廢母論을 통해 본 광해군의 討逆論 활용

윤여석 부산경남사학회 2024 역사와 경계 Vol.128 No.-

It is understood that Gwanghaegun led the political situation by combining it with Daebook's argument of subduing traitors to overcome the limitations of the patriarchal order and establish his legitimacy, and many evils occurred, eventually Injobanjeong. However, the argument of abandoned mother was not accepted for too long to be considered that Gwanghaegun had an active will, and even after a discussion of court, the clause was rejected due to Gwanghaegun's intention. This means that Gwanghaegun and Daebook have different theories, and they also have different positions on argument of abandoned mother. Gwanghaegun accepted argument of subduing traitors to stabilize the political situation and operated a united government in a smooth relationship with Queen Dowager Inmok. In this process, Daebook expanded its argument of subduing traitors to take control of the political situation and developed it into a argument of abandoned mother. Gwanghaegun tried to make political gains. However, this caused a disruption, Gwanghaegun switched to argument of depose a queen, and this study intends to examine this process in detail.

묵재 이귀의 정치활동과 경세론

김용흠 역사실학회 2023 역사와실학 Vol.82 No.-

묵재 이귀는 왜란과 호란, 즉 양란으로 조선왕조 국가의 존립이 위협받은 시기에 선조, 광해군, 인조대에 걸쳐서 국가의 유지 보존을 통해 백성들을 보호하려는 경세론을 제출하고 적극적으로 실천에 옮긴 정론가였다. 그는 인조대에 정권의 보위를 위한 토역론, 왕권 중심 예론, 사회경제 분야에서의 변법론, 붕당 타파를 위한 조제론, 후금에 대한 주화론 등을 제창하였는데, 이러한 그의 경세론은 선조‧광해군대의 정치적 실천에서 이미 드러났으며, 그가 인조반정을 주도한 배경이기도 하였다. 이러한 이귀의 정치활동과 경세론을 관통하는 원칙은 국가의 존립이야말로 정치를 담당한 사람이 책임져야 할 가장 중요한 책무이며, 강력한 중앙집권 국가가 없이는 생산자 인민을 보호할 수 없다는 인식이었다. 이러한 그의 경세론의 본질을 잘 보여준 것이 바로 국사와 민사의 일치를 지향하는 보민론에 입각한 군정변통론이었다. 이러한 이귀의 경세론은 이후 실학과 탕평론으로 계승 발전되었다. Mukjae[默齋] Lee Gwi[李貴] was a political theorist who proposed and actively put into practice a theory of governance that sought to protect the people through the maintenance and preservation of the nation throughout the reigns of King Seonjo[宣祖], Gwanghaegun[光海君], and King Injo[仁祖] during a time when the existence of the Joseon Dynasty was threatened by the Japanese and Manchu invasions, namely two wars. During the reign of King Injo, he advocated the theory of subduing rebel[討逆論] for the security of the regime, the theory of royal power-centered politics[王權 中心 政治論], the theory of modification in the social and economic field[變法論], the theory of Joje[調劑論] to break down factions, and the theory of reconciliation with the Manchurians[主和論]. It was already revealed in, and it was also the background to why he led the Injo Rebellion[仁祖反正]. The principle that runs through Lee Gui's political activities and management theory is the recognition that the existence of the nation is the most important responsibility of those in charge of politics, and that the people cannot be protected without a strong centralized state. What clearly demonstrated the essence of his theory of governance was his theory of military government transformation[軍政變通論] based on the theory of the protecting people[保民論], which aims for unity between national affairs and civil affairs. Lee Gui's theory of governance was later developed into Silhak[實學] and Tangpyeong theory[蕩平論].

투고논문 : 광해군 초기의 정인홍

오이환 ( Yi Hwan Oh ) 경북대학교 퇴계연구소 2007 퇴계학과 유교문화 Vol.41 No.-

본고는 대북정권의 정신적 지주였던 정인홍의 생애와 사상을 광해군 시기에 한정하여 조명해 보고자 하는 연구의 첫 단계로서, 대북정권이 성립하기 전인 광해군 즉위년의 임해군 역모 사건으로부터 그 3년의 晦退辨斥 시기까지 4년간을 다룬다. 간행된 ??來庵集??의 저본을 비롯한 근년에 발견된 고문서들을 주된 자료로 삼아 편년 형식으로 재구성해 본 것이다. 광해군 시기 전체에 걸쳐 왕실 내부의 인물이 관련된 역모사건에 대해 남인과 서인은 천륜의 명분을 중시하는 全恩論을 주장한 반면, 북인은 군신의 명분을 우선시하는 討逆論으로 기울었다. 이는 성리학적 명분론의 문제로서 예학논쟁의 성격을 지닌 당쟁이었다. 전은과 토역의 논쟁은 마침내 明에 대한 事大 의리와 함께 인조반정의 양대 명분 중 하나로 되었다. 임해군의 逆獄에서 전은론자들의 주장은 억울하게 형을 받는 사람이 없도록 해야 하며 임해군은 선조의 여러 왕자 중에서도 광해군과 어머니를 같이 한 유일한 형제이므로 義와 恩을 아울러 극진히 적용하지 않을 수 없다는 것이었다. 정인홍은 임해군에 대해 전은론을 주장한 대신들을 통렬히 비판하였다. 그에 의하면, 옥사가 성립된 후에 전은을 입에 담는 자는 역적을 비호하는 사심이 있는 것이 아니면 임금을 안중에 두지 않는 것이다. 왜냐하면 역적을 토벌하는 것은 신하의 公義요, 은혜를 펴는 것은 임금의 私情이기 때문이다. 광해군 3년 3월에 우찬성 정인홍은 사직차를 올려, 자신의 스승인 조식?성운의 학문과 인격이 이황에 의해 부당하게 왜곡 폄하된 점을 해명하면서, 지난해 문묘에 종사된 조선조의 5현 중 이언적과 이황, 그 중에서도 주로 이황을 신랄하게 비판하였다. 그러자 성균관 유생들이 첫 상소를 하고, 뒤이어 조정의 전?현직 관료와 지방 유생들이 계속 의견을 개진하며 정인홍을 성토하였다. 광해군은 계속적인 성토의 움직임을 이와 같은 기회를 틈타 정인홍을 숙청하기 위한 정쟁으로 간주하였다. 8월 성균관에 걸려 있었던 정인홍의 유적 삭제에 대한 방이 왕명에 의해 철거됨을 계기로 하여 마침내 晦?退 비판으로 말미암은 소란은 수습되었다. This is the first step of a study, which set limits to the Guanghae-gun period, to elucidate the life and thought of Jeong In-hong who was the spiritual prop of the Daebuk regime. It covers the period from the conspiracy of Imhae-gun which occurred in 1608, the year of Guanghae-gun’s enthronement to the critique on Yi Eun-jeog and Yi Hwang in 1611. Through the whole Guanghae-gun period, Seoin and Namin parties asserted benevolence stressing on the moral obligations of man’s natural relations, whereas Bugin party asserted punishment which put priority on the moral obligations between sovereign and subject. It was the matter of Neo-Confucian moral obligations and a party strife with the character of dispute on decorum. At last, the dispute on benevolence and punishment became one of the two main causes of Injo coup and could be considered as a former step of the dispute on decorum in latter Yi dynasty. In the case of Imhae-gun’s conspiracy, the persons who asserted benevolence emphasized to protect the innocent and apply full grace and justice to Imhae-gun who was the only maternal brother of Guanghae-gun among the many princes of King Seonjo. Jeong In-hong criticized severely the ministers who asserted benevolence on Imhae-gun. According to him, when the treason case was materialized, the persons who talked about benevolence were going to protect the criminal with selfish motives or took no notice of king. Because it is common duty of the subjects to liquidate the traitor and it is the personal sympathy of the sovereign to give grace to him. In March of the third year of Guanghae-gun’s rule, Jeong In-hong submitted his resignation to the king, explicating the fact that his teacher Jo Shik’s and Seong Oon’s learning and personality had been unjustly distorted and devalued by Yi Hwang, he sharply criticized Yi Eon-Jeog and Yi Hwang, mainly Yi Hwang, among the five sages who were decided last year to be co-worshipped with Confucius in Munmyo service. Soon after his resignation was submitted, the students of Seonggyunguan presented the first memorial to the king and the court officials of past and present chairs and the Confucians of provinces continued to censure Jeong In-hong. Guanghae-gun considered these movements of continual denounce as a political strife to purge Jeong In-hong and took advantage of this opportunity. When the expurgation notice of Jeong’s name from the roster of Seonggyunguan was removed by king’s order on August 12, the turmoil due to the critique on Yi Eun-jeog and Yi Hwang was settled at last.

혜경궁의 삶과 영조대 중·후반의 정국

정만조 조선시대사학회 2015 朝鮮時代史學報 Vol.74 No.-

There has been much research about “Hanjungrok” in the academic field of Korean Literature. However, it has not been researched actively by historians. This brief summary is focused on Hyekyunggung’s teenage years through to her forties, a part of the 81 years of her life, and approaches the political situation that influenced her destiny and life during King Yeongjo’s reign. It is not generally known that Hyekyunggung lived a happy life for about 10 years after entering the palace. However, after crown prince, who was her husband, acted for King Yeongjo, Hyekyunggung became a widow at the age of 28. There were many reasons for the crown prince’s death, which was called Imohwabyun(壬午禍變). The crown prince was in conflict with Noron, a political party out to monopolize political power, and he was also in conflict with the king and the other main political party, Soron. While these conflicts are going on, the crown prince’s disease was exacerbated, and much vicious slander occurred. However, Hyekyunggung lived a stable life after her husband death because her son, Seson(世孫), acted as crown prince and her father was made responsible to protect Seson. Hyekyunggung was faced with difficulty because the queen consort Kim(貞純王后) was in conflict with Hyekyunggung’s family. Because of Kim’s attack, Hong Bonghan lost his position and was exiled. In this crisis, Hyekyunggung engaged in behind-the-scenes political maneuvering. The most important thing to her was son’s safety and protecting the position of crown prince. After her father was exiled, all she could do was take advantage of the royal family’s relationships. For example, she used her brother to make a relationship with Princess Hwawan and sent a letter to her uncle, who denied Seson’s right to act as deputy, giving as a reason, “three things that You don’t need to know(三不必知)”. In Hyekyunggung’s life during her teenage years through to her forties, she had mixed feelings over the political situation during the King Yeongjo’s reign. This was inescapable for her because of political position was crown princess. In addition, Hyekyunggung’s life was not free of political intrigue after her son became the King Jeongjo and her grand-son becomes the King Soonjo. 한중록과 관련하여 국문학 쪽에서는 혜경궁 홍씨에 대한 연구가 적지 않지만, 역사학 쪽에서의 접근은 그리 활발하지 않은 듯하다. 이 글은 81년에 걸치는 혜경궁의 생애에서 10대에서 40대 초에 이르는 30여 년간의 삶의 궤적을 추적하고, 그의 운명과 삶에 결정적 영향을 미쳤던 정치적 배경을 영조대의 정국동향에서 찾고자 하여 작성되었다. 일반적으로 알려진 것과 달리 혜경궁은 세자빈으로 입궁한 이후 한 10년간은 행복한 시절을 보내었다. 그러나 所天인 세자의 대리청정 이후 불행이 닥치면서 28세에 靑孀의 몸이 된다. 정권 독점을 목표로 한 노론의 討逆論 처리를 놓고 父王 및 노․소론 등 당인들과 사이에서 벌어진 갈등, 그리고 여기서 파생된 세자의 질병악화와 궁중 내의 참소 등이 겹치면서 일어난 壬午禍變 때문이었다. 그러나 한편으로는 세손이 國本으로 확정되고 부친이 그 보호의 임무를 지고 국정을 담당하게 됨으로써, 비록 世間으로부터는 척신정권이라 비판을 받았지만, 혜경궁으로서는 당분간 안정을 갖게 된다. 혜경궁에게 다시 불행이 닥친 것은 또 하나의 척리였던 계비김씨(貞純왕후) 쪽으로부터의 친정 집안에 대한 도전 때문이었다. 그들의 공세로 부친 홍봉한이 실각하여 귀양가는 위기 속에, 혜경궁 역시 친정보호를 위해 정치의 막후에서 일정한 역할을 하였다. 이것보다 더 중요한 것은 아들인 세손의 安危와 承繼의 보장이었다. 보호세력이던 친정집안이 무너진 시점에서 혜경궁이 할 수 있는 것은 궁중 내의 연줄을 활용하는 길밖에 없었다. 임금을 움직이는 和緩옹주와의 연결을 위해 친정동생을 구사한 것과 三不必知라는 망발로 세손의 대리청정을 막으려 한 숙부에게 쪽지편지를 보내 궁중사정을 알린 것 등이 그 대표적인 사례였다. 10대에서 40대 초에 이르는 영조연간의 혜경궁의 삶은 이처럼 당대의 정치상황에 따라 喜悲가 교차하였다. 그것은 그가 세자빈이라는 정치적 지위에 있는 만큼 불가피한 일이었다. 그 아들이 정조로서 왕위에 재위하고 손자인 순조가 임금이 되었을 때도 혜경궁의 삶은 이런 정치의 굴레로부터 결코 자유스럽지는 않았다.

광해군 초기의 정인홍

오이환 慶北大學校 退溪硏究所 2007 퇴계학과 유교문화 Vol.41 No.-

본고는 대북정권의 정신적 지주였던 정인홍의 생애와 사상을 광해군 시기에 한정하여 조명해 보고자 하는 연구의 첫 단계로서, 대북정권이 성립하기 전인 광해군 즉위년의 임해군 역모 사건으로부터 그 3년의 晦退辨斥 시기까지 4년간을 다룬다. 간행된 『來庵集』의 저본을 비롯한 근년에 발견된 고문서들을 주된 자료로 삼아 편년 형식으로 재구성해 본 것이다. 광해군 시기 전체에 걸쳐 왕실 내부의 인물이 관련된 역모사건에 대해 남인과 서인은 천륜의 명분을 중시하는 全恩論을 주장한 반면, 북인은 군신의 명분을 우선시하는 討逆論으로 기울었다. 이는 성리학적 명분론의 문제로서 예학논쟁의 성격을 지닌 당쟁이었다. 전은과 토역의 논쟁은 마침내 明에 대한 事大 의리와 함께 인조반정의 양대 명분 중 하나로 되었다. 임해군의 逆獄에서 전은론자들의 주장은 억울하게 형을 받는 사람이 없도록 해야 하며 임해군은 선조의 여러 왕자 중에서도 광해군과 어머니를 같이 한 유일한 형제이므로 義와 恩을 아울러 극진히 적용하지 않을 수 없다는 것이었다. 정인홍은 임해군에 대해 전은론을 주장한 대신들을 통렬히 비판하였다. 그에 의하면, 옥사가 성립된 후에 전은을 입에 담는 자가 역적을 비호하는 사심이 있는 것이 아니면 임금을 안중에 두지 않는 것이다. 왜냐하면 역적을 토벌하는 것은 신하의 公義요, 은혜를 펴는 것은 임금의 私情이기 때문이다. 광해군 3년 3월에 우찬성 정인홍은 사직차를 올려, 자신의 스승인 조식 · 성운의 학문과 인격이 이황에 의해 부당하게 왜곡 폄하된 점을 해명하면서, 지난해 문묘에 종사된 조선조의 5현 중 이언적과 이황, 그 중에서도 주로 이황을 신랄하게 비판하였다. 그러자 성균관 유생들이 첫 상소를 하고, 뒤이어 조정의 전 ·현직 관료와 지방 유생들이 계속 의견을 개진하며 정인홍을 성토하였다. 광해군은 계속적인 성토의 움직임을 이와 같은 기회를 틈타 정인홍을 숙청하기 위한 정쟁으로 간주하였다. 8월 성균관에 걸려 있었던 정인홍의 유적 삭제에 대한 방이 왕명에 의해 철거됨을 계기로 하여 마침내 晦 · 退 비판으로 말미암은 소란은 수습되었다. This is the first step of a study, which set limits to the Guanghae-gun period, to elucidate the life and thought of Jeong In-hong who was the spiritual prop of the Daebuk regime, It covers the period from the conspiracy of Imhae-gun which occurred in 1608, the year of Guanghae-gun's enthronement to the critique on Yi Eun-jeog and Yi Hwang in 1611. Through the whole Guanghae-gun period, Seoin and Namin parties asserted benevolence stressing on the moral obligations of man's natural relations, whereas Bugin party asserted punishment which put priority on the moral obligations between sovereign and subject. It was the matter of Neo-Confucian moral obligations and a party strife with the character of dispute on decorum. At last, the dispute on benevolence and punishment became one of the two main causes of Injo coup and could be considered as a former step of the dispute on decorum in latter Yi dynasty. In the case of Imhae-gun's conspiracy, the persons who asserted benevolence emphasized to protect the innocent and apply full grace and justice to Imhae-gun who was the only maternal brother of Guanghae-gun among the many princes of King Seonjo. Jeong In-hong criticized severely the ministers who asserted benevolence on Imhae-gun. According to him, when the treason case was materialized, the persons who talked about benevolence were going to protect the criminal with selfish motives or took no notice of king. Because it is common duty of the subjects to liquidate the traitor and it is the personal sympathy of the sovereign to give grace to him. In March of the third year of Guanghae-gun's rule, Jeong In-hong submitted his resignation to the king, explicating the fact that his teacher Jo Shik's and Seong Oon's learning and personality had been unjustly distorted and devalued by Yi Hwang, he sharply criticized Yi Eon-Jeog and Yi Hwang, mainly Yi Hwang, among the five sages who were decides last year to be co-worshipped with Confucius in Munmyo service. Soon after his resignation was submitted, the students of Seonggyunguan presented the first memorial to the king and the court officials of past and present chairs and the Confucians of provinces continued to censure Jeong In-hong. Guanghae-gun considered these movements of continual denounce as a political strife to purge Jeong In-hong and took advantage of this opportunity. When the expurgation notice of Jeong's name from the roster of Seonggyunguan was removed by king's order on August 12, the turmoil due to the critique on Yi Eun-jeog and Yi Hwang was settled at last.

광해군대 廢母論의 전개과정

김한신 조선시대사학회 2023 朝鮮時代史學報 Vol.- No.106

1608년(선조 41) 선조가 사망하고 광해군이 즉위했다. 광해군은 즉위 직후부터 옥사를 통해서 자신의 통치에 방해가 되는 인물을 제거하기 시작했다. 광해군이 경계한 유력세력은 인목대비와 그 아들 영창대군이었다. 영창대군과 인목대비의 父인 김제남이 희생되었음에도 광해군은 안심할 수 없었다. 인목대비가 宣祖의 正妃로서 母后의 자리에 있는 한 반역세력들이 대비의 용인하에 모반을 시도할 수 있었다. 광해군은 인목대비를 부정하는 언급을 자제하면서도, 인목대비를 보호해야 한다는 논의를 하나씩 차단했다. 일부 유생들을 중심으로 인목대비를 廢庶人해야 한다는 논의가 확대되었다. 이러한 폐서인 논의는 廢母論으로 기정사실화되었다. 광해군은 인목대비를 보전하는 모양새를 취하되 사실상 유명무실한 상태로 격리하려 했다. 광해군대의 실상을 규명하기 위해서는 폐모론의 이해가 선행되어야 한다. This study analyses the background of King Kwanghaegun’s(광해군) management of government and its successive judicial investigations and the judicial investigations he employed to secure his political base. After King Seonjo(선조) died in 1608, Kwanghaegun ascended the throne. After his enthronement, King Kwanghaegun started eliminating his political rivals through the judicial investigations. The powerful forces upon whom Kwanghaegun kept his eye were Queen Dowager Inmok(인목대비) and her son, Grand Prince Yeongchang(영창대군). Although Grand Prince Yeongchang and Kim Jenam(김제남), the father of Queen Dowager Inmok, were executed, accused of treason, Kwanghaegun still could not be satisfied. Queen Dowager Inmok retained her status both as the queen of the late King Seonjo and as the stepmother of Kwanghaegun. This made her a figure around whom potential usurpers could rally around or potentially exploit, as a royal person who could lend legitimacy to anyone who overthrew Kwanghaegun. Kwanghaegun was concerned by this. Kwanghaegun chose not to deny the existence of Queen Dowager Inmok, but he resisted efforts to explicitly defend Queen Dowager Inmok from criticism. After that, Confucian students filed memorials requesting that the status of Queen Dowager Inmok be degraded to that of a commoner, and the argument spread widely. On the surface, Kwanghaegun appeared to be treating her respectfully, but, in reality, he was trying to isolate her from her followers and thus neutralize her as a political adversary. To understand the truth of the Kwanghaegun period, the argument made to degrade Queen Inmok’s status should thus be examined.

金鎏의 국정운영론

이기순 (사)한국인물사연구회 2012 한국인물사연구 Vol.18 No.-

KIM, Ryu (1571~1648) not only participated in the Injo’s Coup of 1623, as a leading body, but also took upon the role as the Minister of Internal Affairs and the Minister of War during the early stages of the power, to contribute to stabilizing the internal affairs of the state, and assumed the heavy responsibility of instructing the military upon the occurrence of any risk within and outside the country. These contributions were recognized, and he was appointed many times as one of the three top government posts, and after his death, he was served and given ceremonial rites with King Injo at the Royal Ancestral Shrine. After the Coup, the demand for military strength increased in preparation for the attempt to capsizing of the power and military expansion of Manchus. During this process, skilled bodies, including meritorious subjects, were positioned as private soldiers. This group of private soldiers proposed the need to be organized, as they caused many negative effects. Certain parts were reorganized as public military, such as prince Eoyeonggun, and the private soldiers that were positioned, were given wages from the nation. Psychological war to dominate these public and private military groups fiercely progressed between KIM, Ryu and LEE, Gwi. When the rebellion of LEE, Gwal broke out, KIM, Ryu was given the general management of the military command. After handling the rebellion, KIM, Ryu proposed that the construction of a mountain fortress that passes from Uiju to Seoul must be hurried to prepare for the invasion of Manchus. Additionally, he suggested that a plan that places the military soldiers of the three Southern provinces of Joseon on front to Northwest, in case of a crisis, and to convert the land owned by the state to prepare costs needed at the Royal Palace as a farm cultivated in Hwanghae–do by stationary troops. The King chose from right and wrong to promote wise men, and stated that only those with the wisdom to overcome those with unjust thoughts must be positioned. He also opinionated that the state must be stabilized in the early years, by accommodating figures that passively participated in the rule of the King Gwanghaegun. Also, he opinionated that the outstanding minds must be employed as fourustic literati(sanlim) and specially appointed within the mountains away from worldly possessions. He also said that any suspicions related to treason of the prince Inseonggun must be strictly governed to eliminate the action of the power of the paternal and maternal relatives of the King as a threat to the stability of the nation. By opinionating the need for grant the academy a royal charter and the King’s benefits on private academies(seoweon) established in Paju, the hometown of YI,I, he contributed to the movement of securing the traditionalism of the political party of Seoin. By giving the opinion that the right to select the positions of own subjects of lower royal subjects to the ministers, he reinforced the rights of the ministers. He also said that the limping management of the political situation must be relieved by implementing the elongated term policy of the main positions within the government. He also took interest and effort in the activation of replacing internal positions, the assignment of important positions to military men, and the appointment of talents minds. There have been many cases where King Injo depended on KIM, Ryu, but KIM, Ryu did not unconditionally follow the opinions of King Injo, but led the policies with his own principles of operating the state. He opposed to the discussions of granting queenship to King Injo’s mother Gyewoongeung after her death, and opposed to the punishment of the crown princess Gangbin, which were voiced actions that did not compromise to the opinions of Injo. He chose the realistic method of agreeing to the installation of the Bonlimdaegun (later King Hyojong) as the crown prince, instead of the eldest grandson of a King in the direct line, or of supporting the advocacy of peace during the settling period of the Manchu Invasions. KIM, Ryu left many great achievements as an executive bureaucrat, however, displayed a typical executive bureaucrat’s work that lacked the will to fundamentally reform the political problems.

金瑬의 국정운영론

이기순 한국인물사연구소 2012 한국인물사연구 Vol.18 No.-

宣祖代 搢紳 逆謀 事件 −정여립 모반 사건의 性格과 政局 구도를 중심으로−

장준호 동양고전학회 2020 東洋古典硏究 Vol.0 No.79

Until now studies have tried to determine whether it was treason or not. However, such studies have produced completely different results according to materials cited by researchers. It is true that this study is difficult to produce clear results. This treason is very important whether it is true or not. In this paper, the case was comprehensively reviewed through the relevant historical materials. Through these materials, I have re-organized this case. The incident seemed to end with Jeong Yeo-rip`s death, but it escalated into a political one. In this paper we looked at how this case developed into a political event. The review of the data does not confirm the details of the treason. However, with the death of Jeong Yeo-rip, the plot of treason was solidified to be true. This treason plot led to the return of Seoin who had been out of politics. With Seoin leading the state affairs, the case of Jeong Yeo-rip's treason expanded to a completely different aspect. Those unrelated to treason were punished. The character of treason described by Seonjo(宣祖) was politically exploited by the Seoin.

『한중록』의 정치사적 이해

崔誠桓(Choe Seong-Hwan) 歷史敎育硏究會 2010 역사교육 Vol.115 No.-

The pattern of existing research on the purpose of [Han-Joong-Rok(한중록)] falls into two broad tendencies. One tends to promote the idea that Hyekyeong Goong attributed the cause of ‘Imohwabeon’ to psychological conflicts between Y?ngjo and Prince Sado. the other tends to put an emphasis on Hyekyeong Goong’s intention to make excuse for what Hong-Bonghan, Hong-Inhan and Hong- Nakim did, with an aim to save her family's honor. However, a close examination of the political situation at that time suggests that neither of the two positions can be seen as a full picture of what the author of [Han-Joong-Rok(한중록)] attempted to achieve. [Han-Joong-Rok(한중록)] can be divided into two categories on the basis of its adherence to ‘Ch?ngjo’s Imoh-Euli(壬午義理)’. [Han-Joong-Man-Rok(閑中漫錄)] and [Eub-Hyeol-Rok(泣血錄)] that are written in Year Nineteen of Ch?ngjo and in Year Two of Soonjo respectively. It is until Year Two of Soonjo that Hyekyeong-Goong addressed to her family members the importance of keeping their head low, or attempted to move beyond pleading the cause of her family members’ conduct, defining her stand as an advocate of ‘Ch?ngjo’s Imoh-Euli(壬午義理)’. However, there is a sign that the way in which the issue of ‘Imohwabeon’ is addressed in ‘Han-Joong-Rok’ has changed in Year Five of Soonjo; that is, the importance of bringing honor back to Hong family came to the fore. Both [Han-Joong-Rok(恨中錄)] and [Byeong-In-Choo-Rok(丙寅追錄)] that are written in Year Five and Six of Soonjo respectively suggested a grand compromise between officials, or even attempted to seek retribution against ‘Byeokpa(僻派)’, showing a disapproval of ‘Ch?ngjo’s Imoh-Euli(壬午義理)’. Therefore, it is important for us not to place an exclusive emphasis on [Han-Joong-Rok(恨中錄)] as the author’s intension of writing [Han-Joong-Rok(한중록)] continued to adjust itself to changes in political situation between later period of Ch?ngjo and the early reign of Soonjo.