Earticle

본 논문은 다산 『논어고금주』에서 해석의 정수인 性, 仁, 恕에 대한 견해와 주자 해석과의 대비를 통하여 다 산 경학사상의 특성을 파악해 보았다. 性에 대해 다산은 성을 嗜好로서 파악하고 이를 形軀之嗜好와 靈知之嗜好로 분류한다. 그리고 人物性에 대해 서는 기질지성은 人物이 같이 얻은 바이지만 도의지성일 것 같으면 오직 사람만이 소유한 것으로 금수 이하는 얻을 수 없는 것이라 하여 先儒의 本然之性은 人物이 다 같으나 기질지성은 사람과 짐승이 다르다는 설에 반 론을 제기한다. 다산은 仁을 治心養性과 行己修身의 근본으로 보고, 두 사람 사이에서 생기는 것이며, 다른 사람에게 향한 사 랑이며, 두 사람 사이에서 사람과 사람이 그 본분을 극진히 하는 것으로 보고, 이는 인륜의 완성된 덕이라고 파악한다. 특히 인은 결코 心德이나 天理가 아니고 人德이라 규정하고, 인은 行事에서 이루어지며 결코 마음 에 있는 이치가 아니라고 한다. 충서에 대해 다산은 일이관지의 ‘一’은 바로 恕이고 恕는 근본이 되고 행하는 것은 忠으로 이것은 대대적인 것 이 아니고, 忠을 실행할 때 恕는 이미 오래 전부터 있는 것이라고 주장한다. 또한 다산은 恕를 推恕와 容恕로 구분한다. 다산의 논어해석에 나타난 경학의 특성으로는 공문의 원의(수사지구관) 회복 역설, 실천의 중시, 주자학에 비 판적 태도를 견지, 인간의 주체성을 강조, 평등의식을 강조, 경학과 경세학이 하나의 연장선상에서 파악되는 점 등을 들 수 있다.

In this study, I tried to look into the characteristics of Dasan's idea of GyeongHak in comparison with Chu Hsi's translation of Seong (性), In (仁) and Seo (恕) of which translation was the essence of Dasan's translation of the Analects in his Annotation of the Analects. He grasped Seong as a sign that was sorted into the Sign of Body and the Sign of Enlightening. Regarding the characteristics of human and object, he argued that character was given to both human and object but justice was owned only by human so it could not be gained by any other than human. As a result, he raised an objection against the idea argued by older scholars that the natural character was same in both human and object while character was different between human and animal. He thought that In was the essence of Raising Good Character by Controlling Mind and Training by Performing; it was made between two people; it was the love toward the others; the two people should value their duties between them; so it was the completed virtue of human ethics. He defined especially In as neither mind-virtue nor heaven's principle but human's virtue, based on which he claimed that In was made by performing work and not the principle located in the mind at all. Regarding ChungSeo (忠恕: doing best for yourself and being tolerant to others), he argued that the 'Il' of IlEeeGwanJi was Seo that was the base for ChungSeo that could be implemented by Chung; so that it was not an extensive one and it had existed since long ago already when you performing Chung. In addition, he sorted Seo into ChuSeo (推恕: modest attitude) and YongSeo (容恕: forgiveness). The characteristics of GyeongHak shown on his translation of the Analects include emphasis on restoring of the original meaning of official letters (SuSaJiGuGwan), valuing of performance, critical attitude on Neo -Confucianism, emphasis on equality sense, and grasping of GyeongHak and GyeongSeHak on an extended line.

Confucius's religiosity has been a point of contestation since Confucian classics were introduced to the West through translation, and different translators have portrayed Confucius differently as far as religiosity is concerned. Ku Hung-Ming 辜鴻銘 (pinyin: Gu Hongming, 1857–1928) was the first Chinese translator of Confucian classics when he translated the Lunyu into English in 1898, breaking the long-time monopoly of translations of Confucian classics by Western missionaries. This article focuses on Confucius's religiosity in Ku's translated Lunyu and demonstrates that the translation portrays Confucius as religious, rendering unwarranted the argument in the current literature that Ku's translated Lunyu offers a secular Confucius. This article also has important methodological implications in that it challenges the effectiveness of culture-specific-items (CSI) analysis as an approach to culturally loaded texts. It emphasizes that every translational choice, including the use of paratexts, should be taken seriously when attempting to make a generalization for a translated text.

《论语》是儒家核心的经典著作，在韩国有悠久的译介历史。《论语》现代韩国语译本广泛应用了副文本阐释策略。文章以大韩民国建国后的主要《论语》韩国语译本为副文本源译本，着重考察了诸译本副文本中的概括类、标注类、注释类、评论类副文本形式，并从还原原著历史语境、贴合读者视域、阐明译注者见解三方面分析了译著副文本的翻译作用。《论语》韩国语译本副文本对促进其译作的接受与传播具有助力。对其副文本的研究也有利于深化对《论语》韩国语翻译的传播研究。

The Analects of Confucius is a classic work at the core of Confucianism and has a long history of translation in Korean. The modern Korean translation of the Analects has widely used the strategy of paratexts interpretation. This paper takes the Korean version of the Analects after the founding of the Republic of Korea. As the source text, and focuses on the paratexts forms of generalization, annotation and commentary in the translated paratexts. It also analyzes the functions of the translated auxiliary text from three aspects: restoring the historical context of the original text, fitting the reader's vision and clarifying the author's opinion. The paratexts of the Korean translation of the Analects of Confucius is helpful to promote the acceptance and dissemination of its translation. The study of its paratexts text is also conducive to deepening the research on the translation of the Analects into Korean.

A comprehensive examination of Chen Li’s treatment of successive Analects commentators reveals two prominent features. First, Chen Li conducts a meticulous analysis of He Yan(何晏)’s Collected Explanations of the Analects(論語集解) and Huang Kan(皇侃)’s Subcommentary on the Analects(論語義疏), offering critical assessments of their respective merits and shortcomings. Furthermore, he supplies a wealth of information—albeit in a fragmentary manner—regarding the interpretations of early Analects exegetes, including Kong Anguo(孔安國), Bao Xian(包咸), Ma Rong(馬融), Zheng Xuan(鄭玄), and Wang Su(王肅), as well as lesser-studied figures such as Miao Xie(繆協), Gu Huan(顧歡), and Taishi Shuming(太史叔明), active during the Han dynasty and the Wei-Jin Northern and Southern Dynasties period. Second, among the various commentators on the Analects throughout history, Zhu Xi occupies a relatively prominent position in Chen Li’s analysis. This is not only due to the extensive attention Chen devotes to Zhu Xi’s commentaries, but also because his critiques of Zhu’s interpretations are both frequent and incisive. This suggests that Chen Li undertook a particularly detailed and rigorous examination of Zhu Xi’s exegesis of the Analects. Moreover, Chen includes a wide range of Zhu Xi’s views on how one ought to approach the study of the Analects, especially from the perspective of a dedicated learner. He also underscores the idea—emphasized by Zhu Xi himself—that the Analects is a core Confucian classic which, like Zhu, one must never set aside throughout one’s lifetime. Chen Li’s observations on successive Analects commentators, as recorded in the Reading Records of Dongshu(東塾讀書記), provide a valuable source of reference for subsequent research on the exegetical history of the Analects.

This paper seeks to initiate a discussion on the historical trajectory of Confucian classics in Russian translation by examining the earliest Russian translations of the Four Books. The study focuses on Volkov’s translation dating back to the 18th century known as the earliest translation of the Four Books into Russian, and the translation completed by Bichurin in the 19th century. Through careful analysis of the historical background that gave birth to Russian sinology and fostered its evolution, this paper aims to show the attitude change towards the translation of the Confucian classics. While in the 18th century early Russian scholars seemed to regard the translation of the Confucian classics merely as language training exercise, the multi-layered structure of the translation offered by Bichurin suggests that in the 19th century the Confucian classics became a subject of scientific interest and research. Despite their historical value, the early Russian translations of the Four Books still remain unpublished and thus largely unexplored in scholarly research. Due to difficulties in accessing the manuscripts, this paper draws on the findings of two previous studies, highlighting the main characteristics of Volkov’s translation of The Analects and Bichurin’s translation of The Great Learning. The study brings a new subject to the Korean scholarship and represents a first step toward reconstructing the history of the translation of the Confucian classics into Russian.

The second volume of Chen Li’s Reading Records of Dongshu (≪東塾讀書記≫), titled the section of The Analects of Confucius (＜論語篇＞), can be broadly divided into two parts: the first part (Chapters 1-35) and the second part (Chapters 36 and beyond). The reason for this division is that the first part focuses on the key concepts and characteristics of the Analects according to Chen Li’s interpretation, while the second part primarily discusses the annotation methods and contents of important commentators of the Analects throughout history. This translation concerns Chapters 16-35, which belong to the first part. More than half of the content, specifically Chapters 16-27, is directly or indirectly related to the Four Categories (四科), which are the academic divisions of the Confucian school (孔門). Chen Li (陳澧) provides a detailed account of the Four Categories (四科), covering their reasons for existence, historical applications, and the views of philosophers throughout history (Chapters 16-23). Chapters 24-27 address the Confucian classics referenced in the Analects. The Analects covers topics such as the Mandate of Heaven (天命), the joys and laments of Yan Yuan (顏淵), and other similar subjects, which make it difficult to fully grasp their precise meanings or instructions. In response, Chen Li, through the dialogues between Zhu Xi and his disciples in the Categorized Conversations of Master Zhu Xi (≪朱子語類≫), emphasized that the Analects should be read directly and straightforwardly, avoiding indulging in abstract or metaphysical discussions. Chapters 32-35 discuss the unique aspects and style of the Analects. In brief, it is stated that certain passages of the Analects contain the remarkable wisdom of Confucian scholars, that the Analects records the words of Confucius and other sages, and that the expressions are brief due to being written on bamboo strips. Additionally, it emphasizes the importance of understanding the intent when reading the dialogues of the sages.

This paper explores the future direction of translating Confucian classics in Russia, focusing on the issue of diminished philosophical meaning in L. S. Perelomov’s translation of the Analects. While Perelomov initially aimed to follow V. M. Alekseev’s three-stage translation method, practical constraints led him to adopt a two-stage approach that omitted the translation of Zhu Xi’s commentaries, limiting the work to a literal translation of the original text and partial interpretations. In this process, core Confucian concepts were reduced to mere everyday or historical contexts, resulting in the erasure of the profound philosophical implications inherent in the original text. Through a detailed case analysis, this study demonstrates the limitations of literal-oriented translation in conveying fundamental philosophical values such as Xiao (孝, Filial Piety) and Dao (道, the Way). As an alternative, the paper examines P. S. Popov’s 1910 translation, arguing that supplementary explanations based on scholarly commentaries are more effective in deepening philosophical understanding. In conclusion, this research emphasizes that the ideal approach to translating Confucian classics lies in the synthesis of literal translation, which preserves linguistic characteristics, and in-depth philosophical interpretation. Furthermore, it suggests the necessity for a complete translation of Zhu Xi’s commentaries and a new interpretive framework that integrates diverse research achievements from both East and West.

Comment on the Origin of the Literary works is a review book of literary works written by Fang ZongCheng(方宗誠). In the second volume, The General remarks of the Confucian Analects, he approached the scriptures as the origin of the literary works and explored literary achievement of Confucian Analects. This general remarks discussed all the parts of Confucian Analects and examined the significance of literary works. His important improvement can be found in the way of examining each chapter or verse. He did not include the original verses but made comments for each verse that are similar to modification and simplicity of pingdian(評點). This has been considered to be the most important achievement by late Tong-Cheng Schoold of the Ch'ing dynasty.

퇴계가 지은 『사서삼경석의』는 한국경학사에서 매우 특별한 위치에 있다. 이 경전주석서는 한국유교경전번역사와 한국유교경전해석사의 시발점에 위치하면서 동시에 후대에 깊은 영향을 미친 책이기 때문이다. 특히 『사서삼경석의』 중 『論語釋義』에는 퇴계 경학의 이러한 특징이 잘 구현되어 있다. 퇴계의 『논어석의』는 현전하는 最古의 『논어』 번역서이다. 이 책에서 퇴계는 주자 주석의 관점에서 『논어』를 번역하였다. 그러나 한편으로 이전의 여러 『논어』 번역에 대하여 비판적으로 수용하면서, 자신만의 독자적인 번역을 시도하기도 하였다. 퇴계의 이러한 번역은 조선의 공인 『논어』 번역서인 『論語諺解』에 대폭 수용되었다. 그리고 퇴계는 『논어석의』에서 주자학파의 『논어』 해석에 대하여 부연설명하기도 하였지만, 때로 독창적인 『논어』 해석을 시도하였으며 한자의 音과 訓에 대한 고증도 게을리 하지 않았다. 이 같은 퇴계의 『논어』 번역학과 해석학은 율곡학파에 의해서는 비판을 받았으나, 영남퇴계학파와 근기퇴계학파에 의해서 계승이 되었으며, 1920~30년대에 출간된 『논어』 번역서에도 상당한 영향을 미쳤다. 이런 여러 가지 정황을 고려해보면 퇴계의 논어학은 한국 논어학의 濫觴이라 평가할 수 있을 것 같다.

T’oegye’s A Commentary on the Four Books and the Three Classics <SaSeoSamKyungSeokEwi> has a special status in the history of the study of the Confucian Classics in Korea. This paper argues that the book greatly helped initiatingthe study of translation and the analytics of the Confucian Classics and also significantly influenced future generation of Confucian scholars after T’oegye in Korea. A Commentary on the Analects of Confucius <NonEuiSeokEwi> among A Commentary on the Four Books and the Three Classics supports the argument of this paper. It is the oldest translated version of the Analects of Confucius existing in Korea. T’oegye translated the Analects of Confucius from the viewpoint of Chu Hsi’s commentary on the book. However, he also tried to include his own view while critically accepting previous translations of the Analects of Confucius. A Korean annotation of the Analects of Confucius <NonEuiEunHae>, an officially recognized translated version of the Analects of Confucius in Choseon Dynasty, greatly followed T’oegye’s translating style. Meanwhile, in A Commentary on the Analects of Confucius, T’oegye included his own analysis as well as the analysis of the school of Chu His. He also put a great effort on research of the sound and the Korean translation of Chinese characters. Although T’oegye’s the study of translation and the analytics of the Analects of Confucius received a criticism from the school of Yulgok, they were succeeded to the schools of YoungNam T’oegye and KeunKi T’oegye. T’oegye’s work also greatly influenced translations of the Analects of Confucius in 1920s and 1930s in Korea. In conclusion, several historical facts support the argument that T’oegye’s the study of the Analects of Confucius can be said to be the origin of the study of the Analects of Confucius in Choseon dynasty.

유교경전 가운데 일본에서 가장 많이 읽히고 일본인의 정신세계와 깊은 연관이 있는 책을 꼽으라면 『論語』라고 할 수 있다. 본고는 에도시대 일본에서 『논어』를 수용한 후 자국어로 어떻게 번역했는지 그 一端을 서술하고 이를 통해 일본의 특유한 유교경전의 해석방식을 소개하고자 했다. 특히 서민층을 독자층으로 삼은 다니 햐쿠넨(渓百年, 1754∼1831)의 『論語余師』를 주목하여 이 책의 체재와 번역문 및 저자의 해설에 대해 분석해보았다. 이 과정을 통해 밝혀진 번역 양상의 특징은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 본문 字間에 訓點을 기입함으로써 독자에게 한문을 용이하게 읽을 수 있도록 했다. 둘째, 한문의 뜻과 뉘앙스를 살리면서 번역하는 가키쿠다시분(書き下し文)이라는 형태를 취했다. 셋째, 본문에 나온 고유명사나 난해한 내용을 현지화를 통해서 일본식으로 수정했다. 이와 같은 특징을 가진 『논어여사』는 1786년 초판부터 메이지시대까지 재판ㆍ중판을 거듭했으며 많은 일본인에게 읽힌 베스트셀러였다. 다니 햐쿠넨은 이 책을 통해 고원한 이론에 치우치지 않도록 학문을 현실세계에서 실천하는 것을 강조한다. 『논어여사』는 修己之學의 입장에서 초학자에게 한문을 쉽게 풀이해주는 論語 訓蒙書였다.

This paper presents a commentary and translation of the second volume—the Analects section (＜論語篇＞)—of Chen Li (陳澧)’s Reading Record of Dongshu (≪東塾讀書記≫). The Analects section, comprising 59 chapters, reflects Chen Li’s interpretations of the Analects of Confucius, though it does not provide a comprehensive examination of the entire text. It can be broadly divided into two parts: the first part includes chapters 1 to 35, while the second part, from chapter 36 onward, primarily analyzes and compares the contributions of prominent historical commentators on the Analects, such as He Yan (何晏), Huang Kan (皇侃), and Zhu Xi (朱熹), with a particular emphasis on Zhu Xi’s commentary. Thematically, the content up to chapter 35 includes the opening phrase “學而時習之” (from Book I, ＜學而＞), covered in chapters 1–6; the concept of Ren (仁), in chapters 7–8; ‘One principle that unifies all’ (一以貫之), in chapters 10–12; and Yu Dian (與點), referring to Confucius’ agreement with Zeng Dian’s views (chapters 13–15), as seen in the “Bathing in the Yi” (浴沂章) passage. Chapter 9 provides Zhu Xi’s interpretations of Book I. Following this, the Four Subjects (四科) are discussed in chapters 16–23, topics related to Confucian Classics in chapters 24–27, Confucius’s disciples in chapters 28–31, and various challenging issues in the Analects in chapters 32–35. This paper specifically offers an annotated translation of the first part of the first half (chapters 1–15). In his commentary, Chen Li explores central themes in the Analects, such as ‘learning’ (學), ‘Ren (仁)’, and ‘One principle that unifies all’ (一貫). Adopting an evaluative approach, he examines how these ideas have been interpreted by influential scholars and texts over time. Although Chen Li respects Zhu Xi’s perspectives, he also critiques them through textual analysis, presenting his own independent insights.

동양고전 가운데 우리나라 사람에게 가장 많이 읽히거나 영향을 준 하나를 꼽으라면 단연 『논어』라고 할 수 있다. 본고는 『논어』 관련 번역서와 저술의 출판 흐름을 개략적으로 더듬어보고 그 맥락을 간추려보았다. 갑오경장에서 2019년에 이르기까지 각 시대별로 『논어』 번역과 저술의 추이를 살펴보고 우리 근대 지성사 전개에서의 요구와 의미를 추탐해본 것이다. 이를 바탕으로 『논어』를 대상으로 한 주요 번역의 구체적 양상과 특징을 살펴보고 그 성과와 한계를 아울러 살펴본 결과 다음과 같았다. 우리의 『논어』 번역서는 ‘동양 고전’과 ‘민족정신 고취’와 관련해 고민한 흔적이 역력했던 1900년대를 지나 2천년에 들어서자 안타깝게도 번역에 대한 시대적 고민이 잘 읽히지 않았고, 주소본 집해의 성과 수용에 관한 고민이 현저히 적었으며, 일본 『논어』 번역서에의 영향에서 자유롭지 않은 한계들이 발견되었다. 아울러 조선 지성의 언해 전통의 성과를 오늘날 어떻게 수용하고 해석할 것인지에 대해 반성적 검토가 필요하다고 판단된다. 요컨대 21세기 『논어』 번역의 새로운 지평을 위해 시대정신과 수요자의 요구에 대해 진지한 성찰과 진단이 요구된다.

副文本理论有助于挖掘隐藏信息,能够更全面、清晰地描绘译者的翻译阐释思想和译著的形成过程, 在翻译研究中具有独特的作用｡ 本文借助副文本理论对李乙浩≪韩文论语≫的语言类内副文本进行了分类, 分析了其翻译目的、翻译策略等内容, 并搜集整合了相关外副文本信息｡ 研究发现译者坚持贯彻韩文化翻译阐释策略, 其翻译阐释深受丁若镛思想的影响｡ 同时译者学问经历的转换、典籍翻译的创新尝试、语言政策环境与译著形成之间也存在关联关系｡

Paratextual theory plays a unique role in translation studies by helping to excavate hidden information to describe the translator’s thoughts of translation and interpretation, allowing the formation of works of translation to be considered more comprehensively and clearly. This paper applies paratextual theory to classify the intra-linguistic paratext in Lee Eul-ho’s Analects of Korean, analyzes its translation purposes and translation strategies, and collects relevant information on the external paratext. It is found that the translator adhered to the translation strategy of using Korean, and the translation interpretation was deeply influenced by Jeong Yak-yong’s thought. At the same time, there are connections between the translator’s academic experience, this innovative attempt at translation, the language policy environment, and the completion of the translation.

본고는 『논어』 명구 속 ‘원인[CAUSE]-결과[BECOME]’ 사건의미 구조의 구절(/문장)에 대해 ‘사건구조(event structure)’ 개념을 적용하여 언어학적으로 타당한 설명을 제시함으로써 번역의 과학성을 추구하고자 하였다. 본고의 내용을 요약하면 다음과 같다. 1.『논어』번역에 있어 경동사가 명시적이든 비명시적이든 ‘원인-결과’ 사건의미 구조는 그에 맞는 번역・해석을 해야 한다. 기존 번역서 중에는『논어』구절 중 ‘원인-결과’ 사건의미 구조에 대해 활동[DO] 사건의미 구조로 번역함으로써 논리적으로 어색한 경우가 많다. 2.『논어』‘원인-결과’ 사건의미 구조는 원인[CAUSE] 표시 경동사가 비명시적인가 명시적인가에 따라 두 종류로 나뉜다. 이를 표찰붙은괄호(labelled bracketing)로 나타내면 다음과 같다. 첫째: 원인[CAUSE] 표시 경동사가 비명시적인 경우[...vP1 DP<causer>[v’Vi-v(BECOME)-v(CAUSE)[vP2 DP<experiencer>[v’ Vi-v(BECOME)[VP [Vi][DP/ø]]]]]] 둘째: 원인[CAUSE] 표시 경동사가 명시적인 경우[...vP1 DP<causer>[v’使(CAUSE)[vP2 DP<experiencer>[v’ Vi-v(BECOME)[VP [Vi][DP/ø]]]]]] 3. 본고는『논어』‘원인-결과’ 사건의미 구조에 대해 다음과 같은 번역 모식을 제시한다. A: 원인자(causer)는 경험자(experiencer)가 V하게/되게 하다. B: 원인자(causer)는 경험자(experiencer)로 하여금 V하게/되게 하다.