The book Shuowen Jiezi Yizheng (说文解字翼徵) written by Piao Xuan-Shou, which is a book specializing in the study of Shuowen Jiezi (說文解字) in the late Joseon Dynasty, is the first one to utilize materials of bronze inscriptions objects and stone inscriptions to make supplements and textual criticism of Shuowen Jiezi (說文解字). The article organizes the stone-carved material of Zuchu Wen (詛楚文), which is quoted in the book, and analyzes it from the aspects of the meaning of the quotation, the source of the quotation, the quotation and the copying. After that, this paper revises and supplies the situation of Shuowen Jiezi (說文解字) by quoting Zuchu wen (詛楚文) in the book,and combines with specific examples of characters to annotate and comment. According to whether there is any interpretation, whether there is any new content in the interpretation, etc., it is divided into three categories. And under each word, the original content of Shuowen Jiezi (說文解字) quoted in the book, the supplementary ancient characters as well as the main content of the interpretation are cited firstly, and then explains Piao’s analysis of the words’ form and meaning appropriately, and Piao’s viewpoints are evaluated by making full use of ancient character materials and the results of the existing studies and interpretations. The purpose of this article is to clarify the factual situation of Piao’s quotation of the Zuchu Wen (詛楚文) , evaluate the gains and losses of Piao’s textual criticism of the Shuowen Jiezi (說文解字) objectively, and supply the shortages of current research on Piao’s quotation of materials other than the bronze inscriptions.

In the “宀” radical of Shuowen Jiezi (說文解字): “家，凥也。从宀，豭省聲。𠖔，古文 家.” Duan Yucai believed that, the character “家” (jia) is composed of the radicals “宀” and “豕”, and should be classified under the radical “豕” instead of “宀”. The so-called “豭省聲” mentioned by Xu Shen is baseless. Based on the research of scholars in the Qing Dynasty, as well as the evidence from oracle bone inscriptions and bronze inscriptions, it can be concluded that “豭” is a newly created character, and its ancient form should be “𢑓”, which is “豕” with an additional semantic stroke indicating a male pig. The original intention of “豭省聲” should be to omit the character form of “叚” while preserve the pronunciation of “叚”. This takes into account both the ideographic character “家” derived from “ (𢑓)” and the phonetic-semantic character “家” derived from “ (豭)”. Duan Yucai proposed the concepts of “the original meaning of character creation” and “the original sense of character usage” to distinguish between the original meaning and the extended borrowed meaning, which is the value of his theory.

본고는 大徐本《說文解字》와《說文解字繫傳》중에 ‘亦聲’ 계열의 글자 94개를 분석하고, 徐鉉 과 徐鍇이 亦聲字를 판별할 당시의 개인적 차이와 태도에 대해 살펴보았다. 연구를 통해 94개의 글자 중에서 許慎의 분석에 오류가 있는 5개를 발견하였고, 그들을 제외하고 大徐本《說文解字》에서는 57개, 《說文解字繫傳》에서는 24개의 글자가 있으며, ‘역성’으로 분석 할 수 있는 글자를 모두 합하면 모두 74개가 있고, 두 책 모두 평균 2개의 분석 오류가 있었으며, 어떻게 분석을 진행해야 하는지 어려운 6개 글자가 있음을 알 수 있었다. 분석 이후에 徐鉉이 교정본을 제작할 당시 매우 신중하고 엄밀하였음을 알 수 있었으며, 그가 자신이 연구한 자의의 연구 성과를 매우 중시하여 실현하고 있음을 밝힐 수 있었다.