毛奇齡《詩經》學域外傳播研究的反思－以朝鮮正祖《詩經講義》為例

朝鮮正祖治《詩》立場以朱子為正統，其《詩經講義》中與抄啟文臣間問答的形式，與毛奇齡《詩經》學專著的問答體例，異曲同工；而在《詩經》的內容觀點闡釋上，也涵蓋了毛奇齡《詩經》學專著中所有探討的問題，可見是探討毛奇齡《詩經》學在域外傳播的研究影響及定位的重要文本。考察中國《詩經》學史對於毛奇齡的《詩經》研究，大多論評毛奇齡批判朱熹說法的錯誤，以及肯定他博辨考證的成果，而不探討他《詩經》研究的思想及方法的運用，故毛奇齡研究《詩經》的獨特性，並沒有真正被完全掌握。韓國學者雖然能關注正祖朝對毛奇齡說法的接受及影響，但對於正祖與臣子如何引用、批判毛奇齡說法，同時也對朱熹說法進行反思及討論，也缺少方法上的演進以及朝鮮《詩經》研究獨立性的探討。

關鍵字

毛奇齡；《詩經》學；正祖；《詩經講義》；域外傳播

並列摘要

The study of the position of Shijing by Joseon Jeongjo was based on Zhu Xi’s argument. The format of recording the dialogues between the emperor and the courtiers in Shi Jing Jiang Yi was similar to Mao Qiling’s work about Shijing. Shi Jing Jiang Yi also discussed all the issues articulated in Mao’s writings. Shi Jing Jiang Yi is an important research material for people who examine the influence of Mao’s study outside of Joseon’s territory. Previous studies of Shijing mainly commented on Mao’s criticism of Zhu’s mistakes and discussed the solid research by Mao. These studies did not extend their discussions to Mao’s thoughts and methodology. Therefore, the uniqueness of Mao’s study of Shijing was not fully explored. Korean scholars paid more attention to whether and how Joseon Jeongjo and his courtiers accepted and influenced Mao’s work on Shi Jing Jiang Yi. However, these scholars ignored the importance of analyzing how Joseon Jeongjo and his courtiers cited and criticized Mao’s argument. In addition, these Korean scholars might need to adopt more progressive methodologies to explore the uniqueness of studying Shijing in the Korean context, which is worth investigating in future.