東儒들의 『朱子家禮』에 대한 본격적인 연구는 16세기 후반부터 이루어진다. 이는 세 가지 動因에 의해 촉발된 것으로 보인다. 첫째는 『주자가례』라는 서적의 보급과 확산이다. 둘째는 『의례경전통해』의 수입과 보급이다. 세째는 1518년 도입되어 中宗대에 간행된 『家禮儀節』의 流通이다. 이는 조선에서 『주자가례』에 대한 연구가 그 시작에서부터 ‘古禮의 정신에 따른 보완’이라는 문제의식에 의해 강하게 추동되고 있음을 의미한다. 아울러 동유들의 대응은 『家禮儀節』의 ‘요리법’을 따라 ‘行禮’와 ‘考證’ 그리고 ‘變禮’의 방향으로 자리잡는다.
15세기에는 『經國大典』과 『國朝五禮儀』 등 國家典禮를 정초하기 위해 힘을 쏟는 한편으로, 민간의례의 측면에서 혼례와 상례 그리고 제례에 관한 국가 공인의 ‘行禮 매뉴얼’이 마련된다.
16세기에는 『주자가례』에 기반한 喪祭禮와 관련된 간편한 ‘行禮’ 지침서들과 행례의 과정에서 문제가 되는 ‘變禮’의 상황을 처리하기 위해 토론한 문답서류들이 등장한다. 아울러 『주자가례』의 의미를 명료화하고 그것의 연원을 탐구한 ‘훈고와 고증’에 관련된 주석서가 나타난다.
17세기에는 초보적인 喪-祭禮 지침서는 사라지고 체재와 내용면에서 충실한 지침서들이 나타나고, 諺解書가 등장하며, 疑禮에 대한 관심이 독자적인 禮書로까지 정리된다. 이는 『주자가례』의 시행이 확산되고 있음을 보여주는 분명한 징표들이다.
18세기에는 ‘행례’와 ‘고증’ 그리고 ‘변례’의 측면에서 기호학파와 영남학파 각각 이전의 연구를 집대성한 성격의 저술이 등장한다. 이러한 작업은 모두 1740년부터 1780년에 이르는 기간에 집중적으로 나타난다는 점에서 특징적이다. 이어지는 19세기는 이들 작품을 보완하거나 절요본을 통해 확산시키려는 노력이 진행된다. 이는 東儒들의 家禮 연구는 17세기가 아니라, 18세기 후반기에 그 절정에 도달하여 만개하고 있음을 의미하는 것이다.
Full-fledged research on Zhu Xi's Family Ritual according to Master Zhu by Korean Neo-Confucian scholars take place beginning in the latter part of the 16th century. There are seemingly two reasons for this development. The first is the dissemination and wide-spread availability of the work, Family Ritual according to Master Zhu. The second is the circulation of the Guide to Practising the Family Ritual according to Master Zhu, which was introduced from China in 1518 and published during the reign of King Chungchong. The propagation and distribution of the Guide to Practising the Family Ritual according to Master Zhu serve to make aware the need for evidential research in remedying theoretical shortcomings in the Family Ritual according to Master Zhu, as well as the need for procedural guidelines for facilitating the actual implementation of relevant rituals among Korean Confucian scholars. In the 16th century, various concise guidebooks concerning the actual implementation of funerary and ancestral ritual appear on the scene. In the process, certain question-and answer booklets dealing with questions on problematic subjects in the course of implementing the rituals also come to the fore. The question-and answer booklets are compositive in that they not only contain specific guidelines for the enactment of ritual, but also explanations of and evidential research on the original text itself. From the latter part of the 16th century, proto-commentaries on the text that first appear in the early part of the century develop into full-blown commentaries with professional content and structure. On a more limited scale, works that deal with overall issues on the implementation of ritual can also be seen. Studies of the Family Ritual according to Master Zhu in the 17th century take on the following three characteristics: 1) amateurish and rudimentary guides to funerary and ancestral ritual give way to solid, substantial guides that are equipped with the necessary content and organization, 2) Korean language annotations to the Family Ritual according to Master Zhu appear on the scene, and 3) interest in conflicting arguments on the interpretation of proper ritual leads to independent works on ritual. This points to the widespread practice of the Family Ritual according to Master Zhu at the time, and also signifies that the interest in the implementation of ritual was being carried over to a deepened scholarly research into the Family Ritual itself. The 18th century is noted for independent works on ritual, the content of which reflects the fact that scholars' interest in conflicting arguments on the interpretation of proper ritual and in possibilities of alternative ritual in cases necessitated by expediency had left the restrictive setting of the question-and-answer format. This signifies that issues which arose in the process of the implementation of the Family Ritual came to be settled while undergoing academic review. In that possibilities of alternative ritual in cases necessitated by expediency came to be included in the actual text of the works on ritual, studies on the Family Ritual of the period can be seen as entering a certain "Koreanized" phase of completion.
Full-fledged research on Zhu Xi's Family Ritual according to Master Zhu by Korean Neo-Confucian scholars take place beginning in the latter part of the 16th century. There are seemingly two reasons for this development. The first is the dissemination and wide-spread availability of the work, Family Ritual according to Master Zhu. The second is the circulation of the Guide to Practising the Family Ritual according to Master Zhu, which was introduced from China in 1518 and published during the reign of King Chungchong. The propagation and distribution of the Guide to Practising the Family Ritual according to Master Zhu serve to make aware the need for evidential research in remedying theoretical shortcomings in the Family Ritual according to Master Zhu, as well as the need for procedural guidelines for facilitating the actual implementation of relevant rituals among Korean Confucian scholars. In the 16th century, various concise guidebooks concerning the actual implementation of funerary and ancestral ritual appear on the scene. In the process, certain question-and answer booklets dealing with questions on problematic subjects in the course of implementing the rituals also come to the fore. The question-and answer booklets are compositive in that they not only contain specific guidelines for the enactment of ritual, but also explanations of and evidential research on the original text itself. From the latter part of the 16th century, proto-commentaries on the text that first appear in the early part of the century develop into full-blown commentaries with professional content and structure. On a more limited scale, works that deal with overall issues on the implementation of ritual can also be seen. Studies of the Family Ritual according to Master Zhu in the 17th century take on the following three characteristics: 1) amateurish and rudimentary guides to funerary and ancestral ritual give way to solid, substantial guides that are equipped with the necessary content and organization, 2) Korean language annotations to the Family Ritual according to Master Zhu appear on the scene, and 3) interest in conflicting arguments on the interpretation of proper ritual leads to independent works on ritual. This points to the widespread practice of the Family Ritual according to Master Zhu at the time, and also signifies that the interest in the implementation of ritual was being carried over to a deepened scholarly research into the Family Ritual itself. The 18th century is noted for independent works on ritual, the content of which reflects the fact that scholars' interest in conflicting arguments on the interpretation of proper ritual and in possibilities of alternative ritual in cases necessitated by expediency had left the restrictive setting of the question-and-answer format. This signifies that issues which arose in the process of the implementation of the Family Ritual came to be settled while undergoing academic review. In that possibilities of alternative ritual in cases necessitated by expediency came to be included in the actual text of the works on ritual, studies on the Family Ritual of the period can be seen as entering a certain "Koreanized" phase of completion.
