A Review of Seopa(西陂) Yuhui(柳僖)'s Works on “Shangshu尙書”

This paper is to sort out the content and explore the characteristics of the three research works on “Shangshu” of Yuhui (柳僖, 1773-1837), a Confusion scholar in the late Joseon Dynasty. ShinChak(申綽), a famous scholar of textual research in the late Joseon Dynasty, mentioned in a letter to ChongYak-Yong(丁若鏞) that Yuhui’s textual research on “Guwen Shangshu古文尙書” was meticulous and detailed. He also praised Yuhui's very high attainment in interpreting “Chunqiu 春秋” in “Taegyosingi胎敎新記序”. However, as Yuhui’s works on Confucian classics were not included in several famous Korean series such as “The Complete Collection of the Korean Study of Confucian Classics韓國經學資料集成”, “Korean Literary Collections in Classical Chinese韓國文集叢刊”, “Korean Anthology in History韓國歷代文集叢書”, and they were not published in separate volumes, they have received little attention from the academic circles. Based on “Yuhui Chronicle”, Yuhui's personal notes and many other clues, this paper first speculates that Yuhui's publications should have the following sequence: firstly “SangSeoKoGeummoonSongEui尙書今古文訟疑”(1824), then “SeoChaejeonboseol書蔡傳補說”(presumably written between 1824-1825), to be followed by “SeoGo書詁”(written after August 1825). In addition, his “Shangshu” theory has the following characteristics and significance: 1. Analysis based on textual research: In the debate on ancient prose, if ChongYak-Yong is compared to Yan Ruoqiu(閻若璩), Yuhui can be compared to Mao Qiling(毛奇齡). The reason is that those who supported the ancient text “Shangshu” in the Joseon Dynasty mostly refuted the study of school examination because of the sixteen-character mentality. They think analysing the classics through textual research is like “trusting the leaves and query the root” and is a waste of effort. However, Yuhui’s method of analysing classics was different from that of the predecessors. He adopted textual research, going through systematically the historical records of the past dynasties and the theories of the predecessors one by one. At the same time, Yuhui often cited Mao Qiling's theory as his own supporting evidence, which is very different from the previous Korean scholars who belittled Xihe. 2. Interpreting the classics through linguistics: Due to innate factors, Korean Confucianists seldom used the convenience of geographical location to discuss the authenticity of the ancient “Shangshu” like the Ming and Qing scholars who adopted the methods of geographical research and ancient and modern phonetics. Instead, they defended the ancient text “Shangshu”. based on viewpoints such as “the words of the sages are inviolable”, “as Zhu Zi never said this is a fake book, it must be authentic”, “the meaning is correct, so it is not a fake book”. In addition to Yuhui's method of textual research to affirm his own views, it can also be seen that Yuhui used his expertise in Guoyinxue to explain the classics. For example, on the issue of Fu Sheng's dictation of the classics, Yuhui not only pointed out that similar characters might have caused errors, but also cited examples of errors caused by sounds. 3. Revising and supplementing “Shu Ji Zhuan書集傳”: Although “Shu Ji Zhuan” has been standing for hundreds of years since the Yuan Dynasty, there have been views of support and opposition since its compilation at the end of the Song Dynasty. Yuhui's “SeoChaejeonboseol” and “SeoGo” show that Korean Confucianists did not completely stick to the “Shu Ji Zhuan” which represents Zhu Xi's last will and would also identify the mistakes and suggest amendments to the text when the meaning was not clear. 4. Compilation of lost merits: Many ancient theories are quoted in the three works, such as those of Ma Qianluan馬遷鸞 from the Song Dynasty and Li Pan李槃 from the Ming Dynasty, which is very rare. If “MunTong文通” can be organized and understood,