자이다. 그동안 간재의 경학․철학 사상을 연구한 논문이 다수 배출되었고, 간재 문집이나 문학을 주목한 논문도 간간이 이어졌다. 간재는 전통적 성리학을 통해 나라의 위기도 극복할 수 있다고 믿은 대표적인 유학자이므로 그의 경학․철학관을 탐구한 연구성과가 비교적 많이 축적된 것은 당연한 일이다. 그러나 간재를 온전히 파악하기 위해서는 그의 사상을 문학적으로 담아낸 작품들도 검토할 필요가 있다. 이 글은 연구가 특히 미흡한 간재의 한시 분야를 중점적으로 다루었다. 간재의 문집은 크게 세 판본으로 나뉜다. 이인구가 논산 ‘용동’에서 간행한 용동본, 오진영이 ‘진주’에서 간행한 진주본, 그리고 최병심․김택술이 1922년 정리된 원고를 필사하여 완성한 화도수정본이다. 세 판본에 실린 간재의 한시는 편차, 시 제목, 시어 등에서 크고 작은 차이를 보인다. 간재의 한시는 여러 판본에 산재하는 형태로 존재할 뿐 아니라, 별도로 묶인 형태로도 존재한다. 바로 臼山先生風雅 (2권 1책)이다. 구산선생풍아 는 유일하게 별본으로 존재하는 간재의 한시집으로서 다양한 작품을 수록하고 있다. 특히, 구산선생풍아 에는 세 판본에 실리지 않은 한시가 적지 않은데, 대체로 불특정 다수의 제자에게 남긴 시, 도학적 자질과 문학적 소양을 모두 발휘한 문인의 작품에 차운한 시, 지극히 개인적인 일을 읊은 시, 외세의 영향에 격렬한 감정을 담은 시라는 특징을 보인다. 즉, 구산선생풍아 는 간재의 유학자와 문장가, 스승과 가장, 문명의 전환기에 격동하는 개인의 면모를 보여주는 한시 작품을 두루 수록하고 있어, 주요 세 판본보다 간재의 다양한 이면을 망라한 자료집이라 할 수 있다.

불교철학적인 물음에 비추어 본 이청준 소설

한순미(Han Soon-Mi) 국어국문학회 2008 국어국문학 Vol.- No.149

The aim of this study is to examine the latter works of Lee Chung-jun with questions derived from Buddhist Philosophy. As it scrutinized, Lee has dedicated himself to widening critical mind and search for the answer by Buddhist ontology, good-evil theory and viewpoint of language and world. In 〈Rebirthing Words〉, by the Tea Ceremonies of Buddhist figure Cho-Eui, Lee seeks for the clue of true words beyond fake words. In 〈Bi Hwa Mil Gyo〉, Lee's quest for answer broadens the suffering of writer -what and how to write- into reflection on representationalism. In 〈In Gan In〉, based on Buddhist ontology and evil-good theory, ontological search of the way from awakening of Theravada Buddhism to practice of Mahayana Buddhism is located. In kunstlerromans such as 〈House of Wings〉 and 〈Mu So Zak〉, matters of dualistic conflict such as subject-object and life-death are delineated by liberal artists who accomplished non-dualistic and Infusionalistic state. As it mentioned above, Buddhist philosophical questions are placed in the depth and tugs Lee's writing. Therefore, Lee's novel may well be comparable with the process Buddhist topics get unraveling. Throughout the way Lee seeks answers on these questions, his novels spontaneously make close look on the contact point of Buddhist philosophy and post- modern thought.

연구논문 : 외암(巍巖) 이간(李柬) 문학(文學)의 실체(實體)와 영향원(影響原)

정경훈 ( Kyoung Hun Jung ) 충남대학교 유학연구소 2015 儒學硏究 Vol.32 No.-

본고는 巍巖 李柬(1677~1727)의 문학관과 문학의 실체, 문학의 영향원에 대한 연구이다. 이간에게 성리학은 그의 본질이며 정체성이었다. 본고는 기존의 연구의 범위를 ``문학``까지 확대하여 이간의 정체성을 찾아보고자 하였다. 이간은 문학과 도학의 심도 있는 고민은 하지 않았지만 이전 도학자들의 重道輕文의 문학관인 文以載道을 계승하여 文章小藝觀을 주장하였다. 空言만 늘어놓은 문학은 작은 재주에 불과할 뿐임을 강조하였고 性情과 仁義의 實地와 眞豪가 함축된 문학을 추구하고자 하였는데, 性情과 實地는 성리학적 사상임을 강조하였다. 그러므로 이간의 文章小藝觀은 문예적 아름다움과 수식만 일삼는 문학을 지양하고 성리학을 표현하는 문학을 지향하고 있다고 볼 수 있다. 이간은 문학적 이론과 실체를 모두 성리학에 두고 있었다. 곧, 작품 속에서 고찰할 수 있었던 그의 문학 실체는, ``實``의 강조였다. 實은 곧 자신이 평생 수양하고 함양 시킨 모든 원리이며 성리학의 기본 원리였다. 그는 작품에서 實의 추구를 위해 孔子와 朱子의 故事를 전범으로 사용하며 자신의 주장에 권위와 설득력을 부여하고 있다. 이와 같이 이간은 문학을 통해 성리학적 사상의 기저인 實의 구체적 모습을 탐구하였고 그 영향원으로 孔子, 會子, 朱子 등 儒家, 性理學의 고사와 전범을 인용하여 道學을 표현한 문학을 추구하고 있음을 알 수 있다. This paper Lee Gan of a view of literature and of research of the substance. He used an ethicist of inherited from the literature theory. And he thought by separating moral philosophy and literature. He was a means and urging the ethics than literature. So he contends ``Literature is only a small feat(文章小藝)`` me that it was. He has a high value, but moral philosophy, literature is a virtuous than value is considered of low. His argument is like this unique literary theory is not. Who inherited his literary theory literature is the past. But he is a literature across the board did not deny it. Including moral philosophy he just be correct was regarded as literature. His literary theory and the literature both in Neo-Confucianism(性理學) and. Lee Gan stressed in literature all the time a truth(實). Truth(實) itself is all principles and basic principles of Neo-Confucianism disciplining her whole life. He works in Confucius(孔子) and ZhuXi(朱子) of story from the old days of work and Confucian scriptures. And operation limiting condition is to give the authority of the claim and convincing. Confucianism is his literature of taking on the basis of ideology. Neo-Confucianism is his history of literature and therefore did many references.

조선후기 인물성론의 인간학적 가치 -한원진과 이간을 중심으로-

김문준 ( Kim Moon-joon ) 한국동서철학회 2017 동서철학연구 Vol.0 No.85

첫째, 인물성동이론이라는 표현은 사용하지 말아야 한다. 성리학자는 모두 인물성 이론자들이다. 인물성 논의에 참여한 학자들은 모두 성리학자들이며, 이들은 모두 근본적으로 인성(사람의 본성)과 물성(사물의 본성)은 다르다는 전제에서 논의했다. 인간은 이 세상에서 가장 완전하고 우수한 존재이며 동물은 불완전하고 열등한 존재라고 보고, 인간성이 동물성으로 전락하는 것을 우려하며 인간성 실현을 학문과 정치의 최종 목적으로 여겼다. 둘째, 인물성론의 양측 모두 학문 근거가 동일하다. 양측 모두이이의 `기발일도`(氣發一途) `이통기국`(理通氣局) 설을 계승했으며, 송시열의 `존중화양이적`(尊中華 攘夷賊)의 가치관과 `존주자 벽이단`(尊朱子 闢異端)의 학문관과 춘추정신을 계승했다. 인물의 본연지성은 동일하나 기질지성이 다르다고 한 이간이나, 기에 내재한 이상 본연지성부터 다르다고 한 한원진 역시 인간의 본성과 도리를 밝히고 도덕가치를 지향하려는 논의를 전개했다. 셋째, 조선 후기 인물성론의 가치는 인성과 물성에 자체에 관한 논의가 아니다. 그 가치는 인간성 내면 탐구의 극치를 보여주었다는 점이다. 인물성 동론이라고 칭해지는 학자도 동물성을 긍정하는 것이 아니라 `존인천물`(尊人賤物)의 가치관을 벗어난 것이 아니다. 넷째, 18세기 인물성론의 주요 내용은 인간 마음의 미발심체, 허령지각, 이발중절 등을 논의하면서 성정을 통괄하는 마음의 주재성을 확립하는 논의로 전개되었으므로 인물성동이론이라고 칭하기 보다는 인물성론, 또는 미발심체론(未發心體論)이나 중화심론(中和心論)이라고 지칭하는 것이 적절하다고 생각된다. Firstly, the term `Disputation about the Difference Between Human Nature and Animal Nature` should not be used. All the scholars who participated in the `Disputation about the Difference Between Human Nature and Animal Nature` were neo-Confucians, and they dealt with this topic based on the premise that the nature of man and the nature of things are fundamentally different. They viewed man as the most perfect and superior being in the world, and animals as imperfect and inferior beings, and worried about the degradation of human nature into animal nature. For this very reason, their ultimate goal was the realization of human nature in the realms of both academia and politics. Secondly, both sides of the dispute shared the same studies. They have all studied Yi I`s theory that `one way that ki is generating and then li is on it` and the theory that `principle is penetrating and material force is limited`. They all also shared Song Si-yeol`s values such as `Protecting the Civilization & Rejecting the Barbarianism`, and studied his views on `Respecting for Chu Tzu & rejecting the Heterodoxy` as well as his `Thought of Chuchu`. Both Lee Gan (李柬; 1677~1727), who stated that all men have the same inner nature but different emotional nature, and Han Wonjin (韓元震; 1682~1751), who argued that even the inner nature can vary by person because of the workings of ki, agreed on the importance of revealing the human nature and duty, what is right, and achieving moral values as they carried on the dispute. Thirdly, the value of the `Theory of the Sameness and Difference about the Nature of Man and Things` is not involved in the discussion about the nature of man and animals. Its value actually lies in that it showed the acme of research into the inner nature of man. Even the scholars who believed in the `Theory of the Sameness and Difference about the Nature of Man and Things` did not approve of animal nature nor did they shed their belief that `men are noble and animals are lowly`. Fourthly, the main discussions on the `Theory of the Sameness and Difference about the Nature of Man and Things` in the 18th Century Joseon Dynasty were: the unaroused mind itself (Substance of Heart-Mind), perception of emptiness (empty spiritualty and apprehensiveness), and the aim to substantiate the heart which can generalize the nature of man. For this reason, it is in my opinion that `Theory of the Sameness and Difference about the Nature of Man and Things`, `Theory of the Unaroused Mind Itself (Substance of Heart-Mind) or `Theory of Mind of Mean and Harmony` are more appropriate terms than `Disputation about the Difference between Human Nature and Animal Nature`.

호락논변-그 개념놀이와 이념지향

곽신환 ( Shin Hwan Kwak ) (사)율곡연구원(구 사단법인 율곡학회) 2013 율곡학연구 Vol.26 No.-

``호락논변``은 주자학의 테두리 안에서 개념의 정합성 추구와 미진한 현안에 대한 조선유학계의 진전된 논의이다. 유학사에서 등장하는 대부분의 논변은 정통·이단 의식으로부터 자유롭지 못했다. 호락논변에도 학맥과 정과의 연결고리가 상존한다. 이간과 한원진 사이의 논변은 조선 후기에 있어서 학술논변다운 논변이요, 성리학자 집단의 지적 향연(饗宴)에 속한다. 적어도 한산사 논변까지는 그러했다. 두 사람이 다툰 것은 주자학적 논의의 틀 안에서의 개념적 정합성, 체계성이다. 이는 선현들의 주장에 대한 해석학적 접근의 우월성 다툼의 성격을 갖는다. 이는 이 논변의 철학개념 놀이적 성격을 말한다. 나중 이들의 논변에 대한 지지자가 충청권과 서울권으로 나뉘었다. 이것은 권상하와 김창협의 사이의 갈등과 노선 차이에 원인이 있다. 두 사람은 송시열의 적전을 둘러싸고 경쟁적 관계였다. 권상하의 지지를 받는 한원진의 주장에는 분별의 지향이 있다. 사람과 금수. 중화와 이적, 유학과 불교, 군자와 소인의 변별 등과 같은 사회적 현실문제로 연결되어 나타났다. 이간의 주장에 동조한 김창협 후학들은 통합적 탕평의 포용론과 북학(北學)의 공리주의적 태도와 문호 개방론 등을 적극적으로 펼쳐나갔다. 많은 철학적 논변들이 대부분 미결로 남는다. 철학적 입장이 대체로 독단적 출발점을 갖고 있고 또한 지향하는 목표가 다르면 구성의 논리는 일종의 도구가 되기에, 논변의 결과는 ``바보들의 화랑에 걸려있는 그림들``과 다를 바 없다. 호락논변도 그러하다. Yu The debate between yi-gan and Han Won Jin Which also called HoRak-debate was the advancing discourse of seeking the consistence and discourse of remained problems in the Chosun dynasty`s Neo-confucianism. Most of debates in the history of Confucianism was not free from the consciousness of orthodoxy. There was still the trace of the lineage of School and political interests in the Ho-Rak debates. The debates had the characteristic of the philosophical argument and was the Neo-Confucian symposium in the period of later Chosun dynasty. Addition to this, they studied hard to gain the superiority in the hermeneutical approaching the interpretations of the Classics over the rival`s. They walked from the adoption to the stage of the critical reflection of Chushiism. Lt means that played the game of philosophical concept. After the meeting of Hansansa temple, the supporters devided two groups, one located in Hoseo province and the other in Seoul. Scholars in Hoseo gave respect to Kon-Sangha, and scholars in Seoul to Kim-Changhyup. There had been some differences and struggles between Kon and Kim. Two were in the relation of the competition for the successor of Song Siyeol. The affirmations in the Han supported by the Kon-Sangha had the orientation for the discrimination of human and animals, culture and barbarism, Buddhism and Confucianism, moral superman and ordinary man. The group who supported Lee-Gan had the attitude of integral tolerance of the cultural differences and adopted the utilitarianism of Bukhak and open society. Almost philosophical debates remained unsolved. Because there was the dogmatic starting point in the arguments, and if the philosophical goal is different, the logic which support that arguments came to be the instrument, and the result of severe debates in the end, were the pictures like in the gallery of the fools. The debates of Ho-Rak had also such character.

권상하의 인물성동이론 해석 고찰 ― 이간에 대한 비판을 중심으로 ―

안유경 (재) 우계문화재단 2023 牛溪學報 Vol.44 No.-

This paper examines Suam(Kwon Sang-ha, 1641-1721)'s inmulsungdongi theory. In the inmulsungdongi theory, the branching point that divides into same theory and different theory is generally summarized into two. One is the question of "whether things have osang like humans," and the other is the question of "whether there is kijiljisung even in times of mibal or whether there is good or evil even in times of mibal." Suam develops the inmulsungi theory of "there is no osang in things, and there is kijiljisung in times of mibal, but there is no evil because the ki does not work." This argument is clearly distinguished from Oeam that "things also have osang" or that "pure and no evil in times of mibal because it is only bonyeonjisung." In the end, Suam takes Namdang's hand by making the argument that "there are no osang in things" or that "there is kijiljisung even in times of mibal." From this point of view, it can be reaffirmed that Suam not only provided the beginning of the inmulsungdongi theory but also played a decisive role in the formation of Hohak through criticism of Oeam.

이이(李珥)의 리통기국론(理通氣局論)에 대한 후학의 학문적계승과 변화 양상 탐구

이형성 ( Lee Hyungsung ) 충남대학교 유학연구소 2016 儒學硏究 Vol.36 No.-

본 연구는 이이(李珥)의 ``리통기국론(理通氣局論)``에 대한 후학들의 계승과 변화 양상을 탐구한 것이다. 이 독특한 ``리통기국론``은 기호학파 내의 계승성 또는 분파 양상을 보이기도 하였고, 타학파에게도 영향을 주어 철학적 변화 양상을 보여주었기에 연구의 대상이 되었다. 리통기국론을 사상적으로 언급한 학자는 58명에 이른다. 자료조사에 따른 철학적 변화 양상은 다섯 가지이다. 첫째 송시열(宋時烈) 일파의 불상리적(不相離的) 측면에서 리통기국론 계승, 둘째는 권상하(權尙夏) 문인의 리통기국에 대한 분파적 양상, 셋째 낙론 계열의 리통기국 양상, 넷째 근대 기호학파의 리중시적 계열의 리통기국 양상, 다섯째 영남학파와 이진상의 리통기국론 양상 등이다. 특히 기호학파의 이간(李柬)은 「리통기국변(理通氣局辨)」, 심조(沈潮)는 「리통기국변(理通氣局卞)」, 영남의 이진상(李震相)은 「서이외암리통기국변후(書李巍庵理通氣局辨後)」를 지었는데 이러한 자료는 이이의 ``리통기국``에 대한 이해의 폭을 넓혀 철학적으로 시사하는 바가 크다. 특히 이진상은 기호학파의 ``리기불상리(理氣不相離)``라는 관점을 적극 수용하여 리통기국론을 분석하고 나아가 ``통(通)``과 ``국(局)``으로 리와 기의 관계를 유기적으로 설명할 뿐만 아니라 자신의 리 중시적 성리사상을 밝혔다. 결론적으로, 이이의 리통기국론은 후학들이 수용하여 자신들의 ``태극음양론``, ``리기론``, ``심성론``, ``수양론`` 구축에 원용하기도 하고 리통기국론을 보완하고 더 체계화시켜 한국 성리학을 심화 발전시켰다. 이를 철학적으로 더 분석하면서 치밀하게 연구하면 각 학파들의 성리학에 대한 질적 발전을 살펴보는 계기를 줄 것이다. The fundamental thought of Chosun Period can be said to be Neo-Confucianism. Many Confucianism in the Chosun Period made research into Neo-Confucianism and formulated their own philosophical theories. Lee Hwang(李滉) and Lee Yi(李珥l) developed generration-stucture of universe, mind-stucture of human, and attitude of human with Li(理) and Gi(氣) called a category of Neo-Confucianism. By the way, their organization of learning exposed different aspects with each other. however it was identical that they will ultimately fulfilled the truth of Confucianism. The school of Giho(畿湖學派) foundating the learning of Lee Yi showed the succession by holding his theory, but they, as faction, unfolded different aspects of learning with each other. Their theory had a position in Li-tong-ki-kook(理通氣局論). This philosophy-word of distinctness exerted a great influence on another school besides the school of Giho. The school unfolded different aspects changed in their learning. This thesis is researching philosophical different aspects on Li-Tong-Ki-Kook that scholar of Chosun being eight more than fifty mentioned. Their different aspects is five. The first is succession of Li-Tong-Ki-Kook of school of Song Si-Ye(宋時烈). The second is faction-aspect of Li-Tong-Ki-Kook of school of Gwan Sang-Ha(權尙夏). The third is aspect of Li-Tong-Ki-Kook of Laklon(洛論). The fourth is aspect of Li-Tong-Ki-Kook focusing of Li of the school of Giho in the modern times. The other is aspect of Li-Tong-Ki-Kook of school of Youngnam(嶺南) and Lee Jin-Sang(李震相). We can surely say that Lee Yi`s Li-Tong-Ki-Kook of Sim in Neo-Confucianism is evaluated high in the history of Korean philosophy.

선조조 공신 海槎 李侃의 抗賊 활동

유영옥 부산경남사학회 2019 역사와 경계 Vol.110 No.-

Haesa Lee Gan, of the Seongsan Gwangpyeong Lee family clan, was a military official who was credited for resistance activities against invaders or rebels during the reign of King Seonjo. Best representing those activities are fighting as a patriotic militant during the Imjinwaeran War, participation in cracking down on Lee Mong-hak’s rebellion in 1596 and winning battles against northern barbarians in 1600. Of these activities, seemingly, the most loyal and brave was his winning a fight against northern barbarians or jeokho that invaded the jurisdiction that he was taking control of as the chief of Buryeong, Hamgyeong province in 1600. At the time, he was wounded a lot and lost many of his subordinates, but fought hard and eventually expelled the invaders. No certain records have been found about how Haesa fought as a patriotic militant during the Imjinwaeran War. He participated in cracking down on Lee Mong-hak’s uprising, but didn’t make direct engagements with the rebels. But there are certainly historic records evidencing the fact that he defeated barbarians that intruded through the northern borders of this country, which was considered so dramatic and became a legend that handed down in the region of Buyreong from generation to generation. Thus, Haesa’s triumph against the northern barbarians was an accomplishment where he shined his brightest among the resistance activities. 星山廣平李氏 海槎 李侃(1535~1612)은 임란 초기부터 倡義하여 宣武원종공신 1등에 녹훈되었고, 또 1596년 충청도에서 발발한 李夢鶴의 난을 진압하는 데도 참여하여 淸難원종공신 1등에 책봉되었다. 해사의 官歷은 임란 도중 충청어사의 中軍이 되면서부터 시작되어, 1612년 경상좌병사에 올라 그해 병영에서 卒할 때까지 계속되는데, 약 20년의 관직생활 동안 탄핵받고 파직되는 굴곡도 겪었지만, 외적을 방어하는 능력만큼은 높이 평가되었다고 할 수 있다. 해사의 抗賊 활동은 크게 임란 발발 이후의 抗倭활동, 이몽학의 난을 진압한 討賊활동, 북방의 賊胡를 격퇴한 退賊활동으로 구분되는데, 그 중 해사의 忠義와 武勇이 가장 잘 드러난 순간은 1600년 함경도 부령부사로서 관할 구역을 침략한 賊胡를 격퇴한 전투였다. 이 싸움에서 해사는 10여 군데 상처를 입고 휘하 장수들도 다수 전사했지만, 물러서지 않고 힘껏 싸워 결국 적호를 패주시켰다. 해사의 임란 의병활동은 그 구체적 활약상을 알기 어렵고, 이몽학의 난을 토벌할 때는 반란군과 직접 교전하지 못했다. 하지만 북쪽 변경을 쳐들어온 적호를 퇴치한 사실은 史冊에 엄연할 뿐 아니라 매우 극적이어서, 최소한 부령 지역에서는 전설이 되어 오래도록 전승되었다. 따라서 특히 북방 오랑캐를 물리친 일은 해사의 抗賊 활동 중 가장 현저한 업적이라고 할 만하다.

조선시대 아산 지역 서원의 배향 인물

김기승 순천향대학교 인문과학연구소 2007 순천향 인문과학논총 Vol.19 No.-

This study deals with the nineteen Confucian scholars shrined in the private confucian schools, In Chosun dynasty, there were six Seowons in Onyang, Asan and Shinchang district in Asan Area. Sixteen confucian scholars were shrined in Insan-Seo won(founded in 1610), Chungtoe-Seowon(1634), Dosan-Seowon(1670) and Gumgok-Seowon(1837). These were large and regular seowons, being founded by leading yangban groups in Asan area. Three confucian scholars were shrined in small Oeam-Seosa(1802?) and Doksung-Seosa(1858) which were founded by their descendents. In the study, nineteen confucian scholars were classified by five groups. First, Maeng Hee Do(1337-?) was one of the "chuleipa" who were loyal to Koryu dynasty against Yi Sung Gye'revolution. And he was the first confucian scholar who taught and practiced confucian values in Asan area. Second group were the scholars of "sarimpa" such as Kim Goeng Pil(1454-1504), Chung Yeo Chang(1450-1504), Cho Gwang Jo(1482-1519), Lee Un Jeok(1491-1553) and Lee Hwang(1501-1570). Although they were not from Asan area, they were shrined in Seowon, having influence in the development of confucianism in Asan area. Third group were the confucian scholars from Asan area. They were Hong Ga Sin(1541-1615), Lee Duk Min(543-1681), Park Ji Gye(1573-1635), Cho Sang Woo(1582-1657), Kang Baek Nyeon(1603-1681) and Cho Yi Hoo(1610-1702). These six scholars were all from Asan area and established the foundation of confucianism in Asan area. Fourth group were Cho Ik(1579-1655) and Cho Geuk Sun(1595-1658) who were not born in Asan but taught and learned confucian values in Asan. By them, the confucianism of Asan was developed. Fifth group were Im Chang(1652-1723), Im Jing Ha(1687-1730) and Lee Gan(1677-1727) who were shrined in small Seowon, that is called "Seosa". Im Chang and Im Jing Ha were shrined by their descendent Im Hun Hoe(1811-1876) who was one of the most representive scholars in nineteenth century. Lee Gan was the famous scholar in eighteenth century. He led the discourse about the nature of man and thing which was continued over two hudred years between confucian scholars in Seoul area and in Chooungchung area. Kim Gu(1381-1462) and Ryu Gwan(1484-1545) were great confucian scholars who were born in Asan area. They contributed to establish and develop the confucianism of Asan area. So their descendents and pupils tried to shrine them in Seowon but failed.

조선초기 태조진전의 건립과 경기전

김철배 전북사학회 2009 전북사학 Vol.0 No.34

This thesis is intended to examine the background of Gyeonggijeon's establishment and the process that the Chosun Dynasty's ritual protocols was consolidated while discussing the abolition of Gyeonggijeon. Taejojinjeon is the place for the portrait of King Taejo Lee Sung-Gye, Chosun's founder. During the first period of Chosun' foundation, it was built on the five places in Youngheong, Kyungju, Pyeongyang, Jeonju, Gaesung. Especially, Taejojinjeon in Jeonju was called Gyeonggijeon. Gyeonggijeon in Jeonju was built by the request of local residents in Jeongju. Because of the Lee Bang-Gan's (Taejong's elder brother) exile in Jeonju by the suspicion related to treason at that time, Taejong was very concerned about the possibility that Lee Bang-Gan and local residents in Jeonju who have antigovernment's temper will conspire against him. On the other hand, the elders in Jeonju were burdened with the political suspicion by king and government. As a result of that, old and rich people in Jeonju asked for constructing Taejojinjeon to show their loyalty to Taejo Lee Sung-Gye and the Choseon Dynasty. That is to say, Taejojinjeon was built as a symbol to political compromise between the government and the local residents in Jeonju. After buliding Gyeonggijeon, the management of Taejojinjeon was discussed three times. This discussion is whether local's taking charge of performing ancestral rites to the founder of the Chosun Dynasty is right or wrong in considering the nation's ritual protocols. Owing to Gyeonggijeon‘s quility related to performing ancestral rites to the founder of the Chosun Dynasty, this discussion was deeply connected with maintaining the nation's ritual protocols symbolizing the authority of a royal family. In this process, Taejojinjeon in Jeonju obtained the name of "Gyeonggijeon". And it was managed actively. The government supervised to perform ancestral rites to the founder. For this, Jeonjig(殿直) was established. After that, Taejojinjeon in other places were abolished on account of the various reasons. Thanks to the direct relationship with a royal family in Chosun Dynasty, however, only Taejojinjeon in Jeonju (The hometown of Lee Sung-Gye's family) and Youngheong (Lee Sung-Gye’ hometown) were remained.