鄭玄 禮學의 이론 구성적 성격 -정현 三禮學과 古禮의 재구성-

박례경 한림대학교 태동고전연구소 2016 泰東古典硏究 Vol.36 No.-

한대 조정과 예학계는 다양한 ‘고례’의 자료들을 통해서 주례의 실체를 인식해갔을 뿐만 아니라, 고례를 공자와 주공의 윤리적 가치와 정치적 이상을 담은 ‘예경’으로 정위하였다. 이것은 예제의 이념적 정당성을 확보하는 것임과 동시에, 신례의 제정에 있어 최초로 ‘고례’의 현실적 효용 가치를 국가적으로 검증하고 실험한 것이다. 금문 예학계는 ‘사례’ 중심의 『의례』를 미루어 ‘왕조례’를 추정하는 방식으로 이에 대응했으나, 고문 예학계는 왕조례와 방국례가 풍부한 고문 자료와 『주례』를 앞세워 금문 『예경』의 권위에 도전하였다. 정현은 고례 자료들을 전면적으로 재검토하고 체계적으로 선별하는 교감 작업을 통해 『주례』, 『예기』, 『의례』의 삼례서를 정본화하고, 고례의 예경 체계를 재구성함으로써 한 대 예학을 총결하였다. 이것은 『주례』안에 『의례』를 귀속시키고 오례 체계 안에 팔례 체계를 정위시킴으로써, 개인의 도덕적 영역을 국가권력에 귀속시킴과 동시에, 정치적 정당성과 사회적 이상을 궁극적으로 개인의 의례적 수행에서 찾는 국가 모형을 제시한 것이다. 통일된 예경 체계 안에서 상이한 의례와 의미들이 상호 정위되고 해명되는 정현의 삼례학에는 사실(史實)과 이론적 구성이 공존한다. During the Han Dynasty, courtiers and scholars of Li(Rites) came to recognize the reality of Zhouli(rites of Zhou Dynasty) by studying various materials of the ancient Li, and they rightfully posited the ancient Li to be ‘Lijing (the Classic of rites)’ that contains the ethical values and political ideals of Confucius and Zhou Gong. This implies that for the first time the pragmatic value of the ancient Li was tested and verified on a national level, and that the idealogical legitimacy of the institutions of Li was secured. The scholars of Jinwen(New text) responded by presuming ‘kings’ court rites’ in the light of ‘rites of the Shi(士)’, while the Guwen(Old text) scholars of Li challenged the authority of 『Lijing』 in Jinwen, with the specific illustration of kings’ court rites and lords’ court rites that are abundantly exemplified in Guwen materials and 『Zhouli』. Zheung Xuan thoroughly reexamined and systematically sorted the ancient Li materials. His historical research and comparative analysis of Li consequently resulted in shaping the standardized three classics of Li, that is, 『Zhouli』, 『Liji』, and 『Yili』. He also finalized the study of Li of the Han Dynasty by restructuring the Lijing system of the ancient Li. He placed 『Yili』 inside 『Zhouli』, and positioned the eight-Li system within the framework of the five-Li system. In other words, Zheung Xuan put the individual realm of ethics under the state power, and suggested a model state whose political validity and social ideals are ultimately sought through individual practice of rites. Historical truths and theoretical constructs coexist in Zheung Xuan’s Study on the Three classics of Li, where divergent rites and meanings are mutually clarified and situated within a unified ‘Lijing’ system.

Modern Times and Modern Rites

Owen Flanagan 성균관대학교 유교문화연구소 2019 儒敎文化硏究(中文版) Vol.0 No.32

Classical Confucianism says that ritual propriety (li 禮) is necessary to bind society and produce a harmonious and peaceful social order. Secular liberal moral and political theories are skeptical that shared manners, etiquette, rituals, and rites are necessary to bind society and produce intrastate harmony and peace. Liberalism, especially liberalism adapted to cosmopolitan and multicultural states, proposes that an overlapping consensus about values can be sufficient to bind a people, without shared norms governing li. It might be true that shared values can bind a liberal multi-culture without shared li, while at the same time there are costs associated with doing without li, or abiding a plural li. Some philosophers associate li with conservative social orders and are glad to see the li dissipate with the recession of such orders. Others think that we need to recognize the costs associated with li-lessness, and that liberal, multicultural orders have, and/or are in need of creating or recreating li in order to sustain a harmonious common life. This paper revisits this debate and explores the question of whether and how Chinese Confucian philosophy sheds light on the normative contribution li makes to human life, and whether and to what degree this depends on whether the culture or nation state is liberal or liberal and multicultural. This will enable us to evaluate whether we in the North Atlantic should want more, less, or none of li.

The Essence of Li (Rites) and Its Modern Significance By Ogyu Sorai

( Hiraishi Naoaki ) 성균관대학교 동아시아학술원 2003 Sungkyun Journal of East Asian Studies Vol.3 No.2

Ogyu Sorai, a seventeenth-eighteenth century Confucian scholar of Japan during the Tokugawa Shogunate, developed his own unique interpretation of the dynasties ruled by the ancient Chinese sage emperors and later dynastic generations. He sought the essential elements in governing people in li (rites). Turning to the contemporary Tokugawa society at that time in Japan, he published his own commentaries and recommendations for a stable society and generation by applying the principle of rites. Sorai argued a society based on the principle of rites would bring stability to the people and benevolence to the administration. Sorai more specifically agued about the application of the principle of rites to suppress the luxurious life in society to stabilize society and the effects of rites in educating the people on social norms.

성현 제사의 존재론적 토대에 관한 주자학적 고찰 - 도통론과의 정합적 해명을 중심으로 -

유은주 ( Yoo Eun-joo ) 충남대학교 유학연구소 2020 儒學硏究 Vol.52 No.-

본고는 주자학의 체계 안에서 조상 제사의 혈연적 관계에 기초한 이기론(理氣論)적 감통(感通)·감격(感格) 논리가 비혈연적 성현 제사에서 어떻게 적용될 수 있는지 고찰하고, 성현 제사의 존재론적 토대에 대한 이기론적 해석이 도통론(道統論)과 정합적으로 설명될 수 있는 가능성을 논의한다. 불교와 도교 그리고 무속 등 다양한 종교 신앙이 민중의 일상을 지배하던 12세기 중국의 상황을 심각한 문화적 위기로 인식했던 주자는, 고대 성인의 도를 정통으로 계승한 도학만이 중국 문화의 혼란을 해소하고 바른 방향으로 재건할 수 있다고 주장했다. 그리고 성인의 도를 순수하게 계승했다는 주자의 도통 의식은 성현 사당의 건립과 제사를 통해 사회에 폭넓게 확대되어 갔다. 그러나 제사에서 귀신이 생자와 동기감응(同氣感應)하여 실제로 강림한다는 주장을 펼쳤던 주자는, 비혈연적 관계에 기초한 성현 제사에서 어떻게 동기감응이 가능한지 해명해야 하는 문제에 직면하게 된다. 이에 주자는 제사 대상과 제사 주체 사이에 理에 근거한 올바른 관계가 성립된다면 혈연성에 제한되지 않고 동기감응이 이루어지며 이 올바른 관계는 세상에 공적을 남긴 고인에게 생자가 보답하기 위해 그 유업을 계승할 때 성립될 수 있다는 논리를 펼친다. 이러한 이기론적 해석은 성현 제사의 존재론적 토대를 해명하였으며 존재적·당위적 법칙인 道의 전승이 논리적 추론이나 문화적 상징의 차원을 넘어 실재성을 확보할 수 있는 가능성을 열었다. This paper examines how the sympathetic and emotional logic of Li-Chi Theory (理氣論) based on the blood ties of ancestral rites can be applied to the rites for the saints with non-blood ties within the system of Neo-Confucianism, and discusses the possibility that Li-Chi Theory’s interpretation of the existential foundation of the rites for the saints can be explained in conformity with the theory of Dontong. Zhu Xi perceived the situation in China in the 12th century, when various religious beliefs such as Buddhism, Taoism, and shamanism dominated the daily lives of the people as a serious cultural crisis, and claimed that the ethics which inherited the teachings of the ancient saints could only resolve the confusion of the Chinese culture and rebuild that culture in the right direction. In addition, Zhu Xi expanded the Dotong theory, which claimed the pure succession of the saints' Do (道), spreading widely to society by establishing shrines for the saints and by holding rites for them. However, Zhu Xi, who argued that ghosts actually descend by synchronizing with the living, faced the problem of explaining how synchronized response was possible in the rites for the saints based on non-blood ties. In response, Zhu Xi argued that synchronized response can occur in the right relationship between the object and the subject of rites, and that the right relationship, which was based on Li (理), was not limited to blood ties, but could also be established through living persons' consideration and succession for the achievements of the deceased. This interpretation based on Li-Chi Theory explained the existential basis of the rites for the sages, and this opened the possibility that the transmission of Do (道), an existential and imperative law, could secure substantiality beyond logical reasoning or cultural symbolism.

前漢初 國家儀禮의 제정과 성격

洪承賢(Hong Seng-Hyun) 동양사학회 2009 東洋史學硏究 Vol.108 No.-

The aim of this thesis is to ascertain the content of the Rites System established in the early years of the Former Han era and to examine the knowledge system that it was based on, in order to clarify that the Rites System contained more than the shaman characteristics of mystifying the powers of the emperor. First, the characteristics of aqpqi-Li? part of Book of Rites which had been handed down since the early years of the Former Han era, are analyzed to find out the necessity of Rites System and to reach the conclusion that to both the emperor and the illustrious officials it meant more than simply an embellishment to the image of emperor. Secondly, the Fengshan that was carried out in Wudi era and the characteristics of Mingtang are explored. Originally both the Fengshan and the Mingtang of the Wudi era have been explained as originating from the shaman knowledge system and individual desire of the emperor neither to grow old nor to die. However, the Fengshan and Mingtang at that time were also asserted and operated by scholars with a background in Confucian Classics. The same is true of Junguomiao which has been explained by the theory of Patriarchal State. It is ascertained by the thesis that, different from the existing opinions, Junguomiao was a system influenced by Confucian thought with the purpose of encouraging people to follow Confucian ethics by promoting the achievements of men of merit and virtue. The Rites System established in the early years of Former Han worked as governing principles, which was the intention of its creators. They were the scholars of the School of Qi who were practical and talented in current affairs, and they tried to create a system that could justify the new empire in which the emperor, as the son of God, is at the pinnacle, given power from heaven. They intended to establish a world of firm hierarchy centering on the emperor by creating various national rites.

묵암 배극소의 예학(禮學) - 『사례간요(四禮簡要)』를 중심으로 -

한재훈 ( Han Jae-hoon ) 충남대학교 유학연구소 2024 儒學硏究 Vol.66 No.-

묵암 배극소의 학문적 관심은 다양한 유학적 주제에 걸쳐 있었지만, 그의 대표적인 저술은 예학(禮學)에 관한 『사례간요(四禮簡要)』이다. 19세기에 편찬된 『사례간요』는 사례(四禮: 관·혼·상·제)와 관련하여 시대의 변천에 따른 새로운 적절성을 모색하면서도 어떻게 핵심적 가치와 의의를 놓치지 않을 수 있을 것인가라는 분명한 목적성을 갖고 편찬되었다. 배극소가 이러한 예학적 문제의식을 갖고 이를 실천적 작업으로 연결한 데는 그동안 조선에서 수행되고 축적된 예학적 자산과 전통 위에서 가능한 것이었다. 『사례간요』는 조선에서 생산된 예서와 예설을 중국의 예서나 예설보다 더 많이 인용하고 있다. 비단 양적인 측면에서만 그런 것이 아니라 내용적으로도 그렇다. 배극소는 이렇게 조선시대 예학적 자산을 『사례간요』에 적극 반영하였지만, 이 과정에서 학파적으로 매우 중립적인 태도를 유지한다. 즉, 조선시대 예학을 풍성하게 가꿔온 영남학파와 기호학파의 연구 성과를 공정하게 반영하고 있다. 이러한 『사례간요』의 특징은 조선시대 예학이 연구의 단계를 지나 실행의 단계로 나아갔던 19세기 조선 예학의 흐름을 잘 반영하고 있다. Muk-am Bae Guek-So's scholarly interests spanned a wide range of Confucian topics, but his most famous work is the Saryeganyo that is the book about the Study of the Li. Written in the 19th century, Saryeganyo was compiled with the clear purpose of exploring the relevance of the four ceremonial occasions of coming of age, wedding, funeral, and ancestral rites to changing times, while not losing sight of their core values and meaning. The fact that Bae was able to take these concerns of the Study of the Li and connect them to practical work was based on the assets and traditions about the Study of the Li that had been carried out and accumulated during the Joseon Dynasty. This book cites more relevant books and theories produced in Korea than in China. This is not only in terms of quantity, but also in terms of content. In this book, Bae actively reflects the achievements about the Study of the Li of the Joseon Dynasty, but in doing so, he maintains a very scholarly neutral attitude, i.e., he fairly reflects the research achievements of the Yeongnam school and the Giho school, which have enriched the Study of the Li of the Joseon Dynasty. The significance of Saryeganyo is that it reflects the trend of the 19th century, when the Study of the Li in the Joseon Dynasty moved from the stage of research to the stage of practice.

克己復禮의 맥락 이해 (contextual understanding) -『춘추좌전』과 『논어』를 중심으로

황광우 범한철학회 2021 汎韓哲學 Vol.100 No.1

본 연구는 극기복례에 대한 맥락적 이해를 시도한다. 극기복례가 등장하게 된 역사적 상황을 추출하고, 공자가 통치자들과 나눈 대화를 분석하여, 극기복례의 맥락을 규명한다. 본 연구가 검토하는 쟁점은 세 가지이다. 첫째, 克己의 주체는 누구이고 극기의 대상은 무엇인가? 둘째, 禮의 역사적 실체는 무엇이고, 복례의 실천적 의미는 무엇인가? 셋째, 非禮의 대상은 무엇인가? 『춘추좌전』 기사에 의하면 극기의 주체는 초영왕이었고, 극기해야 할 대상은 초영왕의 야심이었다. 『논어』에서 공자가 통치자들과 나눈 대화에 의하면 극기의 주체는 군주를 포함한 통치자들이었고, 극기해야 할 대상은 통치자들의 탐욕이었다. 『춘추좌전』 기사에 의거할 때 禮의 실체는 주희의 천리가 아니라, 주공이 만든 주례였다. 복례는 주례의 준수를 지시하는 어휘였고, 주례의 복원이 갖는 실천적 의미는 ‘수탈이 없는 세계’의 실현이었다. 『춘추좌전』의 용례를 분석할 때, 非禮의 대상은 통치자들이 주례를 위반한 사태였다. 『논어』에서 공자가 보인 언행을 분석할 때, 非禮의 대상은 계씨를 비롯한 통치자들의 주례 위반 행위였다. I attempt to fix a contextual understanding of the phrase, <Self-control and returning to 'Li'>. At first, extracting the historical background of the phrase, then, I fix the context of <Self-control and returning to 'Li'> through analysing of the dialogues between Confucius and the rulers of Roh. The first issue to be examined is about "who is the subject of self-control and what is the object to be controlled." The second issue to be examined is "what is the historical substance of 'Li' and what the returning to 'Li' does mean politically?" The third issue is what is the concrete object of 'non-rite'. According to our study, the subject of self-control is not 'man in general' and not the confucian. Chunqiu Zuozhuan's report wrote down that the subject of self-control was the king and the object to be controlled was his greedy ambition. The dialogues passed down by the analects indicated that the subject of self-control was the ruler and the object to be controlled was his excessive greed. And The concrete object of 'non-rite' was the ruler's action against Zhou's Rites.

『明燈道古錄』小考

金惠經(Kim, Hye-Kyung) 한국중어중문학회 2016 中語中文學 Vol.0 No.64

Li-Zhi wrote Mingdengdaogulu from autumn 1596 to the spring of the next year in the hometown of Liu-Dongxing, Shanxi province. This book is one of the major works covering the late thoughts in his life. At the friend’s house Li-Zhi read and discussed the Great Learning and the Doctrine of Mean with friend and disciples every night. Therefore, this book contained almost every main concerns of Confucian school’s at that time, i.e. saint and laymen’s equality, the distinctive meaning of rite, principles of Loyalty and Consideration, the unique theory about ghosts, importance of understanding ordinary people’s slang etc. Li-Zhi’s writing ability also brought much vitality into the book. To those fake Confucian scholars, he criticized rigidly their shameless hypocrisy and satirized them. In short, Mingdengdaogulu is not only the book expressing Li-Zhi’s whole thoughts but the essence of the Confucian philosophy in the late Ming period.

溪堂 柳疇睦의 禮學思想

도민재 경북대학교 퇴계연구소 2009 퇴계학과 유교문화 Vol.44 No.-

This thesis studied the Li-thought of Gyedang Ryu-Joomok(溪堂 柳疇睦, 1813~1872), who was one of the representative figures of the Youngnam School in the 19th century. The characteristic of his scholarship is ‘BakMunYakRye(博文約禮;Have broad knowledge and act according to the courtesy)’. Gyedang thought of ‘Jing(敬;Respect)’ as the most important secret of scholar- ship;he valued much of 『SoHak(小學;A book written by Zhu Xi)』, saying such studies of ‘Jing’ could be carried out through practical learning from it. Gyedang made up the book of 『JeonRyeYooJip(全禮類輯)』, which is a courtesy book that covers all the courtesy dogmas of courtesy scholars from the Chosun Dynasty without distinguishing the schools and colors of the parties. He arranged different dogmas in an objective position without adding his own dogmas or views and made it possible to illuminate objectively the flow and difference in views from the courtesy dogmas of the Chosun Dynasty. In the development of courtesy dogmas, he set 『Zhuzijiali(朱子家禮;The book of the customary formalities of a family, written by Sung)』 and his dogmas as the standard and was in the position of observing the old manners. Also, he stood in a position that one should not get doxa even if there was no specific provision in the old manners, observe the rules in them if possible during the procedure of conducting courtesy, and not try to correct the courtesy laws on his own. He insisted on following the dogmas of old scholars if it was hard to find the grounds and followed the dogmas of Toegye Lee-Hwang. To some degree that did not violate the courtesy laws, he acknowledged carrying out courtesy according to humanity. In this manner, the Li-thought of Gyedang focused on the old manners and 『Zhuzijiali(朱子家禮)』, yet stood in the position that the procedure of carrying out the courtesy could be done following humanity within the range that did not harm its courtesy-originated meaning. In other words, it can be said that it pursued a rational practice of courtesy. 본 논문은 19세기 嶺南學派의 대표적 인물 중 한 사람인, 溪堂 柳疇睦(1813~1872)의 禮學思想에 대하여 고찰한 것이다. 계당 류주목의 학문은 ‘博文約禮’를 특징으로 하고 있다. 계당은 ‘敬’을 학문을 하는데 가장 중요한 요체가 된다고 보았으며, 이러한 경 공부는 『小學』의 실천적인 학습을 통해 이루어질 수 있다고 하여 『소학』을 중시하였다. 계당은 조선조의 예설을 망라한 예서인 『全禮類輯』을 편집하였는데, 이는 學派와 黨色을 구분하지 않고 조선조 예학자들의 예설을 망라하여 정리한 책이다. 계당은 이에서 자신의 예설이나 견해를 덧붙이지 않고 다양한 예설들을 객관적인 입장에서 정리하여, 조선조 예설의 흐름과 견해의 차이 등을 객관적 입장에서 조명해 볼 수 있도록 하였다. 예설의 전개에서 계당은 『家禮』 및 주자의 예설을 기준으로 하고 있으며, 古禮의 원칙을 준수해야 한다는 입장을 지니고 있었다. 또한 고례에 明文이 없을 경우에도 臆見으로 의례를 시행해서는 안 된다고 하여, 의례의 시행과정에서 가급적 고례의 규정을 준수해야 하며 마음대로 예법을 고치려고 해서는 안 된다는 입장을 보이고 있다. 고례에서 근거를 찾기 어려울 때는 先儒들의 설을 따라야 할 것이라고 하였고, 특히 退溪의 예설을 주로 따르고 있다. 한편으로는 禮法에 크게 위배되지 않는 범위 내에서, 人情을 따라 예를 행하는 것도 무방하다고 보았다. 이와 같이 계당의 예학사상은, 고례와 『가례』를 위주로 하면서도 儀禮의 행례과정에서 예의 본원적 의미를 해치지 않는 범위 내에서 인정에 따라도 좋다는 입장을 표명함으로써, 합리적인 의례의 실천을 추구했다고 하겠다.

기획논문 : 계당(溪堂),민산(민山)의 학문(學問)과 사상(思想) : 계당(溪堂) 류주목(柳疇睦)의 예학사상(禮學思想)

도민재 ( Min Jae Doh ) 경북대학교 퇴계연구소 2009 퇴계학과 유교문화 Vol.44 No.-

본 논문은 19세기 嶺南學派의 대표적 인물 중 한 사람인, 溪堂 柳疇睦(1813~1872)의 禮學思想에 대하여 고찰한 것이다. 계당 류주목의 학문은 ‘博文約禮’를 특징으로 하고 있다. 계당은 ‘敬’을 학문을 하는데 가장 중요한 요체가 된다고 보았으며, 이러한 경 공부는 『小學』의 실천적인 학습을 통해 이루어질 수 있다고 하여 『소학』을 중시하였다. 계당은 조선조의 예설을 망라한 예서인 『全禮類輯』을 편집하였는데, 이는 學派와 黨色을 구분하지 않고 조선조 예학자들의 예설을 망라하여 정리한 책이다. 계당은 이에서 자신의 예설이나 견해를 덧붙이지 않고 다양한 예설들을 객관적인 입장에서 정리하여, 조선조 예설의 흐름과 견해의 차이 등을 객관적 입장에서 조명해 볼 수 있도록 하였다. 예설의 전개에서 계당은 『家禮』 및 주자의 예설을 기준으로 하고 있으며, 古禮의 원칙을 준수해야 한다는 입장을 지니고 있었다. 또한 고례에 明文이 없을 경우에도 臆見으로 의례를 시행해서는 안 된다고 하여, 의례의 시행과정에서 가급적 고례의 규정을 준수해야 하며 마음대로 예법을 고치려고 해서는 안 된다는 입장을 보이고 있다. 고례에서 근거를 찾기 어려울 때는 先儒들의 설을 따라야 할 것이라고 하였고, 특히 退溪의 예설을 주로 따르고 있다. 한편으로는 禮法에 크게 위배되지 않는 범위 내에서, 人情을 따라 예를 행하는 것도 무방하다고 보았다. 이와 같이 계당의 예학사상은, 고례와 『가례』를 위주로 하면서도 儀禮의 행례과정에서 예의 본원적 의미를 해치지 않는 범위 내에서 인정에 따라도 좋다는 입장을 표명함으로써, 합리적인 의례의 실천을 추구했다고 하겠다. This thesis studied the Li-thought of Gyedang Ryu-Joomok(溪堂 柳疇睦, 1813~1872), who was one of the representative figures of the Youngnam School in the 19th century. The characteristic of his scholarship is ‘BakMunYakRye(博文約禮;Have broad knowledge and act according to the courtesy)’. Gyedang thought of ‘Jing(敬;Respect)’ as the most important secret of scholar- ship;he valued much of 『SoHak(小學;A book written by Zhu Xi)』, saying such studies of ‘Jing’ could be carried out through practical learning from it. Gyedang made up the book of 『JeonRyeYooJip(全禮類輯)』, which is a courtesy book that covers all the courtesy dogmas of courtesy scholars from the Chosun Dynasty without distinguishing the schools and colors of the parties. He arranged different dogmas in an objective position without adding his own dogmas or views and made it possible to illuminate objectively the flow and difference in views from the courtesy dogmas of the Chosun Dynasty. In the development of courtesy dogmas, he set 『Zhuzijiali(朱子家禮;The book of the customary formalities of a family, written by Sung)』 and his dogmas as the standard and was in the position of observing the old manners. Also, he stood in a position that one should not get doxa even if there was no specific provision in the old manners, observe the rules in them if possible during the procedure of conducting courtesy, and not try to correct the courtesy laws on his own. He insisted on following the dogmas of old scholars if it was hard to find the grounds and followed the dogmas of Toegye Lee-Hwang. To some degree that did not violate the courtesy laws, he acknowledged carrying out courtesy according to humanity. In this manner, the Li-thought of Gyedang focused on the old manners and 『Zhuzijiali(朱子家禮)』, yet stood in the position that the procedure of carrying out the courtesy could be done following humanity within the range that did not harm its courtesy-originated meaning. In other words, it can be said that it pursued a rational practice of courtesy.