A Study on Sohak-bonju (小學本註) Published by Hong Gye-hui(洪啟禧)

This study cross-examines Sohak-bonju (小學本註), published by Hong-Gyehui (洪啟禧) during his tenure as the Magistrate of Gwangju (廣州留守) in 18th-century Joseon, within the broader context of the reception history of Sohak (小學) across East Asia (China and Japan). The bonju (original commentary), which represents the earliest stage of annotations from when Zhu Xi compiled Sohak during the Song dynasty, does not survive as an independent edition in China; rather, it has been preserved only as citations embedded within Sohak-jipseong (小學集成) compiled by He Shi-xin (何士信) during the late Yuan and early Ming dynasties. In Japan, Yamazaki Ansai (山崎闇齋), a prominent neo-Confucian scholar of the Edo period, recognized these embedded annotations as Zhu Xi’s authentic commentaries. He subsequently extracted, edited, and published them as an independent text titled Sohak-bonju, thereby laying the ideological foundation for Edo Neo- Confucianism. In Joseon, following its introduction during the late Goryeo period, the unannotated Sohak-daemun(小學大文) was utilized for a long time. Later, voluminous commentaries such as Sohak-jipseong, Sohak-jipseol, Sohak-jegajipju (小學諸家集註), and Sohak-eonhae (小學諺解) served as standard texts. However, as Zhu Xi-centrism intensified during the 18th century, Song Mun-hum(宋文欽) and Im Seong-ju(任聖周)—both disciples of Yi Jae (李縡)—identified through rigorous textual criticism that the bonju inside Sohak-jipseong was indeed Zhu Xi’s own commentary. Although they compiled the Sohak-bonju, they were unable to publish it. In 1753, upon taking office as the Magistrate of Gwangju, Hong Gyehui bridged the statecraft (gyeongse chiyong) purpose of providing livelihoods for the Buddhist monk-soldiers (seunggun) in Namhansanseong Fortress with the practical need to reduce book distribution costs. By integrating their textual achievements with his own Goi(考異), he successfully published the six-volume, single-book Hong Gye-hui edition of Sohak-bonju using woodblocks. Furthermore, this study suggests the possibility that news of the Ansai school's compilation of Sohak-bonju in Japan might have reached the Joseon scholarly community during the 1711 diplomatic mission (Chosun Tongsinsa), serving as an intellectual catalyst. In conclusion, the Hong Gye-hui edition of Sohak-bonju stands as an academic milestone that fused the 18th-century Joseon Noron faction's orthodox aspiration for “restoring the original forms of Zhu Xi’s scholarship” with a local magistrate's socio-economic insight. This study expands the horizon of domestic Sohak research, which has previously been heavily centered on the Yulgok (李珥, Yi I) lineage, into a wider East Asian scope, and holds significant value in re-evaluating the ideological and bibliographic status of Hong Gye-hui’s publication.