NOTES TO CHAPTER 6 r06r- Cho Ik. P'ojojip, I3, pyont'ong kunjong i:ii sangch'a, cited in Hiraki. "1i:ishichi-
hachi seiki nuryosai," p. 50. This source was not available to me. - MHBG 162:23b-24a; Hyonjong sillok 2o:2ob-2 1 a, which only refers to Song's
recommendation: Song SiyCll, Songja taejon [The great works of Master Song 1 (Taej6n:
Namyun chongsa, 1927) 13:32b-33a. It appears that the first concrete proposal to a king
for adoption of the matrilineal rule was made in 1657 by the governor of Ch'ungeh'6ng
province, Yi Ky6ng'6k, to King Hyojong, but it was not accepted. The account in the
Chtlngbo munhonbigo states that Yi recommended that sons of mixed marriages adopt
their father's service or status, and that daughters adopt their mother's; also that the king
approved and a set of regulations were drawn up on this basis. But King Hy6njong's ref-
erence to Yi's proposal in 1669 noted that it was aimed at adoption of the matrilineal rule
for sons as well as daughters of official or private male slaves and their commoner wives,
the same plan as that ofYulgok, which was blocked by the State Council (Myodang).
Shikata noted that neither the law code of 1744, the Soktaejoll. nor subsequent notices
in the MUllhlinhigo mentioned the adoption of any rule in 1657. Shikata Hiroshi. "Richo
jinko ni kansuru ichi kenkyu" IA study ofYi dynasty population], in idem. Ch(ist'll shakai
hi5seishi kellkya rStudies in the social and legal history of Korea I (Tokyo: Iwanami shoten,
1937):35 2 -53. - The Soktaejon states that the matrilineal rule was adopted in 1669. rescinded in
- readopted in r68r and rescinded in 1689. but Hiraki has found that readoption was
only proposed in r681 and not promulgated until 1684. Soktaejon [Dynastic code, con-
tinued] (Keijo: Chosen Sotokufu Chusuin. 1935), p. 436; SukchOng sillok, Sukehong
ro. IO.i:irmyo; Hiraki, "1i:ishichi-haehi seiki ni okeru nuryosai," pp. 45-75; see pp. 53-54
for discussion of the r 684 date. On the matter of H6 ChOk's attitude, Yi Sangbaek believed
that even though H6 Ch6k agreed to Song Siy61's proposal for the matrilineal law in 1669,
he secretly opposed it. By asking that the matter be turned over to the fan'ill for discus-
sion shows that he was trying to avoid responsibility. Yi Sangbaek. "Ch'iinja sumogo,"
PP·173-74·
Ch6n Hy6ngt'aek adopted the rather simple line that Song Siy61, as a follower ofYul-
gok, favored adoption of the matrilineal rule as a means of expanding the commoner
population because he and the Westerners (and the Westerner splinter Disciple's Faction,
the Noron) represented not only the more practical orientation of Yulgok but the inter-
ests of large absentee landlords in the Kiho area (Ky6nggi and Ch'ungch'6ng) provinces
who were satisfied with cultivating their estates with tenants and hired labor (not slaves).
He hlamed the Southerners like H6 Ch6k for opposing the matrilineal law and defend-
ing the interests of the slaveowners and the defense of social status (myongbun) because
they supposedly represented the idealist and moralistic wing of Neo-Confucian thought
sponsored hy T'oegye (Yi Hwang), and because they represented the small holding yang-
ban of Ky6ngsang Province who relied on their outside resident slaves for cultivation.
This formulation. however. is not proved by any demonstration about the nature of the
yangban landowners in the three provinces or any differing degree of dependence on
slave labor. And he docs not mention that H6 Ch6k supported the matrilineal law prior
to r672. He also noted that the Sirhak scholars like Yu Hy6ngwCin, Tasan. and others,
while connected to the splinter factions of the Easterners, did favor the matrilineal reform