이 연구는 조선후기 손자가 아버지를 대신하여 조부에게 상복을 입어준 사건을 둘러싸고 전개된 논쟁을 통하여 유가학파의 종법에 관한 인식을 살펴보는 것이다. 크게 두 부분으로 나누어 살펴볼 수 있는바, 먼저 손자가 대신 상복을 입을 수 있는가를 중심으로 박세채는 代服論을 주장하고, 윤휴는 代服不可論을 주장하였다. 다음으로 아버지가 살아 있는데도 조부로부터 家나 國을 계승할 수 있는가를 중심으로 윤휴는 아버지가 죽은 다음 계승할 수 있다는 父死子繼論을 주장하고, 박세채는 아버지가 살아있어도 계승할 수 있다는 父在子繼論을 주장하였다. 宗子의 宗統 계승에 관한 이상의 논의에서 유가학파의 家와 國에 대한 인식의 일면을 살펴볼 수 있다.

This paper describes the controversy about Confucian clan rules surrounding the Min Shin(閔愼)’s funerary rituals affair in the 17th century Chosun Dynasty, and then investigates the Confucian way of succession to the throne of state or the patriach of family. In the second chapter, it overviews the Min Shin’s funerary rituals affair and examines the debate between Park Sae-Chae(朴世采) and Yun Hyu(尹鑴) over the righteous mode of funerary rituals on the death of Min Shin's grand-father Min Up(閔嶪). In this debate, Park Sae-Chae justified the mode of three-year mourning of Min Shin, not of his psychotic father Min Sae-Ik(閔世益). Whereas Yun Hyu, against Park’s justification, argued that the mode of three-year mourning of Min Shin instead of his father was improper and illegal. In the third chapter, the Confucian way of succession to the throne of state or the patriach of family according to Confucian clan rules is inquired into. Yun Hyu insisted one should succeed to the throne of state or the patriach of family only after the death of his father. But Park Sae-Chae argued that one could succeed to the throne of state or the patriach of family without the death of his father. In the last chapter, it summarizes the discussions in the above two chapters and makes sure that the split of traditional understanding of Confucian clan rules was marching on.

This paper describes the controversy about Confucian clan rules surrounding the Min Shin(閔愼)’s funerary rituals affair in the 17th century Chosun Dynasty, and then investigates the Confucian way of succession to the throne of state or the patriach of family. In the second chapter, it overviews the Min Shin’s funerary rituals affair and examines the debate between Park Sae-Chae(朴世采) and Yun Hyu(尹鑴) over the righteous mode of funerary rituals on the death of Min Shin's grand-father Min Up(閔嶪). In this debate, Park Sae-Chae justified the mode of three-year mourning of Min Shin, not of his psychotic father Min Sae-Ik(閔世益). Whereas Yun Hyu, against Park’s justification, argued that the mode of three-year mourning of Min Shin instead of his father was improper and illegal. In the third chapter, the Confucian way of succession to the throne of state or the patriach of family according to Confucian clan rules is inquired into. Yun Hyu insisted one should succeed to the throne of state or the patriach of family only after the death of his father. But Park Sae-Chae argued that one could succeed to the throne of state or the patriach of family without the death of his father. In the last chapter, it summarizes the discussions in the above two chapters and makes sure that the split of traditional understanding of Confucian clan rules was marching on.

Confucian clan rules, funerary rituals, Succession, Park Sae-chae, Yun Hyu