변용래(卞龍來)의 <화양청도가(華陽聽櫂歌)>와 <화양유기(華陽遊記)>

이상주 ( Lee Sang-ju ) 연민학회 2018 淵民學志 Vol.30 No.-

변용래(卞龍來, 1860-1917)는 우암 송시열의 9세손 송병준(宋秉璿)에게 수학하여 그로부터 존주대의(尊周大義)·존화양이(尊華攘夷)의 도통의식(道統意識)을 전수받았다. 그는 송환기(宋煥箕)의 문집 『성담집(性潭集)』 간행 사업에 참여하기 위해 1898년 화양구곡을 탐방했다. 이런 연유로 <화양유기(華陽遊記)>와 <화양청도가(華陽聽櫂歌)>를 지은 것이다. 변용래는 <화양유기>에서 화양구곡 9개 곡(曲)에 존주대의 등 송시열의 사상과 의식이 이입(移入), 표상화(表象化)되었다는 사실을 서술했다. <화양청도가>에서도 마찬가지로 이 점을 표출했다. 본고에서 논한 바를 요약하면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 변용래는 존사(尊師) 도통(道統)이 인연이 되어서 화양구곡을 탐방했다. 둘째, <화양청도가>를 짓고 주자의 <무이도가>의 운(韻)을 따랐다. 이는 그가 도통 전수를 실천했다는 증거이다. 셋째 <화양청도가>에서 화양구곡이 존주대의와 존화양이의 성지(聖地)라는 점을 표출했다. 넷째, <화양유기>에서 우암을 ‘고산(高山)’에 비유하며 그가 화양구곡을 존화양이의식의 성지로 만든 점을 예찬했다. <화양유기>의 특징은 화양구곡 제1곡부터 제9곡을 우암의 학문적 덕성에 비유하여 묘사하였다는 점이다. 변용래는 <화양유기>와 <부유기(浮遊記)> 등 기문과 <경차서벽정원운(敬次棲碧亭原韻)>이라는 시에서 화양구곡을 탐방한 감회를 피력했다. 이러한 저술은 이른바 존도(尊道)·존사(尊師)·존화(尊華) 의식의 발현이었다. 이렇듯 변용래는 조선말 시국이 혼란하고 일제가 조선을 강점할 조짐이 농후해 가던 1898년 화양구곡을 탐방했다. 그리고 <화양유기>를 통해 화양구곡 9개 곡에 담긴 우암의 학문적 존화양이의 업적을 예찬했다. 또 <화양청도가>에 암송의 효과를 활용하여 존도·존화의식을 더욱 공고히 했다. 따라서 변용래의 <화양청도가>와 <화양유기>는 그 시대적 상황에 걸맞은 구곡문학으로서의 의의를 가진다고 할 수 있다. Byeon Yong-rae (卞龍來, 1860-1917) had studied under Song Byeong-seon (宋秉璿, 1836-1905) who was the 9th generation descendant of Song Si-yeol (宋時烈, 1607-1689). Byeon Yong-rae was initiated in Dotonguisik (道統意識, Neo-Confucian orthodoxy consciousness) of Jonjudaeui (尊周大義:zunzhoudàyì, feudal lords elevates the land of an emperor) Jonhuayangi (尊華攘夷:zunhuarangyi, to respect China while repelling barbarians). He had visited Huayanggugok Valley in 1898 to participate in the publication project of Song Huan-gi (宋煥箕, 1728-1807)’s collection of literary arts-Seongdamjip (性潭集) published in Huayanggok. For this reason, he had left Huayangyugi (華陽遊記). Byeon Yong-rae described the facts that Uam Song Si-yeol’s idea and consciousness, such as Jonjudaeui and etc. were empathized into 9 curves pieces of Huayanggugok Valley to be emblematic. Actually, it’s rare to find such a case. Byeon Yong-rae had expressed such a point even in Huayangcheongdoga (華陽聽櫂歌). I can organize what are discussed in this study, the synopsis is as follows: First, Byeon Yong-rae had visited Huayanggugok with a relation with a revered teacher Dotong (道統:daotong). Second, even the fact that he had written Huayangcheongdoga was the proof that he put Dotong into practice. Third, Huayangcheongdoga had been followed to imitate the rhyme of Jhu Xi (zhuzi)'s Muidoga (wuyizhaoge). Fouth, Byeon Yong-rae had expressed the point that Huayanggugok was the holy place (聖地) of Jonjudaeui and Jonhuayangi in Huayangcheongdoga. Like this, Byeon Yong-rae had visited Huayanggugok in 1898 during the period of at the end of the Joseon Dynasty was chaotic, together with a strong sign of Japanese empire’s occupation of Joseon. He had spoken figuratively and adored Uam's scholarly Jonhuayangi accomplishment within 9 curves pieces of Huayanggugok Valley. And he had all the more consolidated Jondojonhuauisik by using recitation effect of Huayangcheongdoga. Therefore Byeon Yong-rae's Huayangcheongdoga and Huayangyugi can be recognized as the one having Gugok literature significance of his contemporary.

17-18세기 임진왜란 참전 명군(明軍)에 대한 기억

우경섭 ( 禹景燮 ) 인하대학교 한국학연구소 2017 한국학연구 Vol.0 No.46

임진왜란에 참전한 명군의 영향은 17-18세기 조선 사상계에 再造之恩의 이데올로기로 지속되었다. 만력제가 파병한 원군 덕분에 조선이 왜적을 물리칠 수 있었다는 재조지은의 관념은 숙종대 大報壇 설립으로 귀결되었는데, 대보단 이전에도 이미 임진왜란 참전 명군의 흔적을 간직한 몇 곳의 제단과 사당이 건립되어 있었다. 그 대표적인 것이 1590년대에 건립된 愍忠壇·武烈祠·宣武祠였다. 1593년(선조 26) 명나라 조정의 요청에 따라 설립된 민충단은 평양·개성·벽제·한양 등 4곳의 격전지에 전사한 명군들을 제사하기 위하여 세운 제단이었다. 그리고 명군의 평양성 탈환을 기념하여 세운 평양의 무열사는 1596년(선조 29) 무렵 완공된 것으로 추정되는 데, 여기에는 원병 파병을 주도한 병부상서 石星 및 평양 전투를 지휘한 제독 李如松과 楊元·李如栢·張世爵 등 5명의 화상을 봉안하였다. 뒤이어 1598년(선조 31)에는 한양 太平館 서쪽에 정유재란 때의 병부상서 邢玠의 화상과 선조의 어필 ‘再造藩邦’을 봉안한 선무사가 건립되었고, 1604년(선조 37)에는 楊鎬의 화상이 배향되었다. 그러나 인조대 정묘·병자호란 및 뒤이은 명청교체의 결과, 명군을 기념하는 이들 壇廟의 제사는 제대로 시행될 수 없었다. 한편, 임진왜란이 끝난 뒤 상당수의 명군들이 군영을 이탈하여 조선에 정착했다. 또한 명나라 멸망 이후 임란 당시 명군 지휘부의 후손들이 대거 조선으로 망명했는데, 이들은 임란 종료 후 곧바로 만주족과의 전투에 참여했기에 청조 치하에서 살아가기 어려운 실정이었다. 그러므로 왜란 당시 자신들이 조선에 베푼 ‘은혜’를 상기시키며 조선인들의 후대를 기대하는 가운데 후손들에게 적극적으로 조선 망명을 권유하였다. 그러나 청조의 시선을 의식해야 했던 조선 정부는 그들의 존재를 인정할 수 없었고, 그들 역시 변방에 숨어 살며 점차 중인 신분으로 정착하게 되었다. 선무사를 비롯한 명군의 사당과 조선으로 귀화한 그 후손들의 존재가 尊周大義의 관념 아래 새롭게 인식되기 시작한 것은 동아시아 정세가 안정기에 접어든 18세기 이후의 일이었다. 특히 조선이 중화문명의 적통을 계승하였다는 朝鮮中華主義의 이데올로기 아래 1704년 대보단이 건립된 뒤, 선무사 등 명군 기념물에 대한 제사는 대보단으로 상징되는 尊周大義의 명분 아래 새롭게 편제되었다. 그리고 참전 명군에 대한 추숭 사업이 전개되는 가운데 조선에 정착한 그 후손들은 皇朝遺民이라는 관념적 지위를 인정받게 되었다. 그러나 선무사 뿐 아니라 남한산성과 강화도에서 순절한 조선인들을 기리는 顯節祠와 忠烈祠 등도 함께 중시되었음을 감안한다면, 오히려 명군의 위상은 존주대의의 이념 아래 점차 상대화 되어 갔다. 영조가 1749년 대보단에 三皇을 병향하며 홍무제의 大造之恩, 만력제의 再造之恩, 숭정제의 東援之恩을 병칭하였음을 보면, 이제 재조지은의 관념은 尊周大義의 일부로서 의미를 지니게 되었던 것이다. 따라서 임란 참전 명군의 위상 역시 호란 이후 조선의 순절자들과 동등한 반열에 위치하게 되었다. 명군의 후손들 중 일부는 선무사와 무열사의 제사를 담당하며 명나라의 후예로서 정체성을 유지해 갔지만, 대보단 수직관을 세습하던 隨龍八姓 등 명나라 사대부의 자손들이 주도하던 귀화한인 사회 안에서도 점차 주변부의 위치로 밀려나게 되었다. 参加壬辰倭乱之明军的影响, 在17-18世纪的朝鲜王朝思想界以再造之恩的意识形态得到存续。朝鲜王朝得益于明神宗派出的援兵才得以赶出倭寇的再造之恩观念归结为肃宗时期设立大报坛, 大报坛之前已经建有几所带有参加壬辰倭乱明军标识的祭坛和祠堂, 其中具有代表性的便是16世纪90年代所立的愍忠坛、武烈祠、宣武祠。 1593年(宣祖26年) 依照明廷的邀请而建立起来的愍忠坛, 是在平壤、开成、碧蹄、汉城等四处激战地为了祭奠战死明军而建立起来的祭坛。为纪念明军夺回平壤城而建立的平壤武烈祠大约竣工于1596年 (宣祖29年), 祠堂里供奉了主导派出援军的兵部尚书石星、指挥平壤战役的提督李如松和杨元、李如柏、张世爵等五人的画像。接着1598年 (宣祖31年) 在首尔太平馆西边建立了供奉丁酉再乱时候的兵部尚书邢玠的画像和宣祖的御笔 “再造之恩” 的宣武祠, 1604年 (宣祖37年) 该祠堂追加供奉了杨镐的画像。可是, 经历了仁祖时期的丁卯、丙子两次胡乱以及紧接着发生的明清交替的结果, 纪念明军的这些坛廟的祭祀不可能一如既往地正常进行。 另外, 壬辰倭乱结束以后不少明军拒绝回国, 逃离军营定居于朝鲜。而且明朝灭亡以后, 壬辰倭乱当时明朝指挥官的子孙大举流亡到朝鲜。因这些人壬辰倭乱终结以后直接投进与满族的战争, 难以在清朝治下的中国谋生。于是, 他们搬出倭乱当时对朝鲜的 “恩惠”, 期待着朝鲜王朝的厚待, 积极劝导子孙流亡朝鲜。但是, 朝鲜王朝不能不顾忌清廷, 不能公开他们在朝鲜的存在, 他们也只好隐姓埋名于边陲, 逐渐以中人身份定居于朝鲜。 以宣武祠为代表的明军的祠堂和归化于朝鲜的明人子孙后代的存在, 在尊周大义的观念下得到重新解释是东亚格局进入稳定期的18世纪之后的事情。朝鲜中华主义的意识形态认为朝鲜继承了中华文明的正统, 在这种观念的影响之下1704年建成了大报坛, 有关宣武祠等明军纪念物的祭祀在以大报坛为象征的尊周大义的名分之下重新编成。并且开展了对参战明军的推崇, 定居于朝鲜之明朝遗民的子孙被承认为皇朝遗民。 然而, 除了宣武祠之外, 考虑到纪念丙子胡乱当时在南汉山城和江华岛殉国的朝鲜人也得到同等重视, 明军的地位在尊周大义的理念之下逐渐相对弱化。1749年, 英祖在大报坛追加供奉了三位皇帝, 从而把明太祖的大造之恩、明神宗的再造之恩、明思宗的东援之恩并称的情况来看, 再造之恩仅具有尊周大义组成部分之一的意义。于是, 参加壬辰倭乱的明军的地位弱化到与胡乱以后朝鲜殉国人士同样的级别。而且明军的后代子孙中的部分人承担了武烈祠的祭祀, 保持了明朝后裔的认同, 但他们在世袭着大报坛守直官的随龙八姓等明朝士大夫后裔主导的归化汉人社会里面也逐渐地被边沿化。

조선후기 김경서 현창의 추이와 당대사적 의미

장정수(張禎洙) 한국역사연구회 2020 역사와 현실 Vol.- No.115

Explored in this article is how Vice Commander(Bu-Weonsu) Kim Gyeong-seo, who joined the Shimha war only to be captured as a prisoner of war and later died in Hu-Geum, was commemorated posthumously, and why. At the Shimhar war, many Joseon soldiers were either killed or captured. However, while the former were hailed as loyal victims and commemorated in the name of loyalty and dignity[忠節], the latter were condemned as traitors[逆節]. Case of Kim Gyeong-seo belonged to the latter, as he was criticized –along with Do-Weonsu(Supreme commander) Kang Hong-rib- just for the reason that he was captured. Compared to the ongoing praise of Kim Eung-ha who was known to have valiantly struggled and then got killed, the evaluation of Kim Gyeong-seo was quite harsh. Then, later the fact that Kim Gyeong-seo was actually killed by Hu-Geum was revealed and disclosed to the public, so his honor was reinstated along with his earlier position, and a new title was even bestowed posthumously. It seemed like his name was being finally cleared from that of a ‘surrenderer.’ Yet in reality, for quite some time, his reputation remained somewhat murky, between ‘loyal’ and ‘disloyal,’ as there was an opinion –supported by many- which believed while his case certainly merited a sympathetic reevaluation, the fact that he surrendered could not be ignored. But in the latter half of the 18th century, the sense of obligation to ‘honor the true master race(in this case, the Chinese Ming dynasty)’ began to form rather dominantly, and a new effort to commemorate Kim Gyeong-seo was initiated. He was hailed as a “Loyal vassal,” and in the 19th century he was even cited as a symbol to propagate an agenda of the time, which was to ‘uphold a righteous cause,’ commemorating Ming. In the process of his being reevaluated and newly honored, the evaluation of Gang Hong-rib, who was known to have surrendered to Hu-Geum with Kim, deteriorated. Gang’s surrender was defined as an act following former king Gwang’hae-gun’s secret order, and the Shimha battle was redefined as a battle that cost many lives in the name of honoring the true legitimate (Ming) dynasty. Such definitions were meant to strengthen Joseon’s new identity as the bearer of the Sino-centric traditions, while the dynasty itself was being forced to serve the ‘barbaric’ Qing.

조선후기 宣祖에 대한 현창과 그 의미

정해은 조선시대사학회 2013 朝鮮時代史學報 Vol.66 No.-

Examined in this article is how King Seonjo came to be honored as the ‘Renaissance king’ after his death, and what was the meaning of such effort of the time. The kings of the Joseon dynasty were honored and commemorated in various forms and fashions after their deaths, so in that regard the honoring of Seonjo was not at all an unusual thing. Nonetheless, the reason it is extensively examined in this article is because Seonjo was “reevaluated” as a “king who saved Joseon after winning the Imjin Wae’ran war.” With the interests of King Injo and those of the Westerners faction meeting with each other, King Seonjo came to be portrayed in a new light, as a hero for the Joseon dynasty, who achieved the survival of the country and maintained loyalty toward Ming. In other words, he was newly decorated as a role model for the rest of the country. This new evaluation of him continued to spread, as the Joseon people’s sentiment of inheriting Ming and its legitimate traditions continued to grow, after Ming’s fall. Commemoration projects of King Seonjo continued to become more active. During the reign of King Injo, a musical score(樂章) alone for King Seonjo’s chamber at the Dynastic Shrine(宣祖室) was created. During the reign of King Sukjong, King Seonjo was designated with a Seshil chamber, and even Seonmyo Bogam(宣廟寶鑑) was published. Wa’ryong-sa(臥龍祠), in the Yeong’yu(永柔) area of the Pyeong’an-do province, where Seonjo remained before returning to the Capital, continued to be expanded in the reigns of kings Hyeonjong, Sukjong and Yeongjo, as a central stage of demonstrating ‘Loyalty.’ All these efforts of the time show us that the memory of King Seonjo was being strengthened with new images of himself as a savior of the country and loyal vassal to Ming (in the eyes of following kings), and as a model of loyalty, in the eyes of the public. This new image of King Seonjo continued to be strengthened in the 17th and 18th centuries. 이 글은 선조가 사후에 ‘중흥’의 국왕으로 부각되는 양상을 추적하고 그 의미를 조망한 연구이다. 조선시대 국왕들은 후대에 각종 형태로 추숭을 받았다. 그러므로 선조에 대한 현창이 특별한 현상이라 말할 수 없다. 그럼에도 이 글에서 선조를 특별히 주목하는 이유는 선조 추숭이 임진왜란을 극복하고 조선을 구한 임금으로 초점을 맞추어 진행되었기 때문이다. 선조는 인조와 서인세력의 이해와 맞물리면서 중흥과 사대의 공을 이룬 국왕으로 추앙되어 후대의 모범이 되는 국왕으로 거듭났다. 이것은 명 멸망 이후 조선에서 ‘중화계승의식’이 확산되는 속도와 궤를 같이하면서 퍼져 나갔다. 선조에 대한 현창 사업도 활발해졌다. 인조 대에 종묘의 宣祖室을 위한 단독 樂章이 제작되고, 숙종 대에는 선조가 세실로 정해지고 『宣廟寶鑑』까지 편찬되었다. 그리고 선조가 환도하기 직전에 머물던 평안도 영유에 세운 와룡사가 현종, 숙종, 영조 대를 거치면서 ‘충’을 실현하는 본산으로 확대되었다. 이러한 양상은 선조에 대한 기억이 위로 국왕들에게는 조선을 구한 공열과 사대의 표상으로, 아래 民에게는 충을 실천해야 하는 본보기로서 거듭났음을 잘 보여준다. 그리고 새롭게 형성된 선조의 이미지는 17세기를 관통하여 18세기까지 지속 또는 증폭되었다.

조선 후기 楊鎬去思碑의 건립과 변천

나종현(Na, Jong-hyun) 중앙대학교 중앙사학연구소 2021 중앙사론 Vol.- No.54

In 1598, a monument to Ring Hou, who participated in the war during the Japanese Invasion of Korea in 1592, was erected in Sahyeon for the first time. Unlike other monuments related to Ming Army, this monument seems to be voluntarily built by the Joseon’s court because Ring Hou’s repatriation had a significant impact on Joseon s Daemyung diplomacy. After the war, generous treatments to Ring Hou continued. As Ring Hou regained military power, the Joseon Dynasty was able to use the friendly relationship with Ring Hou as a mean to respond to the rapidly changing international situation. In commemoration of the enshrinement of the portrait of Ring Hou in 1610, the second monument to him was built near the Mohwagwan in 1612. After the replacement of Ming and Qing, despite the fact that monuments to Ming army could bring tension in Joseon-Qing relationship, interest in the monument has increased even more than before. With the development of the Joseon Junghwa Ideology, Ring Hou was re-examined as a symbol of the Jaejojieun of the Shen-tsung emperor. The monument made in Seonjo’s reign, which had been damaged and fallen through several wars, was newly erected at Seonmusa Temple in Sukjong’s reign, and the old monument was also repaired. King Yeongjo worked hard to promote Fulfilling Righteousness by

『御定宋史筌』권8 「本紀·后妃」 체례개편의 목적

崔해별(Choi, Hae-Byoul) 역사교육연구회 2012 역사교육 Vol.124 No.-

King Jeongjo compiled Song-sa-jeon(宋史筌) in 1791. It was revised from Song-sa(宋史) from the Yuan Dynasty. Song-sa-jeon changed its Order(體禮), and it is notable that the Biography of Empress(后妃傳) from Song-sa is transformed into the Annals of Empress(后妃本紀). The Annals of Empress is exceptional in the form of Annals-Biographies(紀傳體). Considering that the symbolic meaning of Annals, it is assumed that there is a specific purpose for such a n exceptional reformation of Order. However, t here h as b een f ar l ess attention focused on this subject. In this article, I show the symbolic meaning of the reformations of Order in the relation of reinforcing the “Theory of Esteem China(尊周論)” or strengthening the legitimacy of succession that fits the original purpose of compilation of Song-sa-jeon. According to t he c ompilers o f Song-sa-jeon, the purpose of the incorporation of the Annals of Empress into Song-sa-jeon was to clarify the “Legitimacy and Statuses”, by following Hu-han-seo(後漢書), and Gye-han-seo (季漢書) which incorporate Empress into Annals as well as to harmonize the “inside and outside” of the Royal Court. The real purpose, however, lies in the reconfirmation of the legitimacy of the Chosun Dynasty through the emphasis of the “Theory of Esteem China”, which directly connected to the Ming Dynasty. In order to fulfill the Great Cause of Esteem China from Chunqiu(春秋), King Jeongjo and his cabinet attempted to show the direct succession of Song-sa-jeon f rom Gye-han-seo(which is the succession of Chunqiu), by matching the same Order, which is in line with the legitimacy of Shu-Han. In this sense, it is a proper means to imitate the same formation of Order in the Annals o f Empress f rom Gye-han-seo to meet this purpose.

性理學派 文學과 實學派 文學의 連續과 斷絶

송재소(宋載邵) 한림대학교 태동고전연구소 2003 泰東古典硏究 Vol.19 No.-

不論在大范圍上來看, 性理學派的文學和實學派的文學是同質的, 但兩者存在可以分別的差異. 而且, 此種差異不是同質的, 作者認爲是比同質更需要論定的. 實學派文學和性理學派文學的辨別点是如下面的內容. 首先, 性理學者最重視靜的, 個人的, 內面的自我修養. 然而, 實學派更關心動的, 社會的現實 問題. 其次, 實學者們因爲關心現實問題, 所以不推究理氣, 心性論等形而上學的抽象的理論. 更關心 與民生有關的各種制度的改革, 或是手工業的發展等問題, 文學的題材擴大至農民和城市庶民的 生活上. 第三, 實學者주掉中華主義權威, 在一定程度上克服傳統的華夷觀. 在此基礎上他們帶宥以民 族爲單位的國家意識, 此種民族主題意識具禮體現存實際作品中. 不論對于楚亭朴齊家的解釋不是 沒有不同, 但很明顯實學者們對朝鮮問題帶有共同的關心. 對于朴齊家的稿應當令當別論, 在此先 不作定論.

화양구곡(華陽九曲) 조성의 시공간적 배경과 역사적 함의

김성희 한국사학회 2023 史學硏究 Vol.- No.149

Based on the results of previous research on the ‘Gugok culture,’ which was transplanted from China and blossomed on the Korean Peninsula, this study examines how Zhu Xi’s ‘Gugok’ was received and interpreted in Joseon and what cultural phenomenon it created in the process of its subsequent transformation from a historical perspective. In particular, this study aims to examine how the Joseon elite’s appropriation of ‘Gugok culture’ took shape and developed in the 17th century, when the change of zeitgeist due to the destruction of the Ming Dynasty by the Qing Dynasty was prominent, and to diagnose its historical implications and present-day significance. Zhu Xi’s “Muidao Song,” and “Muigugokdo,” a depiction of the actual landscape of ‘Gugok,’ were transmitted to the Korean peninsula along with the acceptance of Confucianism in the late Goryeo Dynasty, and were actively enjoyed by the Joseon scholars as the development of Confucianism began in earnest in the 16th century. For them, ‘Gugok’ on Muyishan was perceived as the birthplace of Zhu Xi’s philosophy and the ideal place for Confucianism, so naturally there was a great deal of interest in literary and artistic works based on it, and attempts to incorporate ‘Gugok culture’ into the topography of Joseon began to appear. In particular, Seoin scholars of the Noron faction were active in their attempts to implement Zhu Xi’s ‘Gugok’ into Joseon, and the Gosan Gugok established by Yi Yi, as well as Song Si-yeol’s Hwayang Gugok and Kim Soo-jeung’s Gok-un Gugok, are still recognized today as representative examples of the ‘Gugok culture’ that developed on the Korean peninsula. Among them, Hwayang Gugok is a space that was painstakingly cultivated by Noron figures who tried to establish the tradition of Confucianism handed down from Zhu Xi to Song Si-yeol with the intention of recreating the origin of Zhu Xi’s philosophy in Joseon, and it became the center of Noron’s public discussion throughout the late Joseon Dynasty. Hwayangdong, originally named as a scenic spot in the central part of the Korean Peninsula, has become a place where the ‘Gugok culture’ of Joseon, which originated by Zhu Xi, was completed with Confucianist traditions and partisan adoration. Hwayang gugok was itself a constructed sanctuary that symbolized the cultural hegemony of the late Joseon Dynasty. The cultural markers visualized and internalized in the valley by Song Si-yeol himself or his disciples were inherited and disseminated through the direct and indirect experiences of travel and literature. By selecting, interpreting, and incorporating the symbols contained in Zhu Xi’s “Muidao Song” into their works, they sought to culturally legitimize the power of their school, and by adding the symbol of the ‘Cardinal Principle of Revering the Zhou Dynasty’ to it, they sought to lead and monopolize the cause of the times. This was because these actions were in line with the current thinking of the time, and thus served to strengthen the academic and cultural authority that underpinned the political authority of their school.