정조가 홍취영에게 보낸 어찰에 나타난 ꡔ四部手圈』 편찬․교정 내용과 관련 기록 연구

강순애 한국서지학회 2019 서지학연구 Vol.78 No.-

This study will look into the life and work of Hong Chui-yong, then examine in detail the compilation and proofreading of Sabusugwon as recounted in King Jeongjo’s letters to Hong Chui-yong, the process of compilation and proofreading as related records were connected. Hong Chui-yong was born in the 35th year of Yeongjo’s reign (1759) and served by Jeongjo’s side respectively as Sayong, Gumcheonhyeonryeong, Gangseohyeonryeong and Jeonbu from the 10th year (1786) to the 24th year of Jeongjo’s reign (1800). Sabusugwon consists of 30 volumes in total: 6 volumes of Samryesugwon, 4 volumes of Yangyeongsugwon, 10 volumes of Ojasugwon, 8 volumes of Palgasugwon, 2 volumes of Yukgosugwon. Between June to October of the 22nd year of his reign (1798), Jeongjo himself marked the bijeom (blue point), and kwonjeom (red circle), in the important passages of Samryesugwon. On October 17, Jeongjo requested Hong Chui-yong to proofread the entire excerpt edition and had it returned on October 24. From October 24 to October 28, the Chogyemunsin went through an intensive process of proofreading and correct transcription. For Yangyeongsugwon, Jeongjo marked the bijeom and kwonjeom from September 25 to 29 and October 2 to 26 in the 22nd year of his reign (1798). Since Jeongjo had ordered the proofreading of Saseon on October 22 in his 21st year of reign (1797), we can assume that he ordered Hong Chui-yong and his father Hong Nak-im to mark bijeom by hand and the do the first proofreading earlier than the time indicated in the process schedule, which was from September 25 to 29 and October 2 to 26 in the 22nd year of Jeongjo (1798). Jeongjo marked the bijeom and kwonjeom of Ojasugwon from April to October in the 22nd year of his reign (1798), and in the same year on July 4 and July 6, directed Hong Chui-yong to proofread the Juseo and Daejeon. From October 16 to 19 there was an intensive proofreading by the Chogyemunsin, and on October 24 twenty-five Sajagwans completed the transcription. Jeongjo marked the bijeom and kwonjeom for the eight volumes of Palgasugwon from October to December in the 21st year of his reign (1797). On October 22, in the middle of the bijeom and kwonjeom marking process, Jeongjo sent the volumes to Hong Chui-yong for proofreading. Proofreading by the Chogyemunsin was done on December 22 and on February 23 of the following year, Jeongjo gave the book to the Sajagwans who transcribed. Jeongjo marked the bijeom and kwonjeom in the two volumes of Yukgosugwon from April 12 to 21 in the 22 year of his reign (1798), but no records remain of the proofreading. 본 연구는 홍취영의 생애와 활동을 개관한 다음 정조가 홍취영에게 보낸 어찰에 나타난 『사부수권』의 편찬․교정 내용과 그와 관련된 기록들을 연계하여 편찬․교정이 어떤 과정을 거쳐 이루어졌는지를 구체적으로 살펴보았다. 홍취영은 영조 35년(1759)생으로 정조 10년(1786)부터 정조 24년(1800)까지 사용, 금천현령, 강서현령, 전부로서 정조를 도와 측근에서 활동하였다. 『사부수권』은 『삼례수권』 6권, 『양경수권』 4권, 『오자수권』 10권, 『팔가수권』 8권 및 『육고수권』 2권으로 총 30권이다. 『삼례수권』은 정조가 22년(1798) 6월부터 10월 사이에 비권하고, 10월 17일에 홍취영에게 발췌본 전체의 교정을 부탁하여 10월 24일 전에는 돌려받았다. 10월 24일부터 28일까지 초계문신들의 교준 및 서역이 집중적으로 이루어졌다. 『양경수권』은 정조가 22년(1798) 9월 25일∼29일, 10월 2일∼26일까지 비권하였다. 정조 21년(1797) 10월 22일에 『사선』의 교정을 시켰으니 『과정일표』에 제시된 정조 22년(1798) 9월 25일∼29일, 10월 2일∼26일의 기간보다 앞서 홍취영과 그의 부친 홍낙임에게 수비 작업의 일차 교정을 시킨 것으로 여겨진다. 『오자수권』은 정조가 22년(1798) 4월부터 10월까지 비권하였고, 그해 7월 4일과 7월 6일에 홍취영에게 「주서」와 『대전』의 교정을 지시하였다. 10월 16일부터 19일까지는 초계문신의 교준 및 교정 작업이 집중적으로 이루어졌고, 10월 24일에는 사자관 25인이 서역을 마쳤다. 『팔가수권』 8권은 정조가 21년(1797) 10월부터 12월까지 비권하였다. 10월 22일 비권하는 중에 홍취영에게 보내서 교정을 하도록 하였고, 12월 22일에는 초계문신이 교준하였으며, 이듬해인 2월 23일에는 서역한 사자관들에게 물목을 하사하였다. 『육고수권』 2권은 정조가 22년(1798) 4월 12일부터 21일까지 비권하였는데, 교정에 대한 기록은 남아 있지 않다.

正祖의 當代 臣僚 文集 命刊에 대한 연구 - 『雷淵集』, 『江漢集』, 『保晩齋集』, 『樊巖集』을 중심으로 -

양기정 한국서지학회 2016 서지학연구 Vol.66 No.-

This study investigated the background and the process of King Jeongjo’s publishing his official’s collections of work, especially on Nam Yu-Yong’s Noeyeonjip, Hwang Gyeong-Won’s Ganghanjip, Seo Myeong-Eung’s Bomanjaejip and Chae Jae-Gong’s Beonamjip, all of which were ordered to be published by King Jeongjo. All of them had taught Jeongjo as a royal tutor while Jeongjo was a prince. Three of them had represented national literature as the Head of the Royal Academy. One of them had help Jeongjo make a significant contribution to state affairs as a prime minister. The tradition that officially publish one’s collections of work, who served as a royal tutor and the Head of the Royal Academy, was derived from Nam Yu-Yong’s Noeyeonjip, and was passed down to Hwang Gyeong-Won’s Ganghanjip and Seo Myeong-Eung’s Bomanjaejip. Works of Nam Yu-Yong and Hwang Gyeong-Won were so elegant and sincere that there was a lot of accord with Jeongjo’s policy trying to restore people’s style of writing fallen into decadence. Seo Myeong-Eung immensely helped Jeongjo with his academic talent when Jeongjo compiled and published various books so as to consolidate the foundation of the throne at the initiatory stage of Guyjanggak. Jeongjo was so impressed by Chae Jae-Gong’s consistent protection for Prince Sado, who was Jeongjo’s father, that he especially selected Chae Jae-Gong as a prime minister. Chae Jae-Gong successfully assisted Jeongjo’s policy in various categories. It took about 3years for Noeyeonjip and Ganghanjip to be published from Jeongjo’ order. On the contrary, Bomanjaejip and Beonamjip were privately published after Jeongjo passed away. The publication of Bomanjaejip and Beonamjip took a long time due to the political obstacles that occurred shortly after Jeongjo passed away. In case of Noeyeonjip and Ganghanjip, Jeongjo read both of them and ordered to publish after the writers passed away. Bomanjaejip and Beonamjip, on the other hand, were read and given a panegyrical poem by Jeongjo during writer’s life time. Jeongjo ordered to publish Bomanjaejip and Beonamjip as soon as the writers passed away. Ganghanjip had a lot of content that were strongly opposing Qing. Jeongjo was concerned that Ganghanjip might have bring about diplomatic conflicts between Joseon and Qing, so he did not write prefaces for Ganghanjip. Since Bomanjaejip and Beonamjip could not be published during Joseon’s life time, there are no Jeongjo’s prefaces, only panegyrical poems written by Jeongjo. Nam Yu-Yong’s descendants wanted to print only 40-50 sets for private use at the time of printing Noeyeonjip, because they were not afford enough. On that basis, it can be assumed that more than 50 sets for private use were generally printed at least when a collection of work was published under the orders of King during the Joseon dynasty. According to Jeongjo’s memorandum, 23 sets for official use were generally printed at the time of printing Ganghanjip. It can also assume how many sets of collection of work for official use were generally printed. 본 논문은 조선 正祖 시대 신료인 南有容의 『雷淵集』, 黃景源의 『江漢集』, 徐命膺의 『保晩齋集』, 蔡濟恭의 『樊巖集』에 대해 정조가 간행을 명한 배경과 그 경과에 대해 연구한 것이다. 정조는 賓客을 지내고 文衡을 역임하였으면서 문장과 학술이 뛰어나거나, 자신이 정책을 수행하는데 지대한 공적을 세운 신료의 문집을 간행해주도록 명을 내렸다. 정조가 빈객을 지내고 문형을 역임한 신료의 문집을 간행해주도록 명한 전통은 남유용의 『뇌연집』에서부터 시작되어 황경원의 『강한집』, 서명응의 『보만재집』으로 이어졌다. 남유용과 황경원의 문장은 敦厚하고 古雅하여 정조의 ‘文體反正’ 정책에 부합하는 것이었고, 서명응은 다양한 서적을 편찬했던 정조의 학술 정책에 지대한 기여를 하였으며, 채제공은 思悼世子의 보호에 적극적으로 활약하여 정조의 신임을 얻고 영의정에 올라 정조가 추진하던 정책들을 성공적으로 보좌하였다. 『뇌연집』과 『강한집』은 간행의 명이 내린 뒤에 간행을 위한 준비 작업으로서 편집과 교정에 대략 3년 정도의 시간이 소요되었다. 『보만재집』과 『번암집』은 모두 정조 사후에 저자의 후손이나 본인이 정치적인 문제에 연루되어 오랫동안 간행되지 못하다가 정치적 문제가 해결된 뒤에 간행되었다. 『뇌연집』과 『강한집』은 저자의 사후에 정조가 遺稿를 乙覽하고 간행하도록 명한 경우이고, 『보만재집』과 『번암집』은 저자의 생전에 詩文稿를 을람한 뒤에 御製詩를 내리고 사후에 간행해주도록 명한 경우다. 排淸文字가 다수 수록된 『강한집』은 중국에 유입될 경우 외교문제로 비화될 우려가 있어 御製序가 수록되지 않았다. 『보만재집』과 『번암집』은 정조 생전에 간행되지 못한 까닭에 御製序는 수록되어 있지 않고 御製詩만 수록되어 있다. 『뇌연집』의 사례를 볼 때, 국가에서 문집을 간행해 줄 때에 私件은 본가에서 비용을 부담하며, 그 수량은 일반적으로 최소한 50件 이상이었을 것으로 추정된다. 公件의 수량은 『강한집』을 인출할 때 정조가 내린 備忘記를 통해 짐작할 수 있는데, 이에 따르면 『강한집』의 公件은 총 23件이 인출되었다.

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 강원도 유생 선발

김다미 조선시대사학회 2019 朝鮮時代史學報 Vol.- No.91

正祖의 재위시기인 18세기 후반은 수도권과 지방의 양극화가 극에 달한 시기였다. 경제․정치․학문․교육의 중심이 모두 수도권으로 편중되었고, 지방은 정계 진출이나 인사에 있어서 소외될 수밖에 없었다. 이에 대해 정조는 지방유생들에 대한 배려 차원에서 일부 지역에 대상으로 道科나 別試를 시행하였고, 재위 후반에는 ‘賓興科’를 전국적으로 시행하였다. ‘빈흥과’는 정조 대에 처음으로 시행한 제도이다. 정조는 강원도의 유생 선발을 시작으로 이 빈흥과를 전국으로 확대시키고자 하였다. 정조가 강원도의 經工生에게 十三經의 經義를 조목별로 묻고, 功令生에게 과거체제를 적용하여 시험을 보인 것은 周代의 인재 등용법인 里選과 鄕擧의 제도를 본 딴 것이었다. 그리고 이 일련의 과정을 기록한 것이 바로 『關東賓興錄』이다. 강원도 유생 선발은 강원도의 인재 현황 파악부터 『관동빈흥록』의 편찬까지 그 모든 과정이 정조의 주도적인 지위 하에 진행되었다. 유생 선발 대상은 과거를 준비하는 공령생과 경학을 공부하는 경공생으로 구분되었다. 공령생을 선발하되 영동과 영서에서 똑같은 인원을 선발하게 하였는데, 이는 지역적 안배를 염두에 둔 인사였다. 특기할 점은 공령생을 선발하면서 오죽헌 주인의 후손에게 특혜를 주어 시험에 응시하도록 한 것이다. 이는 정조가 강릉 오죽헌에서 태어난 李珥를 존모하는 한편, 그 후손을 등용하여 지방유생의 사기를 진작하려는 의도에서 비롯된 것이었다. 경공생에게는 經史講義의 체제에 빗대어 十三經講義를 시험하였다. 이는 새로운 학문 정보에 어두운 지방 유생들에게 다양한 경전을 접하게 함으로써 『四書五經大全』에 치우친 학풍을 변화시키고자 한 것이었다. 정조는 이렇게 선발한 유생들을 단지 선발에만 그치지 않고 실제로 활용하고자 하였다. 선발된 공령생에게는 直赴殿試를 내려 관직에 임용하고자 하였고, 경공생은 강원도의 지방관으로 삼아 지역민을 다스리게 하였다. 한편, 경공생 모두를 分敎官으로 삼되, 영서와 영동지방에 고르게 배치하여 공령생과 마찬가지로 지역적 안배를 고려하였다. 그리고 正學을 회복하기 위해 이들에게 朱子書를 내리고 이를 바탕으로 지방의 교육을 흥기시키기를 바랐다. 정조는 강원도 지역을 시작으로 소외된 지방유생을 선발하고, 빈흥과의 체제를 정비하여 전국적으로 확대하고자 하였다. 따라서 지방유생들을 선발하는데 새로운 방법론을 제시했다는 점에서 강원도 유생 선발과 『關東賓興錄』의 편찬은 의미를 갖는다. 정조는 강원도 유생을 등용하여 그들을 활용함으로써 지방의 사기와 교육을 진작시키고자 하였다. 또 한편으로는 어려운 민생에 시달리는 강원도 백성들을 위로하고, 그들의 목소리로 강원도 지역의 실태를 직접 파악하는 기회로 삼았다. 이러한 제반의 과정들은 최종적으로 소외되는 지역 없이 정조의 통치 아래 진정한 사회통합으로 나아가는 길이었다. 필자는 본 연구를 통해 향후 다른 지역에 대한 빈흥과와 『빈흥록』에 대한 연구에 도움이 되길 기대해 본다. The late 18th century, the reign of King Jeongjo, was a period of extreme polarization between the metropolitan area and provinces. The center of economy, politics, academics, and education were all concentrated in the metropolitan area, and the provinces had to be alienated in politics and personnel. In response, Jeongjo held a ‘Do-gwha(道科)’ and ‘Byul-si(別試)’ as a consideration for local confucian scholar. And Later in King Jeongjo, ‘Binheung-gwa(賓興科)’ was implemented nationwide. ‘Binheung-gwa(賓興科)’ was the first system to be implemented during the reign of King Jeongjo. King Jeongjo wanted to expand the ‘Binheung-gwa(賓興科)’ across the country after the selection of the confucian scholar in Gangwon Province. King Jeongjo asked the meaning of scripture of ‘13Gyung(十三經)’ to ‘Gyunggong-saeng(經工生)’ and Jeongjo’s testing of ‘Gongryeong-saeng(功令生)’ by applying the past system was modeled after the system of ‘LeeSun(里選)’ and ‘Hyanggeo(鄕擧)’, which are the recruitment of talent from ‘Jewdae(周代)’. And it was ‘Gwandong-binheungnok(『關東賓興錄』)’ that recorded the process of this. From the selection of the local confucian scholar in Gangwon Province to the compilation of the ‘Gwandong-binheungnok(『關東賓興錄』)’, the whole process was conducted under the leadership of King Jeongjo. The selection of Confucian scholar in Gangwon-do was carried out by dividing them into ‘Gongryeong-saeng(功令生)’ preparing for the civil service examination and ‘Gyunggong-saeng(經工生)’ studying for the confucian classics. The number of members for ‘Gongryeong-saeng(功令生)’ was same from Yeongseo and Yeongdong provinces. This is based on the consideration of regional distribution. A special favor was given to ‘ojuk-juin(烏竹主人)’s descendants to take the exam for the selection of ‘Gongryeong-saeng(功令生)’. This was caused by King Jeongjo's intention to honor ‘Yiyi(李珥)’, who was born in Ojukheon, Gangneung, while to raise the morale of local people by employing his descendants. For the ‘Gyunggong-saeng(經工生)’, ‘13Gyung-Gangeui(十三經講義)’ was tested against the system of ‘Gyungsa-gangeui(經史講義)’. This was to change the academic trend toward ‘Saseo-5Gyung-Daejeon(『四書五經大全』)’ by bringing a variety of scriptures to local children, who are unfamiliar with new academic information. Jeongjo wanted to employee these selected local confucian scholar in practice, not just in the selection process. The selected ‘Gongryeong-saeng(功令生)’ were to be appointed to government posts, and the ‘Gyunggong-saeng(經工生)’ were to be used as local officials in Gangwon Province to govern the local people. Meanwhile, all Gyunggong-saeng(經工生)’ were assigned equally to Yeongseo and Yeongdong provinces, taking into account regional safety, as were ‘Gongryeong-saeng(功令生)’. Jeongjo gave them a Jujaseo(朱子書) in hopes of the restoration of proper education and the revival of local education. Starting with Gangwon Province, King Jeongjo wanted to select alienated local Confucian scholar and reform the system with Binheung to expand it nationwide. Therefore, the selection of the confucian scholar in Gangwon Province and the compilation of the ‘Gwandong-binheungnok(『關東賓興錄』)’ are meaningful in that they suggested a new methodology for selecting local confucian scholar. On the other hand, Jeongjo used it as an opportunity to console the people in Gangwon Province, who are suffering from poor people's livelihoods, and to directly understand the situation in Gangwon Province through their voices. These various processes were the way to true social unity under the rule of King Jeongjo without the final marginalization of the region. I hope that this study will help us study ‘Binheungnok(『賓興錄』)’ and ‘B...

정조 朱文手圈 편찬의 목적과 의의

강문식 숭실사학회 2024 숭실사학 Vol.- No.52

朱文手圈은 정조가 朱子大全에 직접 批點과 圈點을 쳐서 가장 핵심적인 내용을 선별하여 편집한 책이다. 정조는 朱熹의 저작들을 종합한 ‘朱子全書’ 편찬을 구상하면서 그전 단계로 주문수권을 편찬하였다. 정조는 이전부터 批圈·抄錄을 통해 주자대전을 연구했고 그 결과를 여러 選本으로 정리했는데, 주문수권은 선행 주자서 선본들의 기반 위에서 주자대전의 가장 핵심적인 내용을 엄선하여 정리한 성과물이라고 할 수 있다. 주문수권의 초록 및 편집 방식을 보면, 독자가 주자대전을 완벽하게 숙지하고 있지않으면 초록된 문장의 의미나 맥락을 이해하기 어려운 경우들이 많이 있다. 이는 주문수권을 편찬한 정조의 주자학 이해가 완벽한 수준에 이르렀음을 보여준다고 할 수 있다. 또정조는 당시 조선의 학자들이 주문수권을 통해 자신들의 한계와 부족을 인식하고 주자학 연구에 더욱 정진하여 학문적으로 더 성장하도록 독려하고자 했다고 생각된다. 주문수권에는 주희가 송 황제에게 강조했던 이상 군주의 덕목들, 즉 군주의 正心, 인재 등용과 군자·소인 분별, 민생에 대한 책임 의식 등에 관한 내용이 다수 수록되어 있다. 여기에는 정조가 주희의 이상적 군주상에 동의했을 뿐만 아니라, 정조 자신이 그와 같은군주상을 이미 실현한 존재임을 드러내려는 의도가 담겨 있다고 생각된다. 정조가 주문수권 편찬 후 같은 해에 「萬川明月主人翁自序」를 지어 자신이 모든 臣民의 재능과 성품을파악하고 그에 알맞게 대하고 있음을 천명했던 것은 이런 추정을 뒷받침해 준다. 주문수권에는 학문에 임하는 자세와 연구 방법론, 남송 학계의 동향 등에 관한 주희의견해를 반영된 글이 많이 초록되어 있다. 이는 정조가 주희의 학문관을 수용하고 계승했으며, 18세기 조선 학계에 대해 주희와 동일한 비판 의식을 갖고 있었음을 보여준다. 또 정조자신이 주희 이후 道學의 정통을 이어받은 君師임을 선언한 것과도 맥을 같이 한다. 즉, 주문수권은 학문관의 측면에서 정조가 주희의 계승자임을 분명히 하고, 그를 통해 정조의 군사 선언이 정당한 것임을 뒷받침해 주는 저술이라고 할 수 있다. 이상을 종합해 보면, 주문수권은 체재와 내용 모두에서 정조의 주자학 이해가 정점에 이르렀고 정조가 주희의 완전한 계승자이자 君師라는 점을 드러내는 저술이라고 평가할 수 있다. 이점에서 주문수권은 정조 주자학 연구의 정수가 응축된 저작이며, ‘주자전서’가 大成의 최종 단계라고 한다면 주문수권은 그에 대응하는 요약의 최종 단계, 선본의 완성이라고 생각된다. The Zhuwen Shouquan(朱文手圈) is a book edited by King Jeongjo, in which he directly marked and circled the most essential content of the Zhuzi Daquan(朱子大 全). Jeongjo aimed to compile the ‘Zhuzi Quanshu(朱子全書)’, encompassing all of Zhu Xi's works, and as a preliminary step, he compiled the Zhuwen Shouquan. King Jeongjo had been studying the Zhuzi Daquan by marking and circling important contents and summarizing the results into various digests of Zhu Xi's works. The Zhuwen Shouquan can be seen as the result of selecting and organizing the most essential content of the Zhuzi Daquan based on the foundation of previous digests. Examining the summarization and editing style of the Zhuwen Shouquan, it becomes evident that many passages are difficult to understand without a thorough grasp of the Zhuzi Daquan. This can be interpreted as indicating that King Jeongjo, who compiled the Zhuwen Shouquan, had reached a perfect level of understanding in Neo-Confucian studies. Furthermore, it is believed that King Jeongjo aimed to encourage scholars of Joseon to recognize their limitations and strive for further academic growth in Neo-Confucian studies through the Zhuwen Shouquan. The Zhuwen Shouquan contains numerous passages on the virtues of a ideal ruler that Zhu Xi emphasized to the Song Dynasty emperor, such as the ruler's right mind, the employment of talented individuals, the distinction between noble and petty persons, and the sense of responsibility for the people's livelihood. It is thought that King Jeongjo not only agreed with Zhu Xi's thought of an ideal ruler but also intended to demonstrate that he himself had already realized such an ideal. This speculation is supported by the fact that, in the same year as the compilation of the Zhuwen Shouquan, King Jeongjo wrote the Mancheon Myeongwol Juinong J aseo(萬川明月主人翁自序), declaring that he understood the talents and characters of all his ministers and subjects and treated them accordingly. The Zhuwen Shouquan contains many excerpts reflecting Zhu Xi's views on the attitude towards learning, research methodology, and the trends in the academic world of the Southern Song period. This indicates that King Jeongjo accepted and inherited Zhu Xi's academic perspectives and shared a similar critical awareness regarding the Joseon academic community in 18th-century. This is in the same context as King Jeongjo's declaration that he was the rightful successor of the orthodox Neo-Confucianism after Zhu Xi. In other words, Zhuwen Shouquan clearly establishes King Jeongjo as Zhu Xi's successor in terms of academic philosophy and, through this, supports the legitimacy of King Jeongjo's declaration as a Master-King(君師). In summary, Zhuwen Shouquan can be regarded as a work that demonstrates King Jeongjo's comprehensive understanding of Zhu Xi's Neo-Confucianism, highlighting that he is the complete successor of Zhu Xi and a Master-King. In this respect, Zhuwen Shouquan is a book that shows the culmination of King Jeongjo's studies on Zhu Xi's philosophy. If 'Zhuzi Quanshu' is considered the final stage of the grand compilation of Zhu Xi's works, Zhuwen Shouquan can be seen as the final and complete stage of the digest version.

正祖의 강원도 유생 선발

김다미 ( Kim Da-mi ) 조선시대사학회 2019 朝鮮時代史學報 Vol.91 No.0

The late 18^th century, the reign of King Jeongjo, was a period of extreme polarization between the metropolitan area and provinces. The center of economy, politics, academics, and education were all concentrated in the metropolitan area, and the provinces had to be alienated in politics and personnel. In response, Jeongjo held a ‘Do-gwha(道科)’ and ‘Byul-si(別試)’ as a consideration for local confucian scholar. And Later in King Jeongjo, ‘Binheung-gwa(賓興科)’ was implemented nationwide. ‘Binheung-gwa(賓興科)’ was the first system to be implemented during the reign of King Jeongjo. King Jeongjo wanted to expand the ‘Binheung-gwa(賓興科)’ across the country after the selection of the confucian scholar in Gangwon Province. King Jeongjo asked the meaning of scripture of ‘13Gyung(十三經)’ to ‘Gyunggong-saeng(經工生)’ and Jeongjo’s testing of ‘Gongryeong-saeng(功令生)’ by applying the past system was modeled after the system of ‘LeeSun(里選)’ and ‘Hyanggeo(鄕擧)’, which are the recruitment of talent from ‘Jewdae(周代)’. And it was ‘Gwandong-binheungnok(『關東賓興錄』)’ that recorded the process of this. From the selection of the local confucian scholar in Gangwon Province to the compilation of the ‘Gwandong-binheungnok(『關東賓興錄』)’, the whole process was conducted under the leadership of King Jeongjo. The selection of Confucian scholar in Gangwon-do was carried out by dividing them into ‘Gongryeong-saeng(功令生)’ preparing for the civil service examination and ‘Gyunggong-saeng(經工生)’ studying for the confucian classics. The number of members for ‘Gongryeong-saeng(功令生)’ was same from Yeongseo and Yeongdong provinces. This is based on the consideration of regional distribution. A special favor was given to ‘ojuk-juin(烏竹主人)’s descendants to take the exam for the selection of ‘Gongryeong-saeng(功令生)’. This was caused by King Jeongjo's intention to honor ‘Yiyi(李珥)’, who was born in Ojukheon, Gangneung, while to raise the morale of local people by employing his descendants. For the ‘Gyunggong-saeng(經工生)’, ‘13Gyung-Gangeui(十三經講義)’ was tested against the system of ‘Gyungsa-gangeui(經史講義)’. This was to change the academic trend toward ‘Saseo-5Gyung-Daejeon(『四書五經大全』)’ by bringing a variety of scriptures to local children, who are unfamiliar with new academic information. Jeongjo wanted to employee these selected local confucian scholar in practice, not just in the selection process. The selected ‘Gongryeong-saeng(功令生)’ were to be appointed to government posts, and the ‘Gyunggong-saeng(經工生)’ were to be used as local officials in Gangwon Province to govern the local people. Meanwhile, all Gyunggong-saeng(經工生)’ were assigned equally to Yeongseo and Yeongdong provinces, taking into account regional safety, as were ‘Gongryeong-saeng(功令生)’. Jeongjo gave them a Jujaseo(朱子書) in hopes of the restoration of proper education and the revival of local education. Starting with Gangwon Province, King Jeongjo wanted to select alienated local Confucian scholar and reform the system with Binheung to expand it nationwide. Therefore, the selection of the confucian scholar in Gangwon Province and the compilation of the ‘Gwandong-binheungnok(『關東賓興錄』)’ are meaningful in that they suggested a new methodology for selecting local confucian scholar. On the other hand, Jeongjo used it as an opportunity to console the people in Gangwon Province, who are suffering from poor people's livelihoods, and to directly understand the situation in Gangwon Province through their voices. These various processes were the way to true social unity under the rule of King Jeongjo without the final marginalization of the region. I hope that this study will help us study ‘Binheungnok(『賓興錄』)’ and ‘Binheung-gwa(賓興科)’ in other areas in the future. I hope that this study for the selection of confucian scholar in Gangwon Province with ‘Gwandong-binheungnok(『關東賓興錄』)’ will help in the study of other areas after Gangwon Province.

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.

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.

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.

정조 관련 문화유산 통합 활용정책 연구

이수진,조성한 경기연구원 2020 정책연구 Vol.- No.-

This study was conducted to establish an integrated utilization plan where three cities (Hwaseong, Suwon, and Osan) can participate and discuss together, focusing on historical character content called "Jeongjo". The cultural heritage related to Jeongjo is distributed in various cities and counties in Gyeonggi-do, and in particular, major tourist resources are located in Hwaseong, Suwon, and Osan. There has been a call for the establishment of integrated utilization policy centered on cultural heritage related to Jeongjo and also the promotion of unification through sharing strategic direction. This study consisted of four stages: research design, basic survey, questionnaire analysis, and policy development. A research direction of this study was set up through research background, purpose, method, and review of previous research. Preliminary research was conducted to draw implications through current status analysis and case study. This study also conducted status analysis of Jeongjo-related resources (understanding of Jeongjo characters, heritage status by region, heritage status by theme, regional festival status, local government linkage and joint resource status analysis, etc.), domestic and international cultural heritage policy trend analysis, big data analysis (news analysis, social analysis), competitive analysis of three cities, and case analysis by type. A survey was conducted to 1000 residents in the metropolitan area to understand the use and recognition of cultural heritage related to Jeongjo. A development strategy has been made through the above 3 steps. In this project, four strategies consisting of 13 major projects were suggested as development strategies for integrated operation and activation of cultural heritage related to Jeongjo. Development strategy 1 is concerned with creating resource brand value. Three projects include 1) co-promotion of King Jeongjo “joint representation of performance cars” for the designation of UNESCO human intangible cultural heritage, 2) “Jeongjo culture zone” for regional tourism development project, 3) joint development of Jeongjo heritage identity. Development strategy 2 is related to the creation and maintenance of tourism base. Projects consisting of the development strategy 2 encompass 1) creation of the Jeongjo theme museum, 2) creation of a “Little Library” with stories of Jeongjo, 3) improvement and activation of Samnam-gil. Development strategy 3 is about joint program planning and marketing. Projects consisting of the development strategy 2 include 1) Jeongjo content archive construction, 2) integrated operation of Jeongjo related cultural festivals, 3) Jeongjo heritage Grand Tour. Development strategy 4 is relevant to building cooperative governance. Projects consisting of the development strategy 4 are 1) promoting the exchanges between South and North Korea utilizing Jeongjo cultural heritage, 2) planning and operating the King Jeongjo cultural forum, 3) reinforcing the cooperation network of “landscape painting” in 3 cities and counties, 4) exchanging artifacts and exhibition related to Jeongjo in the regional museum of 3 cities and counties.