賈ㆍ服注와 비교를 통해 본 杜預 『左傳』 주석의 특징 (Characteristics of Du Yu's Spring and Autumn study - On the comparison with Han scholars Spring and Autumn study -)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 중국고중세사학회
· 수록지 정보 : 중국고중세사연구 / 43호 / 113 ~ 166페이지
· 저자명 : 김석우

초록

In traditional era, Du Yu's(杜預) Spring and Autumn footnotes was highly estimated as a logical and objective work by many scholars. Since the Tang dynasty, it was an official interpretation of Spring and Autumn. But in Nan-bei dynasties and Qing dynasty, there was a big controversial on his work. Not a few Qing scholars suspected that Du Yu had plagiarized Han scholars’, especially Fu Qian(服虔)’s, work. Still such suspicion was widely shared by current Spring and Autumn scholars. On the contrary, Du Yu himself ensured that his work was original one and different from Han scholars’ interpretation on Spring and Autumn. The main goal of this essay is to investigate and understand this opposing view.
At first chapter, I showed Du Yu’s main principle how to understand the Spring and Autumn. In his ‘preface of Spring and Autumn’ (春秋左氏傳序), Du Yu stressed the understanding of ‘historical facts’, instead of Zuo Zhuan’s meaning, it made a new way to interpretate the ‘Spring and Autumn’, which generally recognised as the Sage’s teaching, more than a record of ‘facts’. Du Yu also made 20 cases footnotes of ‘regulations of description’(他皆放此), they mentioned the fact-focused way of interpretation.
In second chapter, Jia Kui’s(賈逵) Zuo Zhuan interpretation was compared with Du-Yu’s one. In these investigation, at least 49 footnotes showed the different understanding of meaning of sentence. Du Yu’s new explanation caused from the ‘rational’ and ‘critical’ understanding of ‘facts’.
In third chapter, moving to the comparison between Fu Qian’s and Du Yu’s work on Zuo Zhuan. Many Qing scholars argued that Du Yu had just succeeded the Fu Qian’s work or even plagiarized that. But on my examination, at least 110 footnotes showed Du Yu’s different understanding from Fu Qian’s one. Like the Jia Kui’s case, Du Yu’s new explanation based on the ‘rational’ and ‘critical’ understanding of ‘facts.’ It proved that Qing scholars suspicion on Du Yu’s work was too excessive and biased one.
In fourth chapter, two characteristics of Du Yu’s work were explained. The first one is about the form of Du Yu’s interpretation. His work has a principal of interpretation, that is fact-focused way of understanding Spring and Autumn, which introduced at ‘preface of Spring and Autumn’ (春秋左氏傳序) and showed at 20 cases footnotes of ‘regulations of description’.(他皆放此) And 224 cases of general footnotes, description of cause-and-effect relationships (爲 … 傳/ 張本/ 起本), showed how the principle was working. Also 108 cases of brief comment (傳言) on the Zuo Zhuan stories could be added as a part of his form. In the Han scholars works, we could not find such systematic way of interpretation.
The second feature of Du Yu’s work is about his way of thinking. ⑴ Jia Kui and Fu Qian’s footnotes generally support the powerful king’s authority, but in the Du Yu’s interpretation, state’s good order generally depended upon powerful bureaucrats. ⑵ Han scholars strongly expressed the China centric view in their footnotes, but Du Yu did not accept it. He took consider that the barbarians could be changed as China in ‘historical facts’. ⑶ Han scholars stressed the importance of natural calamities, they tried to unveil the political meaning of calamities records. Those way of thinking was prevailed in Han, but after Han more rational thought began to substitute such thought. Du Yu’s interpretation was an symbolic example of changing thought.
So regard to the form and political thought, it could be said that Du Yu’s Spring and Autumn study was different from Han scholars work, it also reflected the new historical circumstances, occurred after the collapse of Han empire.

영어초록

In traditional era, Du Yu's(杜預) Spring and Autumn footnotes was highly estimated as a logical and objective work by many scholars. Since the Tang dynasty, it was an official interpretation of Spring and Autumn. But in Nan-bei dynasties and Qing dynasty, there was a big controversial on his work. Not a few Qing scholars suspected that Du Yu had plagiarized Han scholars’, especially Fu Qian(服虔)’s, work. Still such suspicion was widely shared by current Spring and Autumn scholars. On the contrary, Du Yu himself ensured that his work was original one and different from Han scholars’ interpretation on Spring and Autumn. The main goal of this essay is to investigate and understand this opposing view.
At first chapter, I showed Du Yu’s main principle how to understand the Spring and Autumn. In his ‘preface of Spring and Autumn’ (春秋左氏傳序), Du Yu stressed the understanding of ‘historical facts’, instead of Zuo Zhuan’s meaning, it made a new way to interpretate the ‘Spring and Autumn’, which generally recognised as the Sage’s teaching, more than a record of ‘facts’. Du Yu also made 20 cases footnotes of ‘regulations of description’(他皆放此), they mentioned the fact-focused way of interpretation.
In second chapter, Jia Kui’s(賈逵) Zuo Zhuan interpretation was compared with Du-Yu’s one. In these investigation, at least 49 footnotes showed the different understanding of meaning of sentence. Du Yu’s new explanation caused from the ‘rational’ and ‘critical’ understanding of ‘facts’.
In third chapter, moving to the comparison between Fu Qian’s and Du Yu’s work on Zuo Zhuan. Many Qing scholars argued that Du Yu had just succeeded the Fu Qian’s work or even plagiarized that. But on my examination, at least 110 footnotes showed Du Yu’s different understanding from Fu Qian’s one. Like the Jia Kui’s case, Du Yu’s new explanation based on the ‘rational’ and ‘critical’ understanding of ‘facts.’ It proved that Qing scholars suspicion on Du Yu’s work was too excessive and biased one.
In fourth chapter, two characteristics of Du Yu’s work were explained. The first one is about the form of Du Yu’s interpretation. His work has a principal of interpretation, that is fact-focused way of understanding Spring and Autumn, which introduced at ‘preface of Spring and Autumn’ (春秋左氏傳序) and showed at 20 cases footnotes of ‘regulations of description’.(他皆放此) And 224 cases of general footnotes, description of cause-and-effect relationships (爲 … 傳/ 張本/ 起本), showed how the principle was working. Also 108 cases of brief comment (傳言) on the Zuo Zhuan stories could be added as a part of his form. In the Han scholars works, we could not find such systematic way of interpretation.
The second feature of Du Yu’s work is about his way of thinking. ⑴ Jia Kui and Fu Qian’s footnotes generally support the powerful king’s authority, but in the Du Yu’s interpretation, state’s good order generally depended upon powerful bureaucrats. ⑵ Han scholars strongly expressed the China centric view in their footnotes, but Du Yu did not accept it. He took consider that the barbarians could be changed as China in ‘historical facts’. ⑶ Han scholars stressed the importance of natural calamities, they tried to unveil the political meaning of calamities records. Those way of thinking was prevailed in Han, but after Han more rational thought began to substitute such thought. Du Yu’s interpretation was an symbolic example of changing thought.
So regard to the form and political thought, it could be said that Du Yu’s Spring and Autumn study was different from Han scholars work, it also reflected the new historical circumstances, occurred after the collapse of Han empire.

참고자료

· 없음