인조반정 이후 西人 老論系 학자들이 南冥 曺植을 의도적으로 폄하하는 상황 속에서, 남명에 대한 올바른 평가를 주장하여 존숭과 선양을 촉구한 이들은 星 湖 李瀷과 그의 제자들이었다. 조선후기에 남명학파가 매우 어려운 여건 속에 서도 명맥을 유지할 수 있었던 까닭은 성호학파 학자들의 노력이 중요한 역할 을 했다고 이해된다. 이 글은 성호의 제자인 順菴 安鼎福이 󰡔南冥集󰡕에 기록한 箚記를 통해 그가 남명의 학문과 삶에 대해 어떤 인식을 가졌으며, 그 근거가 구체적으로 무엇이 었는지를 살펴보았다. 箚記에 근거해 볼 때, 안정복은 󰡔남명집󰡕을 매우 면밀하 게 읽고 관련 사실이나 자료를 참조하면서 고찰한 점을 확인할 수 있다. 그는 무엇 때문에 󰡔남명집󰡕을 정밀하게 연구했을까? 그 이유는 무엇보다 남명이 진 정 어떤 인물인가를 깊이 이해하기 위한 노력이었다고 판단된다. 남명의 문학 작품에 대한 품평이나 견해를 전혀 드러내지 않고 있다는 점, 인물ㆍ시기ㆍ사 건 등에 집중적인 관심을 기울이며 사실과 진위 여부를 정밀하게 고증한 점 등 을 고려한다면, 그가 󰡔남명집󰡕을 읽을 때 무엇에 유의했는지를 충분히 유추할 수 있다. 안정복은 남명에 대한 이와 같은 연구를 통해 그 인물의 학문과 인품에 관한 평가를 스스로 확정할 수 있었을 것이다. 그리하여 자신이 알게 된 남명의 학문 과 언행을 벗과 제자들을 권면할 때 인용하여 말했으며, 남명과 관련 있는 인물 들의 글을 지을 때는 반드시 그 연관성을 드러내어 연원을 밝혔다. 그러므로 남 명에 대한 안정복의 관심과 선양은 남명학파에게 가장 암흑한 시기였던 18세기 에 빛나는 이정표 같은 역할을 했다고 평가할 수 있다.

논문은 남명 조식이 정주학을 수용한 양상이 어떠했는가를 밝히고자 하였다. 관련 자료의 제시를 통해 ‘고증’에 초점을 두었으며, 󰡔학기유편󰡕을 중요 자료로 이용하였다. 조식의 저술에서 朱子보다 二程이 중시되었던 점에 착안하였고, 남명학에서 ‘실천’이란 두 글자가 학문적 특성을 논하는 데 중요한 단어임에 주 목하였다. 실천을 중시하였던 남명학의 특성상 주자보다 이정이 중시되었을 것 이고, 특히 明道가 중시되었음은 조식의 학문연원과 관련하여 중요한 사실이라 하겠다. 이것은 조식이 공자와 周濂溪･程明道･주자 이 네 사람의 초상화를 그 리고 때때로 존경하고 사모하였다는 사실로도 증명된다. 결국 退溪 李滉이 伊 川과 주자를 잘 배운 학자라면 조식은 이정, 특히 명도의 사상을 잘 체득한 학 자라고 할 수 있다. 남명학에 내포된 莊子的 요소, 陽明學的 요소 등 정주학 이 외의 여러 요소는 명도의 사상을 매개로 할 때 제대로 이해될 수 있다고 본다.

Most studies on Nammyeong Jo Sik's literary works have been focused mainly on the discussion about his poems and aesthetic sense on which his literature was based. Moreover, researches on his prose unlike that on poetry have made little progress, especially with no studies on epitaphs, which are considered important among his prose in classical Chinese. This thesis is to examine Nammyeong Jo Sik's style of writing and the underlying aesthetic sense, focusing on his epitaphs, which most researchers have had little interest in so far. When he wrote epitaph, Nammyeong Jo Sik put great emphasis on frank narration among other things, which is to describe the truth about the dead person in question. Besides, he stressed two points; first, to know the dead concerned very well and to frankly describe the fact about the dead person without flattering attitude, under any circumstances. We can prove that he applied these rules to the writing of epitaph. Above all, it is clear in the fact that among about 22 epitaphs, most of them were for his own father, relatives, close friends and relatives of his pupils whose family history and specific situations he himself knew very well. Secondly, as shown explicitly from the epitaph for his deceased father, he faithfully followed his own rule not to flatter a dead person by exaggerating or making an excuse. In addition to the rule of truth, he exalted epitaph to the high place of literary works not only by narrating the fact frankly, but also freely expressing his own feelings. At this point, it is worth mentioning the episode concerning the epitaph he wrote for the late father of Guam(龜巖) Yi Jeong(李楨), who was one of major scholars living in Yeongnam(嶺南) province and Nammyeong Jo Sik kept in contact with. As Guam Yi Jeong sent the epitaph to T'oegye(退溪) Yi Hwang(李滉), asking for correction, this led to an indirect argument between T'ogye Yi Hwang and Nammyeong Jo Sik. Exceptionally T'oegye Yi Hwang corrected a lot the epitaph written by Nammyeong Jo Sik, severely criticizing the form and content of the epitaph. Naturally, Nammyeong Jo Sik did not accept the criticism of T'oegye Yi Hwang, because they were much different in a philosophical inclination and view of study as well as literary taste and style. Consequently, they both showed great opposition to each other's style and aesthetic sense concerning the epitaph beyond compromise. Nammyeong Jo Sik thought that he was not so much literarily successful, but he himself was the successor of 'ancient prose'(古文) tradition, while he criticized T'oegye Yi Hwang's style naming it 'popular prose'(今文) despite his success in the world. On the other hand, T'oegye Yi Hwang criticized Nammyeong Jo Sik's epitaph for his consistently changing rule, mentioning that there are certain rules of epitaph narration, which are the fixed rule and changing rule. Form this controversy between the two persons concerning epitaph writing, we can understand to some extent the thought of men of noble family in the early Chosen dynasty period concerning epitaph as an important form of prose in classical Chinese.

The article aims to compare the thought and practice between Nammyeong Jo Sik(1501-1572), the Confucian scholar of the mid Choso˘n period and Yamazaki Ansai(1618-1682), the Confucian scholar of the early Tokugawa Japan. Most of the comparative studies are conducted to highlight the differences between the cases compared. People, for example, will expect from the comparative study of Nammyeong and Ansai's thoughts to see the differences of reception and development of the Neo-Confucian thought in Choso˘n and Tokugawa Japan. This article, however, focuses on the commonalities and similarities shared by the two Neo-Confucians who lived in the totally different political systems and backgrounds. Both of them concentrated not on how to philosophize their own thinking but on ways to actualize the truths revealed by their antecedents. Their lives, therefore, were consistent in practising the truths discovered by the sages. Their concrete methods of practice were Jing(敬) and Yi(義). The two thinkers actualized their beliefs: Nammyeong as Chushi(處士) in times of the massacre of literati in mid Choso˘n period, and Yamazaki Ansai as Binshi(賓帥) in the barrack state, a counry unfamiliar with Neo-Confucianism. They shared the common dreams of being the Wangshi(王帥) and truly corresponded to Chu Hsi(朱熹)'s idea of the citizen of the cosmopolitan world.