正祖代 御眞과 신하초상의 제작 -초상화를 통한 군신관계의 고찰-

유재빈 한국미술사학회 2011 美術史學硏究 Vol.271272 No.271272

King Jeongjo (r.1776-1800), following his grandfather King Yeongjo’s (r.1725-1776)precedent in which the king had his own portrait painted every ten years, ordered his portrait to be painted twice, in 1781 and in 1791. A custom of the reigning king having his portrait painted existed in the early Joseon period, but disappeared after King Sejong’s (r. 1418-1450) time. The custom was revived centuries later during King Sukjong’s reign (1674-1720) and was inherited by King Yeongjo. Unlike the portrait of a deceased king, the portrait of a reigning monarch was not a commemorative work, but something that was meant to be venerated by his current subjects. With this custom revived, the portrait of a king once again influenced the relationship between the ruler and his subjects. Meanwhile, during Jeongjo’s reign, while the custom of painting the portrait of the reigning king was upheld,the associated practice of producing the so-called portraits of meritorious retainers was not revived. This imbalance makes the portraiture of the king in Jeongjo’s time, closely related to the portraiture of his courtiers, so interesting. During Jeongjo’s time, Kyujanggak was in charge of both the production and placement of his portraits. As a result, Kyujanggak became something close to a workshop of the king’s portrait artists, and its officials participating in the creation of the king’s image.When the king’s portrait was completed, it was housed in Kyujanggak, along with the portraits of Kyujanggak officials. Kyujanggak officials, further, regularly paid respects to the king’s portrait housed there. This royal portrait-related practice empowered Kyujanggak,and the king’s portrait, in turn, influenced, through Kyujanggak, the relationship between the monarch and his courtiers during Jeongjo’s reign. Jeongjo’s portrait influenced his relationship with his courtiers in a very concrete manner,also through the practice called cheommang and cheombae . While the king’s portrait was still in the process of being produced, Jeongjo and his courtiers gathered to look at the portrait in progress (cheommang ), having discussions, at the same time, about the relationship between suzerain and vassals. When the king’s portrait was completed, Jeongjo’s courtiers were made to perform the ritual of bowing to the portrait (cheombae ). The portrait truly became the king’s portrait through the ritual of enshrinement, and the regularly-performed ritual of worshipping it, meanwhile, affirmed the monarch’s authority. In addition to gatherings related to his own portraits, Jeongjo also had gatherings about portraits of his officials; providing more occasions for discussing the relationship between suzerain and vassals. During gatherings for discussing the king’s portrait, portraits of Jeongjo’s courtiers were also on display. Jeongjo’s portrait artists, meanwhile, took part in the creation of portraits of Jeongjo’s courtiers. The stated purpose of viewing court officials’portraits was to use them as references in the creation of the king’s portrait, and the king’s order that the portrait of an official be painted was something akin to a reward to this official. But, the real effect of this gesture was far greater. Jeongjo used portraiture as a carrot and stick approach to controlling his courtiers by awarding or denying a portrait to them, as it suited his agenda. This strategy, in many cases, proved effective in eliciting an active response from his courtiers. Such process of influencing the relationship with a court official by awarding or denying a portrait can be seen in examples like the portrait of Chae Je-gong, created in 1791,following the completion of the king’s portrait. If Kyujanggak was a political space that the king co-inhabits with his courtiers through portraits, the creation of the king’s portrait was the significant event that created such a ritualistic space. In sum, in Jeongjo’s court, a port... 正祖(재위 1776~1800)는 10년마다 자신의 어진을 제작한 영조의 전례에 따라 1781년과 1791년 어진제작을 명하였다. 이처럼 왕이 재위시 자신의 초상을 제작한 전통은 世宗이후 사라졌다가 肅宗代에 부활한후 英祖에 의해 계승된 것이었다. 현임 왕의 어진은 죽은 先朝의 어진과는 달리 왕실 제향의 대상이 아니라신하들의 경배의 대상이었기 때문에, 어진은 다시 현재의 군신관계에 영향을 미치기 시작했다고 할 수 있다. 한편 정조대에는 어진에 대한 전통은 부흥하지만 공신도상은 그려지지 않아서 초상 제작이 불균형한 양상을 보인다. 이러한 맥락에서 신하초상과 밀접한 관계를 맺었던 정조의 어진 제작 사례는 새롭게 주목할 필요가 있다. 정조는 어진의 제작과 봉안을 모두 奎章閣에서 맡아 하도록 하였다. 그 결과 규장각 원내는 어진도사가 이루어지는 장이 되었으며, 규장각 각신들은 왕실의 성역에 참여하는 공신이 되었다. 어진이 완성된 후규장각은 어진과 규장각신의 초상이 함께 봉안된 곳이었으며, 어진이 규장각신의 의례를 받으며 정기적으로봉심되는 장소이기도 하였다. 이처럼 규장각은 어진을 통해 위상이 강화되었고, 어진은 규장각을 통해 현재군신관계에서 영향력을 행사하게 되었다. 정조의 어진이 현재적 영향력을 갖는 또 다른 지점은 신하들로부터 받는 ‘瞻望’과 ‘瞻拜’이다. 어진은제작 기간 동안 첨망을 통해 군신 관계에 대한 담론의 장을 마련하였다. 완성된 어진에게는 절하는 의식이포함된 첨배를 행하게 하였는데, 봉안 의례를 통해 정조의 초상화는 어진으로 거듭날 수 있었으며, 정기적인봉심 의례를 통해 국왕이 규장각에 현현하는 것을 재현할 수 있었다. 정조의 어진 도사는 왕의 초상만이 아니라 신하 초상을 위한 자리를 마련함으로써 초상을 통한 군신관계의 논의를 확대하였다. 어진을 논하는 같은 자리에서 신하 초상이 열람되었으며, 어진을 제작한 화사에의해 참여 신하들의 초상이 제작되었다. 신하 초상이 열람된 명목은 어진 제작에 참고하기 위함이었고, 신하 초상의 제작은 공로에 대한 포상의 성격을 띠었지만 실제적인 효과는 이를 넘어섰다. 정조는 신하 초상을회유와 견제의 방편으로 사용하였고, 이는 적극적으로 신하의 응답을 이끌어내기도 하였다. 이러한 과정은1791년 어진 도사후 그려진 蔡濟恭의 초상화들을 통해 살펴볼 수 있다. 규장각이 어진과 신하 초상이 공존하는 정치적 공간이었다면 어진도사는 이들이 의례적 맥락에서 보여질 수 있게 한 계기였다. 결국 규장각에서의 어진도사를 통해 정조의 조정에서 초상화는 죽은 자를 추모하는 기념물에서 나아가 현재의 군신관계를 정립하는 매개가 되었던 것이다.

외조부 홍봉한에게 보낸 정조의 편지 - 야마구치[山口]현립도서관 소장본 -

구순옥 한국고전번역학회 2017 고전번역연구 Vol.8 No.-

본 논문은 正祖(1752∼1800, 재위 1776∼1800)가 외조부 洪鳳漢(1713∼1778)에게 보낸 睿札과 御札 가운데 현재 야마구치[山口]현립도서관 소장본을 살펴본 것이다. 정조의 외가인 豐山 洪氏 집안은 영조․사도세자․정조 3대가 보낸 親筆과 서찰 등 도합 2094폭을 1806년 8월에 58첩으로 裝幀하였다. 이 가운데 야마구치현립도서관이 소장하고 있는 것은 영조의 手書 25폭을 엮은 1첩, 사도세자가 장인 홍봉한에게 보낸 예찰 26폭과 睿製 1폭을 엮은 1첩, 정조가 외조부 홍봉한에게 보낸 예찰과 어찰을 엮은 4첩, 정조가 홍낙신과 홍후영에게 보낸 예찰과 어찰 등을 엮은 5첩, 그리고 홍낙륜이 보관하고 있던 정조의 睿筆과 예제를 엮은 2첩으로, 모두 13첩으로 알려져 있다. 필자가 이 가운데 조사한 것은, 정조가 홍봉한에게 보낸 예찰과 어찰을 엮은 4첩과 홍낙신․홍후영에게 보낸 예찰과 어찰 등을 엮은 5첩으로 모두 9첩이다. 풍산 홍씨 집안에서 장정한 58첩 가운데 정조가 홍봉한에게 보낸 예찰 311폭과 睿詩 2폭, 어찰 15폭을 합한 328폭으로, 10첩이다. 이 가운데 현재 전하는 것으로 확인된 첩은 한국학중앙연구원의 1첩, 국립중앙도서관의 1첩, 야마구치현립도서관의 4첩으로 모두 6첩이다. 정조가 어린 시절부터 홍봉한에게 보낸 서찰은 단순히 수량만으로도 각별한 祖孫 관계임을 추측할 수 있게 하는데, 담긴 내용을 살펴보면 홍봉한에 대한 정조의 사랑과 배려를 더욱 잘 살필 수 있다. 정조의 서찰에 대한 기존 연구를 통하여 알 수 있는 사실은 서찰에 등장하는 사연들은 상당수가 『조선왕조실록』과 『승정원일기』, 『일성록』 등의 史料에 기록되어 있어, 서찰 하나하나가 매우 신뢰할 만한 사료로서 중요한 의미를 가지고 있다는 것이다. 홍봉한에 대한 정조의 각별한 배려는, 홍봉한이 사망한 이후에 그를 위해 쓴 祭文과 홍봉한의 서적 편찬, 諡號를 내리는 과정에서도 잘 나타난다. 이러한 정황이 담긴 역사문헌과 『홍재전서』 등과 아울러 현재 전해지는 서찰의 내용을 함께 살펴보면, 정조와 홍봉한과의 관계, 홍봉한에 대한 정조의 禮遇, 외가에 대한 정조의 배려, 홍봉한이 처한 정치적 상황, 이에 대한 정조의 조치 등에 대하여 파악할 수 있으며, 또한 정조의 인간적 면모도 엿볼 수 있다. 본 논문에서 필자는 첫째, 풍산 홍씨 집안에서 58첩으로 장정한 간찰첩을 정리하고 둘째, 야마구치현립도서관 소장본 가운데 정조의 간찰첩 9첩을 간략히 정리하고 셋째, 야마구치현립도서관 소장본 가운데 정조가 홍봉한에게 보낸 서찰 4첩의 내용을 당시 정조와 홍봉한의 정황과 함께 살펴보았다. The purpose of this study is to investigate a collection in the Yamaguchi Prefectural library, which is one of the Prince's letters and the King's letters King Jeongjo(1752∼1800, the period of reign 1776∼1800) had sent to his grandfather Hong bonghan(1713∼1778). King Jeongjo's mother's side of the family, Poongsan Hong's family, bound the 58 volumes of books and letters of three generations, King Yeongjo, Crown-prince SadoSeja, and King Jeongjo in August, 1806. It is known that the Yamaguchi Prefectural library possesses the total of 13 volumes out of them, which are each one volume of King Yeongjo's 25 autographic letters, one volume compiled with 26 letters and one writing Crown-prince SadoSeja sent to his father-in-law, 4 volumes compiled with the Prince's and the King's letters King Jeongjo wrote to Hong bonghan, his grandfather of his mother side, 5 volumes compiled with the Prince's and the King's letters of King Jeongjo to Hong nakssin and Hong huyeong, and 2 volumes compiled with King Jeongjo's writings that Hong nagyun had preserved. This study explores totally 9 volumes of the letters which contain 4 volumes with the letters King Jeongjo wrote to Hong bonghan and 5 volumes with King Jeongjo letters of to Hong nakssin and Hong huyeong. Ten volumes are also explored, which consist of 311 picture of letters, 2 picture of poems, and 15 picture of king's letters King Jeongjo sent to Hong bonghan. They are parts of the letters Poongsan Hong's family compiled. It is confirmed that a total of 6 volumes, which are one volume in the Academy of Korean Studies, one in the National Library of Korea, and four in the he Yamaguchi Prefectural library, have been transmitted. The number of the letters King Jeongjo had written to Hong bonghan from his childhood causes supposition that he had a special relationship with his grandfather and the texts of the letters provide a glimpse of his love and consideration to Hong. The prior study on King Jeongjo's letters demonstrates that every single of his letters has significant meaning as remarkably reliable historical records since a decent number of the stories have been documented in ≪The Annals of Joseon Dynasty≫, ≪Seungjeongwonilgi≫ and ≪Ilsungrock≫. By the study of the contents of the letters in addition to ≪Hongjae-jeonseo≫ and other historical documents which contain the situation, they give a glimpse of King Jeongjo's honorable treatment for Hong bonghan, special relationship between them, his consideration for his mother's side of the family, the political situation at the age, the measures King Jeongjo took to solve the harsh situation. This paper proposes to summarize Poem Albums compiled into 58 volumes by Poongsan Hong's family and briefly 9 Poem Albums of King Jeongjo out of collections in the Yamaguchi Prefectural library and to observe the contents of King Jeongjo's letters to Hong bonghan out of collections in the Yamaguchi Prefectural library.

正祖代 ‘金夏材 事件’의 전말과 성격

박성순 조선시대사학회 2008 朝鮮時代史學報 Vol.47 No.-

Generally speaking, the rebellion or treason incidents in king Jeongjo's era occurred by the coalition of royal families-in-law, powerful subjects and eunuch force related with the Imo-Hwabyeon(壬午禍變). They bluntly showed their aim to remove king Jeongjo from when king Jeongjo was a prince. But "the Kim, Ha-jae incident" occurred in the 8th year of king Jeongjo's reign had a point of difference with other incidents of treason at that time. Not being by the coalition of royal families-in-law, powerful subjects and eunuch force related with the Imo-Hwabyeon, "the Kim, Ha-jae incident" was committed by high-leveled bureaucrat who had been beloved by king Jeongjo as well as he had had the best family background until that time. So, through this case, we can know the real mind that Noron bureaucrats had kept in their chests to king Jeongjo at that time. This is one reason for me to study this case. King Jeongjo was strongly shocked by "the Kim, Ha-jae incident". Like the lamentation king Jeongjo said just after the case, it was not possible incident to occur from the Kim's family background and his job carrier. But king Jeongjo's attitude to the case was so passive. King Jeongjo eagerly tried to stop more intensive investigations about the case. He didn't like that this case spread and to be social issue. Because this case would attack king Jeongjo himself, denying his dignity as a king. The antipathy of Noron against king Jeongjo had started earlier from when king Jeongjo was a prince was presented in the style of treason and insult incident like the Kim, Ha-jae case when king Jeongjo met very important time posting his son as a prince. And Kim's antipathy against king Jeongjo was inherited to his followers. Although the project for rebellion of Kim, Du-gong, a nephew of Kim, Ha-jae was suppressed in advance thanks to the report of Kim, Jong-soo, through this case, we can find out how strong the resistances of Noron against king Jeongjo were. "The Kim, Ha-jae incident" was so important case to show us the weak and lonely status of king Jeongjo in reality. So we need to understand that king Jeongjo's social and political reforms were proceeded in the hardiest political circumstance like this. 정조대의 역모사건은 대부분 임오화변과 직 · 간접적으로 연관된 척신들과 그들을 추종하는 권간 및 환관들의 결탁을 축으로 해서 진행되었다. 처음부터 정조를 위해코자 하는 의도를 노골적으로 드러내고 있던 것이 특징이라고 할 수 있다. 그렇지만 정조 8년(1784)에 발생한 ‘김하재 사건’은 여타의 역모사건과는 외견상 커다란 차별성을 띠었다. ‘김하재 사건’은 임오화변과 직 · 간접적으로 연관된 척신과 권간의 손에 의해서 주도면밀하게 진행된 것이 아니라, 정조의 절대적인 신임을 받고 있던 명문세가 출신의 고위관료가 직접 저지른 사건이라는 점이 특징이었다. 따라서 이 사건은 노론 淸流, 혹은 정조의 후원 세력으로 분류될 수 있는 노론 관료집단이 갖고 있던 정조에 대한 ‘진심’의 일단을 엿볼 수 있게 한다는 점에서 주목되어진다. ‘김하재 사건’에 대한 정조의 충격은 대단히 컸다. 이 사건 직후 정조가 내뱉은 탄식처럼 김하재의 집안 내력이라든지, 그의 관직 경력 등을 고려해 볼 때 절대로 있을 수 없는 일이 벌어졌기 때문이다. 그러나 ‘김하재 사건’에 대한 정조의 대응은 대단히 미온적이고 소극적이었다. 정조는 사건의 확대를 막아 연루자를 축소하고 사건을 조기 종결시키기에 급급했다. 정조가 ‘김하재 사건’을 황급히 매듭지으려고 한 것은 이 사건이 자칫 자신의 왕권에 대한 정통성 시비 논쟁으로 확산될 것을 두려워했기 때문이다. 즉위 전부터 형성된 정조에 대한 노론의 반감은 정조가 그의 아들을 세자로 책봉하는 매우 중요한 시점에서 ‘김하재 사건’으로 표출되었고, 그의 뜻은 다시 김두공과 이율 등의 역모 기도로 이어졌다. 김종수의 고변으로 김두공 일당의 역모사건을 미연에 방지할 수 있었지만, 이를 통해서 정조에 대한 노론의 저항이 얼마나 뿌리 깊은 것이었는지를 확인할 수 있다. ‘김하재 사건’은 김종수가 포함된 노론 淸名黨 벽파세력과 깊은 연관이 있었던 것으로 보인다. ‘김하재 사건’은 고단했던 정조의 처지를 여실히 보여주는 중대한 정치적 사건이었다. 그런 와중에서 추진된 정조의 개혁정치는 그가 감내해 내기 어려운 복잡한 정치 환경 속에서 진행된 것이었다는 점을 다시 한 번 인식할 필요가 있다.

正祖의 宋時烈 顯彰과 王權 强化論

朴性淳(Park Sung-Soon) 한국사연구회 2008 한국사연구 Vol.141 No.-

King Jeongjo's glorifying of Song Si-yeol from inauguration aimed to protect the weak throne soothing audacious Noron(the Older Faction). King Jeongjo ordered that Song Si-yeol's memorial tablet should be layed beside King Hyojong's and memorized forever on May 24, 1776. However, King Jeongjo's glorifying of Song Si-yeol was not limited in the earlier period of throne. Although we can't see it in Jeongjo-silok(the Annals of King Jeongjo), we can find the fact that King Jeongjo thoughtfully used the glorifying of Song Si-yeol as a useful means to strengthen the throne in Hongjae-jeonseo(the Anthology of King Jeongjo). King Jeongjo used so-called the method of Confucian ideology based on the Song Si-yeol's fame as the highest leveled Neo-Confucian literati to strengthen the throne. First of all, King Jeongjo emphasized that Song Si-yeol was a model of loyalty to the kingship. King Jeongjo intended that he would make courtiers obey to the kingship depending on the way of Song Si-yeol. We can find King Jeongjo's that intention in the fact that he changed popular valuations about Song Si-yeol. Although people said that Song Si-yeol's studies put the importance on the jik (upright mind), King Jeongjo insisted that Song Si-yeol's studies put the importance on the moral justification and the loyalty to the kingship. We know that the changed valuation of King Jeongjo aimed to strengthen the throne. King Jeongjo's intentional utterances about Song Si-yeol after 1789 from when King Jeongjo started to strengthen the kingship by himself meant that glorifying of Song Si-yeol was a method to create a new powerful kingship also. King Jeongjo's endeavor to stress Song Si-yeol was getting more and more as the time passed. And it peaked at the scene that King Jeongjo called Song Si-yeol Chu Hsi after Chu Hsi. The aim of Jeongjo was to emphasize the logic of throne strengthening by the method of Confucian ideology. King Jeongjo yielded a new interpretation that to respect Chu Hsi is to respect kings as well as Chinese Classics and emphasized that Song Si-yeol was something loyal to the king. In the view of respecting Chu Hsi and Chinese classics is respecting the king, Chinese classics became to get reborn with the new meanings. King Jeongjo wanted to notice that the aim of studying Chinese Classics is to be loyal to the kingship through the glorifying of Song Si-yeol. In the total viewpoint on Song Si-yeol found in the Hongjaejeonseo in several years, we can understand King Jeongjo's glorifying of Song Si-yeol in the later period of his reign was to emphasize the cause of kingship strengthening. King Jeongjo tried to lead men to pay attention to Song Si-yeol by calling him Chu Hsi and wanted to emphasize that the core of Song Si-yeol's studies and the core meaning of Chun-Chu(the Early History of China) aimed to be loyal to the kingship. Now King Jeongjo who prepared the ideological theory for kingship changed his nickname from Hongjae to Mancheon-Myeongwol-juinong. It meant that King himself became a master maneuvering the morality on the world.

정조 예제·어제 원고의 텍스트 비평

김덕수(Kim, Deok-su) 한국학중앙연구원 2021 장서각 Vol.- No.46

장서각 소장 ‘왕실고문서’는 국가왕실 문헌의 보고로서 장서각의 위상과 정체성을 여실히 보여주는 자료다. 조령류, 주의류, 외교류, 의례류, 발기류, 시문류 등 다양한 유형의 왕실고문서가 전하는데 시문류에 속한 문서의 상당수가 국왕의 어제 관련 원고다. 특히 정조의 睿製 및 御製 관련 원고가 다수를 차지한다. 정조 즉위 직후에 徐命善이 예제의 교정과 편차를 맡았는데 이것이 『春邸錄』의 근간이 되었다. 정조 예제 원고는 신료가 정성껏 옮겨 적은 精寫本으로 정조 즉위 초엽에 만들어졌다. 여기에는 정조가 직접 교정한 흔적이 다수 남아 있다. 그 저본은 신료가 정성껏 옮겨 적은 精寫本이다. 예제 원고 중에는 정조 문집에 수록되지 않은 유일본 자료가 많거니와 일부 산삭하거나 대거 수정한 뒤 『홍재전서』에 수록한 경우도 허다하다. 정조는 교정 과정에서 예제 제목에 적힌 상대방의 호칭을 삭제함으로써 그 존재 자체를 지우기도 했는데 그들은 세손 정조의 대리청정을 반대했던 인물이다. 정조 어제 원고는 어필인 것과 어필이 아닌 것으로 구분할 수 있다. 어필인 것은 주로 친필 초고이거나 친필 교정 원고이고, 어필이 아닌 것은 『홍재전서』 간행 전후에 신료가 전사해 둔 것이다. 어필 원고에는 원고 서두나 피봉에 제작 시기를 기재한 경우가 많다. 정조는 친필 원고에 직접 교정하거나 첨지를 활용해 교정 사항이나 지시 사항을 표시했다. 또한 규장각 관원이 첨지를 통해 정조에게 자신의 의견을 개진하기도 했다. 동일 어제의 여러 이본 원고들이 함께 전하는 경우도 많은데 시기적 선후 관계, 이본간 차이점 등을 면밀히 살펴야 한다. 그리고 어필 교정본과 어필 전사본이 함께 전하기도 한다. 정조 어제 원고에는 여러 종류의 부호들이 적혀 있다. 글자 우측의 물결 부호는 존숭할 표현이 나올 때, 행을 바꾸어 一字擡頭한다는 뜻이고, 글자 옆 원점은 해당 글자를 앞줄에 이어 쓰되 1자를 隔間한다는 의미다. 이 밖에 글자 옆에 숫자가 적힌 첨지를 차례대로 붙이기도 했다. 이러한 원고는 주로 현판을 제작하기 위해 작성된 것이다. 정조 어제어필 가운데 일부 원고는 피봉 속에 보관되었다. 정조는 문집 간행을 염두에 두고 피봉에 원고를 보관했는데 베껴 적은 사실, 작품 수신자, 찬술 시기, 찬술 배경, 축약된 제목, 첫 번째 시구 등을 피봉에 간략히 적어 두었다. 정조가 즉위 전후에 예제, 혹은 어제 초고를 처음 지은 시점부터 승하하고 나서 해당 작품이 『홍재전서』에 실릴 때까지 교정과 선사가 누차에 걸쳐 반복되었다. 정조 예제 및 어제 원고를 통해 그 과정과 양상을 구체적으로 확인할 수 있다. ‘Royal ancient douments’ possessed by Palace Library (藏書閣) show its status and identity as a repository of national royal literature. There have been various contents and forms of royal ancient documents and significant numbers of documents which belong to poetry and prose are manuscripts (原稿) related to kings’ imperial writing. Especially, the manuscripts related to the crown prince’s writing (睿製) and the king’s (御製) writing by Jeongjo of Joseon (正祖) have a majority. Seo, Myeongseon (徐命善) was responsible for proofreading (校定) and editing of the king’s writing right after Jeongjo of Joseon acceded to the throne and this was the base of Chunjeorok (春邸錄). The manuscripts of the king’s writing by Jeongjo of Joseon were made at the beginning of the enthronement and there are a lot of traces that he proof read by himself. In the manuscripts of the king’s writing, there are a lot of materials of the only ones which were not included in Collected Works of Jeongjo of Joseon and many cases of being done in Collected Works of King Jeongjo (弘齋全書) after removing or amending them. Jeongjo of Joseon erased the existence of other persons against his regency (代理聽政) as the oldest son of the crown prince (世孫) who were written in the titles of the King’s Writing in the proof reading process by deleting their names. The manuscripts of the imperial orders by Jeongjo of Joseon can be classified into the king’s handwriting (御筆) and the letters which are not the king’s handwriting. The king’s handwriting was usually the drafts or proofread manuscripts written with his own hands and the letters which are not the king’s handwriting were copied by the liege before and after Collected Works of King Jeongjo was published. There are many cases that the dates of production were written on the starting parts or envelopes of the manuscripts. Jeongjo of Joseon proofread the manuscripts by himself or indicated proofreading details or instructions by utilizing the pieces of paper. And public officials of Royal Archives actively gave their opinions to him through the pieces of paper. There have been a lot of alternative versions (異本) of the identical manuscripts of the imperial orders. The timely order and differences among the alternative versions should closely be examined. And there have been also the revised texts and copies of the king’s handwriting together. Several kinds of signals were written in the manuscripts of the king’s handwriting by Jeongjo of Joseon. Of course, the manuscripts that indicate tilde, round dots, and numbers were usually written to manufacture hanging tablets. The partial manuscripts of the king’s handwriting were kept in envelopes. Jeongjo of Joseon kept his manuscripts in envelops bearing the publication of collected Works in mind. He briefly wrote the fact that he copied, the recipient of the work, the period of writing, the background of writing, the abbreviated title, and the first phrase in a poem on the surface of the envelope. Proof reading and transcription were repeated several times from when Jeongjo of Joseon first wrote drafts of the king’s handwriting or the imperial orders before and after the enthronement until the applicable works were published on Collected Works of King Jeongjo after his death. The king’s handwriting and the imperial orders by Jeongjo of Joseon are meaningful in that the process and aspects can concretely be checked.

正祖의 更張策과 王權强化論 — 文武兼全論과 實學的 經世觀을 中心으로 —

朴性淳 동양고전학회 2008 東洋古典硏究 Vol.31 No.-

지금까지 정조에 대한 연구경향은 주로 성리학을 부흥시킨 문예군주, 또 는 학자군주로서의 모습이 강조되어온 느낌이다. 그러나 정조의 개인문집인 弘齋全書를 통해서 드러나는 다양한 사상적 편린들은 정조를 성리학이라 는 좁은 범주 안에만 가두어두기에는 충분치 않다는 점을 잘 보여준다. 성리학을 신봉한 학자군주, ‘조선중화주의’에 입각하여 조선후기의 문예부흥을 주도한 문예군주라는 평가가 무색하리만치 정조는 조선 전기 세조의 치세를 이상향으로 노래하였다. 그는 성리학에서 강조하는 王道政治와는 거리가 먼, 오히려 覇道政治의 전형이라 할 세조의 치세를 이상향으로 설정함으로써 그의 목표가 사림파들에 의해서 경시되고 있던 ‘富國强兵’에 있다는 점을 분명히 하였다. 당장의 왕권 강화를 위한 조처가 武備의 강구였다면, 정조는 사도세자의 전철을 밟지 않기 위해서 주도면밀하게 이론적 작업을 병행하였다. 특히 성리학에 깊은 조예를 지닌 그는 經學에 대한 새로운 해석을 통해서 왕권강화를 위한 논리를 제시하였다. 그와 같은 이론적 작업은 부친의 묘소인 顯隆園 이장 등과 동시에 진행되었다. 실학이 經學의 본질이라는 점을 천명한 정조는 한 걸음 더 나아가 경학은 왕을 존숭하기 위한 방편이라는 점을 강조한다. 학자들이 주자를 존숭하는 이유는 경학을 존숭하기 위함이고, 경학을 존숭하는 이유는 결국 왕을 존숭하기 위함이라는 설명을 내놓았다. 정조의 경학관에 의하면, 실학은 이제 모든 사대부들이 추구해야 될 경학의 본질이 되었을 뿐만 아니라, 실학에 몰두하는 것이야말로 국왕에 대한 충성 그 자체라는 점을 강조한 것이다. 정조가 更張策으로 제시한 文武兼全論과 經學의 實學的 해 석은 理氣心性論 위주의 성리학만을 숭상하던 기존의 사상적 관행을 낡은 역사적 유물로 설정하면서 민생현안과 국가의 자주성 문제를 해결할 사회적 급무로 부상하였을 뿐만 아니라, 동시에 왕권강화를 위한 실제적, 이론적 기재로 작용하였다. Until now, the stream of the study about king Jeongjo, 22th king of Joseon Dynasty has been mainly composed with valuations like that the king was a scholarly king who boosted Neo-Confucianism in later Joseon Dynasty. In other words, many scholars attached their eyes at the point that the king Jeongjo loved just Chu Hsi's admonitions. But the fact that there were many ideological streams in Hongjae-jeonseo, the king's private collection of works notify us a point that we can't keep him in the narrow ideological boundary of the Neo-Confucianism. Many scholars said that king Jeongjo was a scholarly king who definitely believed Chu Hsi and his Neo-Confucianism. Nevertheless, the king tried to find a utopia in the king Sejo's era, earlier Joseon Dynasty. King Sejo, a tyrant worked for the national prosperity and defence than the Neo-Confucian moralism. So most Neo-Confucian literati hated him. But king Jeongjo praised king Sejo for the reason that king Sejo had completed a utopia on the literary and military accomplishments. King Jeongjo at first prepared a military measure to guard himself as soon as he took political power after 12th year of his reign. And he added it with a theoretical works with care, because he didn't want to be killed such as his father, prince Sado. Prince Sado was killed by his opponents, Noron party(the older faction) because prince Sado easily showed the Noron party his hostility. So the Noron party opposed for Jeongjo to accede to the throne, and they tried to kill king Jeongjo even after his inauguration.King Jeongjo needed some method to block their attacks and some theoretical way to make them obey himself. King Jeongjo concealed his hostility to the opponents, the Noron party, and prepared for them steadily. The military measure was a way promptly needed to guard his kingship, the theoretical work was more fundamental method to lead the literati officials. King Jeongjo had a profound knowledge of Chenese classics, so he made a special theory to can make the kingship strong. It was the new interpretation about Chinese classics along with the point of view of practical learning. The king's theoretical work was progressed with moving his father's tomb at the same time. King Jeongjo insisted that practical learning is the essence of Chinese classics, and Chinese classics are the method to learn how to respect kings. King Jeongjo explained that the reason why for confucian literati to respect Chu Hsi was to respect Chinese classics eventually, and the reason why to respect Chinese classics was to respect kings. According to king Jeongjo's explanation, the practical learning now became the essential learning that all the literati should study, and to indulge in the pratical learning was loyal to kings. The theory of literary and military accomplishments and the ideology of practical administration suggested by king Jeongjo as a innovative measure swiftly floated as a prime task to solve the problem of national defence and took a real, theoretical role to make the kingship strong while degrading the exclusive conventional thought focused on the Neo-Confucian moralism as a old fashioned stuff.

19세기 초 심환지(沈煥之)의 정치활동

김문식 ( Kim Moon-sik ) 성균관대학교 대동문화연구원 2019 大東文化硏究 Vol.105 No.-

본고는 19세기 초 심환지의 정치 활동이 정조의 의리와 어떤 관련이 있는지를 살펴보았다. 본고의 대상 시기는 정조가 사망한 1800년 6월 28일부터 심환지가 사망한 1802년 10월 18일까지이다. 심환지는 정조가 탕평 정치를 구현하기 위해 발탁한 인물이었고, 정조가 사망한 이후 자신은 정조의 의리를 계승하는 정치 활동을 한다고 자부하였다. 심환지의 활동에는 정조의 뜻에 부합하는 조치가 있었다. 그는 정조가 순조의 장인으로 정해 둔 김조순을 지지하여 국혼을 진행하였고, 정조의 뜻을 따라 내시노비를 혁파하였다. 그러나 그는 정조의 구상과 거리가 먼 활동도 하였다. 그는 정조의 외조부인 홍봉한의 『洪翼靖公奏藁』 출판을 저지하고 그 아들 홍낙임을 처형하였으며, 정조가 포용하였던 천주교도를 가혹하게 처벌하고, 정조가 설치한 장용영을 혁파하였다. 심환지는 이런 조치가 정조의 의리를 계승한 것이라 주장하였다. 심환지는 정조의 조치를 經道와 權道로 구분하고, 권도는 시세 형편에 따라 변경할 수 있다고 보았다. 그는 정조가 홍낙임을 보호하고, 천주교도를 포용하며, 장용영을 설치한 것은 모두 권도로 보았다. 그리고 그는 정조가 19세기에 살았다면 경도를 실천하여 자신과 같은 조치를 하였을 것이라 주장하였다. 19세기 초에 심환지는 정조의 정책을 따르거나 되돌리는 조치를 하면서 이것이 모두 정조의 의리를 따른 것이라 하였다. 심환지의 정치 활동에서 정조의 의리는 중요한 명분이었다. 19세기 초에 심환지는 노론 벽파의 의리를 주도하며 정조 의리의 일각을 담당하는 정치 활동을 한 것으로 보인다. This paper looked at how Shim Hwan-ji's political activities in the early 19th century had to do with the loyalty of King Jeongjo. The target time for this paper is June 28, 1800 when King Jeongjo died, and October 18, 1802 when Shim Hwan-ji died. Shim Hwan-ji was a figure chosen by King Jeongjo to implement Tangpyeong politics, and he took pride in his political activities to inherit the loyalty of King Jeongjo after his death. Shim's activities had measures to meet the wishes of King Jeongjo. He followed the wishes of King Jeongjo and supported King Sunjo and Kim Jo-sun's daughter getting married. And he abolished public slavery in accordance with the will of King Jeongjo too. However, he also acted far from King Jeongjo's idea. He stopped the publication of Hongikjeonggong-Jugo(洪翼靖公奏藁) of Hong Bong-han, the maternal grandfather of King Jeongjo, and executed his son Hong Nak-im. He then severely punished the Catholics who had been embraced by King Jeongjo and abolished Jangyong-young military camp which was established by the King. Shim claimed that these measures were the ones that succeeded the loyalty of King Jeongjo. Shim saw that the King Jeongjo's actions could be divided into the gyeong-do(經道) and the gwon-do(權道), and the gwon-do could be changed according to the circumstances at that time. He saw that King Jeongjo protected Hong Nak-im, embraced the Catholics, and established Jangyong-young military camp as the gwon-do. And he claimed that if King Jeongjo had lived in the 19th century, the King would have done the same activities as himself by practicing the gyeong-do. At the beginning of the 19th century, Shim Hwan-ji said that all of these were in line with the loyalty of King Jeongjo, while taking steps to follow or reverse the King's policy. In Shim's political activities, the loyalty of King Jeongjo was an important cause. In the early 19th century, Shim Hwan-ji was believed to have led the loyalty of the Noron Byeokpa Party and engaged in political activities in charge of a corner of the loyalty of King Jeongjo.

正祖의 士大夫 認識과 그 特徵

박성순 동양고전학회 2008 東洋古典硏究 Vol.32 No.-

정조는 척족이 특권세력으로 발호하던 영조대 후반의 탕평정치에서 아버지를 여읜 피해자였다. 노론의 거센 방해공작을 뚫고 왕위에 오른 정조의 목표는 왕권 강화였다. 정조는 탕평정책을 영조 50여년 치세의 대업적으로 칭송하고 척신과 탕평당의 폐해를 지적하면서 신하들에게 왕을 위해 충성을 다하는 ‘國邊人’이 되어줄 것을 요구하였다. 정조가 즉위 직후부터 설치⋅운영한 奎章閣은 겉으로는 御製의 봉안 등을 표방했지만, 실제로는 정조의 우군을 양성하기 위한 기구였다. 그만큼 정조가 외척들을 누르고 어떻게 사대부들을 포섭하는가 하는 문제는 정권의 사활이 걸린 문제였다. 본고에서는 정조가 사대부들을 어떻게 굴복시키고 포섭하려 했는가라는 문제를 본격적으로 조명하였다. 그것을 통해서 정조가 시도한 왕권강화책의 논리와 방법을 확인해 보고자 하였다. 정조는 經學의 본질은 성리학이 아니라 실생활과 절실하게 관련된 학문이라는 점을 강조함으로써 사대부들의 이념적 근거를 붕괴시키고자 하였다. 정조가 사대부들의 풍기와 세도를 비판하고 그들의 학문인 주자성리학의 의미를 축소했던 것은 사대부들을 왕권에 복속시키기 위한 방편이었다. 붕당론이나 성학론을 기본으로 하는 사대부들의 정치 이념과 학문적 근거를 반박함으로써 公論의 주체로서 국왕의 권위를 강조하려고 하였다. 정조가 영조의 ‘君師’ 개념을 계승하고 왕호도 ‘弘齋’에서 ‘萬川明月主人翁’으로 바꾼 것은 그의 사대부 비판이 궁극적으로 지향하고자 했던 바를 상징적으로 보여준다. King Jeongjo had lost his father, Sado-Seja(Prince Sado) by Noron(Older Faction). Especially those who tried to kill Sado-Seja and king Jeongjo consisted of king's family-in-law of king Youngjo and Sado-Seja. Therefore king Jeongjo's first goal was to strengthen his kingship than other things because he could gain the throne overcoming the strong hinderance of Noron and king's family-in-law. King Jeongjo requested his subjects to be "Kukbyon-In"(國邊人: a person for king) pointing out the harm of the king's family-in-law and "Tangpyong-Dang"(蕩平黨: the strongest faction consisted under the rule of king Youngjo). For the purpose, king Jeongjo built up "Gyujang-Gak". Gyujang-Gak was spoken to contain and protect the writings of earlier kings superficially, but in reality, it was an apparatus to gain and train the friendly subjects for king Jeongjo. Like that, it was the most important for king Jeongjo to suppress the king's family-in-low and to win Neo-Confucian lterati over to himself's side. Until now, the politics of Joseon Dynasty had been mainly explained on the point of view of "Seonghak-Non"(聖學論). "Seonghak-Non" means that Neo-Confucian lterati were treated as real hero, not kings in the political space of Joseon Dynasty and the role of factions were recognized important. But king Jeongjo denied these ideological stream and tried to change that political system. King Jeongjo wanted to strengthen the throne through the method which insisted the king as a hero in politics. For the purpose, king Jeongjo criticized the Neo-Confucian literati's viewpoint about politics and learning at that time and anticipated to be sole leader of politics and learning on that critique. King Jeongjo aimed to destroy the dignity of "Salim"(山林: Neo-Confucian Sages) with attacking their wrong behaviors. King Jeongjo also criticized the period of king Injo when the regime of "Sarim"(士林: pure Neo-Confucian lterati) faction fully appeared as the starting period when the factional harms were getting worse. King Jeongjo wanted to previously block the oppositions to win subjects over to himself's side with criticizing the period of king Injo and to take away the initiative from his opponents with insisting "Salim-Muyongnon"(山林無用論: a theory ignoring Neo-Confucian Sages). King Jeongjo's critique was not limited just on the system of factional politics. "Seonghak-Non" eventually took root in Neo-Confucianism. Therefore king Jeongjo criticized Neo-Confucianism. He insisted that the essence of Chinese Classics was pragmatical learning, not Neo-Confucianism. Through that critique, king Jeongjo aimed to destroy the ideological base of his opponents. However, king Jeongjo failed to be a sole leader of his subjects in the both boundaries of politics and learning even though he criticized the Neo-Confucian lterati's viewpoint about politics and learning. Because he abruptly died leaving his reformational scheme behind as well as his loyal subjects guarding himself against Noron Byeok-Pa(老論 辟派: the opposing party in Older Faction) were gone behind himself. The politics of Joseon Dynasty returned to more powerful politics for king's family-in-law after king Jeongjo's death.

정조의 인물인식 -『해동신감』을 중심으로-

박인호 ( In Ho Park ) 한국실학학회 2012 한국실학연구 Vol.0 No.23

金堉이 편찬한 『해동명신록』을 보고 크게 감명을 받은 正祖는 1772년 李商逸과 함께 『해동명신록』을 축약하여 『해동신감』을 편찬하였다. 『해동명신록』은 신라에서 조선까지의 문신·학자들의 행적을 수록한 인물전기집으로, 명신 총 299명이 수록되어 있다. 정조는 『해동명신록』의 서술 형식과 내용을 그대로 따르면서 『해동신감』을 편찬하였다. 『해동신감』은 『해동명신록』에 수록된 299인 가운데 191명을 재수록하였으며, 108명은 제외하였다. 재수록된 자는 대부분 충열과 절의에 관련된 인물들이었다. 내용에 있어서도 정조는 인물의 행적 가운데 어릴 때부터의 개인적 성장과정, 단순한 관력과 같은 이력 사항, 그리고 개인적인 측면에서 부정적인 부분 등은 대부분 생략하고 대신 충성, 도덕, 의리, 효도 등의 측면에서 크게 현창할 만한 부분만을 집중적으로 남기고 있다. 즉 선한 내용을 남겨 稱揚함으로써 후대에 본보기가 되도록 하려는 정조의 편찬 방향에 따라 이러한 부분이 집중적으로 남게 된 것이다. 정조가 인물을 평가하는 기준은 충성과 절의, 바른 의리, 학문과 문장, 직분, 예설, 명신, 지조와 충열, 효행, 학문 성취와 후학 양성 등이었다. 이러한 점이 정조가 생각하였던 신하의 직분이었으며 인물을 평가하는 기준이었다. 정조가 『해동신감』을 만든 것도 옛 것에 근거하여 현재를 비추어 보기 위한 것이었다. 그런데 이러한 정조의 인물에 대한 평가기준이나 역사인식은 유교적인 교훈적 역사인식 속에서 나온 것이다. 그러므로 정조는 비록 경학이나 기술학 등 학문 분야에서는 실학적 측면이 크게 나타나지만 역사학의 측면에서는 상대적으로 실학적인 면이 부족하다. King Jeongjo was inspired by 『Haedongmyeongsinlok』 written by Kim Yuk and then the King worked to shorten 『Haedongmyeongsinlok』 with Lee Sang-il and compiled 『Haedongshingam』 in 1772. 『Haedongmyeongsinlok』 was biography collection which special life-stories and achievements of some civil officers and scholars from Silla to Choson were recorded. King Jeongjo accepted it like that the description form and contents in 『Haedongmyeongsinlok』. 『Haedongshingam』 rerecord to include 191 figures of 299 which were recorded in 『Haedongmyeongsinlok』 but records of 108 figures were excluded. King Jeongjo recorded to chose persons who were devoted to the king with loyalty and fidelity in 『Haedongshingam』. By the way, King Jeongjo focused to record the positive achievements of their morals, loyalty and obidience to parents. King Jeongjo intended to influence the contemporary and future generations by praising their good acts in 『Haedongshingam』. King Jeongjo` principles who he appraised to chose eminent persons were whether they had a kind of loyalty, the right justice, the learning and virtue, a scholarly attitudes or how was their levels of writing skill and ability and how was their political fidelity, filial deeds and what was their academic achievement or whether they did devote to educate junior scholars. King Jeongjo regarded those virtues which public officers had to hold. King Jeongjo compiled 『Haedongshingam』 to judge his times based on the older figures` achievements. King Jeongjo`s percetions of appraising some figures and historical understanding originated from an educational cognition of Confucianism. According above facts, the historical perception of King Jeongjo was lacked in Silhak spirit. Although he accepted to succeed the description way of a Silhakja school, the perception of King Jeongjo revealed the slant as the critical point.

어찰의 정치학 : 정조와 심환지

안대회(An Dae-hoe) 역사비평사 2009 역사비평 Vol.- No.87

This paper uses various materials such as King's letters including King Jeongjo's letter album, and several historical documents including literary collection of Sim Hwan-ji family. Through the analysis of these materials, I clarify the cultural significance of King's letters and the characteristics of King Jeongjo and his activities as a politician. First of all, I look into the letters of kings of many generation, after explaining the process of researching King Jeongjo's letter album. I analyze the intentions of King Jeongjo who actively utilized letters and actual circumstances to use letters and examine the records about King's letter from Sim Hwan-ji's literary collection. I analyze the characteristics of King Jeongjo as a politician in three points. Firstly, I look into the actual state of the politics behind the curtain by the medium of King's letter. Secondly, I focus on the political line of King Jeongjo who expected to noronbyeokpa(Old Doctrine Party of Principle) by presenting that King Jeongjo ordered Sim Hwan-ji to take a hard line and stand face to face against other political party. Lastly, I illustrate that King Jeongjo used a letter with touches of humanity as a tool of capturing his retainer personally. Furthermore, I present concrete examples of King Jeongjo's impatient and hot temperament. Through the six reasons, I assert the theory that King Jeongjo was killed by poison is a groundless falsehood. I believe the opinion of this paper contains a new subject and contents which is 'a great step forward' in the academic circle.