NOTES TO CHAPTER I I r097ed. Kuksadaesajon [Great dictionary of national history J I (Seoul: Chimun'gak. 1963):285
(hereafter KSDSJ). There does not appear to be any report in the court records of a plot
reported by Kim Yejong in [629.
- SOllgja taej(51l [3:30h-32a.
- Ihid. [3:32a. Song's complaints were echoed by a Sillok historian, so much so that
one wonders if he were not. in fact, a disciple of Song's. "The fact that as hefore vacan-
cies in the ranks of thc Military Training Agency's soldiers caused by deaths or deser-
tions continued to be filled was a major violation of the recommendation that Song Siyol
made to the King. And everyone said that when the recruitments were carried out there
was tremendous resentment and criticism, hut throughout Ho Chok and Yu Hyogyon
assisted in its accomplishment. They could do so because the king's main concern was
with military affairs." Hyolljong sillok [6: [5a. The editor of this volume of the Kuksa
p'yoneh'an wiwonhoe ed., Sin Sokho. commented that the compilation of the Hy(}njong
Sillok hegan in [675. the year after Sukchong came to the throne, when the court was
dominated hy memhers of the Southerner (Namin) faction. the opponents of Song Siyol,
leader of the Westerners at the time. Because of delays the first draft was not completed
until the lifth month of [677. It would appear, however. that the historian in charge of
this section was sympathetic to Song and hostile to the Southerner. Ho Chok. Choson
wangjo sillok 36 (Seoul: Kuksa p'yonch'an wiwonhoe, I (57): [-2. - Songja taejon 13:32b.
- Hyonjong kaesu sillok 24:7b-8a (1671); Hyi5njong sillok I9:2Ib; Ch'a Munsop,
"Klimwiyong ili yon'gu," p. 347. - Hyonjong kaesu sillok 24:20a (167 I). Ch'a Munsop, "Klimwiyong lii yon'gu," p. 347.
- Pibyonsa tungnok 3: 106-07 (167 I): Ch'a Munsop, "Klimwiyong lii yon'gu," pp.
347-4 8.
3 I. HyiJnjollg kai'.llI sil/ok 24:27b-28b (1671); Ch'a Munsop. "Klimwiyong iii yon 'gu:'
P·347·
- For a thorough discussion in English of the issues involved. see JaHyun Kim
Haboush. "A Heritage of Kings: One Man's Monarchy in the Confucian World" (Ph.D.
diss., Columbia University, [(78), pp. 47-55. Haboush points out that Song Siyol's posi-
tion was too challenging to Hyojong's legitimacy to present to the throne, so a different
argument was made to justify a lesser degree of mourning: that Korean law, as opposed
to the I-ii, required only one (instead of three) years' mourning of a wife for all her hus-
band's sons.
The only objection I would raise in Haboush's account is her statement that it was extra-
ordinary that there should have heen any debate over Hyojong's credentials at all. She
ignored the probable poisoning of Crown Prince Sohyon and the setting aside of his heirs
because of King lnjo's suspicion that he was collaborating with the Manchus to gain the
throne for himself. In addition, he wreaked horrible vengeance on Lady Chang and her
family, and he may have set aside Sohyon's sons because of his hatred for the Changs as
well as his suspicions of Sohyon's loyalty. Hahoush states that [njo only hanished the
three sons of Sohyon to eliminate any question of the legitimacy of the newly designated
heir, later King Hyojong. and she suggests that the debate over Hyojong's legitimacy was
only a legal technicality. But if Injo had in fact murdered or ordered the murder of Crown