User:Seonookim/Westerners (Korean political faction)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Westerners
서인, 西人
Seonjo era leadersYi I, Seong Hon, Jeong Cheol, Jo Heon
Injo era leadersYi Gwi, Kim Ja-jeom, Kim Ryu, Choe Myeong-gil
Hyojong era leadersKim Jib, Song Si-yeol, Song Jun-gil
Hyeonjong era leadersSong Si-yeol, Song Jun-gil, Kim Su-hong
Sukjong era leadersSong Si-yeol, Kim Su-hang, Park Se-chae, Yun Jeung
FounderSim Ui-gyeom
Founded1575 (1575)
Dissolved1683 (1683)
Split fromSarim
Preceded bySarim
Succeeded byNortherners, Southerners
IdeologyPhilosophy of Yi I and Kim Jang-saeng
ReligionNeo-Confucianism
Westerners (Korean political faction)
South Korean name
Hangul
Hanja
西人
Revised RomanizationSeo(-)in
McCune–ReischauerSŏin

The Westerners (Hangul: 서인, Korean: Seoin, literally West Person, Hanja:西人) was a political faction that dominated Korea in the 17th century. In 1567, the Sarim split into the Easterners and Westerners. The Westerners remained the main contender of the Easterners in the Seonjo age, with Yi I as one of the most influential Westerners.

The Westerners lost power in the later years of the Seonjo age, and the Easterners and the factions that split from the Easterners had power throughout the last decade of the Seonjo age and the entirety of the Gwanghaegun age. However, the Westerners ousted Gwanghaegun from power in 1623, making Prince Neungyang king and causing the Westerners to regain power, which they had lost for a generation.

The Westerners had power for half a century, from 1623 to 1674, in which they were relatively unified. The era also led to the appearance of powerful Westerner politicians such as Song Si-yeol, Song Jun-gil, and Kim Su-hang, of which Song Si-yeol was the most influential. the Yesong debate of the Hyeonjong era finally toppled the Westerner government, and a Southerner government ruled for six years, until 1680.

The Westerners regained power in 1680 with the Gyeongsin Hwanguk. However, there was a dispute between the younger Westerners and the older Westerners in 1682 on whether Kim Ik-hun, one of the figures who had brought down the Southerners in 1680, should be punished. The younger Westerners thought that Kim should be punished, while the older Westerners did not. When Song Si-yeol took the side of the older Westerners in 1683, the younger Westerners were infuriated at Song. Those who wanted Kim to be punished became known as the Soron (young learning), while those who continued to follow Song became the Noron (old learning). With the Hoeni Dispute in 1684 between the Noron scholar Song Si-yeol and the Soron scholar Yun Jeung, the Westerners were divided forever.

History[edit]

Division from Sarim[edit]

After the death of Queen Munjeong and her brother Yun Won-hyeong in the late Myeongjong period, the Sarim faction, which had endured four literary purges throughout the sixteenth century, came to power as the dominant political faction. At the time, the Sarim were united as a single faction.[1]

In 1574, the official Kim Hyo-won was nominated for the position of Ijo Jeongrang, which had the privilege of promoting scholar-officials, including the next Ijo Jeongrang. However, Sim Ui-gyeom, the brother of Queen Insun, opposed Kim's promotion on the grounds that Kim had often bribed Yun Won-hyeong, who massacred many of the Sarim in 1545.[2] Despite Sim's protests, Kim was promoted.[3]

The next year, Sim Chung-gyeom, the brother of Sim Ui-gyeom, was nominated for the next Ijo Jeongrang. However, Kim Hyowon, who had the right to appoint his successors, claimed that Sim was unsuitable for the position because he was the brother of Queen Insun (brothers of the queen were regarded to be more corrupt, as in the Yun Won-hyeong example). Yi Bal became the next Ijo Jeongrang.[4]

The incident resulted in a large political debate on whether Kim Hyowon's actions were just, titled the Eulhae Dangron ('factional strifes of 1575').[5] Supporters of Kim included Kim U-ong, Yu Seong-ryong, Heo Yeob, Yi San-hae, Yi Bal, Jeong Ji-yeon, Wu Seong-jeon, and Jeong Yu-gil, while major supporters of Sim were Jeong Cheol, Yun Du-su, Park Sun, Kim Kye-hwi, Gu Sa-maeng, Hong Seong-min, and Shin Heung-shi.[3][6] The people who took the side of Kim became known as 'Easterners', because Kim's house was in Geoncheondong (now Inhyeon) to the east of Seoul, while the supporters of Sim, who lived in Jeongreungbang to the west of Seoul, became known as 'Westerners'.[7] The controversy forever split the united Sarim into two opposing parties.[8] The controversy forever split the united Sarim into two opposing parties.

The Westerners of 1575 were the older members of the Sarim, who had taken office before the Sarim took power. Therefore, they tended to be more conservative, and they were more contemptuous of Easterner ideologues such as Jo Sik or Yi Hwang.[7][9] The Westerners were by far the minority within government.[4]

Dispute with the Easterners and Northerners[edit]

Main articles: Seonjo of Joseon and Jeong Yeorib's Purge
Yi I wanted peace between both Easterners and Westerners.

In the 1570s, the conflict between the Easterners and Westerners intensified, despite efforts by people such as Yi I or Seong Hon to reconcile the hostile groups together. However, because both Yi and Seong attempted to be completely neutral towards both parties despite the Easterners being much larger, the Easterners believed that they were biased towards the Westerners.[10]

In 1575, Yi I was an advisor to Seonjo, and advised the king to send both Kim Hyowon and Sim Euigyeom as officials in faraway counties. Seonjo followed Yi's advice and sent Kim as the governor of Buryeong, a small town approximately 650 kilometers northeast of Seoul, whereas Sim was made the governor of Gaeseong, a major city 70 kilometers northwest of Seoul. This angered the Easterners, as it seemed as if Seonjo was taking Sim's side. Thus to reconcile the Easterners, Yi I claimed Kim had a serious disease, unsuitable as a governor of the far north. Seonjo then moved Kim as a governor of Samcheok, a town slightly larger than Buryeong, 150 kilometers to the east of Seoul.[11]

However, the Easterners, who were by far the majority in court, were not pleased that Yi I was apparently neutral in the conflict, when they believed that Sim Ui-gyeom had clearly wronged. However, Yi I believed that both Kim and Sim had done both good and bad things, and thus that being neutral was the most logical position.[12] Yi I therefore believed that both sides were equal in their deeds and misdeeds.

Despite his beliefs, Yi I began to worry that his attempts at reconciliation were meaningless because the Easterners still saw him as biased towards the Westerners. To do so, he wrote an advice for the king to fire Sim Ui-gyeom and gave it to the Easterner Jeong In-hong, asking him to not change anything in the advice. However, Jeong added the single sentence "gathers other officials to create a faction" in the list of Sim's misdeeds in the advice.[4] When Seonjo asked Jeong who "the other officials" were, Jeong replied that it was Jeong Cheol and the Yun Du-gu brothers, who were at the time the sole Westerners in court. Yi I was angered that Jeong had changed the words of his advice, forcing Jeong to revoke his former words by saying that though Jeong Cheol had done much wrong, he did not create a faction. He then retired to his hometown, causing the Easterners to be furious at Yi I.[11] Both Yi I and Jeong Cheol were forced to step down, while Sim Ui-gyeom stayed in court.[a][13] Despite Yi's later return, the outnumbered Westerners were powerless to stop the Easterners, leading to an Easterner government until 1589.[4]

In October 1589, the Westerners Han Jun, Park Chunggan, Yi Chuk, and Han Eungin claimed that the Easterner scholar Jeong Yeo-rib was secretly plotting to be king himself.[14] Jeong fled to the nearby Juk Island without destroying his letters or books and performed suicide. [14] The supposed treason of Jeong opened a chance for the Westerners to regain their power. Seonjo made the Westerner Jeong Cheol oversee the investigation of the treason, and the Westerners, who had lost power for a decade, were vengeful. The Yeongeuijeong (the premier) of the time, No Susin, was first sentenced to death, but was finally exiled due to his high status.[4] The Ueuijeong,

Jeong Eonsin, was exiled due to their connections with Jeong Yeorib.[15] [b]

One of the most influential Easterners, Yi Bal, died under torture, as did his brothers.[4] [16] Jeong Gaecheong, the adopted son of the Westerner minister Park Sun, was also exiled because he had betrayed his adopted father to side with the Easterners.[17][c] A highly controversial death was that of Choe Yeong-gyeong. Jeong Yeo-rib claimed the existence of an entity named 'Gil Sam-bong', who to lead the rebellion.[d] Despite the testimonies about 'Gil Sambong' not being matched on crucial topics like age, height, or appearance, the search for him continued.[4] One of the Westerner advisers claimed that Choe Yeong-gyeong, an Easterner scholar of Honam, was in fact the 'Gil Sambong'. Choe died under torture in 1590. [18] Killing a thousand Easterners[19], more than the four literary purges combined, the purge furthered the distance of the two factions as eternal enemies.[20]

Yi San-hae brought down the Westerner regime in 1590

However, the new Westerner government did not last for long. In 1590, the Easterners Yi San-hae and Yu Seong-ryong and the Westerner Jeong Cheol were the highest officials, the Jeongseung. At the time, Seonjo had not appointed a crown prince, although he was already nearing forty and had many sons, of whom the eldest was Prince Imhae.[e] However, Imhae, in contrast to the younger Prince Gwanghae, was a well-known troublemaker, causing most of the

officials to believe that Gwanghae should be the Crown Prince.[21]

However, Yi San-hae knew that Seonjo was much closer to Prince Sinseong than to either Imhae or Gwanghae.[f][22] Yi also knew that both Jeong Cheol and Yu Seong-ryong wanted Gwanghae as crown prince, and that Yu was more cautious.[4][22] Yi San-hae so decided to bring down Jeong Cheol and the Westerners by telling Lady In, Prince Sinseong's mother, that Jeong was planning to kill her and Sinseong after he had made Gwanghae the Crown Prince.[22]

Meanwhile, the Easterners Yu Seong-ryong, Yi San-hae, and the Westerner Jeong Cheol promised each other that they would ask Seonjo to make Gwanghae Crown Prince together.[23] However, Yi did not appear at the promised date (he claimed he was ill). The less-cautious Jeong Cheol was the first to advise Seonjo to make Gwanghae Crown Prince, and Seonjo was infuriated, believing that the story told by Lady In was true. Seonjo exiled Jeong Cheol and other Westerners recreating an Easterner government.[23] Around this time, the Easterners split into two, the Southerners and the Northerners.[24]

In 1592, the Japan invaded Korea with 200,000 soldiers as a result of Toyotomi Hideyoshi's attempt to conquer the Ming Dynasty. Because the Northerner-Southerner government had failed to prepare for the war[25], the Westerners became powerful again, though not as powerful as in the purge of Jeong Yeo-rib.[25] The Westerners attacked Yi San-hae for claiming that the king Seonjo should abandon the capital (which he did, fleeing to Uiju), and Yi was fired.[26][g] The crisis of the Japanese invasion (they occupied up north to Pyongyang), however, caused a cessation of political feuds for a time.[25]

With the temporary retreat of the Japanese army in 1595, political feuds renewed.[25] This time, the Northerners claimed that Jeong Cheol had killed Choe Yeong-gyeong for private reasons during the purge of Jeong Yeo-rib, and that Seong Hon did not save Choe despite Seong's ability to do so.[27] The Westerners refuted that Jeong attempted to save Choe.[27] Seonjo took the Northerners' side, saying 'The evil Jeong Cheol and the sly Seong Hon killed my just minister".[28] The feud between the Westerners and the Northerners had ended with a Northerner victory.[28]

With the Westerners gone, the Northerners removed the Southerners from the court and created a completely Northerner government in 1598.[29] In 1599, the Northerners divided into the Lesser Northerners (of Nam Yi-gong) and the Greater Northerners (of Yi San-hae).[30] While the two Northerner factions feuded, the Westerner remnants had little power.[30]

In 1611, the Greater Northerner Jeong In-hong ferociously attacked the scholars Yi Hwang and Yi Eon-jeok. [31] Some Westerners refuted Jeong's attack, but refutations against Jeong were also done by the Southerners and Lesser Northerners.[32]

Gain of power and the Injo era[edit]

Yi Gwi, who led the expulsion of Gwanghaegun.
Main article: Injo of Joseon

Despite the Northerner government of the early seventeenth century, the Westerners still existed, led by students of Yi I or Seong Hon, such as Kim Jang-saeng.[33] Meanwhile, some Westerners, notably Yi Gwi, Kim Ryu, and Choe Myeong-gil, had low seats in the government.[34]

In 1618, the Greater Northerners exiled Seonjo's wife Queen Inmok under King Gwanghaegun's support.[35] Because the Confucian ideology of the time meant that the wife of the former king was regarded as the mother of the current king (even in the case that she was not the present king's true mother), the act was seen as a son exiling his mother, thus a terrible sin against filial piety, or hyo.[36] This, along with a purely Northerner government that excluded other factions such as the Westerners or Southerners[37], caused Gwanghaegun and his Greater Northerner government to lose the support of the Neo-Confucian scholars and be thrown into isolation.[38]

The Westerner remnants, led by Yi Gwi, saw Gwanghaegun's recent loss of support from the scholars as a chance for the Westerners to regain power, and decided to stage a coup to bring down Gwanghaegun.[39][33] Yi plotted with his sons, Yi Si-baek and Yi Si-bang[40], and they introduced their friends, Kim Ja-jeom and Choe Myeong-gil, to the plot.[33] They also plotted with Prince Neungyang, whose younger brother had been executed by Gwanghaegun.[41]

Meanwhile, another Westerner, Kim Ryu, was plotting with the general Sin Gyeong-jin to bring down Gwanghaegun as well since 1620.[42] Sin made contacts with Yi Gwi and his followers, and Kim Ryu and Yi Gwi allied.[42] The plot, however, leaked, and in 1622 the advisers of the king advised Gwanghaegun to torture Yi Gwi. [43] However, Kim Ja-jeom bribed Kim Gae-si[h], a courtly maid who Gwanghaegun trusted, and she told Gwanghaegun that he should not torture Yi.[43] Gwanghaegun, already cautious about the overly powerful Greater Northerners, followed her advice.[43][i]

In March 12, 1623, Yi Gwi's forces gathered while Gwanghaegun was partying.[43] Kim Ryu was late, so another general, Yi Gwal, took the place of commander until he came with his own army, and a guard who had joined Yi Gwi's plot then opened the door.[44] Gwanghaegun was captured and dethroned two days later,[44] and Prince Neungyang was crowned king the same day.[41]

Although the Westerners had ousted the Northerner government of Gwanghaegun, they had not had power for a generation, and thus the early Injo[j] government required an alliance of various factions. The Southerner minister Yi Won-ik became the prime minister immediately after Gwanghaegun's expulsion.[45] However, power was in the hands of the Westerners; Yi Gwi was made the Ijo Champan (the vice minister of civil service affairs, who had the power to appoint people as officials), while Kim Ryu was made the Byeongjo Champan (the vice minister of defense), meaning that the Westerners were in control of both the appointment of new officials and the military.[46]

However, the Westerner Kim Sang-heon felt that Yi Gwi and Kim Ryu were living luxurious lives contrary to what Confucian ideals demanded, thus causing a temporary split of the Westerners into the Merit Westerners (공서, 功西) of Yi Gwi and Kim Ryu and the Clear Westerners(청서, 靑西) of Kim Sang-heon.[47]

In 1637, Kim Ryu suggested Nam Yi-gong, the head of the Lesser Northerners, as the Daesaheon[k][48]. The reason for Kim's suggestion was because the majority of the Westerners liked Yi Gwi rather than Kim, and therefore, for Kim to increase his influence, he had to ally with the Northerners.[49] The younger Westerners, who already preferred the recently dead Yi Gwi[l] to Kim Ryu, opposed Kim Ryu's suggestion, and the Merit Westerners split into the Old Westerners (노서, 老西) and the Young Westerners (소서, 少西).[47][50]

In the later 1640s (the late Injo reign) Kim Ja-jeom's power grew enormously because he supported the exchange of the Crown Prince from Prince Sohyeon's son (Sohyeon died in 1645) to Hyojong, and because he also supported the execution of Sohyeon's wife Lady Gang.[51] Kim Ja-jeom was pro-Qing[m], and the other pro-Qing ministers gathered around Kim as the Nakdang (낙당, 落黨) faction. [47] The faction was called 'Nakdang' because 'Nakseo' was the courtesy name of the leader of the faction, Kim Ja-jeom, and the first syllable in 'Nakseo' was combined with 'dang', meaning 'faction'.[52]

The Nakdang conflicted with the Wondang (원당, 原黨) faction, centering around Won Du-pyo.[53] The Wondang got their name from the surname of Won Du-pyo[n] combined with 'dang'.[47]

So when Injo died in 1649 there were four Westerner factions in government, the Merit Westerners, the Young Westerners, the Nakdang, and the Wondang.[47] However, despite the division of the Westerners in the Injo reign, the era remained a Westerner one, with Southerners such as Yun Seon-do excluded from the government.[54]

Hyojong era and the emergence of the Sandang[edit]

Song Si-yeol, who was the most prominent of the students of Kim Jib

A day after his ascent to the throne in May 1649, the new king Hyojong invited the scholar Kim Jib and his students, Song Si-yeol, Song Jun-gil, Yi Yu-tae, Yun Seon-geo, and Yu Gye.[55]

Kim Jib was the son of Yi I's best student, Kim Jang-saeng, and was also the best student of his father, who was also a famous Westerner scholar.[56] With the appearance of Kim Jib and his students, various Westerner factions, such as the Clear Westerners or the Young Westerners, merged into the newly formed faction of Kim Jib.[47] The new faction of Kim, the most famous Westerner scholar of his time, became known as the Sandang (산당, 山黨), or 'Mountain Faction'.[57] They were, as their name suggests, based on mountain schools, especially in the Hoseo region.[58][o]

The new Sandang conflicted with the most powerful faction just prior to Injo's death, the Nakdang of Kim Ja-jeom. Kim Hong-uk of the Sandang began the battle against the Nakdang by attacking Kim Ja-jeom himself[59], and in September 13, 1649, influential members of the Nakdang such as Im Jung or Yi Cheon-gi were fired at Song Jun-gil's request.[60] Finally, in February 13, 1650, Kim was exiled to Hongcheon and his sons were sent to faraway places to serve as generals.[61]

In 1651, Yeong-ui, a maid of Injo's son Sungseon, confessed that Gwiin Jo, a concubine of Injo and Sungseon's mother, had secretly done shamanistic rituals to curse the Injo's queen, Queen Jangryeol.[62] Yi Yeong, a county magistrate, had a father-in-law who was the cousin of Gwiin Jo, and also friends with Kim Ja-jeom.[63] Worried that the decline of the Nakdang would influence his career, he revealed that Kim was secretly planning a treason.[64]

Kim's son, Kim Sik, claimed that he had planned with generals and magistrates near Seoul as to kill Won Du-pyo (the leader of the Wondang), Song Si-yeol (the leader of the Sandang), and Song Jun-gil (caused the exile of Kim) and to make Prince Sungseon the king.[65] Kim Ja-jeom also confessed, saying that the plan was to revolt in March 1650, but that the exile of himself and the scattering of his sons had caused the plan to be delayed.[66] Kim was quartered with his sons, as was the punishment for treason at the time, while Gwiin Jo was beheaded.[67] The execution of Kim Ja-jeom marked the collapse of the Nakdang.[68]

Meanwhile, the Westerners divided after the collapse of the Nakdang. The new battle between the Westerner factions were between the Sandang and the Handang (한당, 漢黨).[69] The name originated from the first syllable of the medieval name for Seoul, Hanyang, combined with dang.[70] Unlike the Sandang of the Hoseo region, the Handang were rooted in Seoul, and valued practicality rather than Neo-Confucian ideals.[71]

Kim Yuk, leader of the Handang

The leader of the Handang was Kim Yuk, a fierce proponent of the Daedong Policy.[72] Taxes were originally payed in regional commodities, which were often nonexistent in the region. As a result, some people bought various commodities from different regions and sold them, lessening the difficulty of acquiring the commodities.[73] However, the commodity sellers bribed the magistrate to accept only their products as taxes and raised the price of the commodities explosively, causing taxes to be much more costly then they were before.[74]

Because the cost of taxes had rose astonishingly high, it was proposed that taxes be collected by rice (the vast majority of Korean farmers at the time grew rice, making taxes much easier to acquire), rather than regional commodities.[75] The proposed law which enabled taxes to be collected in rice was called the Daedong Policy, and in the Hyojong era the law was already enacted in the Gyeonggi and Gangwon provinces. Kim Yuk proposed the law to have effect in the Chungcheong and Jeolla provinces as well.[76]

Besides Kim Yuk, Jo Ik[p] and Sin Myeon supported the Daedong Policy, and they formed the Handang centered around Kim Yuk.[77] However, Kim Jib, the Sandang ideologue, said that the Daedong Policy was not a good law, and Kim Sang-heon, Song Si-yeol, and other Sandang members agreed with him.[78][79] The resistance of the Sandang to the Daedong Policy caused conflicts between the Sandang and the Handang.[80]

In 1656, Kim Jib died, leaving the Sandang to be headed by Song Si-yeol and Song Jun-gil, who were called the Two Songs (yangsong).[81] Within the Two Songs, Song Si-yeol was considered to be a greater scholar than Song Jun-gil, and Song Si-yeol naturally became the Sandang leader.[82] Meanwhile, with the death of Kim Yuk in 1658, the Handang were led by Kim's sons, Kim Jwa-myeong and Kim U-myeong.[83]

Disputes with the Southerners in the Hyeonjong era[edit]

By the Hyeonjong era (1659-1674), the conflicts between Southerners and Westerners intensified with the Yesong Dispute.[84]

The Yesong Dispute had its roots in Confucian philosophy. When a specific family member died, the rest of the family were required to wear mounrning robes for up to three years.[85] The problem was that the Chinese text Etiquette and Ceremonial and the Korean text Five Rites of the Dynasty dictated somewhat differently on the matter of sacrificial rites.[84] The two texts dictated the following.

Situation Etiquette and Ceremonial Five Rites of the Dynasty
The mourning robes when the parent has died Three years.[86] Three years.[86]
The mourning robes when the eldest son has died Three years.[84] One year.[84]
The mourning robes when the second eldest son has died One year. However, if the eldest son dies before the second eldest son dies, the second eldest son is called the "eldest son" and when he dies the parents also wear the mourning robe for three years.[87] However, grandsons, Seoja(generally interpreted as sons whose mother is a concubine, but there are different interpretations), or the eldest son who has a serious disease or a problematic behavior cannot be called an "eldest son".[88] One year.[87]
The mourning robes when the wife of the eldest son has died One year.[89] One year.[89]
The mourning robes when other daughters-in-law have died Nine months.[89] Nine months.[89]

Injo's wife, Queen Consort Jaui, was alive in 1649.[90] Although the Queen Consort was not the true mother of Hyojong (Injo remarried, and Hyojong was the son of his first wife), by the rules of the Joseon court the Queen Consort was the mother of Hyojong, and therefore the Queen Consort had to wear a mourning robe for her stepson.[90] Most Westerners believed that the proper time for Queen Consort Jaui to wear the mourning robe was an year, because Hyojong was the second son of Injo (the eldest son being Prince Sohyeon, who died in 1645.).[91] However, Yun Hyu, a Southerner, believed that because Hyojong had inherited the line of Injo and because Sohyeon had died earlier than Hyojong, Hyojong was the eldest child by the doctrines of Etiquette and Ceremonial, meaning that the Queen Consort should wear the mourning robe for three years.[92]

Yun Hyu believed that Queen Consort Jaui should wear a mourning robe for her stepson, Hyojong, for three years.

Song Si-yeol, meanwhile, thought that Hyojong was a Seoja, because Etiquette and Ceremonial said that all sons excepting the eldest son whose mother was not a concubine were called Seoja.[93] Therefore, Song claimed that Queen Consort Jaui should wear the mourning robe for an year.[84]

Because Song Si-yeol and Song Jun-gil had almost absolute power by 1659,[94] the mourning robe of the Queen Consort was decided as an year.[94] But ten months later, in 1650, Heo Mok wrote an essay detailing the reasons for the Queen Consort having to wear a three-year robe.[95] Heo believed that the reason for parents wearing three-year mourning robes for their eldest sons was because the eldest son inherited the line of the father.[96] Thus, the reason that the eldest son was special was not because they were the first male child, but because they continued the male line.[97] Because Hyojong had inherited Injo's line, Hyojong's death required a three-year mourning robe.[97]

Heo Mok in 1677

In response to Heo, Song Jun-gil attacked Heo's beliefs by saying that if Heo was right, if the first, second, third, and fourth sons all died before the father died, with the older sons dying first, the father would have to wear three-year mourning robes for all four sons.[98] He also promoted the definition of Seoja as all sons other than the eldest son.[99] Heo then rebutted his original statement by saying that the reason for a three-year mourning robe for the eldest son was because the eldest son generally inherits the line of the father, therefore meaning that if the second eldest son inherited the line, his death also merited a three-year mourning robe.[97] He also said that Prince Sohyeon had remained a prince, but Hyojong had become a king of a nation, and as kings were higher than princes it had to be that the mourning robe for Hyojong had to be at least as Sohyeon.[97]

The Westerner Won Du-pyo agreed with Heo, advising Hyeonjong to change to a three-year mourning robe.[97] Then, Song Si-yeol attacked Heo himself, saying that there could logically be only one eldest son, and that Seoja also had an additional meaning of all non-eldest sons.[100][101] Song also said that the second eldest son being the eldest son referred to second eldest sons inheriting the line when the eldest son died in infancy or childhood (Sohyeon was thirty-three when he died), and that if Hyojong's death required a mourning robe at least equal to Sohyeon's because Hyojong was a king, then the death of any king, even if he was the son of a concubine, required a three-year mourning robe, which was against both Etiquette and Ceremonial and the Five Rites of the Dynasty.[101][102][101] Hyojong then said that it was not right to argue that everyone ought to wear a three-year mourning robe for a king's death, because the Queen Consort was a queen when Hyojong was only a prince, meaning that the Queen Consort was above Hyojong in degree.[102][101] He finally said that there was no great scholar to decide on the mourning robe, and that it was necessary to do what was certain (The Five Rites) and leave the decision of what was right or wrong to the future.[101][102]

Then, Yun Seon-do, an influential Southerner, replied. He first said that the Etiquette and Ceremonial directly said that the death of sons who are not the eldest but inherit the line also require mourning robes for three years, and therefore that it was unnecessary to bring up the term seoja.[103] He then said that it was illogical that a second son whose mother was not a concubine and who had inherited the father's line and become a king would never be a true inheritor of the line,[103] and sarcastily asked if a king who was a second son was a "false crown prince"[104] and a "regent emperor"[104],[q] and if the second son could not "reign as king to the descendants of the first son".[105] He finally said that the title of "Crown Prince" was equivalent to the eldest prince, and therefore Hyojong was the eldest son, whose death required a three-year robe.[106] He then attacked Song Si-yeol's argument based on the impossibility of two eldest sons, saying that all that meant was that there could not be two eldest sons at the same time.[107] He then attacked Song's claim that it was unnatural for the Queen Consort, of a higher rank than Hyojong, was to wear a mourning robe that children wore for parents by pointing out that it was just as unnatural for parents to wear three-year mourning robes at their eldest son's death.[106] He finally said that he was not a wise person and that it was natural for some contradictions to occur in his argument, but that if his argument was logical it was naturally true.[106]

Hyojong, who was wary of the power of the Sandang, ordered a low level of punishment; stripping him of his honors and sending him back to the country.[108] However, the Sandang continued their attack against Yun, and Hyeonjong was forced to imprison him in Samsu, near the northern border.[109] Yun's attack was burned.[110][r]

However, many of the philosophers and scholars of the day supported Yun's opinions. Six days before Yun's exile, Gwon Si, a friend of Song Si-yeol, said that "Although I am soaked with sweat at the sight of Yun's writing", "there is no doubt that the Queen Consort ought to wear a three-year robe."[111] Won Du-pyo, still an influential figure in the court, also supported the Southerners.[112][s] The matter was brought to court on May 3, 1660[113], and as Yun Hyu, the Southerner who had brought the matter up in the first place, only said "In this great event each man, great and small, had his own thoughts on the matter and so Your Majesty must decide with your wisdom." while the other, Westerner ministers supported Song, the Southerner opinion was discarded.[114][115]

Under the Southerner government and the Gyeongsin Hwanguk[edit]

Division into Soron and Noron[edit]

Ideology[edit]

Legacy[edit]

List of famous Westerners[edit]

Family tree of Korean political factions[edit]

Timeline of the Westerners[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Jeong In-hong also did not return, and later led the Righteous Army in the Imjin War. He grew to an enormous influence in the Gwanghaegun era.
  2. ^ Jeong did not destroy the letters sent to him when he performed suicide or was murdered, and the letters proved to be useful when searching out those who had been close to Jeong.[4]
  3. ^ Jeong Gaecheong was later central to the conflict between Southerners and Westerners
  4. ^ 'Sambong' was the pen name of Jeong Do-jeon, at the time believed to have caused treason.
  5. ^ Seonjo lacked legitimate sons but had children from concubines. Lady Gong was the mother of Imhae and Gwanghae.
  6. ^ The reason is because Lady Gong, the mother of Imhae and Gwanghae, died soon after delivering Gwanghae.
  7. ^ However, Yi later returned.
  8. ^ literally meaning 'Kim Dog Feces'
  9. ^ Kim was executed on March 12 by Prince Neungyang.
  10. ^ As per the royal naming custom of the Joseon Dynasty, Prince Neungyang is hereafter called 'Injo'.
  11. ^ The Daesaheon is the head of what would be equivalent to the prosecutive.
  12. ^ Yi died on 1633.
  13. ^ The Manchurian Qing Dynasty had recently conquered China
  14. ^ Korean names have the first name as the family name
  15. ^ The Westerners were focused on the Giho and Hoseo areas, whereas the Southerners were focused in the Yeongnam region.
  16. ^ Not to be confused with Jo Sik.
  17. ^ A regent is a person who rules in place of a king because the king is unable to rule.
  18. ^ However, it was copied in the Annals of the Joseon Dynasty and still remains. The original, in Classical Chinese, is: 聖人之於喪禮, 制爲五服, 豈偶然也? 用之於家, 而父子之倫乃明, 用之於國, 而君臣之分乃嚴, 天地之尊卑, 宗社之存亡, 無不係於此矣。 此所以莫重莫大, 而不可以毫髮僭差者也。 承統之子, 與祖爲體, 父之於嫡子之喪, 其爲服制, 必以斬衰三年者, 非爲子也, 乃爲承祖宗之統也。 私家尙如此, 況國家乎, 三代太平之世, 尙如此, 況於末世危疑之際乎? 然則定臣民之心志, 絶不逞之覬覦, 在於此矣。 夫然則有國家之於此禮也, 其可不謹乎? 其可不嚴乎? 其可斯須有忽而置之耶? 臣聞先王孝宗大王之喪, 大王大妃之服, 考諸禮經, 聖人之所爲者, 實在於與祖爲體之義, 及聖人之制禮, 實在於原天理、定宗統之義, 則當爲齊衰三年, 昭然明矣, 無可疑者。 而當初禮官儀註, 定爲期年之服, 朝野臣民之有識者, 莫不怪駭, 未曉其意之所在, 而國家宗統, 因此而有所不明, 抑亦似有所不定, 此豈明大統、定民志、固宗社之禮也? 思之至此, 則骨驚心寒。 此誠不可不卽議釐正, 而練期將迫, 寥寥無一人爲國家進此言者, 臣宴居深念, 不勝宗社之憂, 頃聞前掌令臣許穆考據禮經, 投進一疏, 臣誠喜國家之有人也。 嗚呼! 許穆之言, 非徒議禮之大經, 實是謀國之至計, 如非明於天理之節文, 而純於臣子之忠諒, 則其能爲此言乎, 其敢進此言乎? 此厥不聽, 後悔莫及。 殿下所當斷自宸衷, 卽令禮官, 依聖經釐正, 而其所以復詢於宋時烈者, 優禮儒臣之意也, 時烈正當如文純公李滉聞奇大升駁正之說, 瞿然而改其前見曰: ‘若非奇某, 幾不免千古罪人’ 云云者矣, 時烈乃反有遂非文過之計, 掇拾禮經文字, 附會己意, 其爲辭說, 不勝其煩。 而其於禮經父之於子, 所以斬衰者, 只在於與祖爲體, 而聖人之所以嚴此禮者, 只在於統承宗廟之大旨, 則終始見不到說不出, 臣實未服其言, 而未曉其意也。 臣雖蒙學淺識, 素昧禮經, 然於天理之所在, 聖人禮制之所主, 則亦嘗有所理會, 而見其大意矣。 時烈謬引之說, 臣請撮其大要, 而逐條論辨焉。 時烈引疏說 ‘立次長, 亦爲三年之文,’ 而其下又曰: ‘今必得次長, 不爲庶子之明文, 然後許穆之說乃可從也。’ 云, 其言眞所謂不成說話也。 今我孝宗大王, 是仁祖大王之次長。 而疏說旣有 ‘立次長亦爲三年之明文,’ 則大王大妃之服齊衰三年, 實無毫髮可疑, 斷然行之而已, 何必更責, 必得次長不爲庶子之明文於穆也? 時烈曰: ‘文王傳國, 則捨伯邑考立武王, 而周公制禮, 則必拳拳於長庶之辨,’ 臣以爲文王之事, 聖人制義之大權; 周公之禮, 聖人立經之常法, 此自是兩聖人時措之宜, 周公豈爲伯邑考, 而作此禮也? 然則其可執此禮, 而謂孝宗大王非嫡長, 而謂大王大妃不爲三年乎? 時烈之議, 稱長子成人而死者, 至再至三, 而其緊要斷定之語曰: ‘長子雖成人而死, 而次長皆名長子而服斬, 則嫡統不嚴。’ 云。 其言蓋是必欲歸重於成人而死者, 其意蓋曰: 成人而死, 則嫡統在於此, 次長雖本同母也, 雖己與祖爲體也, 雖已踐其位、承宗廟也, 終不得爲嫡統也, 此言不亦悖理乎? 夫嫡者, 兄弟中無敵耦之稱也, 統者, 修緖業首庶物, 承上垂後之號也, 立次長爲後, 則復容嫡統之在他乎? 次長承父詔受天命, 體祖主器之後, 猶不得爲嫡統, 而嫡統猶在於他人, 則是假世子乎? 攝皇帝乎? 且次長而立者, 不敢君於已死之長之子孫, 而已死之長之子孫, 亦不臣於次長而立者乎? 時烈如覺其失言, 則必以遁辭解之曰: ‘嫡統不嚴四字, 只是爲嚴萬世長幼之序’ 而發也云矣。 嫡統不嚴四字, 上下文勢, 不如此, 誰信其意之如此也? 又況徒嚴長幼之序, 而不嚴君臣之分可乎? 古今天下, 安有此義也, 天之理、聖人之經, 果若是乎? 嗚呼! 古公雖立季歷, 而泰伯有後, 則古公之嫡統, 猶在於泰伯之後乎? 然則一國之群志未定, 而季歷之子孫, 何可保也? 文王雖立武王, 而伯邑考有後, 則文王之嫡統, 猶在於伯邑考之後乎? 然則天下之群志未定, 而武王之子孫, 何可保也? 時烈以宗統歸於主廟社之君, 而以嫡統歸於已死之長子乎? 然則嫡統宗統, 岐而二之也, 又豈有此理也? 且時烈亦有無二統之說。 則時烈之見識, 雖有所未逮, 豈至於如此之暗也? 其然則三稱成人, 而又稱嫡統不嚴之意, 臣不敢知也。 夫然則時烈非妄則愚也。 國家大禮, 何可必徇此人之議, 而定之也? 時烈又曰: ‘爲父者一身之上, 其斬不已多乎’, 至以世宗朝八大君, 設辭而證之, 臣愚以爲: ‘世宗之聖壽雖無彊, 而八大君雖皆短命, 豈有八大君各立三年而不幸, 而幷文宗、世祖兩大王爲九三年之理也?’ 此乃必無之事, 雖蘇、秦之詭辯, 必不敢以如此等說禦人也。 宋浚吉議箚所言: ‘設有大夫士嫡妻所生有十餘子, 第一子死, 其父爲之服三年, 第二子死, 其父又服三年, 不幸而第三死、第四死、五六死, 則皆爲之服三年乎’ 云者, 均是必無之理也。 其言之沕合異哉, 而二人所見, 眞所謂魯、衛之政也。 時烈之議曰: ‘大王大妃於昭顯之喪, 旣與仁祖大王, 同爲長子之服, 則其義何可變於今日也云? 其所謂長子之服, 何服也? 其時果行斬衰三年乎? 其然則今當? 一依疏說, ‘立次長亦爲三年之義,’ 而定爲三年也, 其時如或以期年爲服, 則是禮官失禮之所致歟, 抑或仁祖大王有微意於其間歟。 以此以彼, 臣皆不知矣。 其時雖爲朞服, 而今日孝廟之服, 則大王大妃, 不可不爲之齊衰三年也。 時烈之言曰: ‘父王旣以爲庶子, 而不服三年, 則雖已承統母后, 何敢獨服三年乎’ 云者? 尤爲無理, 而尤有所不可曉者也。 大抵太子之太字, 卽嫡字長字之義也, 而尤別其號, 表章而特之者也, 世子之世字, 亦嫡字長字之義也, 而尤別其號, 表章而特〔書〕之者也。 名之曰太、名之曰世, 則其所以主器承重與祖爲體之義, 尤有所著顯於嫡長二字也, 旣爲世子, 而不謂長子, 容有是理歟? 疏說所以有立次長之言也。 然當立之時, 指爲次長, 而旣立之後, 則義當直謂之長也。 然則爲世子, 則不可不謂之長, 而於其死也, 不可不爲之服斬也。 況承統君臨之後, 容有不謂之長, 而不爲之服斬之理乎? 時烈曰: ‘疏說旣曰: 立次長亦爲三年, 而其下又曰, 庶子承重, 不爲三年, 此二說自相矛盾。’ 云, 而臣愚謂此所謂庶子, 果是正室衆子之稱, 則誠與上文矛盾矣, 如指妾媵所生而言, 則不與上文矛盾矣。 時烈何所據, 而明知此不是妾子之稱, 此是衆子之稱, 而以爲矛盾乎? 且任使時烈以爲禮文所謂庶子, 皆是衆子, 而此則姑不足辨矣。 惟是仁祖大王律天時、憲文ㆍ武, 以孝宗大王爲世子, 孝宗大王旣爲世子之後, 其可不謂之長不謂之嫡, 而猶謂之庶乎? 況長國家而君臨之後, 亦可不謂之長、不謂之嫡, 而猶謂之庶乎? 時烈之終欲擬孝宗大王於庶子者, 臣又不敢知也。 時烈又以不貳斬爲據, 禮經不貳斬之說, 非此之謂也, 此不過一時無二尊之義也。 前後喪非一時, 而其尊無異同, 則豈可獨斬於前喪, 而不斬於後喪乎? 此疏所以有立次長, 亦爲三年之說, 而其言允合於天理聖經矣。 況我孝宗大王以爲世子時論之, 則其爲長、其爲尊, 與昭顯等矣, 以君臨之後論之, 則其爲長、其爲尊, 非昭顯之可比也, 其可於昭顯, 獨當斬衰, 而於孝廟獨不當斬衰乎? 時烈此言, 非獨背於疏說, 實背於聖經, 非獨背於聖經, 實背於天理矣。 時烈又曰: ‘孝宗大王, 於大王大妃, 有君臣之義, 大王大妃, 乃反以臣服君之服, 服大王乎云, 尤爲無據之說也。 信斯言也, 聖人制禮, 父之於長子服斬者, 非子服父之服乎? 君之於世子服斬者, 非臣服君之服乎? 何其言之無稽, 至於此也。 嗚呼! 自先朝所倚重而委任者, 無如兩宋。 齊桓公之於夷吾, 一則仲父, 二則仲父, 漢昭烈之於孔明, 猶魚之有水, 何以加此? 況廩人繼粟, 庖人繼肉, 乃古者待大賢之禮也。 是以朝家以儒賢目之, 而斯二人者, 亦不辭儒賢之名矣。 然朝野公論, 不以爲賢, 而如臣愚闇者, 亦不以爲賢也, 何也? 孟子曰: ‘君子居是國也, 其君用之, 則安富尊榮’, 斯二人者, 得君如彼其專, 而亦云久矣, 自己之安富尊榮, 則可謂極矣, 而君上之安富尊榮, 則未之聞也。 旣以儒賢待之, 則師傅之責, 不可辭也, 而不能輔導先王, 至有銜橛之虞, 諫不行而去, 則可也, 在其職而任其責則傅, 傅其德義, 保, 保其身體之義, 惡在? 至如梓宮之不得用, 乃萬古有國家者, 所未有之變也, 如此等事, 其可謂之安乎? 至於衣冠之藏, 乃送終大事也, 朱子以爲宗廟血食久遠之計, 陳疏力言, 則可知地之吉凶, 所關莫重。 而捨其極吉, 移就欠缺, 殊非卜其宅兆以安厝之之道, 萬世之宅如此, 則其爲不安, 豈但一時也? 菑害竝至, 饑饉荐臻, 公私俱困, 國貧民流, 君孰與足, 吾誰爲君之憂, 宵旰不已, 如此而可謂富乎? 作福作威, 在於下而不在於上, 固不可謂之尊, 而至於臨御十年之後, 猶不得爲嫡爲長, 而朝家所以待之之禮, 猶有所與衆子等者, 則非徒大有悖於天理聖經, 其爲不尊, 不亦甚乎? 不安不富, 不尊不榮, 乃在其中, 不須論也。 用賢之效如此, 則古今天下國家, 誰以用賢爲貴也。 噫! 斯二人之學識心術, 則臣不能知之矣, 夷考其事迹, 則非不仁則不智也。 夫然則其能獨明於禮家乎? 然斯二人者, 一生所講, 在於禮學, 故人推禮學, 己亦擔當, 而其於國家大禮, 所見之謬, 類如此, 況可與議於修己治人之術, 固國威天下之謨乎? 吁! 可惜也。 宋時烈之議末端曰: ‘若因此而講明, 歸於十分是當, 則豈但一時之幸而已哉?’ 時烈誠有此意, 則必不忤人之駁正, 時烈此言, 誠可取也。 宋浚吉之議末端曰: ‘天下之義理無窮, 文義之見解各異, 又安可以一槪, 斷定其然與不然乎’ 云, 此言不啻若自其口出, 則其亦可取也。 或以爲: ‘我國先代, 在已下之服, 多從簡而降, 不爲三年, 今何可復古禮’ 云, 然則滕國大夫, 從先祖短喪之說, 禮也, 而孟子之勸文公行三年者, 非禮歟? 且在昔國家鞏固之時, 則猶爲降服, 只是失禮爲愧, 而猶無害於宗祊矣, 當此群志未定上下危疑之日, 如此明大統之大禮, 何可少忽也? 或以爲當初業已謬定, 今難追服云, 而昔者宋之君喪, 只以淺淡色爲服, 儒臣朱熹建議追改。 今之降服朞, 無異於宋之淺淡服, 則依朱子之議追服, 實是不遠復也。 此不愈於執熱不濯, 履霜不戒, 而終令群下, 致疑於國家宗統之未定乎? 或以爲閨壼行喪, 異於男子, 定爲三年之制, 似爲未妥, 此亦不然矣。 雖孝子居喪之禮, 亦有相時度力, 而行之之文, 今玆大王大妃之服, 以三年改儀注, 行會八方, 使大小臣民, 曉然知朝議之無異意, 以之正名, 以之定國是, 以之措國勢於泰山之安而已。 而其他閨壼中細小節目, 則一依禮經, 相時度力而行之之訓, 有何不可? 大槪作疏說者, 非聖人則安得無一言不合於聖經也? 若推之天理而不合, 揆之聖經而不合者, 則不從可也, 若推之天理而合, 揆之聖經而合者, 則何可不用也? 疏所謂: ‘立次長亦爲三年之說,’ 允合天理聖經, 此實明白無疑者也。 今之議此禮, 當用此說, 不可以他求者也。 是以臣愚以爲朞而除服, 決不可爲, 而定爲三年之喪, 決不可不爲也。 臣之所言, 皆非臣所杜撰, 實是古聖人禮經之意, 而原於天理者也, 伏願聖明, 速圖釐正。 臣不勝畝忠, 只知有君父、有宗社, 而? 麗깃脹芋饠 犯時諱而進危言, 伏願聖明, 不以人廢言也。 臣以此疏之入不入, 此言之行不行, 卜主勢之固不固, 國祚之延不延也。 疏呈政院, 承旨金壽恒、李殷相、吳挺緯、趙胤錫、鄭榏、朴世城啓曰: “卽者副護軍尹善道上疏到院, 觀其疏語, 則假託論禮, 用意陰凶, 譸張眩亂, 略無顧忌。 其在出納惟允之道, 如此之疏, 決不當捧入, 而第念是非邪正, 難逃於聖鑑之下, 疏入之後, 惟在聖明洞燭其情狀, 明辨而痛斥之, 似不可徑先退却, 故此疏捧入之意敢啓。
  19. ^ Note that Won also supported Heo Mok.

References[edit]

  1. ^ "Korean Encyber-Sarim". Retrieved April 26, 2013.
  2. ^ 박은봉. Korean History Letters-Joseon Dynasty. 책과 함께 어린이. p. 97. ISBN 9788991221468.
  3. ^ a b "Korean Encyber-김효원". Retrieved May 19, 2013.
  4. ^ a b c d e f g h i Park Sibaek. Park Sibaek's Annals of the Joseon Dynasty-Seonjo. Humanist. ISBN 9788958621829.
  5. ^ "Encyclopedia of Korean Ethnic History-을해당론". Retrieved May 19, 2013.
  6. ^ "Korean Encyber-심의겸". Retrieved May 19, 2013.
  7. ^ a b "한국민족문화대백과-동인 (東人)". Retrieved July 24, 2013.
  8. ^ "한국민족문화대백과-서인 (西人)". Retrieved September 2, 2013.
  9. ^ "Korean Encyber-서인". Retrieved September 2, 2013.
  10. ^ 박은봉. Korean History Letters-Joseon Dynasty. 책과 함께 어린이. p. 167. ISBN 9788991221468.
  11. ^ a b "Naver Encyclopedia-Yi I". Retrieved July 25, 2013.
  12. ^ "NaverCast Yi I". Retrieved July 30, 2013.
  13. ^ "Encyclopedia of Ethnic Korean History-Dongin". Retrieved August 2, 2013.
  14. ^ a b 김동수. "Encyclopedia of Korean Ethnic History-기축옥사". Retrieved August 8, 2013.
  15. ^ "Doopedia-기축옥사". Retrieved August 4, 2013.
  16. ^ "Korean Encyber-이발 (李發)". Retrieved August 1, 2013.
  17. ^ "Korean Encyber-정개청". Retrieved August 1, 2013.
  18. ^ "Reign of Seonjo, Book 25, Reign of Emperor Wanli, August 3 (the source is a collection of the Annals of the Joseon Dynasty)". Retrieved August 16, 2013.
  19. ^ "Sunshine References Dictionary". Retrieved August 16, 2013.
  20. ^ "Korean Encyber-기축옥사". Retrieved August 16, 2013.
  21. ^ Park Sibaek. Park Sibaek's Annals of the Joseon Dynasty-Gwanghae. Humanist. p. 14. ISBN 9788958622178.
  22. ^ a b c "Korean Encyber-김공량". Retrieved August 14, 2013.
  23. ^ a b "Korean Encyber-건저문제". Retrieved August 14, 2013.
  24. ^ "Encyclopedia of Ethnic Korean History-우성전". Retrieved August 19, 2013.
  25. ^ a b c d Park Sibaek. Park Sibaek's Annals of the Joseon Dynasty-Gwanghae. Humanist. p. 30. ISBN 9788958622178.
  26. ^ "Korean Encyber-이산해". Retrieved August 1, 2013.
  27. ^ a b "Korean Encyber-정철". Retrieved September 10, 2013.
  28. ^ a b "NaverCast-정철". Retrieved September 10, 2013.
  29. ^ Park Sibaek. Park Sibaek's Annals of the Joseon Dynasty-Gwanghae. Humanist. p. 47. ISBN 9788958622178.
  30. ^ a b "Korean Encyber-소북". Retrieved September 12, 2013.
  31. ^ "Reign of Gwanghaegun, Book 39, Reign of Emperor Wanli, March 26 (the source is a collection of the Annals of the Joseon Dynasty)". Retrieved September 12, 2013.
  32. ^ Park Sibaek. Park Sibaek's Annals of the Joseon Dynasty-Injo. Humanist. p. 8. ISBN 9788958622499.
  33. ^ a b c Park Sibaek. Park Sibaek's Annals of the Joseon Dynasty-Injo. Humanist. p. 6. ISBN 9788958622499.
  34. ^ "Encyclopedia of Korean Culture-이귀". Retrieved September 13, 2013.
  35. ^ Park Sibaek. Park Sibaek's Annals of the Joseon Dynasty-Gwanghae. Humanist. p. 129. ISBN 9788958622178.
  36. ^ "CultureContents.com-시전상인 이용한 '폐모론'으로 경운궁에 갇힌, 비운의 왕비 인목대비". Retrieved September 16, 2013.
  37. ^ "NaverCast-Gyeongun Palace, the setting of the Injo Banjeong". Retrieved September 17, 2013.
  38. ^ Park Sibaek. Park Sibaek's Annals of the Joseon Dynasty-Gwanghae. Humanist. p. 107. ISBN 9788958622178.
  39. ^ "Korean Encyber-인조반정". Retrieved September 17, 2013.
  40. ^ "Korean Encyber-김자점".
  41. ^ a b "NaverCast-인조". Retrieved September 21, 2013.
  42. ^ a b "Korean Encyber-김류". Retrieved September 19, 2013.
  43. ^ a b c d Park Sibaek. Park Sibaek's Annals of the Joseon Dynasty-Gwanghae. Humanist. p. 199. ISBN 9788958622178.
  44. ^ a b Park Sibaek. Park Sibaek's Annals of the Joseon Dynasty-Gwanghae. Humanist. p. 200. ISBN 9788958622178.
  45. ^ "NaverCast-이원익". Retrieved September 22, 2013.
  46. ^ Park Sibaek. Park Sibaek's Annals of the Joseon Dynasty-Injo. Humanist. p. 17. ISBN 9788958622499.
  47. ^ a b c d e f "Encyclopedia of Korean Ethnic History-서인". Retrieved September 22, 2013.
  48. ^ "Korean Encyber-남이공". Retrieved September 23, 2013.
  49. ^ Park Sibaek. Park Sibaek's Annals of the Joseon Dynasty-Injo. Humanist. p. 13. ISBN 9788958622499.
  50. ^ "Korean Encyber-노서". Retrieved September 23, 2013.
  51. ^ Park Sibaek. Park Sibaek's Annals of the Joseon Dynasty-Hyojong and Hyeonjong. Humanist. p. 34. ISBN 9788958622666.
  52. ^ "Korean Encyber-김자점". Retrieved September 25, 2013.
  53. ^ "Dictionary of Archaic Korean Terminology". Retrieved September 25, 2013.
  54. ^ Park Sibaek. Park Sibaek's Annals of the Joseon Dynasty-Hyojong and Hyeonjong. Humanist. p. 127. ISBN 9788958622666.
  55. ^ Park Sibaek's Annals of the Joseon Dynasty-Hyojong and Hyeonjong. p. 16. ISBN 9788958622666.
  56. ^ "Encyclopedia of Korean Ethnic Culture-김집". Retrieved September 24, 2013.
  57. ^ Park Sibaek's Annals of the Joseon Dynasty-Hyojong and Hyeonjong. p. 17. ISBN 9788958622666.
  58. ^ "Korean Encyber-산당". Retrieved September 24, 2013.
  59. ^ Park Sibaek's Annals of the Joseon Dynasty-Hyojong and Hyeonjong. p. 20. ISBN 9788958622666.
  60. ^ Park Sibaek's Annals of the Joseon Dynasty-Hyojong and Hyeonjong. p. 21. ISBN 9788958622666.
  61. ^ "Korean Encyber-김자점". Retrieved September 27, 2013.
  62. ^ "시사상식사전-인조 후궁 소용 조씨". Retrieved September 27, 2013.
  63. ^ "Encyclopedia of Korean Ethnic Culture-김자점의 옥". Retrieved September 28, 2013.
  64. ^ Park Sibaek's Annals of the Joseon Dynasty-Hyojong and Hyeonjong. p. 32. ISBN 9788958622666.
  65. ^ "Seventh Book of Hyojong, Year 2 (1651,Xīnmǎonián in the Chinese calendar)/ Eighth year of the Qing Emperor Shunzhi) December 13 (Bǐngchényuè in the Chinese calendar) in the lunar calendar/first article". Retrieved September 27, 2013.
  66. ^ Park Sibaek's Annals of the Joseon Dynasty-Hyojong and Hyeonjong. p. 33. ISBN 9788958622666.
  67. ^ "Seventh Book of Hyojong, Year 2 (1651,Xīnmǎonián in the Chinese calendar)/ Eighth year of the Qing Emperor Shunzhi) December 15 (Wùwǔyuè in the Chinese calendar) in the lunar calendar/first article". Retrieved September 28, 2013.
  68. ^ Park Sibaek's Annals of the Joseon Dynasty-Hyojong and Hyeonjong. p. 34. ISBN 9788958622666.
  69. ^ "Korean Encyber-한당". Retrieved September 29, 2013.
  70. ^ "Korean Encyber-김집". Retrieved September 30, 2013.
  71. ^ Park Sibaek's Annals of the Joseon Dynasty-Hyojong and Hyeonjong. p. 74. ISBN 9788958622666.
  72. ^ "NaverCast-김육". Retrieved September 30, 2013.
  73. ^ "Korean Encyber-방납". Retrieved September 30, 2013.
  74. ^ "Encyclopedia of Korean Ethnic Culture-방납". Retrieved September 30, 2013.
  75. ^ "Korean history for High Schoolers-대동법이 시행되었다는데 : 공납 제도의 개편 (고교생이 알아야 할 한국사 스페셜)". Retrieved October 1, 2013. {{cite web}}: no-break space character in |title= at position 47 (help)
  76. ^ Kill Me if You Will. p. 184. ISBN 9788984312753.
  77. ^ Kill Me if You Will. p. 186. ISBN 9788984312753.
  78. ^ "Encyclopedia of Korean Ethnic Culture-김상헌". Retrieved October 3, 2013.
  79. ^ "Korean Encyber-송시열". Retrieved October 3, 2013.
  80. ^ Kill Me if You Will. p. 185. ISBN 9788984312753.
  81. ^ "Digital Encyclopedia of Nonsan-양송". Retrieved October 4, 2013.
  82. ^ "NaverCast-송시열". Retrieved October 4, 2013.
  83. ^ "Encyclopedia of Korean Culture-김좌명". Retrieved October 4, 2013.
  84. ^ a b c d e "History of Sacrificial Rites-예송 논쟁". Retrieved October 4, 2013.
  85. ^ "Encyclopedia of Korean Ethnic Culture-상복". Retrieved October 8, 2013.
  86. ^ a b "Korean Encyber-상복". Retrieved October 8, 2013.
  87. ^ a b "Encyclopedia of Korean Ethnic Culture-의례". Retrieved October 8, 2013.
  88. ^ Park Sibaek's Annals of the Joseon Dynasty-Hyojong and Hyeonjong. Humanist. p. 115. ISBN 9788958622666.
  89. ^ a b c d Park Sibaek's Annals of the Joseon Dynasty-Hyojong and Hyeonjong. Humanist. p. 107. ISBN 9788958622666.
  90. ^ a b "Korean Encyber-장렬왕후". Retrieved October 10, 2013.
  91. ^ Yi Deok-il. Kill Me if You Will. p. 83. ISBN 9788984312753.
  92. ^ Yi Deok-il. Kill Me if You Will. p. 84. ISBN 9788984312753.
  93. ^ "Dictionary of Terms-서자". Retrieved October 11, 2013.
  94. ^ a b Yi Deok-il. 송시열과 그들의 나라. 김영사. ISBN 9788934905028.
  95. ^ Park Sibaek's Annals of the Joseon Dynasty-Hyojong and Hyeonjong. Humanist. p. 117. ISBN 9788958622666.
  96. ^ "Encyclopedia of Korean Culture-허목". Retrieved October 15, 2013.
  97. ^ a b c d e "NaverCast-허목". Retrieved October 15, 2013. Cite error: The named reference "Heo" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  98. ^ "Second Book of Hyeonjong, Year 1 (1660)/ Seventeenth year of the Qing Emperor Shunzhi) March 21 in the lunar calendar/first article". Retrieved October 19, 2013. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  99. ^ Park Sibaek's Annals of the Joseon Dynasty-Hyojong and Hyeonjong. Humanist. p. 118. ISBN 9788958622666.
  100. ^ Park Sibaek's Annals of the Joseon Dynasty-Hyojong and Hyeonjong. Humanist. p. 121. ISBN 9788958622666.
  101. ^ a b c d e "Second Book of Hyeonjong, Year 1 (1660)/ Seventeenth year of the Qing Emperor Shunzhi) April 16 in the lunar calendar/fourth article". Retrieved October 20, 2013.
  102. ^ a b c Park Sibaek's Annals of the Joseon Dynasty-Hyojong and Hyeonjong. Humanist. p. 122. ISBN 9788958622666.
  103. ^ a b Park Sibaek's Annals of the Joseon Dynasty-Hyojong and Hyeonjong. Humanist. p. 125. ISBN 9788958622666.
  104. ^ a b Yi Deok-il. 조선왕 독살사건. ISBN 9788993285727.
  105. ^ "Korean Encyber-윤선도". Retrieved October 29, 2013.
  106. ^ a b c Park Sibaek's Annals of the Joseon Dynasty-Hyojong and Hyeonjong. Humanist. p. 126. ISBN 9788958622666.
  107. ^ Han Seong-hui (May 7, 2007). "OhMyNews-신하가 임금에게 야박하게 굴었던 예송논쟁".
  108. ^ Sejong the Great Memorial Association. "국역 국조인물고-윤선도". Retrieved November 3, 2013. {{cite web}}: External link in |author= (help)
  109. ^ "Annals of the Joseon Dynasty, Book 2 of Hyeonjong, 1660 April 30, first article". Retrieved November 3, 2013.
  110. ^ Park Sibaek's Annals of the Joseon Dynasty-Hyojong and Hyeonjong. Humanist. p. 132. ISBN 9788958622666.
  111. ^ "Second Book of Hyeonjong, Year 1 (1660)/ Seventeenth year of the Qing Emperor Shunzhi) April 24 in the lunar calendar/third article". Retrieved January 2, 2014. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  112. ^ Park Sibaek's Annals of the Joseon Dynasty-Hyojong and Hyeonjong. Humanist. p. 132. ISBN 9788958622666.
  113. ^ Cite error: The named reference klkkkk was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  114. ^ "Second Book of Hyeonjong, Year 1 (1660)/ Seventeenth year of the Qing Emperor Shunzhi) May 3 in the lunar calendar/second article". Retrieved January 2, 2014. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  115. ^ Park Sibaek's Annals of the Joseon Dynasty-Hyojong and Hyeonjong. Humanist. p. 133. ISBN 9788958622666.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Seonookim/Westerners_(Korean_political_faction)&oldid=1045005742"