Home
>
Explore Content
>
All Issues
>
Article View
Understanding on the text of the Analects through comparative study of Collected Explanations of the Analects and Collected Annotations on the Analects[5]
Journal of Korean Classical Chinese Literature
Abbr :
한문고전연구
2012, 24(1), pp.303-343
DOI :10.18213/jkccl.2012.24.1.010
Publisher : The Classical Chinese Literature Association of Korea
Research Area : Korean Language and Literature
2012, 24(1), pp.303-343
DOI :10.18213/jkccl.2012.24.1.010
Publisher : The Classical Chinese Literature Association of Korea
Research Area : Korean Language and Literature
-
This thesis has been written to offer a new method and viewpoint of the study on the Confucian classics. There is no denying the fact that till now the studies on the Confucian classics in South Korea have obtained many good results mainly in the field of the study of adminstration, or at least in the domain of philosophy. However, the research activities for analytical understanding of Confucian classics, one of the fields of the study on Confucian classics, have been not so energetic. So I became interested in the undeveloped field of study on Confucian classics and that’s why I choose the text of the Analects of Confucius as the subject of my study. Zhuxi’s Sishujizhu(Collected Annotations on the Four Books) has been one of the most researched areas of study of Confucian classics in Korea. This is because Zhuxi’s commentary has had a decisive effect on the Confucian history of Korea. We should notice that, however, it remains unanswered whether Zhuxi’s commentary on the Four Books (including Analects) is entirely correct. Even ‘the Four Books’, which appeared after Song dynasty, is a vague concept in the study of Confucian classics. The aim of this paper is to develop an understanding of the text of the Analects examining not only Zhuxi’s commentary but Old commentary before Zhuxi’s and the relatively new commentary in Ching dynasty (1616-1912). In understanding the Analects, only few attempts have so far been made at research of these ‘other’ commentaries excepting Zhuxi’s one. In particular, I illustrate the distinction of these ‘other’ commentaries and Zhuxi’s one, as well as the exact meaning and real intention of the text of the first volume in Analects.
224
Viewed
Print this page
Download PDF