Toegye is a moralist representing Joseon Dynasty. He has written around two thousand poems. He has written around two thousand poems. His poetry was largely influenced by Tao Yan Ming and Du Fu, and also took advantage of various masters including Li Bai, Bai Ju-I and Su Shi. In his later years, he liked the poetry of Zhu Xi very much. In this paper, it was tried to study the poetry of Teogye and Li Bai. Toegye and Li Bai have tendencies contrary to each other. Looking at the ≪Memoirs of Toegye≫ recorded by the literary students, the appearance of Toegye is a group of ideal images of a moralist including "serenity, purity, upright, solemn, organised and meditating". In this study, as a result of analysing the poetry of Toegye in the image of "spirits, Zhuang-Zhi and Taoist hermit", it was found that: he presented spirits and friends when he felt the wall of reality; admired the world of Taoist hermits when the country was agitated and put in the image of Zhuang-Zhi when he wanted to live in seclusion. By analysing such poetry writing pattern of Toegye, Toegye did not simply borrow or copy lines of Li Bai, but rather left some great works that are not second to Li Bai with some of this works. Additionally, it was possible to peek into another humanity of his that was not found in the moralist Teogye.

이 논문은 퇴계의 한시에 나타난 ‘졸박’의 미의식을 탐색한 논문이다. 퇴계는 약 2000여수의 시를 남겼다. 그의 시 대부분이 산수 자연을 노래한 전원시 경향을 드러내고 있으며 시의 소재도 노송, 오두막, 학, 물고기, 매화, 달, 연못, 연꽃, 대나무, 바위, 시내, 누정 등 소박한 정감을 드러내고 있다. 퇴계의 한시에는 산수자연의 생활체험과 예술감각이 교융된 졸박(拙樸)의 미학이 드러나고 있다. 퇴계의 강호가도는 도산십이곡을 비롯하여 도산잡영에 집중적으로 나타나 있으며 퇴계는 도산을 졸박의 미학 공간으로 인식하고 있었다, 퇴계의 산수시, 매화시, 愛蓮詩, 누정시, 등 시 전반에 걸쳐 졸박의 미학이 감지되고 있다. 그의 시를 통해 졸박의 미학을 탐색하여 퇴계시에 대한 감상의 폭을 넓히고자 하였다. 졸박! 이것은 퇴계의 자연시 창작의 미학 이념이었다.

TOEGYE(退係)(LEE HWANG;李滉), a great philosopher and educator of Josun Dynasty, lived in the mid-16th century. As he grew in the good environment, studied philosophy very hard, perceived the Principle of the Cosmos and the Nature. The philosophy of TOEGYE is called SUNGRIHAK(性理學), so he explained that the Cosmos is made up of IKIIWONLON(理氣二元論) based on LI(理) and KI(氣). LI, the origin of the creatures, is the same with SUNG(性), the origin of the Cosmos. Above all, human beings made much of GYUNG(敬) which cultivated his spirit. After he was 50 years personality, he emphasized that we, human beings, had to observe propriety and morality, love his children, be dutiful to his parents. Husband and wife had to respect each other. Especially, they maintained the harmony of their homes. His Educational Thought is, first of all, to set human`s steady purpose in life, to perform his personality, to respect individual character, to render aid to the poor in charity, to get rid of the excessive greediness, to be economical, and to love the nature. He used a method of the Conversation or a method of the Question and Answer to teach his pupils. However, In case of having no answer, he corresponded with his pupils to catch question. We have to follow Toegye`s Educational Thought based on the cultivation of the Personality, a steady will, the performance of Morality and Propriety(孝) and his economical spirit, he was dedicated to the education of the young.

퇴계 이황과 엘리엇에게는 시간과 공간적 배경에서 매우 커다란 차이가 있음에도 불구하고 형이상학적 혹은 초월적 사변과 가치에 경도되었 다는 공통점을 갖는다. 둘은 모두 현상계를 스스로 해결할 수 없는 문 제를 갖고 있는 열등하고 타락한 상태로 인식하며 그 상태로부터 초월적 구원의 방법을 모색한다. 퇴계는 성(性), 즉 인간의 마음속에 있는 우주의 근본원리로서의 리(理)의 존재를 확립하고 리가 주체적이고 적극적으로 작용한다는 것을 보이기 위한 노력을 포기하지 않았다. 이 노력이 극적으로 표출된 것이 고봉 기대승과의 사단칠정(四端七情)논쟁이 다. 20세기 초의 엘리엇은 자유주의자 그리고 인본주의자들의 인간 중심 혹은 이성 중심의 경향에 맞서 교회와 그 가치를 굳건히 지킬 것을 주창한다. 엘리엇이 말하는 초자연성(the supernatural) 혹은 신성(the divine)은 퇴계가 우주원리로서 받아들인 리처럼 초월적 혹은 형이상학적 도덕론을 통한 문제해결 모색과 크게 다르지 않다. 엘리엇이 현실계 에 대한 품은 부정적 인식과 형이상학적 해결을 모색해가는 과정은 황 무지 에서 출발하여 재의 수요일 을 거쳐 네 사중주 에 이르기까지 명확하게 드러나 있다. 성리학과 엘리엇의 초월적 사유가 가진 자위성 과 위계적 세계관이 어떻게 실체적 근거와 타당성을 확보할 수 있을 것 인가는 특별히 현대적 상황에서 유용한 질문으로 보인다.

이 논문은 南冥과 退溪 先生의 用韻 系統을 歸納했는데, 이 系統으로 平水韻 과 比較하고, 中國의 詩人인 蘇軾과 高啟의 用韻 系統을 比較하여 退溪와 南冥 의 用韻 系統의 특징을 지적해내고, 朝鮮 16세기 文學語音에 대한 초보적인 탐 구를 했다. 南冥이 入聲 韻尾를 쓰는데 혼란한 것이 대략 100분의 8을 점하고, 退溪는 入 聲 韻尾를 쓰는데 혼란한 것이 대략 100분의 13을 점한다. 응당 入聲 韻尾인- p･-l･-k가 셋으로 나누어진 상황이 존재한다는 것을 인정해야 하고, 실제 用韻 에 통용한 상황이 있는데, 南冥은 用韻의 혼란이 많지 않은데, 退溪는 用韻의 혼란이 비교적 많다. 平水韻은 13세기에 출현한 뒤로 줄곧 清나라에 이르기까지 影響이 매우 컸 다. 中國의 지식인이 格律詩를 쓰면서, 韻字를 고르고 平仄을 배치할 때 모두 平水韻의 규정을 준수했다. 우리들은 응당 南冥･退溪의 押韻 체계가 平水韻과 관계가 있는지 없는지를 보아야 한다. 쉽게 말을 하기 위해서 또한 󰡔廣韻󰡕 의 韻目으로 기초를 삼는다. 눈에 뜨이게 하기 위해서 또한 표를 열거하는 방법을 쓰는데, 첫 번째 줄은 󰡔廣韻󰡕 208韻 韻目이고, 두 번째 줄은 平水韻 106韻의 韻目이고, 세 번째 줄은 退溪先生이 用 韻한 韻部이고, 네 번째 줄은 南冥先生이 用韻한 韻部이다. 韻目은 平聲이 上聲 과 去聲을 포괄한다. 󰡔廣韻󰡕으로부터 平水韻에 이르고, 다시 朝鮮詩人의 用韻 에 이르러 韻部는 간단해지고 통합되었는데 이러한 변화는 부호로 표기한다.

To speak most broadly about the two representative Neo-Confucians of the mid-sixteenth century Choson, Toegye(Yi Hwang, 1501-1570) focused on the theories of nature and principle and self-cultivation, whereas Nammyung(Cho Shik, 1501-1572) focused on those of self-cultivation and righteousness. One may explain such difference by their opposite personalities: the one had a mild temper with sympathy and tolerance, while the other a strong temper with strictness and critical power. Basically, however, these two had a common ground in the system of Neo-Confucianism(Tohak), and their difference occurred in the course of searching for a more rational and efficient way of achieving the same goal. Therefore, the difference is significant in that it presented the complementary models of Neo-Confucian learning as could be realized in that period, and that it diversified, thereby, the mode of understanding and responding to the times as well as the method of learning. So in comparing Toegye and Nammyung's traditions of learning, I aim at drawing attention to the diversifying and complementary meaning of the difference rather than to the contradictory and rivalrous meaning of it. The difference between Toegye and Nammyung in their traditions of learning can be summarized in three points. Firstly, by carrying the question fo attentiveness(jing) through his methodology of learning, Toegye established a tradition centering around the self-cultivation theory. Nammyung, in his part, emphasized the coherence of attentiveness and righteousness(yi) and thereby established a tradition which, though based on the self-cultivation theory, took the righteousness theory seriously to confirm the standard of value necessary for the social practices of self-cultivation. Secondly, Toegye's program proceeds from intellectual activities of deliberation and distinction to self-cultivation, whereas Nammyung's starts from self-cultivation and ends at the social practice of the rule of right(wang-dao). Thirdly, it was a progressive way of reformation aiming at preparing the foundation for the peaceful future that Toegye endeavored to educate the young intellectuals with an intense focus on the self-cultivation theory. On the other hand, it was a radical way toleration no injustice that Nammyung demanded the government a drastic reformation criticizing its contradictory operations directly. Such points of difference provide us the background for understanding the facts that Toegye, having resigned from his official position, exerted himself on learning and self-cultivation and that Nammyung, though never acception an official position, kept raising social issues in a vigorous and strong voice. Different academic traditions of Toegye and Nammyung were closely connected with different attitudes toward the social realities of the times: endeavoring at self-cultivation vs. trying to save the world; providing education for the future vs. trying to realize the ideals in the present. Although the mild and moderate attitude and the strong and radical one are contrary, neither of them are subject to judgement of right and wrong. Rather, both are necessary, for well-balanced solutions can derived only from the harmony and compromise between the two most typical ways of response. By providing the universal truths to their times, the traditions of Toegye and Nammyung could establish themselves as the two main axes of the Neo-Confucian tradition of Choson and exercise extensive influence throughout the late Choson Choson dynasty. Their wisdom needs be re-appreciated as one of the most fundamental insights in our times: the wisdom of understanding the essence of the human hature, devising methods of cultivating human virtues, and seeing that the social order is possible only when founded on the human morality and managing a society only when those in ruling position are moral.