¹ Our classification here follows the Sang-yun, Hyŏn, Chōsŏn yuhak-sa [History of Korean Confucianism] (Seoul: Minjung Sogwan, 1949)Google Scholar. For the classification of Korean Confucian scholars see also: Toru, Takahashi, “Chōsen ni okeru shushigaku” [“Chu Hsi-ism in Korea”], Shibun, XIII, No. 11 (Oct. 1931), 1–18Google Scholar; and Ryū, Imanishi, “Rishi Chōsen no gakufū” [“Yi Dynasty Schools of Thought”], Shinagaku, I, No. 5 (Jan. 1911), 399–404Google Scholar.

² For the School of I, see Tanetsugu, Akitsuki, “Shushi no tetsugaku” [“The Philosophy of Chu Hsi”], Shibun, XIII, No. 11 , p. 19Google Scholar; Tōru, Takahashi, “Richō jugaku-shi ni okeru shuriha shugiha no hattatsu” [“Development of the Schools of Form and Matter in the History of Yi Dynasty Confucianism”], Chōsen Shina bunka no kenkyū (Tokyo, 1929), pp. 141–281Google Scholar; also Tada Masatomo, “Katei-shū kaisetsū” [“Explanation of the Collected Works of Kajŏg," i.e., Yi Kok, a Koryŏ scholar-official, 1298-1351], gakusō, Seikyū, No. 1 (Feb. 1930), pp. 135–142Google Scholar; and Takahashi Tōru, “Chōsen jugaku taikan" ["A General Survey of Korean Confucianism"] in Chōsen-shi kōza, passim.

³ Takahashi reports, however, that Chŏng Man-jo_b, the late Dean of the Confucian University of Seoul, denied that the philosophy of Chu Hsi was dominant in Korea. Chŏng said that since Chu Hsi-ism was orthodox and enforced by the realm, scholars studied it in order to pass the examinations and gave lip service to its doctrines, but that actually their belief ran closer to that of Wang Yang-ming. As examples, Chŏng cited his own family, the Chŏngs of Tongnae, as well as the Chŏnju Yi family (presumably cadet branches) whose senior line was the royal family. Cf. Tōru, Takahashi, “Chōsen no Yōmeigaku-ha” ["The Yang-ming School in Korea"], Chōsen gakuhō, IV (March 1953), 155Google Scholar.

⁴ Üi-don, Hwang, biography of Yi I in Chosŏn myŏng'in jŏn [Biographies of Eminent Koreans] (Seoul: Chosŏn ilbo ch'ulp'an-sa, 1939), I, 256–287Google Scholar; Yi I, Sŏnghak chibyo^l [Selections from Confucian Studies] (Seoul, 1759), 157 ppGoogle Scholar.

⁵ Takahashi Toru, “Chōsen ni okeru shushigaku,” p. 1 ft., in enumerating the samja lists Song Si-yŏl (Uam)^o (1607–89) instead of Hwadam, basing his judgment on the importance of his published works. Hwadam has usually been included on the basis of his position as founder of a philosophic school, monism (Irwŏllon)^p.

⁶ Hŭi, Hong, “Chŏn Kan-je sŏnsaeng hagan ilban” [“Survey of the Works of Chŏn Kan-je”], Seikyŭ gakusō, No. 16 (May 1934), pp. 61–74Google Scholar, describes the Nakhak and the Hohak, known together as the Horak. The Nakhak was headed by Yi Kan (Oeam)^q (1677–1756) and the Hohak, by Han Wōn-jin (Namdang)t (1682–1751); both were disciples of Kwŏn Sang-ha (Suam)^u (1641–1721), who was in turn a disciple of Uam one of the founders of the Noron. Oeam and Namdang were regarded as being of the political-philosophic stripe of Yulgok.

⁷ Chu Hsi had used the term ssu-tuan ch'i-ch'ing. The shorter Korean form is said to have emerged in the discussions between Yulgok and Kobong (see below).

⁸ The interpretation of the “Legalist School” and the use of the term for a group of sixteenth-century Yi-dynasty scholar-officials remains controversial. It is correct in its implied emphasis on law used systematically by a central authority. However, its relation to the Chinese tradition of the same name is less certain. Some regard the Korean group as being primarily Chu Hsi-ists developing a certain part of Chu Hsi doctrine. Hsiin Tzu's influence on the school lacks much direct evidence, and even Hsiin Tzu was, after all, a Confucianist. Certainly the direct influence on the Korean “Legalists” of the fa-chia of the Ch'in and the guiding political theory of that empire would be hard to demonstrate and seems improbable.

⁹ Bunkichi, Tominaga, “Ōji no Chōsen ni okeru jichi no hōga kyoyaku no ippan” [“A Survey of the Rural Regulations: the Beginnings of Autonomy in Old Korea”] (pamphlet, Chōsen Sōtokufu, 1923), p. 12Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Hong-nyol, Yu^aa, “Chŏson hyangyak ŭi sŏngnip” [“The Beginnings of Rural Autonomy in Old Korea”], Chindan hakpo, IX (July 1938), 86–144Google Scholar.

¹¹ Maema Kosaku, p. 16. Yi scholars clung to the belief that Chu Hsi himself had written the Li-chi, a standard work on ritual probably compiled in the Han dynasty; Ch'ing scholars disclaimed his authorship of this text.

¹² Iwakichi, Inaba, “Raimatsu Sensho ni okeru karei denrai oyobi sono eikyō” [“The Tradition of Household Ceremonies from the End of Koryŏ to Early Yi and Its Influence”], Seikyū gakusō, No. 23 (Feb. 1936), pp. 1–22Google Scholar; see also Tu-hŏn, Kim, “Chōsen reisoku no kenkyū,” Seikyū gakusō, No. 24 (May 1936), pp. 1–62Google Scholar.

¹³ On the school and influence of Wang Yang-ming in Korea see Nŭng-hwa, Yi, “Chosŏn yuhak chi Yangmyŏnghak-p'a” [“The Yang-ming School of Korean Confucianism”], Seikyū gakusō, No. 25 (May 1936), pp. 105–142Google Scholar; Tōru, Takahashi, “Chōsen no Yōmeigaku-ha” [“The Yang-ming School in Korea”], Chōsen gakuhō, IV (March 1953), pp. 131–156Google Scholar; In-bo, Chŏng, Tanwŏn kfkhak sango ^aj [Notes on Tanwŏn's Korean Studies] (Seoul, 1955), pp. 145–300Google Scholar; Hong Hŭi, “Chosŏn hagye-sa” [“History of Korea's Scholarly Attainments”] in Chōsen-ski kōza bunrui-shi; Pyeng-do, Yi, “Yangmyōng-sŏ chi tongnae yŏ T'oege chi pyŏnch'ok” [“The Introduction of the Yang-ming School to Korea and its Rejection by T'oege”] in Yongje Paek Nak-chun paksa hwan'gap kinyŏm kukhak nonch'ŏng ^aj [Collection of Studies on Korea in Honor of the Sixtieth Birthday of Dr. George Paek] (Seoul, 1956), pp. 803–806Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Kim Ha-t'ae^ab “The Transmission of Neo-Confucianism to Japan by Kang Hang, a Prisoner-of-war,” pp. 21–51 of the English section of Yongje Paek Nak-chun … , p. 291.

¹⁵ For the Sirhak see Masayuki, Yamaguchi, “Kinsei Chōsen ni okeru seigaku shisō no tōzen to sono hattatsu” [“The Introduction of Western Thought to Korea and its Development”] in Oda sensei shōju kjnen Chōsen-shū (Seoul, 1934), p. 1074Google Scholar; s Toshio, Ishii, “Rigaku shigō shugi Richō e no tenshūkyō no Chōsen” [“Catholic Korea in (the Context of) the Extremist Philosophy of the Yi Dynasty School of Form”] in Rekishigaku kenkyū, C, No. 6 (1942), 35–56Google Scholar; Hiroshi, Shikada, “Kyūrai no Chōsen shakai no rekishiteki seikaku ni tsuite” [“On the Historical Characteristics of Korea's Past Society”], Chōsen gaknhō, No. 1 (1951), pp. 193–206Google Scholar; No. 2 (1951), pp. 155–173; No. 3 (1952), pp. 119–147; Kwan-u, Ch'ŏn^as, “Pange Yu Hyŏng-wŏn yŏngu” [“Studies on Pange Yu Hyŏng-wŏn”], Yŏksa hakpo (1952–53), pp. 9–83, 87–139Google Scholar; Man-ch'ae, Yi, Pyōkwi p'yōn [Compilations of a Defense Against Heresy] (Seoul: Pyŏkwi-sa, 1931), 2 vols.Google Scholar; I-sŏp, Hong^au, “Hanguk kidokkyo-sa yŏngu” [“Studies in the History of Korean Christianity”], Yongje Paek. Nak-chun… , pp. 759–800, n. 47Google Scholar; Yun-je, Cho^av, Kungmunhak-sa [History of Our National Literature] (Seoul, 1954)Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Hummel, Arthur W., ed., Eminent Chinese of the Ch'ing Period, I, 422–423Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Che-ga, Pak (Ch'ojŏng)^aw (1750–1805), Pukhagŭi ^ax [Treatise on Learning from the North] (Seoul: Kūmyung Chohap Yōnhap-hoe, 1947)Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Hong Tae-yong (Tamhŏn)^ay (1731–83) criticized the theory of obligations between lesser and greater states which Korea followed in respect to China and which Confucian scholars sanctified by reference to the Spring and Autumn Annals. In his “Üisan mundap^as,” 'Tamhōnsŏ (Seoul, 1939), IV, Appendix, p. 37Google Scholar, Hong wrote that in the Ch'un-ch'iu Confucius ascribed hegemony to the Chou because he was a man of Chou; had he been a Korean, there would have been another Ch'un-ch'iu and Korea would have been given preeminence. For a Marxist-Communist interpretation, see Ki-mun, Hong, “Hong Dai Yong” in Progressive Scholars at the Close of the Feudal Age in Korea (Pyŏngyang: Ministry of Culture and Propaganda, DPRK, 1955), pp. 44–60Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Ik, Yi (Sŏngho), Sŏngho saesŏl yusŏn [Miscellanies of Songho Collected and Classified], ed. In-bo, Chŏng (Seoul: Mun'gwang Sŏrim Changp'an, 1929), 5 volsGoogle Scholar.

²⁰ Ibid., II, Part A, 40.

²¹ As pioneers in Korean criticism of Chu Hsi, a tendency later associated with many Sirhak-Namin scholars, Pyeng-do, Yi in Tuge chapp'il [Miscellaneous Writings of Tuge (Yi Pyeng-do)] (Seoul, 1956), pp. 292–300Google Scholar, mentions Yun Hyu (Paekho)^ah and his contemporary, Pak Se-dang (Sŏge)^ai (1629–93). The former's writings have largely been lost, but Sŏge, an early Sirhak. writer, was one of the first Koreans extensively to criticize Chu Hsi.

²² Henderson, Gregory, “Chŏng Ta-san: A Study in Korea's Intellectual History,” JAS, XVI (May 1957). 377–386Google Scholar.

²³ This title is not conventional Chinese. Tasan explains that since he himself cannot govern the people, he must write down what is in his heart.

²⁴ Yŏrha ilgi (Seoul: Chosŏn kwangmunhoe, 1911).

²⁵ Tanwŏn was a professional Chungin^ba painter, was not a politician, and probably did not have real factional ties, but his paintings appear to reflect something of the Namin viewpoint.

²⁶ Hong-nyŏl, Yu, “Raimatsu Sensho no shigaku” [“The Private Schools of the End of Koryŏ and the Beginning of Yi”], Seikyō gakusō, No. 24 (May 1936), pp. 64–119Google Scholar; “Chōsen ni okeru shoin no seiritsu” [“Establishment of sŏwŏn in Korea”], Seikyŭ gakusō, No. 29 (Aug. 1937), pp. 24–90Google Scholar, and No. 30 (Oct. 1939) pp. 63–116; Man-gyu, Yi, Chosŏn kyoyuk-sa [History of Korean Education] (Seoul, 1949), 2 vols.Google Scholar; Sōtoku-fu, Chosŏsen, Chōsen no shūraku [Korean Villages] (Seoul, 1933–35), 3 vols.Google Scholar; Eisuke, Zenshō, “Chōsen jugaku no kyōtoteki kōsatsu” [“Local Considerations of Korean Confucianism”], Chōsen, No. 210 (Nov. 1932), pp. 81–129Google Scholar.

²⁷ The main buildings of the old Sŏnggyun-gwan still exist, and ceremonies continue to be performed in them; the old shrine has been incorporated into a flourishing university of die same name in Seoul. This university is said to be the only “Confucian university” now existing. Its present name, different from former corresponding Chinese institutions, was given to it in 1308 and is said to reflect Mongol influence following the Mongol conquest of Korea.

²⁸ This statement is perhaps overly general. Regulations on the establishment and maintenance of hyanggyo were rather specific but too detailed to elaborate here. The basic references for such regulations are the Taejŏn t'ongp'yŏn ^bs, the standard compilation of the laws and ordinances of the Yi dynasty prepared during the reign of Chŏngjo (1777–1800) and its supplement, the Taejŏn hoet'ong ^by, compiled at the order of Kojong in 1865. See also Yi Man-gyu, passim.

²⁹ Toege, for example, enjoyed an excellent reputation in Japan. See Kim Ha-t'ae, pp. 27–28, 35, 50.