조선후기 ‘華陽洞’의 조성과 정치공간화

박소희 조선시대사학회 2024 조선시대사학보 Vol.0 No.111

이 글은 조선후기 尊周大義의 흐름 속에서 ‘華陽洞’의 조성 과정과 변곡점을 분석한 것이다. 당대 지식인들은 명 멸망 이후 붕괴된 중화질서를 관념적으로 유지하고자 하는 존주대의를 실천하기 위해 해당 가치와 연계된 인물을 현창하거나 이를 강조할 수 있는 공간과 장치를 만들었는데 이의 대표적인 곳이 ‘화양동’이다. 화양동은 1666년 송시열이 우거하기 시작한 이래로 명 황제의 어필 봉안과 만동묘의 설치로 조선 후기 존주대의에 대한 권위를 상징하는 곳으로 점차 자리 잡았다. 또한 송시열을 獨享하는 華陽書院과 송시열계 道統을 시각화한 華陽九曲이 설정되어, 노론의 정치ㆍ사상적 권위를 표상하는 공간으로 인식됐다. 한편, 명 멸망 1주갑인 1704년을 전후하여 국가와 송시열계 문인들은 大報壇과 萬東廟를 설립하여 존주대의를 현창하고자 했다. 이 과정에서 경상도 상주에서 영남 남인 李萬敷와 노론 成晩徵 간에 만동묘를 둘러싼 논쟁이 발생하였다. 이의 핵심은 만동묘의 非禮性과 黨論의 有無였다. 하지만 만동묘를 둘러싼 논란과 경종대 노론의 정치적 부침 속에서도 ‘화양동’은 1716년 이루어진 丙申處分으로 그 명맥을 유지할 수 있었다. 18세기에 접어들어 국왕이 각종 정치 의리를 판단하고 백성을 교화하는 이른바 ‘君師’로서의 위상을 견지하고 탕평정국을 형성함에 따라 ‘화양동’은 점차 변화하기 시작한다. 영조대 초반 노ㆍ소론 사이에 균형을 추구하던 영조는 존주대의 강조의 흐름 속에서 ‘화양동’은 강조하되, 송시열의 위상 제고를 우려하는 모습을 보였다. 또한 1749년 대보단에 三皇을 합사하는 과정에서 명 황제에 대한 제사의 주도권을 국왕이 장악함과 동시에 국왕과 송시열 간의 위계를 설정하였다. ‘화양동’을 견제하였던 영조와 달리 정조는 ‘화양동’과 송시열이 지닌 이미지를 존주대의의 자장 속에서 적극 활용하는 모습을 보였다. 한편, 정조는 『尊周彙編』의 「皇壇志」의 부록으로 「華陽洞志」를 수록하여 ‘화양동’이 국가가 인지하는 존주대의의 범주에 포섭되었음을 드러냄과 동시에 영조대 이루어진 국가와 ‘화양동’ 간의 위계를 재차 강조하였다. 17~18세기를 거쳐 확고한 정치ㆍ사상적 지위를 획득한 화양동은 19세기에도 그 위상을 견지하였다. 그러다 고종대 ‘화양동’은 이곳의 정치ㆍ사상적 지위를 형성하던 만동묘와 화양서원이 연이어 철폐됨에 따라 위기를 맞게 되었다. 그 후 만동묘가 국가 체제하에 복설됨에 따라 ‘화양동’은 다시금 존주대의를 상징하는 공간으로서 자리매김할 수 있었다. 하지만 ‘화양동’은 이곳의 정치적 영향력을 상징하는 화양서원이 끝내 복설되지 않아, 존주대의의 상징적 공간으로서 위상만 남게 되었다. This article analyzes the creation of ‘Hwayangdong’ and its evolution in the context of Grand Loyalty of Revering the Zhou during the late Chosǒn dynasty. Following the fall of the Ming, Chosǒn scholars sought to preserve the ideological framework of the Central Civilization Order and fulfill the Grand Loyalty to Revering the Zhou through memorials and symbolic spaces. Hwayangdong emerged as a prominent site since Song Siyeol settled there in 1666, marking it as a locus of the Grand Loyalty to Revering the Zhou. This symbolic status was further solidified with the installation of the Mandongmyo shrine and enshrinement of the Ming emperor’s autograph. Hwayangdong was associated with the Noron’s political and ideological authority, as seen in the construction of Hwayang Seowon, dedicated to Song Siyeol, and designation of Hwayang Gugok which visualized Song’s legacy and his disciples’ legitimacy. In 1704, on the 60th anniversary of the Ming’s fall, Chosǒn officials and Song Siyeol’s followers memorialized the Grand Loyalty to Revering the Zhou through the establishment of the Daebodan altar and the Mandongmyo shrine. In the process, a debate emerged on Mandongmyo between Yeongnam Namin scholar Yi Manbu and Noron scholar Seong Manjing, focusing on the principles of Propriety and Faction. Despite the controversy and Noron being involved in the political turmoil under Gyeongjong, Hwayangdong maintained its status beyond the Act of 1716. The status of Hwayangdong began to shift in the 18th century, a period when the king assumed the role of Sovereign Teacher, who arbitrated political arguments and edified his subjects, and introduced the Tangpyeong doctrine. In the early reign of Yeongjo, the king sought to balance the influence of Noron and Soron factions. As a result, he endorsed Hwayangdong as part of his support for the Grand Loyalty to Revering the Zhou, though he carefully managed the elevation of Song Siyeol’s influence. In 1749, during the enshrinement of three Ming emperors at the Daebodan altar, Yeongjo took the initiative of the ritual, establishing a hierarchy between the throne and Song Siyeol. In contrast to Yeongjo’s measured approach, Jeongjo actively harnessed the image of Hwayangdong and Song Siyeol in the field of the Grand Loyalty to Revering the Zhou. By appending the Record of Hwayangdong to the Record of Emperor’s Altar in Jonju Hwipyeon, Jeongjo revealed that Hwayangdong was now recognized within the state-approved domain of the Grand Loyalty to Revering the Zhou, reiterating the hierarchy between the state and Hwayangdong. Hwayangdong maintained its established political and ideological significance in the 19th century. However, its status faced challenges under the reign of Gojong, when both Mandongmyo and Hwayang Seowon were abolished. While Mandongmyo was re-established as a state institution, the restoration stabilized Hwayangdong’s position only symbolically within the the Grand Loyalty to Revering the Zhou, as Hwayang Seowon, a symbol of Hwayangdong’s political influence, was not recovered.

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.

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

이상주 ( Lee Sang-ju ) 연민학회 2018 연민학지 Vol.30 No.-

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.

영조대 대보단의 장소성

김지영 인하대학교 한국학연구소 2025 한국학연구 Vol.- No.76

이 글은 영조대 대보단 증수에는 중국의 구원병 파견에 대한 감사를 넘어 건국기 조선의 내치와 외교 정책의 중요 원칙을 재확인하고, 이에 기반하여 再造 조선 혹은 조선 重興의 방향성을 설정하고 제도 개혁을 해나가려는 실천적 목적이 있었음을 논증한다. 대보단 증수는 숙종 때와 마찬가지로 의리를 기념하는 제단으로 구축되어야 한다는 인식 위에서 추진되었으며, 실제 제단도 명 황실의 제사를 잇는 것이 아닌 세 황제의 각각의 공덕을 기념한다는 의의를 드러내는 방식으로 구축되었다. 구원병 파견과 관계없었던 명 태조 향사의 명분은 조선이라는 국호를 주었다는 것이었다. ‘기자’, ‘주무왕’, ‘조선후 책봉’을 키워드로 하는 조선 국호 이야기에는 조선과 명이 周代의 천하정치에 대한 감각을 공유하였고, 그 감각 위에서 내치와 외교를 아우르는 조선이라는 나라의 정체성이 수립되었다는 특별한 인식이 담겨져 있었다. 영조는 명 태조 향사를 통해 조선이라는 국호에 담긴 건국과 15세기 국가 체제의 의미를 재천명하고, 이를 기반으로 18세기 조선의 내치와 외교 방침을 조정하고 국가 개혁을 추진하고자 했다. 증수 이후 18세기 말까지 대보단은 조선의 입국체제와 신뢰와 협력의 국가간 관계를 기억하고 시대에 맞게 실천하려는 의지가 집약된 장소로 유지되었다. This study argues that the reconstruction of the Daebodan shrine during the reign of King Yeongjo served two significant purposes beyond merely expressing gratitude for the dispatch of Chinese reinforcements. First, it reaffirmed the core principles of domestic governance and foreign policy established during the founding period of Joseon. Second, based on these principles, it sought to set the direction for the “re-creation (再造)” or “revitalization (重興)” of Joseon through institutional reforms in practice. The reconstruction of Daebodan was undertaken with the recognition that, as in the reign of King Sukjong, the shrine should be established as a site commemorating moral righteousness (義理). Accordingly, the reconstructed shrine was not merely intended to continue the disrupted rites of the Ming dynasty but was designed to highlight the distinct virtues of the three emperors it enshrined — Hongwu (洪武), Wanli (萬曆), and Chongzhen (崇禎). The rationale for enshrining Emperor Hongwu, despite his lack of direct involvement in sending reinforcement troops, was that he had conferred upon Joseon its national title. The discourse surrounding the title of Joseon — centered on the keywords “Jizi” (箕子), “King Wu of Zhou” (周武王), and “the investiture of Joseon as a vassal state” — reflects a unique perception that Joseon and the Ming shared a historical consciousness rooted in the Tianxia (天下) order of the Zhou dynasty. This perception underpinned the formation of Joseon’s identity, encompassing both domestic governance and diplomacy. By honoring Emperor Taizu, King Yeongjo sought to reassert the significance of the founding of Joseon and the state system established in the 15th century. On this basis, he aimed to recalibrate Joseon’s domestic and foreign policies in the 18th century and to implement state reforms. Following its reconstruction, Daebodan retained its spatial significance as a site for commemorating and preserving the founding order of the state and the bonds of trust and cooperation that extended beyond the state, lasting through the late 18th century.

17-18세기 임진왜란 참전 명군(明軍)에 대한 기억

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

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。

임유후(任有後)와 『만휴당집(萬休堂集)』 - 17세기 북인의 몰락과 생존의 한 사례 연구

백승호(Baek, Seungho) 돈암어문학회 2024 돈암어문학 Vol.46 No.-

This thesis examines Im Yuhu's life and reconstructs the complete version of his collected works, Manhyudangjib, by searching for different copies of his collected works in Korea. He was from a family that played a key role in the Bugin' regime. However, his family members were accused of treason and were killed for trying to support Prince Inseong after the Injo Restoration. He survived and led his family into hiding in Uljin. Unlike the writers who had lost in political struggles, who wrote works that superficially expressed their longing for their monarch, he created works that directly expressed anxiety and sadness. Most of his relatives involved in the treason were dead, and he himself was deeply frustrated, so he took the pen name “Manhyu” to indicate that he was giving up everything in the world. In 1633, Prince Inseong's official title was restored, and he also made a personal decision, which changed his literary world thereafter.<BR/> Despite his family's involvement in the treason plot, his survival was largely due to his leading role in advocating for Jonjudaeui during the war with the Qing Dynasty. Lee Gyeong-yeo, a representative anti-surrender faction member made special efforts to promote him. Lee Min-jeok, Lee's son also followed in his father's footsteps and actively recommended him to the central government office. Through Im Yuhu and Manhyudangjib, I tried to categorize the cases in which Bugin secured a political position in an unfavorable political situation by actively expressing Jonjudaeui despite being politically discouraged after the Injo Restoration.

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

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.

『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.