『桐巢漫錄』이 재조명한 許積의 면모와 그 의도

Abstract

Heo Jeok led the Nam-in(南人) faction during the early days of King Sukjong's reign. But he lost power to the Seo-in(西人) faction due to the GyeongsinHwanguk(庚申換局). Not only was he a political adversary of Seo-in, also faced criticism from Nam-in for causing its internal division. Existing studies have focused on the author's political theory contained within the whole documents. In the case of Nam-in, we have to identify the author's perspectives that differ depending on an individual or an event, as well as the narrative styles that support his perspectives. Because the factionalism of the Cheong-nam(淸南), who followed Heo Mok, and the Tak-nam(濁南), who followed Heo Jeok, influences both the authors and the object person. So, the analysis of the article on Heo Jeok in the Nam-in's represen-tative party doctrine texts 『Dongso-Manrok(桐巢漫錄)』, reveals that Nam Ha-jeong emphasized Heo Jeok's practical skills and schemes of Seo-in, while maintaining a thorough silence about the internal issues. The intention was to highlight the diagnosis that there was a lack of practical talents during Nam Ha-jeong's time, and to overcome their internal strife that had recurred from Cheong-nam‧Tak-nam. It is a contemplation on the questions of who the true enemy is and what the purpose of the struggle is. This intention was realized in both literature and politics, opposing the mainstream who branded Heo Jeok as a traitor. Particularly, whenever Nam-in created another ‘Cheong-nam’‧‘Tak-nam’ and experienced internal divisions itself, the voice of Nam Ha-jeong, who attempted to reconcile the factional conflicts, was naturally invoked. Through this study, we can identify instances in which the author has realized certain intentions aimed at contemporary politics and society by invoking a figures from the past. Also it has demonstrated that the internal strife, which originated from the factions of Cheong-nam and Tak-nam, continued to recur throughout the history of the Nam-in. For Nam-in, the issue regarding Cheong-nam and Tak-nam was a dilemma. It was both the sole experience of governance and a tragic self-destruction. We need to inquiry how they reconcile and elucidate this issue.