earticle

영어

This thesis is on Chusa(秋史) Kim Jeong-hui(金正喜)'s demonstration of authenticity of two versions of Shangshu(尙書; Sangseo in Korean), a.k.a. the Book of Historical Documents through analyzing his Sangseo Keumkomun Byun (尙書今古文辨), Demonstration of Jinwen and Guwen versions of Shangshu and Wikomun Sipyukeonseol Byun(僞古文十六言說辨), Demonstration of Kim Jeonghui's Comment on the Forged Guwen Sixteen-letter Phrase included in Eungwajip (凝窩集) by Yi Won-jo(李源祚). Shangshu had had two versions from Han dynasty. One version was written in Jinwen (今文; the "Old Texts"), and the other was written Guwen (古文; the "New Texts"). Guwen version is also known as the version of Mei Ze(梅賾) who found and presented it to a emperor in Eastern Jin(東晉) dynasty. Mei Ze's version was Guwen Shangshu Kong Anguo Zhuan (古文尙書孔安國傳), Guwen Shangshu annotated by Kong Anguo. The authenticity of two versions had been a highly controversial topic in the study of Confucian classics. Kim Jeong-hui added his own historical consideration and analysis to the long list of controversy. Kim Jeong-hui classified Shangshu into three groups that were a Jinwen version, a Guwen version, and a scattered and lost version. He analyzed the table of contents of Mei Ze's version, and compared it with Jinwen and Guwen versions of Han dynasty. He concluded that Mei Ze's was a fabricated book. He also ascertained that Mei Ze's was selected to Shangshu Zhengyi (尙書正義) in Thirteen authorized compilation of Confucian classics compiled in Tang dynasty, and that Zhu xi (朱熹)'s disciple Cai Chen (蔡沈)'s Shujizhen (書集傳), annotation of Shangshu adopted Mei Ze's version. Kim Jeonghui's argument gave Chosun a shock because Cai Chen's Shangshu was the most influential in Chosun dynasty. Kim Jeonghui classified Guwen Shangshu into four groups and Jinwen into two groups. Through this classification he demonstrated that Guwen and Jinwen Shangshu labelled by Cai Chen in his Shujizhen cannot be the original Guwen and Jinwen versions in the days of Han dynasty. He emphasized that the demontration of Jinwen and Guwen Shangshu on the basis of Cai Chen's classification, therefore, would be misled into the wrong conclusion. Chosun dynasty became to acknowledge the fallibleness of Cai Chen's Shujizhen by Kim's raising a question. Kim Jeong-hui's Wikomun Sipyukeonseol (僞古文十六言說), Comment on the Forged Guwen Sixteen-letter Phrase in Shangshu is not included in his own collection of works called Wandangjip (阮堂集), but partly included in Yi Won-jo's collection called Eungwajip. In his demonstration Yi criticized Kim's argument, and Kim's original comment can be inferred from Yi's writing. Kim Jeonghui insisted that the Sixteen-letter Phrase (人心惟危 道心惟微 惟精惟一 允執厥中: The mind of man is restless, prone to err; its affinity for the right way is small. Be discriminating, be undivided, that you may sincerely hold fast the Mean.) in Shangshu's Dayumo (大禹謨: the Counsels of the Great Yu) Chapter was from Xunzi (荀子), and that Mei Ze rephrazed and manufactured it. This was rearranged from Yan Ruoqu (閻若璩)'s Shangshu Guwen Shuzheng (尙書古文疏證), A Critical Commentary on the "Old Texts" Chapters in Shangshu. Yi Wonjo held an unfavorable opinion of Kim's argument by saying that the Sage's mind cannot be demonstrated by syntactic analysis. Yi maintained his opinion that the Sixteen-letter phrase must be a genuine saying of the ancient Sage, and that therefore it cannot be manufactured in after ages. Kim Jeong-hui adopted various achievements of Qing dynasty scholars such as Yan Ruoqu, and attempted his own demonstration on the fabricated "Old Texts" chapters of Shangshu. This thesis gave the first attention towards a hitherto unknown text of Kim Jeonghui's comment on Shangshu in Yi Won-jo's writing, and attempted to investigate how Kim developed his argument on the text of Shangshu, which will help to grasp an entire picture of his study on Confucian classics.

한국어

이 논문은 완당집에 수록된 추사 김정희의 상서에 대한 저술과 응와 이원조의 문집에 실린 ｢위고문십육언설변｣에 대하여 분석ㆍ고찰한 것이다. 김정희는 한대에 출현한 상서 금문 고문에 대하여 밝히고, 이것과 비교를 통하여 매색의 고문상서공전이 한대 상서의 금문ㆍ고문과 관련이 없는 위서임을 고증하였다. 또한 채침의 서집전이 매색본을 이어 받은 것을 밝혔다. 상서 금문과 고문의 전래과정과 변천을 기준으로 하여 금문을 두 가지로 고문은 네 가지로 분류 검토하였다. 이를 통하여 『서집전』의 고문은 당대에 개작된 곽충서의 고문을 이어 받은 것이며 금문 또한 당대에 위포의 개작본을 이어 받은 것으로 한대의 금문 고문과는 다른 것임을 밝혀냈다. 김정희는 금문ㆍ고문에 대한 분류를 통하여 채침전의 오류를 지적하고 채침전에만 의거하여 금문ㆍ고문을 논한다면 왜곡된 결론에 이를 것이라고 비판하였다. 이것은 당시 조선에서 채침의 『서집전』을 유일의 주석본으로 사용해온 것에 대하여 문제점을 제기한 것이다. 김정희가 ｢상서금고문변｣을 통해서 고증하고자 한 것은 매색의 『고문상서공전』이 위작임을 밝히고 채침의 『서집전』의 오류를 밝히려는 것이다. 응와 이원조의 문집에 실린 ｢위고문십육언설변｣에 대한 고찰을 통해서 이 글 가운데 김정희의 글이 인용되어 있음을 밝혔다. 이를 통해 ‘人心惟危, … 允執厥中’의 열여섯 글자가 『순자』에서 나왔으며 매색이 만든 것이라고 밝힌 김정희의 ｢위고문십육언설｣의 일부를 확인하였다. 제주목사였던 이원조는 제주 대정으로 유배 온 김정희로부터 ｢위고문십육언설｣을 받아 보고서, 이에 대해 고증학적 방법으로 경전을 연구하려는 것의 문제점을 지적하고 김정희의 설의 구체적인 내용에 대해 비판하였다.