Difference between revisions of "(Translation) 麗史提綱"

From 장서각위키
Jump to: navigation, search
(Original Script)
 
Line 9: Line 9:
 
|Year = 1667
 
|Year = 1667
 
|Key Concepts= History
 
|Key Concepts= History
|Translator = [[2017 Summer Hanmun Workshop (Advanced)#수강생 | Participants of 2017 Summer Hanmun Workshop (Advanced Translation Group)]]
+
|Translator = King Kwong Wong [[2017 Summer Hanmun Workshop (Advanced)#수강생 | Participants of 2017 Summer Hanmun Workshop (Advanced Translation Group)]]
 
|Editor = King Kwong Wong
 
|Editor = King Kwong Wong
 
|Translation Year = 2017
 
|Translation Year = 2017

Latest revision as of 15:31, 23 November 2020



Introduction

The Yŏsa chegang 麗史提綱 (the Annotated Outline of Koryŏ History), compiled by Yu Kye 兪棨 (1607-1664), was published in 1667, three years after the compiler’s death. It seems, according to the preface written by Song Si-yŏl 宋時烈 (1607-1689), Yu Kye was unable to publish the history book before he died, and so he helped the publication. The history book has a total of 23 volumes, covering the history of Koryŏ from the beginning of T’aejo 太祖’s reign (r. 918-943) to the reign of King Ch’ang 昌王 (r. 1388-1389). Interestingly, the reign of King Kongyang 恭讓王 (r.1389-1392) is left out from this history. As the preface and explanatory notes state, the historiographical genre of the book follows that of Zhu Xi朱熹 (1130-1200)’s Zizhi tongjian gangmu 資治通鑑綱目 (the Annotated Outline of the Comprehensive Mirror) – the kangmok 綱目 (Ch. gangmu, annotated outline).

With the rising prominence of Confucian-minded literati at the court, the Chosŏn state (1392-1910) put great emphasis on the writing of history. As early as the beginning of the dynasty, the state had already commissioned several historical texts, notably: the Koryŏsa 高麗史 (the History of Koryŏ) in 1451, the Koryŏsa chŏryo 高麗史節要 (Essentials of Koryŏ History) in 1452, and in 1486 the Tongguk t’onggam 東國通鑑 (the Comprehensive Mirror of the Eastern Country), which was modeled on the Northern Song historian Sima Guang 司馬光 (1019-1086)’s Zizhi tongjian 資治通鑑 (the Comprehensive Mirror to Aid in Governance).[1] Beside the state-endorsed historical works, a new historiographical trend began to develop in the sixteenth century. Private compilation of history, such as Pak Sang 朴祥 (1474-1530)’s Tongguk saryak 東國史略 (the Abridged History of the Eastern Country) and O Un 吳澐 (1540-1617)’s Tongsa ch'anyo 東史纂要 (the Compendium of the History of the East) marked this trend. And along this trend was the rise of Zhu Xi’s historiography starting from the seventeenth century.[2]

The Yŏsa chegang, thus, can be seen as a product of the historiographical development in the Chosŏn period. But more importantly, what underlay this historical trend was the Confucian view of history. Particularly, the praise and criticism on the kings and officials of the Tongguk t’onggam reflects the Neo-Confucian historiography that influenced later historical writings, including Yu Kye’s own Yŏsa chegang.[3] As he explains it in the explanatory notes, Yu Kye, however, used another form of historiography that was advocated by the Neo-Confucian Zhu Xi to advance his Neo-Confucian view of history. But this change of using a different historical genre had no bearing on the general Confucian view of history as he retains the praise and criticism of his predecessors. Furthermore, the various comments made by Song Si-yŏl in his preface regarding the downfall of the Koryŏ dynasty also reflect his Neo-Confucian view of history.

One of the reasons that Yu Kye disregarded the previous t’onggam historiographical genre when compiling the Yŏsa chegang was to facilitate the study of history. In this regard, it seems he was successful as later King Yŏngjo 英祖 (r. 1774-1776) studied it in his royal lectures, although it was not presented to the monarch during his lifetime.[4] The list of historical works that the monarch read included some of the t’onggam and kangmok works mentioned above, alongside with other Confucian classics.[5] The study of history, particularly the Neo-Confucian vision of history, was thus essential to the upbringing of the monarch as the case of Yŏngjo shows.

Since historical learning had a major bearing on the monarch, it was Song Si-yŏl’s imperative to recommend Yu Kye’s historical work to be presented to the Chosŏn king. Aside from this reason, Song Si-yŏl’s preface also reveals his political stance in the interstate relations between Chosŏn and the Qing dynasty (1636-1912). In the preface, he expresses his disgust to the marriage between Koryŏ and the Yuan dynasty (1271-1368), and at the same time his approval to the relations between Koryŏ and the Song dynasty (960-1276). This can be seen as a parallel of the struggle between the Ming dynasty (1368-1644), the Manchus, and Chosŏn in Northeast Asia in the early seventeenth century as the situations then were similar: the Koryŏ-Song relations symbolize the Chosŏn-Ming while the Koryŏ-Yuan relations symbolize the Chosŏn-Qing. Considering the fact that Song Si-yŏl was a hardliner of pro-Ming policy in the Chosŏn court throughout his official career and that the last Manchu invasion was merely 30 years prior to the publication, anti-Qing sentiment remained prominent in the court albeit the Ming was destroyed 23 years ago. Therefore Song Si-yŏl’s comment in the preface is politically charged as he hoped that unlike the late Koryŏ which sided with the Yuan, the Chosŏn state should follow the example of early Koryŏ, upholding the moral principle – an essential concept of Neo-Confucianism.

Original Script

Classical Chinese English

麗史提綱 序


高麗史凡一百三十七卷,有世家有列傳,有志有表,辭事散出,不可領要,市南兪公棨爲是之病。略依朱子凡例,表年著統,大書提要。而又分註以備事,總十二卷,名曰麗史提綱。嗚呼,欲知麗氏始終者,觀於是而可以如指掌矣。蓋嘗論之,麗祖之功,可謂盛矣,其歷世至於四百七十年之多無怪也。然四百七十年之間,治日絶少而亂日甚多。至於中葉以後則其亂尤甚矣。然究其所以然,則莫不由荒怠淫佚,以喪其修齊之道,故卒爲倫綱弗正(夷狄禽獸)之歸。逮自宣惠以後,則又自以爲結親胡元,可恃以爲安,而無意於自治。故卒至父子相圖,君臣相譖,妃匹亦相恨訟其君。若漂偶凍雀之可哀,其綿延歲年者,特貞疾不死之象爾。且如南海之揭陽,韓文公尙以爲遠惡。,至有黃陵之禱。而顧乃以千乘之君,只與數十傔徒,投畀於此,而卒死於道路。至於吐蕃之謫,則又不忍言矣。羯羠之愛,其可恃哉。故麗氏歷世之多,不若不多之爲愈也。然南宋之人,尙稱其風俗之好何也。蓋當夷虜充塞之時,以嘗臣服於宋朝也。艱關海陸,朝聘猶通,又嘗求醫,密效忠款,此實天理之不泯者。故時有禮義之俗,而見稱於中朝如此。且受其臣忠義之報,前有李益齋諸公,後有鄭圃隱諸賢,其事跡昭著。此皆屢書而不一書者也,豈所謂積陰之中,陽未嘗無者耶。蓋嘗聞大綱槩擧而鑑戒著矣。兪公此書,殆庶幾焉。昔司馬公編進資治通鑑,揆其名義,蓋欲資世治而通爲後鑑也。兪公用心之勤,未必不出於此。而惜乎,未及奏御也。然此書終不可私也。儻有天幸,得蒙睿覽,則其有助於聖朝之鑑戒也,豈其少哉。語曰法後王何也,以其近也。然則其所不可法者,亦當愈近而愈爲戒也。愚旣爲是說,以列篇首,而因有所感焉。夫高麗以東表偏服,距全閩萬有餘里。而其見稱於朱夫子者甚詳,其爲榮耀,豈止如華衮而已。而爲麗史者乃無一言以爲引重者,豈當時文獻不足而然歟。我朝風敎,專尙洛建,一變麗俗,使當朱子之世,則其所稱道,又當如何。而謂今日又以爲如何也,竊不勝慨然太息。而因掇麗朝之猥見稱說者數條,隨類附見,使覽者有考焉。嗚呼,九原可作則市南公亦必莞爾而笑也。崇禎丁未元月二十六日。恩津宋時烈序。

Preface of the Annotated Outline of Koryŏ History


The History of Koryŏ has a total of 137 chapters. It has annals, biographies, treatises and tables. Speeches and events appear scattered; one cannot comprehend its essence. The Honorable Sinam Yu Kye saw it as a shortcoming. He roughly followed Master Zhu's[6] standard to lay out the chronicle and manifest legitimacy: the great scripts raise the outlines and then the annotations complete those that are left out. The book has a total of 12 volumes and is named the Annotated Outline of Koryŏ History. Alas! If one wants to know the rise and fall of the Koryŏ dynasty, read this book then one will know it like looking at one’s palm and fingers. Let me try to discuss it. The achievements of Koryŏ T'aejo can be said to be many, so it is not surprising that his dynasty experienced as many as 470 of years. But during these 470 years, peaceful and prosperous days were extremely rare, and yet days in disorder were excessively many. After the middle period, its chaos was especially severe. Nevertheless, investigating its cause, it was none other than the negligence [in governance] and debauchery, so as to lose the way of self-cultivation. Therefore, it returned to the state where the cardinal virtues and relationships were not properly manifested. Ever since the period after Sŏn and Hye,[7] by marrying with the barbaric Yuan, the kings presumed that they were able to rely on this security, and had no intention of self-governing. Eventually, this led to father and son plotting against each other, ruler and ministers slandering each other, husband and wife also hating each other and bringing their dispute to the court. This resembles the misery of a freezing lone wandering bird, which lingers for years, and matches the sign of one suffering from chronic illness and yet lives on without dying.[8] In addition, places like Jieyang of the Southern Sea,[9] even the Honorable Han Wen[10] hated it because of its remoteness, thus led to his prayer at the Huangling Temple.[11] And looking back, there was once a ruler of thousand chariots, with several dozens of servants, was exiled there, and eventually died on his way.[12] As for the banishment to Tubo[13], I cannot not bear to speak about it. The love from the northern barbarian, therefore, can we rely on it? Thus on the many cases throughout Koryŏ’s generations, it would be better if it is not as many. However, people of the Southern Song still regarded their social custom as good. Why? It is because when the foreign barbarians dominated the frontiers, they submitted to the Song dynasty. On land and in sea, the frontiers were difficult. Yet, diplomatic communications were just as open [as before], even once seeking physician for medical treatment, secretly rendering their real sentiment. This is truly the moral principle that will not perish. As a result, sometime their ritual and moral customs were praised in the central court. In addition, the central court received the reciprocation of loyalty and righteousness from their ministers: previously there were Yi Ikchae[14] and the other honorables, and later there were Chŏng P'oŭn[15] and the other worthies. Their deeds were remarkable. These are all men who deserve to be written not just one but many times. How is this the case that amidst the prominence of negative energy, positive energy could not have existed? I once heard that when the great outline is roughly brought up, then admonishment will be manifested.[16] This book of the Honorable Yu has almost the same intent. In the past, the Honorable Sima[17] presented the Comprehensive Mirror to Aid in Governance. Judging from its name and its meaning, it aims to aid the governance of the world and be comprehensive to act as a mirror for posterity. The Honorable Yu’s diligent intention, goes without saying, came from this [same intention of Sima Guang]. Alas! It is a pity that [his work] is yet to be presented to His Majesty. This book after all should not be kept in secret. If it has the heavenly favor that it receives the keen reading by His Majesty, then it will help His royal court to reflect on admonitions. There is a saying: “why should one follow rulers of later generations? It is because of their timeliness.”[18] Then, as for those of whom should not be followed, one should of course take the more recent ones as better admonitions. I humbly made this speech and laid it out in the beginning of this book because I was moved. Our Koryŏ, outlying to the east, submitted and was afar from the whole Min[19] ten thousand or so ri. But its praise received from Master Zhu is very detailed. This is honor and glory, not just an empty ceremonial dress. On the other hand, those who work on the history of Koryŏ do not even think there is a single word that can be drawn and regarded as important. How is this the case that there is no sufficient documents of that time? The morals of our dynasty focused on revering the establishment of the Central Plain. This totally transformed the custom of Koryŏ. Then what about those of which being praised during Master Zhu’s generation? And how they were perceived nowadays? I cannot stand but secretly sigh deeply with a heavy heart. Therefore, I gather several examples of which people praised about the Koryŏ dynasty and arrange them into categories so that readers can verify. Alas! If the Honorable Sinam can write in the netherworld, then he must have smiled. On the twenty-sixth day of the first month of the dingwei year of Chongzhen,[20] Song Si-yŏl of Ŭnjin prefaced.

麗史提綱 凡例


我東方自箕子以後即有文字,而載籍無徵。三國分爭,各有文史,然亦多不傳。金富軾撰三國史,所載類皆荒誕,不足憑信。且世代遼遠,國政沿革人物出處無可考信。故今斷自高麗太祖即位之後,編年作書,名以麗史提綱。

麗史蓋倣歷代全史之體,故其世家則只載年月綱領而已。其餘國政沿革人物出處可鑑可戒者,皆散在雜志列傳之中。學者乍見漫不省,先後次序雖曰一書而其實三書也。且卷秩甚多,披覽未半,輒至厭倦,吳氏澐爲是之病作纂要以便觀覽,而但紀年則所戴太略事實之可攷者,盡在列傳,是亦未免一冊而二書,參考之難猶夫前也。通鑑雖湊合成書而既無綱目之別、編年之次,觀者亦無以挈其綱要。今姑取麗史世家綱領及諸書特,筆者為之綱,旁搜列傳雜志及諸書中事迹,以為目,而分注其下。雖世家所不載而必當立綱處,則亦別立綱而注其事。至於筆法褒眨,則略倣舊史不敢以妄意多所增損。

本國雖歲奉中國正朔,而此書乃本國私紀,故以本國紀年而分注中國年號於其下。且書甲子於逐年之上行外以表之。無取其見於宋史者以訂其異同。

此書雖起自麗祖之即位,而當時新羅、百濟尚存,故麗祖統合以前,則用綱目無統例列書三國於甲子下。但麗濟皆本於羅,故略用君臣之例。

編年之際、或春無可紀之事,則首書夏夏秋冬亦然。若一年全無可紀之事,則袛書年以表之而已,不敢依春秋。雖無事而必書春秋以成歲之例。

凡一歲中但用月分編窆而已,不敢用春秋以日紀事之例。

凡注事於綱領之下,皆旁搜諸書考訂日月。至於日月不可考而事不可不紀者,及人物行迹相隣而無甚異同者,則不立綱而只以類附見焉。

凡列傳雜志中但紀其年而無日月可考者,則不得已於逐年之末立綱以見焉。

凡稱宗,稱陛下、太后、太子、節日詔制之類,雖涉僣偽,今不可盡行刪削,故只仍當時所稱。

禑昌紀年只仍吳氏纂要之例,不敢有所改易。

凡事大交隣、朝聘往來,雖煩必書。天灾時變雖不可盡書,而如日食、地震、彗孛、飛流之類,雖煩必書。至於星辰晝見風雷霜雹人妖物恠等,則只書其特異者焉。

如燃燈八關醮祀等事,及其餘歷代例行而不可盡紀者,則只於始見處並著其首末。

凡事有相連不可分紀者,則或於首起處終言之,使無散漫。

凡除拜國相,雖煩必書。如君子小人表表用舍之處,則雖非相職亦書。

凡人物事迹隨事編摩,而其有遺漏者,則收入於書卒之下。

凡官制沿革各隨當時所稱而書之。

凡州縣名號各注今名於其下,而不可考者則闕之。

凡讖緯不經荒誕鄙俗之說,今皆刪去,衹存其近實者。

凡有可疑不可為典要者,則分注錄之,以附傳疑之義。

凡諸書中先儒及史家評論間取而芟載之。當時史官則稱史臣,後日撰史時諸臣則稱史氏。若其人姓名可考者,則皆書某氏某。

凡文字艱澁難有差謬可疑處,不敢輒改並仍其舊。

凡附愚見處,則以按字別之,而圈其上。

Explanatory Notes on the Usage of the Annotated Outline of Koryŏ History


Since [the time of] Kija, our Land of the East had writing and script, but there was no trace of records. The Three Kingdoms competed with each other. Each had their own writings and histories, and yet most were not passed on. Kim Pusik compiled the Historical Records of the Three Kingdoms[21], in which the records and the likes are all ridiculous and untrustworthy. Besides, its age was faraway, so there was no way to verify the development of state affairs, and the appointment and retirement of personalities. Thereupon, I divided [the history] from the enthronement of Koryŏ T'aejo, chronicled the events in a book, and named it the Annotated Outline of Koryŏ History.

The History of Koryŏ[22] imitates the style of previous dynastic histories, thus its annals only record the gist of years and months. The rest – the development of state affairs and the appointment and retirement of personalities – which are worthy to reflect upon and to heed as admonishment, are all scattered amid various treatises and biographies. Scholars, at first glance, see [them] all over the place; it is not easy [to read]. Although the sequence [of events] is said to be [contained] in a book, in fact, it is in three. In addition, the number of volume is too many. Perusing not even half of the content, [one] often already feels disgusted and weary. Because of this shortcoming, Mister O Un wrote the Compendium[23], so as to facilitate the observation and reading [of histories]. However, the passages recorded in the annals are too brief, and the verifiable facts are all recorded in the biographies. Thence, it cannot escape [the shortcoming of] being a volume and yet two forms of writing. The difficulty to examine and study [histories] resembles the former. Although the Comprehensive Mirror[24] gathers together histories in one book, it neither distinguishes between the key points and details nor has the order of annals. Readers thus have no way to grasp its essence. Now the author tentatively took the essence of the History of Koryŏ and various books as outlines, and widely searched through the biographies and various treatises for facts and deeds as details, which were separately annotated underneath the outlines. Although they are not recorded in the annals, for those which should be established as outlines, outlines were separately established and annotated. As for writing the judgment of praise and criticism, the author roughly imitates histories of the past and dares not rashly subjoin or reduce.

Our country although yearly receives the calendar from the Middle Kingdom, since this book is private annals of our country, the year of our country was thus written and the reign title of the Middle Kingdom was annotated underneath. Besides, the kapcha sixty-year cycle was written and displayed above each year, outside of the column. Views from the History of the Song were not taken so as to discern the differences and similarities.

Although this book starts from the enthronement of Koryŏ T'aejo, since at that time Silla and Paekche still existed, for this reason before T'aejo of Koryŏ united the country, the rule of non-unification from the kangmok[25] was used to list the Three Kingdoms under the sixty-year cycle. However, Koryŏ and Paekche were originated from Silla, hence the regulation of ruler and ministers was roughly used.

In between the years, or if there was nothing to record in Spring, then [the event of] Summer is first written, if not, Autumn, and then Winter. If a year did not have anything to record, then only the year was written to display it. The author dared not follow the Spring and Autumn [Annals] - even if there was no affair, Spring and Autumn were written to display the year.

For each year, the events were only separated and chronicled monthly, and the author dared not use the standard of the Spring and Autumn to record events daily.

For the annotations under the outlines, all were widely investigated from various documents to revise their month and day. As for those which cannot be left unrecorded and yet their dates cannot be verified, as well as those recording personalities whose deeds were similar and adjacent to each other, then outlines were not established but their kinds are grouped so that they can be viewed [together].

For those of which only their years were recorded in biographies and various treatises, and their dates cannot be verified, then outlines were established at the end of each year so that they can be seen.

Whenever the king’s temple name contains chong, he was addressed as Your Majesty, [his mother] queen dowager, [his heir apparent] crown prince, [his birthday] festival, [his instruction] decree, and so on. Although these amount to usurpation, now they cannot be totally erased, so their names at that time were kept.

For the annals of [King] U and [King] Ch'ang, the author only followed the example of Mister O’s Compendium and dared not have any alterations and changes.

For [the events related to] “serving the great” and amicable diplomacy with neighbors, and the reception and dispatch of diplomatic envoys even they are trivial, all were recorded. Not all natural disasters and change of time were written. Yet for those like solar eclipse, earthquake, and flying of comets, albeit trivial all were recorded. As for sighting of constellation during daytime, gale, thunder, frost and hail, human demons and supernatural spirits, and so on, only those which were peculiar and distinctive are written.

For yŏndŭng and p’algwan,[26] as well as sacrificial offerings and the rest of the routines of the past dynasties which cannot be all recorded, their courses of event were recorded only on their first appearance.

For the events which were linked together and cannot be separated in different annals, then their conclusions were written at where they are started, so that they are not scattered.

For the dismissal and appointment of prime minister, albeit trivial all were recorded. As for the occasion where the honorable men and lesser men were distinctively appointed or retired, even their posts were not comparable to that of the prime minister, they were recorded.

For personalities and their deeds, all were compiled according to the events. As for those that were left out, then they were collected at the end of the book.

For the development of the official institution, all were written according to their names at that time.

For the names of county and prefecture, all were annotated with their current name underneath. As for those which cannot be verified, they are omitted.

For divinations and abnormal, ridiculous and vulgar speeches, all were now removed. Only those which were close to the reality were kept.

For those dubious occasion which cannot become the standard, all were separated in annotation, so as to attach the meaning of doubt.

For the comments of previous Confucians and historians amid various documents, all were selected, weeded out and recorded. Court historiographer at that time are called official historian, the various officials of later period who authored histories are called mister historian. If their names are verifiable, they were all written in this format: Mister, their family names, then followed by their personal names.

Whenever the words are difficult and obscure, which hardly have any erroneous and questionable occasions, the author dared not absurdly alter and thus keep them in their original.

Whenever the author attached his humble opinions, they were marked by the character an with a circle above.

  • Discussion Questions:

Further Readings

Ch'oe Yong-ho. “An Outline History of Korean Historiography.” Korean Studies 4 (1980): 1-27.

Chŏng Ku-bok. “Traditional Historical Consciousness and Historiography.” In Introduction to Korean Studies. Seoul: The National Academy of Sciences, 1986.

Haboush, JaHyun Kim. “Confucian Rhetoric and Ritual as Techniques of Political Dominance: Yŏngjo's Use of the Royal Lecture.” The Journal of Korean Studies 5 (1984): 39-62.

Zhu Xi. Chachʻi tʻonggam kangmok 資治通鑑綱目. Seoul: Pogyŏng Munhwasa, 1987.

———. Zhouyi benyi 周易本義. Beijing: Beijing daxue chubanshe, 1992.
  1. Ch'oe, “An Outline History of Korean Historiography,” 11.
  2. Chŏng, “Traditional Historical Consciousness and Historiography,” 131-132.
  3. Ibid., 129.
  4. Haboush, “Confucian Rhetoric and Ritual,” 59.
  5. Ibid., 55-59.
  6. Zhu Xi 朱熹 (1130-1200), one of the founding fathers of the Neo-Confucian school in the late Southern Song period.
  7. Refers to King Ch’ungsŏn 忠宣王 (r. 1298, 1308-1313) and King Ch’unghye 忠惠王 (r. 1330-1332, 1339-1344), who were respectively the second and the fourth king married a Mongol princess.
  8. This is a sign from the Book of Change 易經 (Yijing), Hexagram 16, Yin in Fifth Place. Zhu Xi comments on the sign as follows: the chronic illness means the state of being in the danger of indulging pleasure by a false sense of elation, and yet by remaining steadfast at the center one survives. See Zhu Xi, Zhouyi benyi 周易本義 (the Original Meaning of the Book of Change).
  9. Jieyang is in nowadays eastern part of Guangdong province of China.
  10. Wen was the posthumous appellation of Han Yu 韓愈 (768-824), a poet and official of the Tang dynasty (618-907).
  11. This refers to Han Yu’s exile to Chaozhou 潮州 in 819, see his work “Stele of Huangling Temple 黃陵廟碑.” Han Yu was twice exiled to Guangdong and left a couple of works expressing his distaste of this region.
  12. This refers to King Ch’unghye’s banishment by the Yuan in 1344.
  13. This refers to King Ch’ungsŏn’s exile between 1320 and 1324. See also Yŏsa chegang’s entry at Chapter 18 “忠惠王後紀 四年十二月” for a similar commentary on Ch’ungsŏn’s and Ch’unghye’s exiles.
  14. Ikchae was Yi Che-hyŏn 李齊賢 (1287-1367)’s pen name.
  15. P'oŭn was Chŏng Mong-ju 鄭夢周 (1337-1392)’s pen name.
  16. This refers to Zhu Xi’s comment in his preface of Zizhi tongjian gangmu 資治通鑑綱目 (the Annotated Outline of the Comprehensive Mirror).
  17. Sima Guang 司馬光 (1019-1086), a politician and historian of the Northern Song period (960-1127).
  18. This is Sima Qian’s 司馬遷 (c. 145-86 BCE) comment on Xunzi’s 荀子 (c. 313-238 BCE) idea of “following rulers of later generations.” See Shiji 史記, Chapter 15.
  19. Nowadays Fujian province of China. Zhu Xi was born in the Min region and served as an official there.
  20. Chongzhen (r. 1627-1644) was the reign title of the last Ming (1368-1644) emperor. The Chosŏn (1392-1910) state still used the Ming reign title to record time even after the Ming fell in 1644.
  21. Samguk sagi 三國史記
  22. Koryŏsa 高麗史
  23. O Un 吳澐 (1540-1617) completed Tongsa ch'anyo 東史纂要 (Compendium of the History of the East) in 1606.
  24. Tongguk T’onggum 東國通鑑 (Comprehensive Mirror of the Eastern Country)
  25. Kangmok 綱目 (annotated outline), a genre of historical writing.
  26. Both Buddhist ceremonies, respectively the Festival of Lotus Lantern and the Festival of Eight Precepts.