Min Jung You
Address: (1) Room 203, College of Humanities, 866 Yuhangtang Rd., Hangzhou 310058, China
(2) 103dong 1605ho, 348 Toingil-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea
(2) 103dong 1605ho, 348 Toingil-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea
less
Related Authors
InterestsView All (7)
Uploads
Papers by Min Jung You
에도 시대는 일본 문학사에서 한문학의 전성기로 일컬어진다. 그 배경에는 당대 유교적 문학관의 발전과 연관이 있으며, 후지와라 세이카(藤原惺窩, 1561∼1619)와 오규 소라이(荻生徂徠, 1666∼1728)는 경전 수사학이 전개 및 발전하는 데 각각 일 정한 기여를 하였다. 따라서 본고는 일본 에도의 유학자들이 경전의 문학적 측면을 놓고 어떤 논의를 펼쳤는지 그 일면을 살펴 본다는 취지에서, 우선 이 두 인물의 종경 론과 도문관을 중심으로 그 경전 수사학의 특징을 고찰하고자 한다. 이를 통해 본 연구는 에도 시대의 한문학이 발전하는 데 경전 수사학의 역할을 재조명하고, 전근대 학술 장에서 펼쳐진 경학과 문학의 접맥을 보다 면밀히 이해하는 데 작은 보탬이 될 수 있을 것이다.
Itō Jinsai’s rhetorically oriented exegeses on the Mencius also implies the characteristics of his thought on the study of the Classics. He explained the rhetoric of Mencius in relation to the rhetoric of Analects, and presented different views from orthodox scholars such as Zhu Xi based on the original text. In addition, his rhetorical interpretation also reflected his purpose of writing a commentary that “the original intention of Confucius” should be revealed through textual features: in details, the author’s intention or thought was mentioned more than grammar or the mood of the text.
Among the Japanese rhetorical interpretations of the Classics, Itō Jinsai’s the Mōshi kogi is a stepping stone. Although he emphasized and explained the summary method or metaphor used by Mencius, it is rarely discussed high-dimensional rhetoric such as the parentheses method or the information waiting method. However, the rhetorical interpretation of the Mencius made by Itō Jinsai is meaningful in itself. His interpretation contributed to the reading of the Classics of later Japanese scholars, and as a result, it served as a priming water for the emergence of the rhetoric-centered commentaries such as Doku Mōshi written by Hirose Tansō in the late Edō period.
commentaries on the Analects) and Yi Hwang 李滉 (1501-1570)’s Nonŏ
Sŏgŭi 論語釋義 (Exposition of the Analects). Rhetorically oriented exegesis is defined as interpreting the classics through the structural
features of sentences, investigating their vocabulary, sentence structure, and forms of expression. Regardless of philosophers or literary scholars, a Confucian scholar considers the classics as a model for writing. The
rhetorical commentaries on the Analects clearly display this point of view.
Pre-modern scholarship consisted of an integrated study of literature, history, and philosophy. By contrast, existing studies perceive philosophy
and literature as separate categories, causing a lack of interest in rhetorical commentary among current scholars. Thus, Zhu Xi and Yi Hwang’s rhetorical commentaries on the Analects, the subject of our examination, will help us to not only understand pre-modern rhetoric, but also provide a three-dimensional view of the Confucian traditions of the pre-modern period.
The main characteristic of rhetorical commentaries on the Mencius that appeared in the Qing dynasty is the use of pingdian. This suggests an interesting convergence with fictional commentary because pingdian in the Ming-Qing periods was mainly used to critique the literary features of fiction. Though popular already from the Southern Song, such reader commentary developed and matured into the fiction commentary known from the middle of the Ming dynasty onward.
The fashion for fiction commentary prompted scholars to utilize pingdian in commentaries on the Confucian Classics. However, the fact that Mencius is referred to as “natural feats endowed by Heaven (huagong 化工)” and that his compositional skill is highly revered reveals an essential difference from the unabashed rewriting of original works found in Ming-Qing commentaries on fiction.
The two other features of rhetorical commentaries on the Mencius from the Qing dynasty discussed in this paper are: (1) they include the use of various marks such as circles (quan 圈; ◦) and dots (dian 點; ⎖), and (2) they cite the literary criticism of previous scholars, for examples, Su Xun 蘇洵 (1009~1066), Wei Xi 魏禧 (1624~1681), and Yao Yonggai 姚永概 (1866~1923). These two characteristics demonstrate that pingdian of the Classics acquired the same stability and maturity as literary criticism of fiction.
Pingdian and its maturity appear to be unique to China, and are hardly found in the West. The fact that many of the rhetorical commentaries on the Confucian Classics using pingdian were developed during the pre-modern period begs an important question ― “Was pingdian a methodology uniquely for literary criticism of fiction?” To answer this question, we need to expand the object of discussion away from fiction to the Confucian Classics.
본고의 목적은 청대에 『맹자』에 대한 평점주석서들이 출현하게 된 배경과 소설 평점비평방법론과의 관계를 밝히며, 나아가 청대에 간행된 16종의 수사학적 『맹자』 주석서들을 개관하고 그 비평적 특징을 究明하는 것이다.
청대 수사학적 『맹자』 주석서는 문학비평의 한 방법론인 評點을 사용한 것이 특징이다. 평점비평은 남송대부터 유행하였지만, 경전 주석서에서 평점이 활용된 것은 명대 중기 이후인데, 당시 소설 평점비평의 유행이 경전 주석에 영향을 미친 결과이다. 다만 청대 수사학적 『맹자』 주석서는 맹자를 ‘化工’이라 하며 그 글쓰기 역량을 극도로 존숭한 반면, 명･청대의 소설 평점비평에서 작품 원문을 거침없이 개작하는 등 본질적인 차이가 있다.
본고에서 고찰한 청대 수사학적 『맹자』 주석서의 비평적 특징은 첫째, 圈(◦)과 點(⎖) 등 다양한 부호를 사용하였다는 점, 둘째, 蘇洵과 魏禧, 그리고 姚永概 등 이전 주석가들의 문학비평을 인용･집설하였다는 사실이다. 이러한 두 특징은 청대에 들어 평점비평이 소설 분야뿐만이 아니라 경전을 해석하는 데 있어서도 그만큼 안착하고 성숙하였음을 방증한다.
경전에 대한 평점비평과 그 성숙은 서구에서 발견하기 어려운 중국만의 독특한 특징이다. 본고에서 밝힌 전근대 중국에서 평점을 활용한 다수의 『맹자』 주석서가 존재･발전하였다는 사실은 ‘과연 평점비평이 소설 등 순문학만이 갖는 전유물이었는가.’라는 의문을 제기한다. 한문학에서 評點 등 문장 비평을 논할 때 소설과 시에만 국한하지 않고 경전으로 논의 대상을 확대해야 한다.
In general, recent scholarship has tended to classify the study of the Classics by employing a dichotomous view that holds that there are two major types of exegetical tradition, which are characterized either as philology (C. kaozheng 考證) or philosophy (C. yili 義理: the pursuit of moral and philosophical principles). However, several East Asian intellectuals advocated and followed a literary approach toward the Classics. These intellectuals considered the Classics as works of literature and focused their commentaries on literary features and qualities―such as rhetoric, grammar, and diction. The earliest work in China that shows such rhetorically oriented exegesis is the Chunqiu Fanlu 春秋繁露 (Luxuriant dew of the Spring and Autumn Classic) written by Dong Zhongshu 董仲舒 (d. 104), and even Zhu Xi 朱熹 (1130-1200) refers to the various literary characteristics of the Mencius in his famous work, the Mengzi Jizhu 孟子集注 (Collected commentaries on the Mencius). In this study, this hermeneutical approach is identified as “rhetorically oriented exegeses”; the word “rhetoric” refers, in this dissertation, to any stylistic means used for the purpose of embellishment and/or persuasion.
“Rhetorically oriented exegeses” elucidate the wording, sentence structure, and techniques of expression in the original text of the Classics; commentators who produced rhetorical commentaries admired the literary value of the Classics and considered them as models for composition. This type of exegeses has two additional characteristics. First, it sheds light on the rhetorical points of the original text when interpreting the Classics, which means that the commentator understands and explains the words found in the Classics and on this basis explores their sentence structure and rhetorical strategy. Second, authors who follow this type of commentary are inspired by and adopt the rhetorical style of the Classics when writing their own works; in other words, these commentators emulate the rhetorical strategy and the writing style of the Classics in their writings, by, for example, searching for model sentences and following them. (......)
The purpose of this article is to show how the rhetorical commentaries are different from ordinary or standard commentaries, such as the works of Zhu Xi and Jiao Xun, but also to point out some differences among the three rhetorical commentaries. In addition, this study evaluates the significance of the appearance in East Asia of rhetorical commentaries in the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries. This will be done by placing them in the context of relevant historical events and changes in literati culture from the middle ages to the early-modern period of East Asia. Thus, this article will be a first step towards an understanding of rhetorically oriented exegeses in East Asia and the relationship between these commentaries, their historical change and their intellectual history.
Keywords: East Asia, the Confucian Classics, rhetorical commentaries,
Mengzi, exegesis
A major feature in Maengja Ch’aŭi’s structure tells us that he considers the Mengzi as a literary work and interpreted it rhetorically. Wi Paekkyu put a lot of effort into analyzing the meaning of a word, the syntax, and the tone in the composition. This shows that he was not confined to conventional rules and that he thought without formality and constraint because of his self-discipline and academic foundation.
In the field of Classical studies, Maengja Ch’aŭi is considered to be more significant and valuable than others commentaries. Existing interpretations of Mengzi were only tied up with philosophy (yilixue 義理學: the pursuit of moral and philosophical principles) or philology (kaozhengxue 考證學). Current research shows that there are only few rhetorical commentaries, including the Maengja Ch’aŭi and the Mengzi Lunwen 孟子論文 written by Niu Yunzhen 牛運震 in the Qing period.
After a comparative study, Maengja Ch’aŭi is found to be more complicated and profound than Mengzi Lunwen. Not limited only to the literal comments, it also explains Mencius’s choice of words, sentences and structures to embody his idea. This goes to show that diversity exists in East Asian rhetorical commentaries and that the Confucian classical studies during the Chosŏn dynasty had unique characteristics.
Meanwhile, Wi Paekkyu's rhetorical commentaries seem arbitrary, because they rely on subjective assumptions, not on objective inference. However, it can't be devalued. Rather, Maengja Ch’aŭi should be more appreciated because it has a consistent and systematic framework and it opened up new prospects in the field of Chosŏn Classical studies.
ㆍSungkyunkwan University Press
ㆍThis book is a Korean version of the Zopai wangxue 左派王學 written by Ji Wen-fu 嵇文甫 in Chinese. The Zopai wangxue deals with the leftwing of the Wang Yangming School and their philosophical precepts and describes the transformation of Confucianism in the Ming dynasty.
Maengja Ch’aŭi has important characteristics in terms of structure and content. A major feature in Maengja Ch’aŭi’s structure tells us that he considers the Mengzi as a literary work and interpreted it rhetorically. Wi Paekkyu put a lot of effort into analyzing the meaning of a word, the syntax, and the tone in the composition.
A notable observation in Maengja Ch’aŭi’s content is the difference in its opinions compared to other studies on classics. Unlike rigorism, Wi Paekkyu looked at benefit (li 利) and desire (yu 欲) in a positive way, and also thought of mind (xin 心) as a lifelong truth (shengli 生理). He evaluated the precedent and the results, and inferred that the concept of straight (zhi 直) is a state in which the inherent nature could be aroused, and not as “rightfulness.” This shows that he was not confined to conventional rules and that he thought without formality and constraint because of his self-discipline and academic foundation.
In the field of Classical studies, Maengja Ch’aŭi is considered to be more significant and valuable than others commentaries. Existing interpretations of Mengzi were only tied up with philosophy (yilixue 義理學: the pursuit of moral and philosophical principles) or philology (kaozhengxue 考證學). Current research shows that there are no other rhetorical commentaries except for the Maengja Ch’aŭi and the Mengzi Lunwen 孟子論文 written by Niu Yunzhen 牛運震 in the Qing period.
After a comparative study, Maengja Ch’aŭi is found to be more complicated and profound than Mengzi Lunwen. Not limited only to the literal comments, it also explains Mencius’s choice of words, sentences and structures to embody his idea. This goes to show that diversity exists in East Asian rhetorical commentaries and that the Confucian classical studies during the Chosŏn dynasty had unique characteristics.
Meanwhile, Wi Paekkyu's rhetorical commentaries seem arbitrary, because they rely on subjective assumptions, not on objective inference. However, it can't be devalued. Rather, Maengja Ch’aŭi should be more appreciated because it has a consistent and systematic framework and it opened up new prospects in the field of Chosŏn Classical studies.
Key Words : Wi Paekkyu, Maengja Ch’aŭi, interpretation of the Mengzi, rhetorical interpretation of Classics, concept of Classic study, Chosŏn Confucianism
에도 시대는 일본 문학사에서 한문학의 전성기로 일컬어진다. 그 배경에는 당대 유교적 문학관의 발전과 연관이 있으며, 후지와라 세이카(藤原惺窩, 1561∼1619)와 오규 소라이(荻生徂徠, 1666∼1728)는 경전 수사학이 전개 및 발전하는 데 각각 일 정한 기여를 하였다. 따라서 본고는 일본 에도의 유학자들이 경전의 문학적 측면을 놓고 어떤 논의를 펼쳤는지 그 일면을 살펴 본다는 취지에서, 우선 이 두 인물의 종경 론과 도문관을 중심으로 그 경전 수사학의 특징을 고찰하고자 한다. 이를 통해 본 연구는 에도 시대의 한문학이 발전하는 데 경전 수사학의 역할을 재조명하고, 전근대 학술 장에서 펼쳐진 경학과 문학의 접맥을 보다 면밀히 이해하는 데 작은 보탬이 될 수 있을 것이다.
Itō Jinsai’s rhetorically oriented exegeses on the Mencius also implies the characteristics of his thought on the study of the Classics. He explained the rhetoric of Mencius in relation to the rhetoric of Analects, and presented different views from orthodox scholars such as Zhu Xi based on the original text. In addition, his rhetorical interpretation also reflected his purpose of writing a commentary that “the original intention of Confucius” should be revealed through textual features: in details, the author’s intention or thought was mentioned more than grammar or the mood of the text.
Among the Japanese rhetorical interpretations of the Classics, Itō Jinsai’s the Mōshi kogi is a stepping stone. Although he emphasized and explained the summary method or metaphor used by Mencius, it is rarely discussed high-dimensional rhetoric such as the parentheses method or the information waiting method. However, the rhetorical interpretation of the Mencius made by Itō Jinsai is meaningful in itself. His interpretation contributed to the reading of the Classics of later Japanese scholars, and as a result, it served as a priming water for the emergence of the rhetoric-centered commentaries such as Doku Mōshi written by Hirose Tansō in the late Edō period.
commentaries on the Analects) and Yi Hwang 李滉 (1501-1570)’s Nonŏ
Sŏgŭi 論語釋義 (Exposition of the Analects). Rhetorically oriented exegesis is defined as interpreting the classics through the structural
features of sentences, investigating their vocabulary, sentence structure, and forms of expression. Regardless of philosophers or literary scholars, a Confucian scholar considers the classics as a model for writing. The
rhetorical commentaries on the Analects clearly display this point of view.
Pre-modern scholarship consisted of an integrated study of literature, history, and philosophy. By contrast, existing studies perceive philosophy
and literature as separate categories, causing a lack of interest in rhetorical commentary among current scholars. Thus, Zhu Xi and Yi Hwang’s rhetorical commentaries on the Analects, the subject of our examination, will help us to not only understand pre-modern rhetoric, but also provide a three-dimensional view of the Confucian traditions of the pre-modern period.
The main characteristic of rhetorical commentaries on the Mencius that appeared in the Qing dynasty is the use of pingdian. This suggests an interesting convergence with fictional commentary because pingdian in the Ming-Qing periods was mainly used to critique the literary features of fiction. Though popular already from the Southern Song, such reader commentary developed and matured into the fiction commentary known from the middle of the Ming dynasty onward.
The fashion for fiction commentary prompted scholars to utilize pingdian in commentaries on the Confucian Classics. However, the fact that Mencius is referred to as “natural feats endowed by Heaven (huagong 化工)” and that his compositional skill is highly revered reveals an essential difference from the unabashed rewriting of original works found in Ming-Qing commentaries on fiction.
The two other features of rhetorical commentaries on the Mencius from the Qing dynasty discussed in this paper are: (1) they include the use of various marks such as circles (quan 圈; ◦) and dots (dian 點; ⎖), and (2) they cite the literary criticism of previous scholars, for examples, Su Xun 蘇洵 (1009~1066), Wei Xi 魏禧 (1624~1681), and Yao Yonggai 姚永概 (1866~1923). These two characteristics demonstrate that pingdian of the Classics acquired the same stability and maturity as literary criticism of fiction.
Pingdian and its maturity appear to be unique to China, and are hardly found in the West. The fact that many of the rhetorical commentaries on the Confucian Classics using pingdian were developed during the pre-modern period begs an important question ― “Was pingdian a methodology uniquely for literary criticism of fiction?” To answer this question, we need to expand the object of discussion away from fiction to the Confucian Classics.
본고의 목적은 청대에 『맹자』에 대한 평점주석서들이 출현하게 된 배경과 소설 평점비평방법론과의 관계를 밝히며, 나아가 청대에 간행된 16종의 수사학적 『맹자』 주석서들을 개관하고 그 비평적 특징을 究明하는 것이다.
청대 수사학적 『맹자』 주석서는 문학비평의 한 방법론인 評點을 사용한 것이 특징이다. 평점비평은 남송대부터 유행하였지만, 경전 주석서에서 평점이 활용된 것은 명대 중기 이후인데, 당시 소설 평점비평의 유행이 경전 주석에 영향을 미친 결과이다. 다만 청대 수사학적 『맹자』 주석서는 맹자를 ‘化工’이라 하며 그 글쓰기 역량을 극도로 존숭한 반면, 명･청대의 소설 평점비평에서 작품 원문을 거침없이 개작하는 등 본질적인 차이가 있다.
본고에서 고찰한 청대 수사학적 『맹자』 주석서의 비평적 특징은 첫째, 圈(◦)과 點(⎖) 등 다양한 부호를 사용하였다는 점, 둘째, 蘇洵과 魏禧, 그리고 姚永概 등 이전 주석가들의 문학비평을 인용･집설하였다는 사실이다. 이러한 두 특징은 청대에 들어 평점비평이 소설 분야뿐만이 아니라 경전을 해석하는 데 있어서도 그만큼 안착하고 성숙하였음을 방증한다.
경전에 대한 평점비평과 그 성숙은 서구에서 발견하기 어려운 중국만의 독특한 특징이다. 본고에서 밝힌 전근대 중국에서 평점을 활용한 다수의 『맹자』 주석서가 존재･발전하였다는 사실은 ‘과연 평점비평이 소설 등 순문학만이 갖는 전유물이었는가.’라는 의문을 제기한다. 한문학에서 評點 등 문장 비평을 논할 때 소설과 시에만 국한하지 않고 경전으로 논의 대상을 확대해야 한다.
In general, recent scholarship has tended to classify the study of the Classics by employing a dichotomous view that holds that there are two major types of exegetical tradition, which are characterized either as philology (C. kaozheng 考證) or philosophy (C. yili 義理: the pursuit of moral and philosophical principles). However, several East Asian intellectuals advocated and followed a literary approach toward the Classics. These intellectuals considered the Classics as works of literature and focused their commentaries on literary features and qualities―such as rhetoric, grammar, and diction. The earliest work in China that shows such rhetorically oriented exegesis is the Chunqiu Fanlu 春秋繁露 (Luxuriant dew of the Spring and Autumn Classic) written by Dong Zhongshu 董仲舒 (d. 104), and even Zhu Xi 朱熹 (1130-1200) refers to the various literary characteristics of the Mencius in his famous work, the Mengzi Jizhu 孟子集注 (Collected commentaries on the Mencius). In this study, this hermeneutical approach is identified as “rhetorically oriented exegeses”; the word “rhetoric” refers, in this dissertation, to any stylistic means used for the purpose of embellishment and/or persuasion.
“Rhetorically oriented exegeses” elucidate the wording, sentence structure, and techniques of expression in the original text of the Classics; commentators who produced rhetorical commentaries admired the literary value of the Classics and considered them as models for composition. This type of exegeses has two additional characteristics. First, it sheds light on the rhetorical points of the original text when interpreting the Classics, which means that the commentator understands and explains the words found in the Classics and on this basis explores their sentence structure and rhetorical strategy. Second, authors who follow this type of commentary are inspired by and adopt the rhetorical style of the Classics when writing their own works; in other words, these commentators emulate the rhetorical strategy and the writing style of the Classics in their writings, by, for example, searching for model sentences and following them. (......)
The purpose of this article is to show how the rhetorical commentaries are different from ordinary or standard commentaries, such as the works of Zhu Xi and Jiao Xun, but also to point out some differences among the three rhetorical commentaries. In addition, this study evaluates the significance of the appearance in East Asia of rhetorical commentaries in the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries. This will be done by placing them in the context of relevant historical events and changes in literati culture from the middle ages to the early-modern period of East Asia. Thus, this article will be a first step towards an understanding of rhetorically oriented exegeses in East Asia and the relationship between these commentaries, their historical change and their intellectual history.
Keywords: East Asia, the Confucian Classics, rhetorical commentaries,
Mengzi, exegesis
A major feature in Maengja Ch’aŭi’s structure tells us that he considers the Mengzi as a literary work and interpreted it rhetorically. Wi Paekkyu put a lot of effort into analyzing the meaning of a word, the syntax, and the tone in the composition. This shows that he was not confined to conventional rules and that he thought without formality and constraint because of his self-discipline and academic foundation.
In the field of Classical studies, Maengja Ch’aŭi is considered to be more significant and valuable than others commentaries. Existing interpretations of Mengzi were only tied up with philosophy (yilixue 義理學: the pursuit of moral and philosophical principles) or philology (kaozhengxue 考證學). Current research shows that there are only few rhetorical commentaries, including the Maengja Ch’aŭi and the Mengzi Lunwen 孟子論文 written by Niu Yunzhen 牛運震 in the Qing period.
After a comparative study, Maengja Ch’aŭi is found to be more complicated and profound than Mengzi Lunwen. Not limited only to the literal comments, it also explains Mencius’s choice of words, sentences and structures to embody his idea. This goes to show that diversity exists in East Asian rhetorical commentaries and that the Confucian classical studies during the Chosŏn dynasty had unique characteristics.
Meanwhile, Wi Paekkyu's rhetorical commentaries seem arbitrary, because they rely on subjective assumptions, not on objective inference. However, it can't be devalued. Rather, Maengja Ch’aŭi should be more appreciated because it has a consistent and systematic framework and it opened up new prospects in the field of Chosŏn Classical studies.
ㆍSungkyunkwan University Press
ㆍThis book is a Korean version of the Zopai wangxue 左派王學 written by Ji Wen-fu 嵇文甫 in Chinese. The Zopai wangxue deals with the leftwing of the Wang Yangming School and their philosophical precepts and describes the transformation of Confucianism in the Ming dynasty.
Maengja Ch’aŭi has important characteristics in terms of structure and content. A major feature in Maengja Ch’aŭi’s structure tells us that he considers the Mengzi as a literary work and interpreted it rhetorically. Wi Paekkyu put a lot of effort into analyzing the meaning of a word, the syntax, and the tone in the composition.
A notable observation in Maengja Ch’aŭi’s content is the difference in its opinions compared to other studies on classics. Unlike rigorism, Wi Paekkyu looked at benefit (li 利) and desire (yu 欲) in a positive way, and also thought of mind (xin 心) as a lifelong truth (shengli 生理). He evaluated the precedent and the results, and inferred that the concept of straight (zhi 直) is a state in which the inherent nature could be aroused, and not as “rightfulness.” This shows that he was not confined to conventional rules and that he thought without formality and constraint because of his self-discipline and academic foundation.
In the field of Classical studies, Maengja Ch’aŭi is considered to be more significant and valuable than others commentaries. Existing interpretations of Mengzi were only tied up with philosophy (yilixue 義理學: the pursuit of moral and philosophical principles) or philology (kaozhengxue 考證學). Current research shows that there are no other rhetorical commentaries except for the Maengja Ch’aŭi and the Mengzi Lunwen 孟子論文 written by Niu Yunzhen 牛運震 in the Qing period.
After a comparative study, Maengja Ch’aŭi is found to be more complicated and profound than Mengzi Lunwen. Not limited only to the literal comments, it also explains Mencius’s choice of words, sentences and structures to embody his idea. This goes to show that diversity exists in East Asian rhetorical commentaries and that the Confucian classical studies during the Chosŏn dynasty had unique characteristics.
Meanwhile, Wi Paekkyu's rhetorical commentaries seem arbitrary, because they rely on subjective assumptions, not on objective inference. However, it can't be devalued. Rather, Maengja Ch’aŭi should be more appreciated because it has a consistent and systematic framework and it opened up new prospects in the field of Chosŏn Classical studies.
Key Words : Wi Paekkyu, Maengja Ch’aŭi, interpretation of the Mengzi, rhetorical interpretation of Classics, concept of Classic study, Chosŏn Confucianism