「幄對說話」의 사실성과 의미

Abstract

This thesis is a study on the 「Akdeaselwha(幄對說話)」 of Woo-am(尤庵), Song Si-yeol(宋時烈). He was a politician and litterateur in Chosun Dynasty in the 17th century. There are a variety of recorded materials which was written of various historic events in the Chosun Dynasty after the Japanese Invasion of Korea in (1592～1598) and the Manchu Invasion of Korea in (1627～1636). Especially it is great interest in the truth and authenticity of the records about a fierce political dispute between parties to the throne those days. the same events were written by different views. King HyoJong(孝宗) has subjugated the north since the Manchu Invasion of Korea in (1627～1636) and secretly met Song Si-yeol who a leader of Seoin(西人). But the contents of the secret meetings recorded by the participants always made a debate and controversy over the authenticity. Song Si-yeol suddenly had an exclusive interview with King HyoJong on March 11th 1659, it’s called the 「Gyheadokdea(己亥獨對)」. It was a biggest event and one of the big variables. On the following day He recorded the conversations were kept in secret, titled it the 「Akdeaselwha」. The 「Akdeaselwha」 consists of content of the interview and name origins and inheritance, it was appended the name and inheritance after. The exclusive interview is composed of the four sections. The First, King Hyo -Jong’s will to conquest of the north, the second is Lee Yi(李珥) and Sung Hyon(成渾)’s the problem of 「Munmyoejongsa(文廟從祀)」, the third is Kangbin(姜嬪)’s death in prison, the last is Kim Hyong-uk(金弘郁)’s vindication and reinstatement. The 「Akdeaselwha」 was written and transmitted during the lifetime of Song Si-yeol. In fact, It is possible to doubt its being true, because Song Si-yeol had the interview alone and secretly. However there are some authorities even though having sensitive pro -blems, the 「Akdeaselwha」 has been spread in his life, and he stated that he wrote it immediately after the interview. Also relatively it can be seen to include the situation and the similarity at the time. It’s not had any reason to be refutable as yet.