Abstract
-
Ancient stone inscriptions composed in ancient script 古文字, known as epigraphic rubbings of ancient texts 古文碑帖, are confirmed to have been introduced into Chosŏn in large numbers beginning in the late sixteenth century. The interest in epigraphic rubbings of ancient texts 古文碑帖 during the late Chosŏn period stemmed from the fervent enthusiasm for epigraphy 金石 and epigraphic compilations 金石帖. Starting with the 17th-century envoy mission to Beijing 燕行 led by Rangsŏn’gun Yi U 朗善君 李俁, Chosŏn envoys who admired epigraphy and calligraphy acquired Shiguwen 石鼓文, Shenyubei 神禹碑, and Yishanbei 嶧山碑, thus giving rise to the epigraphy fever 金石熱 beginning in the 17th century, which extended to the domain of epigraphic rubbings of ancient texts 古文碑帖. What is especially noteworthy is that in the late Chosŏn period, epigraphic rubbings of ancient texts 古文碑帖 were not merely briefly described, but rather were subjected to in-depth analysis and decipherment of characters and texts from a philological standpoint.
Shiguwen 石鼓文, the first stone-carved poetic inscription in China, is confirmed to have been introduced already in the 15th century and was brought in repeatedly through 17th to 19th-century envoy missions to Beijing 燕行. Accordingly, Chosŏn literati revealed a general philological consciousness by citing works such as Rixia jiuwen kao 日下舊聞考, Daxing xianzhi 大 興 縣 志, and Dijing jingwu lüe 帝 京 景 物 略 to investigate the textual transmission of the Stone Drums 石鼓. Shenyubei 神禹碑 is presumed to have been introduced during the 16th to 17th centuries, and it is confirmed that a rubbing 拓本 of Shenyubei had already been brought into Chosŏn by 1659, as evidenced through a classical Chinese poem by Yun Hŭk 尹鑴. Hŏ Mok 許穆 (1595–1682) identified the edition of Shenyubei purchased by Yi U, Nam Kŭk’gwan 南克寬 criticized the cultural value of Shenyubei with striking acuity, and Sŏng Haeŭng 成海應 synthesized and organized the theories concerning the transmission and excavation of Shenyubei. Moreover, Chosŏn literati appreciated the aesthetic quality of the calligraphy in the inscription of Yishanbei 嶧山碑 from the early stage of its introduction and actively embraced its calligraphic style 書法, exhibiting a philological attitude regarding issues such as the authenticity and authorship of the stele.
-
Keywords: Epigraphic Rubbings of Ancient Texts, Shiguwen, ShenyubeiYishanbei, Epigraphic Studies
Introduction
Epigraphic rubbings of ancient texts 古文碑帖 are stele rubbings composed in ancient script that faithfully preserve the
graphological structure and artistic value of ancient script and ancient characters. Since the texts in epigraphic rubbings of ancient texts, in terms of their
principles of character construction and
characteral forms, differ entirely from modern Chinese characters, it is necessary to understand the concept and characteristics of ancient script before examining epigraphic rubbings of ancient texts themselves. According to Qiu Xigui 裘錫圭 (2002), the transformation process of Chinese script can be broadly divided into two phases: the ancient character stage 古文字 and the clerical-regular script stage 隸·楷.
1 Historically, the ancient character stage spans from the late Shang 商 period to the Qin 秦 dynasty, and based on formal features, it can be classified into Shang characters, Western Zhou and Spring–Autumn characters 西周春秋 文字, Six States characters 六國 文字, and Qin characters 秦系 文字. These categories encompass script forms such as oracle bone script 甲骨文, bronze inscriptions 金文, large seal script 大篆 (also called Zhouwen 籀文), and small seal script 小篆.
2 Zhang Zhenglang 張政烺 (1988) had also previously discussed the implications of ancient script. He stated that the term refers to the script forms of ancient Chinese characters and, in general, encompasses all scripts used before the Qin empire’s standardization of writing. In its broad sense, ancient script originated in the Shang period and continued to be used thereafter, characterized by its independence from temporal, spatial, or morphological restrictions.
3
Although the corpus of ancient script materials currently unearthed is vast and diverse—including oracle bone inscriptions and bronze inscriptions recorded on ritual vessels such as
ding 鼎,
pan 盤,
gui 簋,
fu 簠, and
jue 爵—the works that exerted profound influence on the history of calligraphy as epigraphic rubbings of ancient texts are limited to
Shiguwen 石鼓文,
Shenyubei 神禹碑, and
Yishanbei 嶧山碑.
4
Meanwhile, epigraphic rubbings of ancient texts written in seal script 篆書 and other styles are thought to have been introduced to the Korean Peninsula relatively late and only began to circulate widely from the Chosŏn dynasty.
5 The imported epigraphic rubbings in ancient script were not only actively embraced as models of calligraphic style but were also utilized as crucial materials for epigraphic studies and philological research. Particularly in the late Chosŏn period, calligraphic styles aspiring to the ancient methods developed in diverse directions. Calligraphers including
Rangsŏn’gun Yi U 朗善君 李俁 (1637–1693) were devoted to the ancient methods of the Wei–Jin 魏晉 period while also according significant importance to earlier epigraphic rubbings of ancient texts. Moreover, as the achievements of epigraphic studies from the Song 宋 (960–1297), Ming 明 (1368–1644), and Qing 清 (1636–1912) dynasties gradually entered Chosŏn and domestic research in epigraphy flourished, understanding of ancient epigraphic characters deepened, leading to the emergence of numerous scholars engaged in the study of epigraphic rubbings of ancient texts.
6
This article therefore aims to examine the interest in epigraphy during the late Chosŏn period, trace the paths by which epigraphic rubbings of ancient texts—such as Shiguwen, Shenyubei, and Yishanbei—were introduced, and investigate how Chosŏn literati in the 17th to 19th centuries received these works in both epigraphic and philological terms.
Enthusiasm for Epigraphic Studies and Interest in Epigraphic Rubbings of Ancient Texts
Epigraphic rubbings of ancient texts served as exemplary models for the study of calligraphy and as important materials for epigraphy. Although they began to be introduced in earnest during the late Chosŏn period, interest in epigraphy had already persisted on the Korean Peninsula beforehand. While it is difficult to determine precisely when this interest arose, the fact that epigraphic materials from ancient times have been transmitted, along with the growing attention to script forms in the late Chosŏn period, suggests that collections of calligraphic models containing the works of renowned historical figures and stele inscriptions composed of assembled characters were in vogue, and the practice of making rubbings was likely widespread.
7
In the early Chosŏn period, interest in epigraphy does not appear to have been particularly pronounced. However, after the widespread destruction of cultural heritage during the Imjin waeran(1592–1598) and the Pyŏngja horan(1636–1637), the literati developed a sense of nostalgia for the Era of King Sŏnjo 宣祖 (1567–1608), a time when literature and the arts had flourished under royal patronage and interest. This trend began in the early 17th century and deepened following the Injo Panjŏng(1623), and the compilation of rubbings of epigraphic texts in the 17th century must be understood within this historical context.
8
Meanwhile, by the mid-17th century, epigraphic texts such as
Jigu lu 集古錄 by Ouyang Xiu 歐陽修 (1007–1072) and
Jinshi lu 金石錄 by Zhao Mingcheng 趙明誠 (1081–1129) had been introduced into Chosŏn. As a result, scholars with antiquarian and broad antiquity-oriented dispositions engaged in highly active stele collecting as a form of aesthetic appreciation. Subsequently, through the Reign of King Sukchong (1674–1720) and particularly following the Reigns of Kings Yŏngjo (1724–1776) and Chŏngjo (1776–1800), epigraphic scholarship came to be pursued in earnest with the reception of Qing-dynasty evidential learning.
9
The representative works on epigraphic texts 金石文 produced in Chosŏn between the 17th and 19th centuries can be summarized as follows.
10
As shown in the table, from the seventeenth century onward, certain royal relatives and Yangban literati of the capital actively engaged in collecting rubbings and conducting philological investigations of epigraphic inscriptions, thereby enthusiastically advancing the study of epigraphy.
Although it is difficult to determine exactly when scholars began to take conscious interest in epigraphy and to approach it with philological rigor, it appears that such efforts began as early as the Koryŏ period. From that time, literati seem to have attempted evidential investigations of Chinese epigraphy. In the late Koryŏ period, Yi Inno 李仁老 (1152–1220), upon reading epigraphic records and poetic writings about the stone drums 石鼓, was so moved that he composed a long poem of twenty rhyming lines
11
The stone drums, located within the temple of Confucius in Qiyang 岐陽, had been transmitted through poetry and writings for nearly two thousand years from the Zhou 周 dynasty to the Tang 唐 dynasty. However, they are scarcely attested in historical records and the writings of the various philosophical schools 諸子百家. Wei Yingwu 韋應物 (737–792), and Han Yu 韓愈 (768–824) were both deeply knowledgeable about antiquity; yet, although they identified these drums as the stele 碣 of King Xuan of Zhou 周宣王 (841–782 BCE), they still recorded them in lyrical verse and analyzed them in full detail. Ouyang Xiu also stated that there were three points of doubt concerning the
Shiguwen. I happened to read his writing yesterday at the calligraphy library, and it struck a chord with me, so I composed a twenty-rhyme poem and await the evaluation of gentlemen of later generations.
12
This record confirms that the
Jigu lu by Ouyang Xiu had already been introduced into Koryŏ and that literati had begun to take interest in Chinese epigraphy recorded therein. Moreover, in the early Chosŏn period, Kim Sishŭp 金時習 (1435–1493) once praised a monk’s calligraphy, stating: “His strange tales are mixed with Daoist philosophy, and his brushwork descends from the
Shiguwen.” From this, it can be inferred that not merely written references to the stones drums but actual rubbings of the
Shiguwen had already been introduced into early Chosŏn. The stele 碣 related to King Xuan’s hunting expedition, found in the
Shiguwen and extensively documented in works such as the
Jigu lu, as well as classical poems on the same theme by poets such as Wei Yingwu, Han Yu, and Su Shi 苏轼 (1037–1101), were widely circulated among the literati of Chosŏn. Thus, it seems that the rubbings of the stone drums, namely the
Shiguwen, had already entered Chosŏn prior to the enthusiasm for epigraphy of the seventeenth century.
13
Unlike the
Shiguwen, which had already been introduced in the early Chosŏn period, the
Yishanbei and
Shenyubei began to be imported later, during the late Chosŏn period through envoys to Beijing. Hong Ŏnch'ung 洪彥忠 (1473–1508) once praised the calligraphy of Yi Chŏng 李正 in
Cheijŏngmun 祭李正文, stating: “Without even soiling his sleeves, he vigorously and convincingly reproduced the
Yishanbei and the
Lanting xu.
14” Likewise, Kwŏn Munhae (1534–1591) pointed out that the transmitted version of the
Yishanbei had lost much of its original authenticity.
15 Meanwhile, records pertaining to epigraphic rubbings of ancient texts begin to appear in literary collections from the seventeenth century onward. That is, from the seventeenth century, epigraphic rubbings of ancient texts began to be introduced in earnest. It may be said that
Rangsŏn’gun Yi U and Hŏ Mok played significant roles in the dissemination and popularization of these rubbings.
Rangsŏn’gun Yi U was the culminating figure in the cultural achievements of seventeenth-century royal relatives of Sŏnjo, building on the tradition of calligraphy and painting collection and artistic sensibilities passed down from Ichŏnggun 義昌君 (1428–1460), Insŏnggun 仁城君 (1588–1628), and Inhŏnggun 仁興君 (1604–1651). Drawing on the scholarly and artistic influence of his father Inhŏnggun, his three envoys to Beijing, and his association with the great scholar Hŏ Mok, he earned renown as a collector and editor of calligraphic and pictorial works. His life illustrates how princes of Sŏnjo families in the seventeenth century accepted and practiced new cultural trends introduced into Chosŏn.
16 Accounts referring to Rangsŏn’gun emphasize his fame as a practitioner of calligraphy, highlighting that he not only authored many stele inscriptions and hanging plaques but also collected and studied historical epigraphic.
17 He organized rubbings of steles and compiled the epigraphic anthology
Taedong kŭmsŏksŏ 大東金石書, and during his missions to Beijing, he purchased Chinese epigraphic compilations and conducted active philological research together with noted scholars such as Hŏ Mok.
Particularly during his 1663 envoy to Beijing, Rangsŏn’gun and his party acquired numerous stele rubbings, including Wang Xizhi’s 王羲之 (303–361)
Shiqiqtie 十七帖,
Shengjiaoxu 聖教序, and
Huangtingjing 黃庭經, as well as Huai Su’s 懷素 (737–799)
Qianziwentie 千字文帖. Among them, the
Shenyubei 神禹碑, said to have been carved during the Xia 夏 dynasty, was introduced to Chosŏn for the first time.
18 This rare example of a stele in ancient script drew widespread attention and played a key role in igniting the enthusiasm for epigraphy and ancient script in late Chosŏn. Hŏ Mok found inspiration in the Chinese epigraphic compilations that Rangsŏn’gun brought back—including the
Shenyubei—and developed his own unique script style.
19 Later scholars continued to conduct philological research on the
Shenyubei.
A royal descendant, Rangsŏn’gun traveled to China as an envoy after the Pyŏngja horan and brought back the seventy-seven characters from the
Nanyue zhishu bei 南嶽治水碑 of the Xia dynasty. As characters in that era were created by modeling the shapes of objects, the script resembled forms such as dragons, snakes, and plants, making it a marvelous trace of antiquity and a genuine artifact of the Three Dynasties 三代. Moreover, Rangsŏn’gun possessed the
Shiguwen by Shi Zhou 史籒 of the Western Zhou 西周 and the
Yishanbei in small seal script by Qin 秦 prime minister Li Si 李斯 (280–208 BCE). Such a collection could only be acquired by one with a profound love of calligraphy.
20
Rangsŏn’gun and Hŏ Mok maintained similar positions in both artistic taste and scholarly interest, particularly sharing a strong enthusiasm for the ancient studies movement of their time. As is well known, Hŏ Mok championed the Xia 夏, Yin 殷, and Zhou 周 dynasties of China as ideal eras and believed that both art and governance should find their direction within them. His collected writings,
Kiyŏn 記言, include multiple anecdotes about his interactions with Rangsŏn’gun, such as Hŏ Mok writing colophons for epigraphic compilations in Rangsŏn’gun's collection or Rangsŏn’gun showing Hŏ Mok stele rubbings.
21
As seen above, Hŏ Mok expressed admiration for Rangsŏn’gun's passion for calligraphy as he introduced the so-called Three Dynasties rubbings—the
Shenyubei,
Shiguwen, and
Yishanbei, representing Xia 夏, Zhou 周, and Qin 秦. Enchanted by the archaic spirit embodied in the Chinese rubbings, Hŏ Mok pursued a return to ancient seal script, thereby challenging the elegant yet aristocratic aesthetics of early Chosŏn typified by the Songsŏlch'e 松雪體 and the superficial emulation of Wang Xizhi’s style dominant in the calligraphic world of late Chosŏn. As a result, he cultivated various ancient seal forms and developed a wholly original script style.
22
In other words, influenced by the scholarly and artistic legacy of his father Inhŏnggun, Rangsŏn’gun in the seventeenth century not only collected and researched Korean epigraphic compilations but also brought Chinese epigraphic rubbings into Chosŏn, thereby creating the objective conditions for the later enthusiasm for epigraphy. Hŏ Mok, by restoring the Three Dynasties rubbings into ancient seal script, developed a new style and played a key role in reviving seal script in the calligraphic world of late Chosŏn.
Furthermore, another contemporary, Kim Suchŭng 金壽增 (1624–1701), who excelled in seal script and reached the realm of Exquisite Subtlety 精妙, devoted himself to collecting Chinese epigraphic compilations and compiled the anthology Kŭmsŏkch’ong 金石叢. He also reprinted the Yishanbei, which had been introduced to Chosŏn, contributing significantly to the spread of seal script rubbings 篆書碑帖. Song Siyŏl 宋時烈 (1607–1689), a leading figure of the Noron faction, also showed considerable interest in the newly introduced epigraphic rubbings in ancient script. Thus, seventeenth-century Chosŏn literati, regardless of political faction, actively engaged with imported Chinese rubbings in ancient script, laying the social foundation for the rise of great collectors of Chinese epigraphic compilations in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
Philological Decipherment of Epigraphic Rubbings of Ancient Texts
Before examining perceptions of epigraphic rubbings of ancient texts in late Chosŏn, it is necessary first to summarize the extant Colophons 題跋, Identifications 識文, and Prefaces 序文 related to these rubbings
.
As seen in the table above, Chosŏn literati left over twenty-one pieces—colophons, identifications, and prefaces—concerning epigraphic rubbings of ancient texts. Before the eighteenth century, they primarily commented on the Shiguwen, Shenyubei, and Yishanbei. It appears that Chosŏn literati maintained sustained interest in these so-called Xia, Zhou, and Qin ancient script rubbings (with seven colophons on the Shenyubei, eight on the Shiguwen, and seven on the Yishanbei). Therefore, the present study analyzes primarily the colophons on the Shiguwen, Shenyubei, and Yishanbei, in order to examine how Chosŏn literati perceived these works from a philological perspective.
As noted above, literati of Korea were already familiar with the stones drums 石鼓 through literary records and poetic writings dating back to the Koryŏ period. The stones drums, which Kang Youwei 康有爲 (1858–1927) referred to as the Zhonghua Diyiguwu 中華第一古物 “First Antiquity of China”, were unearthed in 627 in Chencangshan 陳倉山, located in Fengxiangfu 鳳翔府, and were therefore sometimes referred to as the Chencang Stone Drums 陳倉石鼓. In 1052, Xiang Zhuanshi 向傳師 acquired one of the drums from among the people and, in 1108, transferred it from Jingzhao 京兆 to Bianjing 汴京. In 1127, Jurchens 女眞 placed it in the residence of Wang Xuanwu 汪宣武, and it was later moved to the Daxing fuxue 大興府學.
During the Yuan dynasty, when Yu Ji 虞集 (1272–1348) was serving as a professor at the Dadu Jiaoshou 大都敎授, the drums were again excavated from the mud and placed in front of the Dachengmen 大成門 of the Guoxue 國學. In 1339, Pan Di 潘迪 carved an annotated version (Yinxunwen 音訓文) of the text onto stone, erecting an Annotated Stele” 音訓碑 beside the stones drums. In 1790, the Emperor Qianlong 乾隆 (1736–1795) of the Qing dynasty had replicas made of the stones drums and arranged them alongside the originals in front of the Dachengmen.
23 From 1339 to 1790, drums 1 through 5 were placed on the east side of the Dachengmen, while drums 6 through 10 and the annotated stele were located on the west side. In 1790, a railing was installed outside the building to protect the original drums, and the replicas were placed alongside them.
The complete set of Stone Drums consists of ten individual stones, each inscribed with the
Shiguwen text. These texts record episodes related to fishing and hunting. Each drum is named after the first two characters of the text it bears: Wuche 吾車, Qianyi 汧殹, Tianche 田車, Luanshe 鑾車, Lingyu 霝雨, Zuoyuan 作原, Ershi 而師, Majian 馬薦, Wushui 吾水, and Wuren 吳人
.
The Shiguwen, China’s earliest known stone-inscribed poetic text, attracted the attention of many scholars beginning in the Ming and Qing periods. In the case of Chosŏn, judging from the writings of Kim Sishŭp, rubbings of the Shiguwen appear to have been introduced as early as the fifteenth century. During envoys to Beijing from the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries, Chosŏn envoys either made direct impressions of the Shiguwen’s script or purchased rubbings, resulting in their substantial importation. In other words, while knowledge of the stones drums was widespread in the late Koryŏ period through epigraphic texts and works such as Han Yu’s Shigu ge 石鼓歌, in the late Chosŏn period this abstract understanding became materially concrete through envoy encounters.
“At the Temple Gate 廟門, ten stone drums were lined up in two rows, five on each side. After passing through the Dong Wu 東廡 and Xi Wu 西廡, we entered the Temple Gate and finally viewed the so-called stone drums, which were said to be from the reign of King Xuan. The surface of the stone was fractured and eroded, and the text was barely distinguishable. The script was Zhouwen 籀文, and its form resembled modern seal script, making it difficult to decipher. The phrase, ‘The coral branches intertwine, and the limbs of trees bend thickly, like dragons and serpents darting about,’ was no exaggeration. ... We touched them with our hands and sighed, as if witnessing with our own eyes the grand ritual of a royal hunt held long ago at Mount Qi 岐山. We were overwhelmed by an ineffable sense of awe from across the ages.”
24
Hŏ Pong 許篈 (1551–1588), who served as Sŏngjŏlsa 聖節使’s Sŏjanggwan, visited the Ming capital in 1574 and toured both the Guozijian 國子監 and the stones drums. According to his record, all ten drums were preserved, five standing on each side of the Temple of the Former Master 先師廟. The script on the drums was zhouwen. Han Yu had long ago described the visual effect of the Shiguwen in his Shigu ge, writing:
“How could they escape erosion over long years? With sharp blades they were carved like living dragons and crocodiles. Phoenixes soared and immortals descended; coral and jade-wood branches entangled each other.”
25 Hŏ Pong also quoted these lines to convey the power and beauty of the
Shiguwen. While most scholars limited themselves to textual criticism or structural assessment of strokes and composition, Hŏ Pong went beyond this by touching the drums himself and expressing a deeply emotional response.
Pak Chiwŏn 朴趾源 (1737–1805), too, during his 1780 envoy, visited historical sites such as the Shuntian Fuxue 順天府學, the Wen Tianxiangci 文天祥祠, and the Taixue 太學, and wrote that none compared to the stones drums in significance. For Pak Chiwŏn, however, the value of the stones drums was not solely historical or cultural. At the age of eighteen, he first encountered Han Yu’s
Shigu ge and was captivated by its extraordinary prose. Yet he deeply regretted not having seen the full text of the stone drums himself. To such a person, the opportunity to touch the stones drums and read Pan Di’s annotated stele in person was an exceptional stroke of fortune.
26
However, taken as a whole, the literati of Chosŏn were less concerned with simply appreciating the aesthetic qualities of the stones drums than with deciphering the Shiguwen from a philological perspective.
Originally, the drums were found in the fields of Chencang and moved by Zheng Yuqing 鄭餘慶 (746–821) of the Tang dynasty to the Confucius Shrine in Fengxiang xian 鳳翔縣, during which time one of the ten drums was lost. In the fourth year of the Huangyou 皇祐 (1052) of the Song dynasty, Xiang Zhuanshi 向傳師 recovered one from the public, thus completing the set of ten. In the second year of the Daguan 大觀 (1108), the drums were moved from Jingzhao 京兆 to Bianjing 汴京, first placed in the Biyong 辟雍, and later transferred to the Baohuadian 保和殿, where the characters were filled with gold. In the second year of the Jingkang 靖康 (1127), the Jurchens took the drums to Yanjing, removed the gold, and stored them in the home of Wang Xuanwu before transferring them to the Daxing fuxue . In the eleventh year of the Dade 大德 (1307) under the Yuan dynasty, Yu Ji, then a professor at Dadu 大都, found the drums buried in mud.
27
Yu Ji recorded the following during the Dade era of the Yuan: "Zheng Yuqing of the Tang first discovered them in the fields of Chencang and placed them in the Fengxiang fuxue. During the Song's Daguan period, they were moved to the Taixue of Bianjing, where the characters were filled with gold. At the end of the Jingkang era, the Jin people took them to Yan and removed the gold. They were brought here during Yu Ji's time."
28
The stones drums are approximately two ch’ŏk 尺 in height and slightly over one ch’ŏk in diameter. There are ten drums in total, shaped like barrel drums with domed tops. Around each drum is inscribed a hunting poem attributed to King Xuan, using seal characters by Shi Zhou. In ancient times, the drums were located in the fields of Chencang, with only eight surviving. They were moved by Zheng Yuqing to the Confucius Temple in Fengxiang; then, during the Huangyou reign of Emperor Renzong 仁宗 (1022–1063) of the Song, Xiang Fushi found the remaining two among the people, thereby completing the set. Emperor Huizong 徽宗 (1082–1135) moved them to the Biyong and filled the inscriptions with melted gold, later placing them in the Baohuadian. During the Jingkang Incident 靖康之變, the Jin took them to Yanjing and scraped off he gold. In the Yuan dynasty’s Huangqing 皇慶 (1312–1314), Yu Ji, then serving as a professor at Dadu, placed them within the gate of the Confucian temple.
29
According to records from Yŏnhaengnok 燕行錄, Chosŏn literati who visited Yanjing in the late Chosŏn period and viewed the stones drums did more than describe their physical features and condition—they also traced their transmission and demonstrated a generalized philological awareness. Moreover, their records of the drums' transmission often appear remarkably similar. This phenomenon can be explained in two ways: first, Chosŏn literati regularly consulted their predecessors' writings when composing their own envoy journals, making some repetition inevitable; second, they frequently cited content directly from widely circulated works among diplomatic envoys, such as the Daxing xianzhi 大興縣志 and the Dijing jingwu lüe 帝京景物略, naturally resulting in high textual overlap.
Traditionally, it was said that these drums were hunting steles carved under King Xuan of Zhou, with the inscriptions praising the Son of Heaven’s hunts and the calligraphy attributed to the Grand Historian Shi Zhou 太史 史籀. In Jiang Shi’s 江式 Lunshu biao 論書表, it is written: “Shi Zhou authored fifteen chapters of large seal script, which was similar to yet distinct from the ancient script of Cang Jie 倉頡. People of the time called it Zhoushu 籕, also known as ‘Shi’s script’ 史書.” In Zhang Huaiguan’s 張懷瓘 Shu duan 書斷, it is said: “Zhouwen 籕文 was created by the Grand Historian of Zhou, and its form is preserved in the Shiguwen.”
In the Pukchae birok 復齋碑錄, we find: “The stones drums were originally located in the fields of Chencang, and during the Tang dynasty, Zheng Yuqing moved them to the Confucius temple in Fengxiang. They were later lost during the wars of the Five Dynasties. Sima Chi 司馬池 (980–1041) of the Northern Song reinstalled them at the Fengxiang fuxue, but one was missing. During the Huangyou reign, Xiang Fushi recovered it. In the Daguan era, they were transferred to Bianjing and placed in the Baohuadian. During the Jingkang Incident 靖康之變, their whereabouts were again lost.”
Daxing xianzhi records: “In the second year of Jingkang, the Jin took them to Yanjing, removed the gold, and placed them in the Daxing fuxue. In the eleventh year of the Yuan’s Dade era, Yu Ji found them in a field and first moved them to the Guoxue 國學.” They survived through the Ming and remain preserved today. During the Qin, Han, Wei, and Jin periods, the drums were virtually unknown. Not until the Later Zhou 後周 did Su Xu 蘇勖 first record them. In the early Tang, Yu Shinan 虞世南 (558–638), Chu Suiliang 褚遂良 (597–658), and Ouyang Xun 歐陽詢 (557–641) all praised their exquisite brushwork. Wei Suzhou 韋蘇州 (737–792), Han Changli 韓昌黎 (768–842), and Su Zizhan 蘇子瞻 (1037–1101) composed rhapsodies in their honor. Huang Shangu 黃山谷 (1045–1105) remarked that their calligraphy had the transcendence of jade tablets 珪璋 and could not have been forged by later generations. Thus, lovers of antiquity always held the stones drums in the highest esteem. The
Yishanbei and the
Zuchuwen 詛楚文 were likewise considered astral remnants of Xi’e 羲娥. Later scholars such as Zheng Qiao 鄭樵 (1104–1162), Shi Su 施宿, Xue Shangong 薛尙功, Wang Houzhi, and Pan Di corrected errors, provided phonetic annotations, and conducted philological studies that led the
Shiguwen to become widely known throughout the world.
30
Concerning the
Shiguwen, unlike other Chosŏn literati who either copied previous records verbatim or directly cited the originals, I Kichi 李器之 (1690–1722) synthesized chronological documentation of the stones drums and meticulously traced their transmission history. In the preface of epigraphic rubbings of ancient texts 石鼓帖序, Yi cited such works as
Lunshubiao 論書表
31 by Jiang Shi 江式,
Shuanduan 書斷 by Zhang Huai'guan 張懷瓘,
Fuzhaibilu 復齋碑錄 by Wang Houzhi 王厚之, and
Daxing xianzhi 大興縣志. Through these sources, he examined the evolution of scholarly perception of the stones drums among scholars from the Southern and Northern Dynasties to the Tang and Southern Song periods, while also verifying the epigraphic nature and transmission of the texts. All of these sources—including
Lunshubiao,
Shuanduan,
Fuzhaibilu, and Huang Tingjian’s commentary—are recorded in the
Rixiayouwenkao 日下舊聞考, from which it may be inferred that Yi relied primarily on this work for tracing the history of the
Shiguwen. Yet Yi did not indiscriminately transcribe all textual data; instead, he selectively extracted representative materials from among many sources. This allowed for a systematic reconstruction of the transmission process and a chronological examination of the shifts in perception regarding the stones drums. Moreover, the preface of epigraphic rubbings of ancient texts demonstrates that Chosŏn literati did not rely solely on specialized treatises on epigraphy 金石學 but also actively engaged with encyclopedic compendia such as
Rixiayouwenkao and
Didu jingwulüe 帝都景物略.
Chosŏn literati not only incorporated such transmission records but also applied textual criticism to the contents and structure of the
Shiguwen. Sŏ Yuku, for instance, questioned a phrase in the version of the
Shiguwen amplified by Yang Shen 楊慎 (1488–1559)—specifically, the line “I came from the East”—arguing that it conflicted with the actual geography of Qiyang 岐陽 and Haojing 鎬京. He further criticized Yang for forcibly expanding the text by adding a character to each line.
32 Most notably, Sŏ challenged the established claim that Li Dongyang 李東陽 (1447–1516) had transmitted the contemporary rubbing of the
Shiguwen to Yang.
As for the
Shenyubei, the original stele was located on the Nanyue 南嶽 range of Hengshan 衡山, though the original no longer survives. A recarved version now stands at the northern peak of Yuelushan 嶽麓山. Composed in tadpole script 蝌蚪文, it contains 77 characters celebrating Yu the Great’s flood-control achievements
.
Liu Xian 劉顯 of the Liang dynasty documented in the Cuijilu 粹機錄 the discovery of the
Shenyubei: a recluse named Cheng Yi 成翳 encountered the stele while wandering Hengyue 衡嶽. When he submitted a copy to the king, it was considered a national treasure, and a proper stone was chosen for recarving. From then on, the
Shenyubei came into public knowledge.
33 Nanyue was also called Gouloushan 岣嶁山, and during the Wei-Jin to Sui-Tang periods, these names were often interchangeable. Thus, the
Shenyubei was also known as the
Gouloubei 岣嶁碑. From the Southern Qi period of the Southern Dynasties onward, the
Shenyubei gradually came to light. Han Yu 韓愈 of the Tang dynasty once journeyed to Gouloushan in search of the stele but failed to locate it, later composing the poem
Gouloushan 岣嶁山. Likewise, Liu Yuxi 劉禹錫 (772–842) wrote of the stele in his literary works, while Zhang Shi 張栻 (1133–1180) and Zhu Xi 朱熹 (1130–1200) also sought the stele in vain, casting doubt on its very existence.
34 During the Jiajing 嘉靖 (1521–1567) of the Ming dynasty, the
Shenyubei at Yuelushan resurfaced. Scholars immediately turned their attention to the stele, seeking to authenticate it and interpret its inscriptions. Yang Shen was the first to attempt a decipherment, followed by Shen Yi 沈鎰 (1025–1067) and Yang Shih-ch’iao 楊時喬 (1531–1609), who also engaged in interpretive work.
The time at which the
Shenyu bei was introduced into Chosŏn is not documented in historical sources. However, considering that this stele became widely known beginning in the Ming dynasty and began to draw serious scholarly attention from that period, it can be inferred that rubbings of the stele were likely introduced into Chosŏn during the sixteenth or seventeenth century. According to extant records, the earliest known individual to have encountered the
Shenyu bei may have been Yun Hyu 尹鑴 (1617–1680).
35 In Yun Hyu’s collected writings,
Paekhojip 白湖集, there appears a poem titled
Chagubiga hyohanmun'gong sŏkkogach'e 作禹碑歌 效韓文公石皷歌體, which was composed in 1659 when Yun Hyu happened upon a rubbing of the
Shenyu bei and was inspired to write verse.
Who was it that brought this rubbing to our eastern land?
I was both delighted and astonished upon receiving it.
Seventy-seven characters, like writhing dragons and horned serpents,
Soaring and leaping—suspended as if among the stars of Ji and Di.
Could it be the very turtle that emerged from the Luo River bearing the charts of divination?
Or the dark jade tablet unearthed from a tomb long hidden?
誰將拓本流東土
我況得之欣以駭
七十七字龍螭虯
龍騰武躍懸箕氐
一似龜疇出淸洛
Yun Hyu first elaborated through verse upon historical anecdotes: Yao 堯 became an emperor; Yi 羿 defeated fierce beasts; and when the great flood broke out, Yu 禹 controlled the waters. Then he proceeded to describe Shenyubei, which records the achievements of Yu’s water management. As seen in the poem, Yun Hyu, upon acquiring a rubbing of Shenyubei in 1659, was astonished by characters shaped like Ch'iryong 螭龍, Kyuryong 虯龍. Upon viewing these characters, he was reminded of the nine principles carved on the patterned shell of the divine turtle that emerged from the Luo River 洛水, and of the mysterious jade disk excavated from ancient tombs. Rather than decoding Shenyubei from a philological standpoint, Yun Hyu expressed his antiquarian interests and his admiration for the artifact through poetry. Most significantly, the poem confirms that a rubbing of Shenyubei had already been introduced to Chosŏn by 1659.
The earliest known account of how
Shenyubei was brought to Chosŏn appears in the
Nangsŏn'gun kyemyo yŏnhaengnok 朗善君癸卯燕行錄 by Yi U. As previously discussed, Yi U was fond of literary and pictorial works and took every opportunity during diplomatic envoys to acquire the writings and artworks of ancient masters. During his third envoy to Beijing in 1663, he reportedly purchased two copies of
Guzhuan Shenyubei 古篆神禹碑 from Wang Yi 王怡 in the Fengrun 豐潤 region.
37 Upon returning to Chosŏn with the rubbings, Yi U sought to decipher the inscriptions and thus sent the rubbings to Hŏ Mok, a contemporary scholar of ancient script studies.
On the fifteenth day of January, it snowed heavily again. While I was staying at Hengshan 橫山, Lord Nangsŏn (Yi U) returned from his diplomatic mission and sent me the
Shenyubei from Hengshan. The script was extremely peculiar—unlike bird-track or ancient script styles. Apocryphal histories say that the Xia sovereign devised a script resembling seal script, and this must be it. Compared to
Shiguwen, it is even more archaic and difficult to interpret. The sage lived over 3,700 years ago, and the stele had long disappeared from the world. It was unearthed from the earth of Hengshan during the Ming Jiajing 嘉靖. The Minister of Rites, Zhan Ruoshui 湛若水 (1466–1560), appended an explanatory postscript to the inscription.
38
Hŏ Mok recorded these impressions on January 15, 1664, upon receiving a rubbing of
Shenyubei from Yi U. He wrote: "The characters are exceedingly peculiar and differ from bird-track and ancient script styles. It must be what the Xia sovereign devised as resembling seal script." His letter also reveals the provenance of the rubbing. According to his note, Zhan Ruoshui added a commentary on the reverse side of the rubbing, confirming that the copy was of the stele erected at Ganquan shuyuan 甘泉書院. The copy of
Shenyubei acquired by Yi U was thus a rubbing of the stele established at Ganquan shuyuan during the Ming Jiajing, with Zhan Ruoshui’s postscript,
Shuganquan zishan shuyuan fanke Shenyubei hou 書甘泉子山書院翻刻神禹碑後, affixed to the reverse.
39
The year after this old man returned from the East Sea, the royal descendant Lord Nangsŏn sent me the Shenyubei from Hengshan . The script seems to imitate the harmonies of heaven and earth—like birds soaring high, beasts darting swiftly, dragons ascending to the heavens, and tigers moving with ferocity. It gleams resplendently with sacred and auspicious forms that no brush could imitate. It does not resemble the script of Fu Xi 伏羲 or the Huangdi 黃帝.
Ancient records state that the Xia sovereign devised the character that resembles zhuan 篆. During the height of the flood, when humans, animals, and spirits intermingled chaotically, King Yu broke through mountains to channel the waters into the sea and carved out the Nine Provinces. He marked the high mountains and great rivers, casting bronze tripods with monstrous images to reveal dangerous creatures. Observing these, people could avoid threats and live peacefully. At that time, he received the auspicious Luo River writing and expounded the Nine Principles of Hongfan jiuchou 洪範九疇. Transforming the scripts of bird-tracks and Jiahua 嘉禾, he inscribed them onto a stele erected at Hengshan—this too was a pictographic writing… The Xia sovereign, upon taming the waters and lands, created these characters based on pictorial forms. These script forms are strange yet upright and majestic without being disorderly. The
Shiji 史記 says: “King Yu’s body was the standard; his voice, the pitch; his left hand, the compass; his right hand, the square.” His script too embodies compass and square.
40
The philological achievement of
Shenyubei 神禹碑 by Hŏ Mok can be confirmed through this postscript. First, he characterized the script of
Shenyubei using metaphorical language, describing it as resembling birds soaring high, wild beasts darting swiftly, dragons ascending into the sky, and tigers transforming in motion. He then developed a reasoned argument based on existing theories about
Shenyubei and the chapters
Yugong 禹貢 and Hongfan 洪範 in the Shujing 書經.
41 As was commonly accepted by earlier scholars,
42 Hŏ Mok also argued that
Shenyubei was associated with the ancient tale of Great Yu's flood control. He elaborated on Yu's merits by referring to records in
Yugong of the Shujing and in the
Zuo zhuan 左傳, explaining the historical context in which
Shenyubei was erected. Although the relationship between
Shenyubei and
Yugong is explicitly noted in the postscript by Zhan Ruoshui, the connection between the construction of
Shenyubei and the tradition in the Xia dynasty of casting great tripods and engraving various shaped objects had not previously been clarified. According to the third year of Duke Xuan in the
Zuo zhuan, “In ancient times, when the virtue of the Xia dynasty flourished, distant regions were ordered to draw the forms of their peculiar things and to contribute metal to the nine provinces. Great tripods were cast, and various forms of things were engraved on them, so that the forms of all things would be contained therein, enabling the people to discern the divine from the deceitful. Hence, the people could enter rivers, lakes, mountains, and forests without encountering misfortune, and demons and monsters could not harm them”.
This confirms that, as early as the Xia dynasty, information was conveyed to the people through the method of modeling things. In light of this precedent, it is possible that Yu also inscribed characters on a stele in the form of modeled things to disseminate information or record events. Subsequently, Hŏ Mok, based on the record from the Hongfan chapter of the Shujing—“Heaven bestowed upon Yu the Hongfan with its Nine Categories”—concluded that Shenyubei had been engraved by Yu in the form of modeled things after he had subdued the flood, by adapting the Bird-trace script 鳥跡書 and Jiahe script 嘉禾書 to inscribe the Hongfan he had received from Heaven.
Moreover, Hŏ Mok evaluated the aesthetic value of Shenyubei, asserting that its calligraphy was unusual, upright, and solemn, yet not disordered. Although he could not fully assess the authenticity of Shenyubei due to the limitations of his era, what is most significant is that he systematically verified the inscription by referencing the canonical records of the Shujing, Zuo zhuan, and prior scholarly theories, and articulated his own original viewpoint.
By the eighteenth century, with the influx of epigraphy studies, certain Chosŏn scholars began to question the authenticity of
Shenyubei, which had previously been widely revered as the progenitor of
archaic script. Nam Kŭkkwan, for example, believed that late Song scholars had fabricated
Shenyubei based on poems by Han Yu and Liu Yuxi. He also criticized the characters for appearing unnaturally twisted and bulging, thereby devaluing
Shenyubei as of little worth.
43 Although Nam Kŭkkwan did not undertake a comprehensive philological verification of
Shenyubei, what is especially notable is that, within the social context of Chosŏn where
Shenyubei was generally venerated as the origin of
archaic script, he independently raised questions about its authenticity and linguistic value. Furthermore, Sŏng Haeŭng 成海應 (1760–1839) cited the theories of Yang Shen and Gu Yanwu and discussed the origin, editions, and authenticity of
Shenyubei from a philological perspective.
Yang Shen wrote, “Numerous renowned figures throughout history have praised and recorded the
Shenyubei of Hengshan. However, Liu Yuxi and Han Changli never saw it, and even Zhu Xi and Zhang Shi, who traveled to Nanyue, failed to locate it. In
Yudi jisheng 輿地紀勝 by Wang Xiangzhi, it is written: ‘The stele is located at Gouloufeng 岣嶁峯. Some say it lies at Yunmifeng 雲密峯. In the past, a woodcutter saw it, and during the Jiading 嘉定 of the Song dynasty, a scholar from Shu 蜀, guided by the woodcutter, reached the site and produced a rubbing of about seventy characters, which he engraved within Kuimen 夔門. However, the stele later disappeared. More recently, Jiwen 季文 and Zhang Qianxian 張僉憲 obtained a copy in Changsha 長沙 and identified it as the one that He Zhi 何致 had reproduced once at Yuelu Shuyuan 嶽麓書院 during the Song Jiading.’ Gu Yanwu stated: ‘Before Han Tuizhi, no one had seen this stele. It was first discovered and reproduced by He Zhi at the foot of Zhuyongfeng 祝融峯. When the magistrate of Hengshan later searched for it, the site had already been lost. The current so-called Yubei 禹碑 has characters that are mysterious but lack proper form, language that is novel but lacks coherence, and rhymes that are strange yet do not conform to antiquity. This is enough to prove that it is a forgery.’” Based on these two views, it is evident that the
Shenyubei transmitted today is a reproduction created by He Zhi. Rangsŏn’gun, that is, Yi U, once acquired a copy of it during his journey to Beijing. The inscription included phrases such as “Sŭngjewalch'a, Ikpojwagyŏng” 承帝曰嗟, 翼輔佐卿, which clearly contradict the historical sequence outlined by Gu Tinglin 顧亭林. Could the title Kyŏng 卿 have existed during the Tang 唐 or Yu 虞 periods? One may infer much from this inconsistency.
44
While Nam Kŭkkwan judged the authenticity of the
Shenyubei somewhat rashly and subjectively, Sŏng Haeŭng approached the matter with scholarly rigor, building upon prior research and assessing the stele’s authenticity with objectivity. Sŏng Haeŭng primarily cited
Danyanlu 丹鉛錄 by Yang Shen and
Jinshiwenziji 金石文字記 by Gu Yanwu. Yang Shen, a renowned Ming-dynasty writer, was celebrated not only for his literary output and vast erudition, but also for his achievements in textual criticism, philology, and epigraphy. Notably, he was the first to interpret the
Shenyubei from an epigraphic perspective, producing a detailed commentary on the inscription and composing a 700-character poem, Yubeige 禹碑歌, in praise of Yu’s accomplishments and as a vehicle for expressing his literary insights. He also made great efforts to disseminate knowledge of the stele by establishing engraved copies across the Yunnan 雲南 area.
45 Thus, Yang Shen may rightly be considered both the pioneer in interpreting the
Shenyubei and a key figure in promoting its legacy.
Sŏng Haeŭng quoted from Danyanlu zonglu 丹鉛錄總錄 to present various theories regarding the transmission of the Shenyubei, explaining how its precise location and transmission history remained unclear. He then cited the findings of Gu Yanwu, who stated that during the Northern Song Jiading 嘉定, He Zhi first discovered and transmitted the stele from beneath Zhuyongfeng. This allowed Sŏng Haeŭng to clarify both the circumstances surrounding the stele’s discovery and the provenance of the extant version. Finally, drawing upon the philological conclusions of Yang Shen and Gu Yanwu, Sŏng Haeŭng presented his own interpretation. He concluded that the existing copies of the Shenyubei were all based on He Zhi’s initial reproduction, and that the version brought to Chosŏn by Rangsŏn’gun was one of these.
Moreover, as cited above, Gu Yanwu once criticized the
Shenyubei, stating that “Its words are bizarre and do not conform to reason”. Sŏng Haeŭng, while accepting Gu Yanwu's argument, based his reasoning on the commentary by Yang Shen. In Yang Shen's interpretation of the
Shenyubei, the phrase “Sŭngjewalch'a, Ikpojwagyŏng” 承帝曰嗟, 翼輔佐卿
46 appears. The term Kyŏng 卿 did not begin to refer to government officials until the Qin and Han periods.
47 Thus, the use of kyŏng in a stele purportedly established by Xia Yu 秦禹 constitutes clear evidence that the
Shenyubei’s language lacks coherence and that the inscription is a forgery. Notably, Sŏng Haeŭng did not merely accept the findings of Yang Shen and Gu Yanwu passively. Instead, he verified specific phrases in the
Shenyubei from a philological standpoint, thereby providing a critical foundation for Gu Yanwu’s conclusion. By examining the inscription’s transmission process, Sŏng Haeŭng further substantiated which version had been introduced to Chosŏn and reasonably concluded that the extant
Shenyubei was indeed a forgery.
Furthermore, considering that both Yang Shen’s and Gu Yanwu’s discourses appear verbatim in the section Xiayubei of the
Peiwenzhai shuhuapu 佩文齊書畫谱, it is plausible that Sŏng Haeŭng consulted this encyclopedic source directly rather than referencing
Danyanlu 丹鍾錄 and
Jinshiwenziji 金石文字記.
48 This also demonstrates that Chosŏn scholars, when conducting epigraphic research, often relied more on comprehensive encyclopedic compilations of theories than on single-issue treatises.
Meanwhile, as previously discussed, from the seventeenth century onward, antiquarian writers and calligraphers such as Hŏ Mok regarded the
Shenyubei as the progenitor of ancient script and praised its calligraphic beauty, actively embracing it. By the eighteenth century, Chosŏn scholars began to question its authenticity, adopting a more critical approach to its discovery, transmission, and versions. Some Chosŏn calligraphers also came to devalue the calligraphic worth of the
Shenyubei. Nam Kongch'ŏl 南公軌 (1760–1840) pointed out that the stele's characters were grotesque and must have been forged, arguing that repeated reproductions had eroded the original appearance. He remarked that “To believe entirely in the Shujing is no better than having no Shujing at all”.
49 Kang Sehuang 姜世晃 (1713–1791) went even further, scrutinizing the brushstrokes and line techniques. He examined the relationship between the seal script style, which had flourished in Chosŏn calligraphy at the time, and the
Shenyubei. He harshly criticized the impact of this forged stele on Chosŏn calligraphic practice, asserting that its introduction had led to clumsy and heavy-handed habits in the study of seal script.
“Today’s students of seal script write based solely on subjective judgment—brushstrokes go wherever they feel like, mixing regular and cursive strokes for convenience or rotting to popular tastes. Some deliberately craft bizarre or eccentric forms to deceive the ignorant and claim superiority. Such behavior is lamentable and beyond reproach.”
50
There are two general styles of seal script in our country, ancient and modern. One style begins its brushstrokes with slanted tip 偏鋒 and deliberately employs war-like strokes 戰筆. Each dot 點 carries the energy of cursive script 草書, and the downward slant 撇 resembles that of standard script 楷書. It was thought to have originated from
Shenyubei. But how can one be sure that
Shenyubei was not a later fabrication by descendants? Moreover, when people today arbitrarily fabricate ancient script characters with modern brushstrokes, forcing them into a lavishly fluid form, they fail to escape the vulgar and inferior aesthetic.
51
This criticism appears in the colophon by Kang Sehwang on the Chenghuangbei 城隍碑 by Li Yangbing 李陽氷. Calligraphers of Chosŏn in the late period frequently practiced zhuanshu in two forms. One combined brush strokes from standard script and cursive script, producing grotesque and exaggerated forms based on what they believed to be the Shenyubei. However, the Shenyubei may in fact be a forgery by later hands. Arbitrarily creating ancient forms using modern brushwork only perpetuates vulgar convention.
The above content is drawn from a postscript composed by Kang Sehwang regarding the Chenghuangbei, a stele inscribed by the famed seal script master Li Yangbing. Before offering his critique of Li Yangbing’s seal script, Kang Sehwang first assessed the stylistic tendencies of seal script within the calligraphic circles of Chosŏn. According to him, two main trends in seal script prevailed in late Chosŏn: one arose out of convenience, blending the strokes of standard script and cursive script; the other deliberately adopted bizarre and ingenious forms. Among these, seal script was said to feature twisted and curved strokes, dots that embodied the energy of cursive script, and downward slanting strokes resembling those in standard script—all of which were believed to originate from the Shenyubei.
While the philological focus for the Shiguwen and Shenyubei centered on textual meaning, the Yishanbei debate revolved around authenticity. From its earliest circulation in Chosŏn, scholars appreciated its calligraphy and adopted its style—but continually questioned its genuineness and authorship. Though the stele arrived in the 15th century, it only garnered serious scholarly attention in the 17th century—spurred by Kim Suchŭng 金壽增 (1624–1701), who reproduced it by rubbing and carving. Hŏ Mok was the first Chosŏn scholar to recognize its artistic and academic value; Kim became the prime mover in its dissemination.
Kim Suchŭng, whose courtesy name was Yŏn-ji 延之, was the eldest grandson of Munjeong-gong 文正公 Kim Sang-heon 金尙憲 (1570–1652). A devoted disciple of Song Siyŏl 宋時烈 (1607–1689), he was deeply learned and skilled in seal script, zhoushu, and eight-part script 八分體, and produced many inscriptions.
52 His engraved
Yishanbei is believed to be the only Chinese seal script textbook carved and published in Chosŏn. Thus, with the
Yishanbei reissued, Chosŏn scholars not only recognized its aesthetic merit but actively engaged in verifying and deciphering it using poems, epigraphic texts, and other historical materials.
Regarding the “Yishan Stele”—erected by Qin Shi Huang to commemorate his own achievements—the scholarly communities remained divided. Kang Sehuang suggested the lack of clear aesthetic standards in stroke form contributed to disagreements. He cited Ouyang Xiu, who wasn’t reluctant to deem even parts of the Book of Changes as spurious. If Ouyang could doubt Yijing sections, how could one fully trust his comments on this stele? Kim Suchŭng countered by engraving both sides of the discussion in the engraved edition, appending diverse opinions to aid future readers in comparative analysis—a fair and balanced approach.
53
As previously discussed, Kim Suchŭng, who was deeply versed in seal script, was not only broadly learned but also was praised as being refined in character, free from even the slightest vulgarity. Thus, Song Siyŏl valued him highly, and the two maintained a teacher-friend relationship based on shared ideals. Kim Sujŭng, having early abandoned pursuit of the civil service examination, occasionally served as Suryeŏng 守令 of Sŏksŏng-hyŏn 石城縣 and P'yŏnggang hyŏn 平康縣, and established Chŏngudang 淨友堂, Kŭnminhŏn ch'ŏngsŏngdang 近民軒淸省堂, Kŭnmindang 近民堂, and Sagwanjŏng 四寬亭. Song Siyŏl composed commemorative inscriptions for all these places.
In addition, Song Siyŏl took great interest in Kim Suchŭng’s calligraphy and painting and appears to have written an unusually large number of postfaces related to them. In the Songjadaejŏn 宋子大全, eight postfaces are preserved that he wrote in response to Kim’s calligraphy, painting, and epigraphy albums, including Chunggak Yŏksanbibal 重刻嶧山碑跋, Chinjŏnch'ŏpbal 秦篆帖跋, Maewŏltang hwasangbal 梅月堂畫像跋, Ch'wisŏngdobal 聚星圖跋, Sŏ Kim Yŏnji sŏhu 書金延之書後, Sŏ Kim Yŏnji bonghwa Munjŏng sŏnsaeng si hu 書金延之奉和文正先生詩後, Kŭmsŏkch'ongbal 金石叢跋, and Kŭmsŏkch'ongbal chaepal 金石叢跋再跋. Through these writings, the nature of their artistic exchanges can be discerned.
Among these, Chunggak Yŏksanbibal and Chinjŏnch'ŏpbal are particularly noteworthy. In May 1672, Song Siyŏl composed a postface for the Yishanbei, which had been recopied by Kim Sujŭng, and especially praised Kim’s inclusion of scholarly findings concerning Yishanbei by scholars from successive dynasties at the end of the stele text.
Whereas it was common in Chosŏn for scholars to uncritically accept the epigraphic theories of Ouyang Xiu regarding Yishanbei, Kim Sujŭng refrained from such blind imitation. Instead, he cited not only the views of Ouyang Xiu but also those of epigraphers such as Zhao Mingcheng 趙明誠 (1081–1129) and Wang Shizhen 王世貞 (1526–1590), thereby demonstrating an independent critical attitude. Accordingly, Song Siyŏl also remarked that Ouyang Xiu’s opinion, despite his sincerity, should not be trusted completely, and acknowledged Kim’s efforts to interpret the stele text through comparative analysis of various theories as being fair-minded.
Moreover, seemingly inspired by the scholarly views appended by Kim Suchŭng, Song Siyŏl, six months after writing Chunggak Yŏksanbibal, composed Chinjŏnch'ŏpbal, in which he presented his own critical interpretation.
Since ancient times, many scholars have discussed the Yishanbei. However, I believe that the statement by Du Fu 杜甫(712–770), "The wildfires burned the stele, and the transmitted script became bloated," should be regarded as the authoritative opinion. According to the analysis by Ouyang Xiu, he first said that it was slightly larger than the Taishanbei 泰山碑, but later claimed it was slightly smaller. Does this not suggest that the more the carved editions were transmitted, the more the original truth was lost? Now, when one looks at the carved edition reproduced by Kim Suchŭng, the lean and vigorous vitality of the calligraphy can be said to possess a spirit that communicates with the divine—could this not be a copy transmitted before the burning?
I recall that during the Qin dynasty, inscriptions were engraved even on standard weights and measures, as well as on counterweights, bronze plates, and other utensils. These were surely engraved in many places for the purpose of transmission to later generations, such was the custom of the Qin. If so, it is possible that Li Si 李斯 (280–208 BCE) created this stele with the same purpose, and even if the original Yishanbei disappeared, there may have been a separate transmission of an authentic version. Otherwise, how could its calligraphy, said to transcend a thousand years, still enable us to glimpse the stylistic gestures of antiquity after the Han and Jin dynasties?
Someone once said, "Even if the stele’s script is lean and powerful, what if this is actually the bloated writing that Lao Du referred to? And who can say that the true original was not even leaner and more vigorous?" To this, I responded: that is a fine point. A person may be lean in the past and become plump later, but their skeletal structure and spirit do not change. Now, this seal script shows not even a hair’s breadth of resemblance to anything over a thousand years before or after. Therefore, we may truly believe that it originated with Li Si from the beginning.
54
Du Fu once wrote in his Lichao bafen xiaozhuan ge 李潮八分小篆歌: “The Yishan Stele was burned by wildfires; the version engraved on jujube wood is bloated and has lost its truth.” Though this verse does not constitute a scholarly verification of the Yishanbei, its vivid imagery—“bloated and has lost its authenticity” 肥失眞—left a strong impression on Chosŏn literati. Song Siyŏl also believed Du Fu’s description was the authoritative view prior to seeing the Yishanbei. But after observing the lean and vigorous script in Kim Sujŭng’s reproduction, he began to question the existing scholarly interpretations he had accepted.
Accordingly, Song Siyŏl examined the customs of the Qin period, noting that inscriptions were made not only on weights and measures but also widely on counterweights, bronze plates, and other utensils. Based on this, he hypothesized that Li Si created the Yishanbei for the purpose of transmission and that a genuine exemplar may have separately survived. He further reasoned that the script of the Yishanbei, which had been transmitted over a millennium, displayed no traits of Han or Jin calligraphic styles and that its character forms and visual impression had not changed at all. Based on this intuitive judgment, he concluded that the transmitted Yishanbei was indeed the authentic work of Li Si.
Although Song Siyŏl’s textual criticism of the Yishanbei may be overly subjective and lack persuasive rigor, more meaningful than a logically watertight result was his willingness to question previously accepted theories upon seeing a new carved edition and to re-examine and interpret the Yishanbei from a fresh perspective.
Meanwhile, unlike Song Siyŏl, who presented his own critical interpretation in an original manner, most scholars in late Chosŏn accepted the theories of epigraphy scholars such as Ouyang Xiu and Zhao Mingcheng, using historical records as their basis for philological examination of the Yishanbei.
I read the Qin Shihuang benji 秦始皇本紀, where the six inscriptions—Liangfu 梁父, Langya 琅琊, Zhifu 之罘, Dongguan 東觀, Jieshi 碣石, and Kuaiji 會稽—were all recorded. However, the inscription of the Yishanbei was conspicuously absent. It only states that “In the 28th year, the First Emperor ascended Mount Zou and Mount Yi 鄒嶧山, erected a stele, and discussed with Confucian scholars of the land of Lu 魯地 the engraving of the stone to praise the meritorious deeds of Qin.” I also examined the six inscriptions, and in all cases, the beginning of the rhyming section starts with the phrase “the Emperor” 皇帝 They follow such formulas as “In the twenty-sixth year” 二十有六年, “In the twenty-ninth year” 維二十九年, or “In the thirty-seventh year” 三十有七年, and so forth, forming a clear and structured pattern. Yet in the current version of the Yishanbeiwen 嶧山碑文 transmitted by Xu Xuan 徐鉉 (916–991), attributed to Zheng Wenbao 鄭文寶 (953–1013), the rhyme does not begin with “the Emperor” 皇帝, and the year “twenty-sixth” is written as 卄六年, which diverges from the conventions of the six inscriptions.
Du Fu once wrote in his poem
Lichao bafen xiaozhuange 李潮八分小篆歌: “The stele of Yishan was burned by wildfires, and the copy engraved on jujube wood became bloated and lost its authenticity.” However, could wildfires truly consume a stone stele? And could a carving on jujube wood be preserved for long? It seems likely that the First Emperor merely erected a stone and discussed the inscription, but in fact, no actual engraving took place.
55
Zhao Mingcheng once questioned the absence of the inscriptional text in the
Shiji ·
Benji 史記·本紀, noting that although it states that in the 28th year the First Emperor of Qin ascended Mount Zou and Mount Yi and discussed the engraving of a stone with Confucian scholars of the Lu region, no panegyric was recorded, whereas the contents of the other six inscriptions were fully documented.
56 Starting from this doubt raised by Zhao Mingcheng, Sŏng Haeŭng conducted a meticulous investigation into the authenticity of the
Yishanbei. Sŏng Haeŭng compared the textual style of the
Yishanbei inscription with those of the six inscriptions listed in the
Shiji ·
Benji—Liangfu, Langya, Zhifu,
Dongguan, Jieshi, and Kuaiji—and concluded that the
Yishanbei differed in literary form from those exemplars. Specifically, the six inscriptions all begin new rhyme sections with the characters “the Emperor” 皇帝, and their year notations follow the formulas “In the twenty-sixth year” 維二十六年 or “twenty-sixth year” 二十有六年. In contrast, the
Yishanbei omits the “Emperor” at the head of new rhyme sections, and the year is written using a different notation, 卄六年.
While Zhao Mingcheng had raised doubts based on the textual record of the Shiji, Sŏng Haeŭng clarified the distinctions between the Yishanbei and the six inscriptions through close textual comparison, thereby resolving Zhao Mingcheng’s query. Additionally, Sŏng Haeŭng questioned Du Fu’s poetic lines by asking whether it was possible for a wildfire to burn a stone stele or whether an inscription carved on jujube wood could have been preserved for such a long time.
Conclusion
From a chronological perspective, it is evident that epigraphic rubbings of ancient texts 古文碑帖 began to be introduced in considerable numbers from the late sixteenth century. The interest in epigraphic rubbings of ancient texts during the late Chosŏn period stemmed from the enthusiasm for epigraphy and epigraphic compilations. By the mid-seventeenth century, with the introduction of epigraphic works such as Jigulu 集古錄 by Ouyang Xiu and Jinshilu 金石錄 by Zhao Mingcheng, scholars with antiquarian and broad antiquity-oriented dispositions actively engaged in the collection of steles and related rubbings for their antiquarian enjoyment. Thereafter, especially during the reigns of Kings Sukchong, Yŏngjo, and Chŏngjo, the reception of evidential scholarship from Qing China led to the full-scale development of epigraphic studies.
As diplomatic missions to the Qing capital brought back antiquarian materials, including epigraphic rubbings of ancient texts, Chosŏn envoys with a deep appreciation for epigraphy and calligraphy—such as Rangsŏn’gun Yi U—acquired works like Shiguwen, Shenyubei, and Yishanbei. Thus, the enthusiasm for epigraphy that had emerged from the seventeenth century came to encompass epigraphic rubbings of ancient texts as well. It is particularly noteworthy that late Chosŏn scholars did not limit themselves to merely describing these artifacts. Rather, they analyzed the characters and text structure in a philological manner, aiming to decipher their meanings.
The Shiguwen, known as the first stone-inscribed poem in Chinese history, attracted significant attention from scholars during the Ming and Qing dynasties. In the Chosŏn context, extant poetic records by Kim Sishŭp indicate that rubbings of the Shiguwen had already been introduced by the fifteenth century. From the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries, Chosŏn envoys to Beijing made direct rubbings of the Shiguwen or acquired existing rubbings, leading to its widespread circulation. Based on diplomatic mission records, it is evident that Chosŏn literati not only described the visual features and preservation state of the Shiguwen, a notable monument in the Qing capital, but also examined its transmission, reflecting a general awareness of textual verification. Moreover, as Chosŏn literati tended to cite passages from encyclopedic texts that were widely circulated among envoys—such as Rixia jiuwen kao, Daxing xianzhi, and Dijing jingwulue—they often produced highly similar accounts.
Although the exact date of the Shenyubei’s entry into Chosŏn is not recorded, given that the stele was already widely known during the Ming dynasty and had become the subject of scholarly attention, it can be reasonably inferred that rubbings were introduced sometime during the sixteenth or seventeenth century. According to extant records, the earliest Chosŏn figure to encounter the Shenyubei may have been Yun Hyu, whose poetry confirms that the rubbing had reached Chosŏn by 1659. Additionally, the importation of the Shenyubei is most explicitly documented in Nangsŏn'gun kyemyo yŏnhaengnok 朗善君癸卯燕行錄 by Yi U, which notes that during the 1663 mission to Beijing, he purchased two copies of the Guzhuan Shenyubei from Wang Yi in the Fengrun area. Based on philological analysis, Hŏ Mok identified the version acquired by Yi U as a rubbing of the stele erected at the Ganquan Shuyuan in Yangzhou during the Jiajing of the Ming dynasty, with an appended colophon titled Shu Ganquan Zishan shuyuan fanke Shenyubei hou by Zhan Ruoshui.
By the eighteenth century, as epigraphic texts from Qing China began entering Chosŏn, some Chosŏn scholars began to question the authenticity of the Shenyubei, which had previously been regarded as the origin of ancient script forms. Nam Kŏkkwan was one of the first to raise suspicions about its genuineness and subsequently devalued its scholarly worth. Sŏng Haeŭng, synthesizing the views in Danyanlu by Yang Shen and Jinshiwenziji 金石文字記 by Gu Yanwu, concluded that all extant versions of the Shenyubei were based on the initial tracing by He Zhi and that the copy brought to Chosŏn by Yi U was one of these facsimiles.
Whereas analysis of the Shiguwen and Shenyubei focused on interpreting the content and verifying individual characters, in the case of the Yishanbei, questions of authenticity constituted the central concern. From the time of its introduction, Chosŏn literati actively appreciated the calligraphic beauty of the Yishanbei and adopted its style while simultaneously engaging in philological inquiry into its authorship and authenticity. Although the Yishanbei had already been introduced by the fifteenth century, it was not until the seventeenth century that it received significant scholarly and artistic attention in Chosŏn. This renewed interest was primarily due to the re-engraving of the stele by Kim Suchŭng. Some Chosŏn scholars reexamined the stele from a fresh perspective, while others extended existing interpretations by further deciphering its text in greater depth.
Translator: Seungchan Bae, Korea University
Notes
Rubbing of the Shiguwen, National Museum of World Writing Systems
Rubbing of the Shenyu bei (National Museum of World Writing Systems)
Yuwangbei of Yuelu Shan (Hunan Sheng, Changsha Shi)
Table 1.Authored Works Related to Epigraphic Texts in Chosŏn from the 17th to 19th Centuries
|
Author |
Work |
Category |
|
Yi Huyuŏn 李厚源 (1598–1660) |
Kŭmsŏngnok 金石錄 |
Collection |
|
Cho Suk 趙涑 (1595–1668) |
Kŭmsŏkch’ŏngwan 金石清玩 |
Collection |
|
Yi U 李俁 (1637–1693) |
Taedong Kŭmsŏk Sŏ 大東金石書 |
Collection |
|
Tongguk Myŏngp’ilch’ap 東國名筆帖 |
Collection |
|
Taedong Kŭmsŏknok 大東金石錄 |
Authored work |
|
Unknown |
Che Kŭmsŏk chi mun 諸金石之文 |
Collection |
|
Kim Suchŭng 金壽增 (1624–1701) |
Kŭmsŏkch’ong 金石叢 |
Collection |
|
Unknown |
Kŭmsŏkch’ŏngwan 金石淸玩 |
Collection |
|
Nam Hagmyŏng 南鶴鳴 (1654–1722) |
Chapkoch’ap 集古帖 |
Collection |
|
Rangwŏn’gun 朗原君 (1640–1699) |
Haedongjipkorok 海東集古錄 |
Collection |
|
Cho Kŭn 趙根 (1631–1690) |
Punggyemallok 楓溪漫錄 |
Authored work |
|
Unknown |
Kŭmsŏkki 金石記 |
Collection |
|
Kim Chae-ro 金在魯 (1682–1759) |
Kŭmsŏknok 金石錄 |
Collection |
|
Yu Ch'ŏkki 兪拓基 (1691–1767) |
Kŭmsŏknok 金石錄 |
Collection |
|
Taedong Kŭmsŏkch’ap 大東金石帖 |
Collection |
|
Kŭmsŏkchongmok 金石捴目 |
Authored work |
|
Unknown |
Haedong Kŭmsŏknok 海東金石錄 |
Authored work |
|
Pak Chiwŏn 朴趾源 (1637–1805) |
Kŭmsŏknok 金石錄 |
Authored work |
|
Yun Tongsŏk 尹東晳 (1718–1798) |
Noyun Samgwan t’ong 老耘三官通 |
Authored work |
|
Sŏ Yuku 徐有榘 (1764–1845) |
Tongguk Kŭmsŏk 東國金石 |
Authored work |
|
Yu Ponye 柳本藝 (1777–1842) |
Suhŏn Pangp’inok 樹軒訪碑錄 |
Authored work |
|
Unknown |
Tongguk Kŭmsŏkp’yŏng 東國金石評 |
Authored work |
|
Yi Chomuk 李祖黙 (1792–1840) |
Naryŏ Imnangko 羅麗琳瑯攷 |
Authored work |
|
Pang Hŭiyong 方羲鏞 |
Yewŏnjinch'e 隸源津逮 |
Authored work |
|
Yi Yuwŏn 李裕元 (1814–1888) |
Kyŏngju Isi Kŭmsŏknok 慶州李氏金石錄 |
Authored work |
|
Kŭmhaesŏngmokkp’yŏn Sŏ 金薤石墨編序 |
Authored work |
|
Kim Pyŏngsŏn 金秉善 |
Kŭmsŏkmokk’oram 金石目攷覽 |
Authored work |
|
O Kyŏngsŏk 吳慶錫 (1831–1879) |
Samhan Kŭmsŏknok 三韓金石錄 |
Authored work |
|
Sŏ Sang’u 徐相雨 (1831–1903) |
Naryŏ Pangp’inok 羅麗訪碑錄 |
Authored work |
Table 2.Colophons, Inscriptions, and Prefaces on epigraphic rubbings of ancient texts in Chosŏn from the 17th to 19th Century
|
Author |
Colophons, Identifications, Prefaces |
Epigraphic rubbings of ancient texts |
|
Hŏ Mok 許穆 (1595~1682) |
Samdaegomunbal 三代古文跋 |
Shenyubei 神禹碑, Shiguwen 石鼓文, Yishanbei 嶧山碑 |
|
Hyŏngsan Shinubibal 衡山神禹碑跋 |
Shenyubei 神禹碑 |
|
Song Siyŏl 宋時烈 (1607~1689) |
Chunggak Yŏksanbibal 重刻嶧山碑跋 |
Yishanbei 嶧山碑 |
|
Chinjŏnch'ŏpbal 秦篆帖跋 |
Yishanbei 嶧山碑 |
|
Sŏ Sŏkkoch'ŏp'u 書石鼓帖後 |
Shiguwen 石鼓文 |
|
Yi Manbu 李萬敷 (1664~1732) |
Sŏ Isasojŏnch’ŏp 書李斯小篆帖 |
Yishanbei 嶧山碑 |
|
Pak T'ae-mu 朴泰茂 (1677~1756) |
Inurong Sojŭngdae'u P'yŏngsut'ojŏnsŏ 李訥翁所贈大禹平水土篆序 |
Dae'u P'yŏngsut'ojŏn 大禹平水土篆 |
|
An Myŏng-ha 安命夏 (1682~1752) |
Ujŏn Byŏngp'unggi 禹篆屛風記 |
Shenyubei 神禹碑 |
|
Yi Kichi 李器之 (1690~1722) |
Sŏkkoch'ŏpsŏ 石鼓帖序 |
Shiguwen 石鼓文 |
|
Yi Kwang-sa 李匡師 (1705~1777) |
Non Yŏksanbi 論嶧山碑 |
Yishanbei 嶧山碑 |
|
Nam Kong-ch'ŏl 南公轍 (1760~1840) |
U P’yŏngsut'och’an Sŏkkŏk 禹平水土贊石刻 |
Dae'u P'yŏngsut'ojŏn 大禹平水土篆 |
|
Chinyŏksan Gaksŏngmukkak 秦嶧山刻石墨刻 |
Yishanbei 嶧山碑 |
|
Chibusan Gaksŏngmukpon 之罘山刻石墨本 |
ChibuGaksŏk 芝罘刻石 |
|
Yi Sŏ-gu 李書九 (1754~1825) |
Sŏkko Sŏ 石鼓序 |
Shiguwen 石鼓文 |
|
Sŏng Haeŭng 成海應 (1760~1839) |
Che Sŏkkomunhu 題石皷文後 |
Shiguwen 石鼓文 |
|
Shinyubibal 神禹碑跋 |
Shenyubei 神禹碑 |
|
Sŏ Yuku 徐有榘 (1764~1845) |
Sŏkkomunsŏ 石鼓文序 |
Shiguwen 石鼓文 |
|
Hong Kyŏngmo 洪敬謨 (1774~1851) |
Imjang Josŏkkoga 臨張照石鼓歌 |
Shiguwen 石鼓文 |
|
Chusŏkkomun Gubon 周石鼓文舊本 |
Shiguwen 石鼓文 |
|
Sŏkkowŏn sinpŏn 石鼓文新本 |
Shiguwen 石鼓文 |
|
Yang Chinyŏng 梁進永 (1788~1860) |
Sŏ Korup’ip’anhu 書岣嶁碑板後 |
Shenyubei 神禹碑 |
|
Han Unsŏng 韓運聖 |
Kyŏngsŏ Uchŏn hu 敬書禹篆後, Chŏng Im Myŏngno, 贈任明老 |
Shenyubei 神禹碑 |
REFERENCES
- Ch’oe, Yŏngsŏng. “Han'gukkŭmsŏk'agŭi sŏngnipkwa palchŏn-yŏn'gusaŭi chŏngni-” 韓國金石學의 성립과 발전—硏究史의 整理 —.” Tongyanggojŏnyŏn'gu 26 (2007): 381-412.
- Cong Wenjun. Zhongguo shufashi xianqin Qindai juan 中國書法史·先秦秦代卷. Nanjing: Jiangsu jiaoyu chubanshe, 2021.
- Han, Minchŏng. “Hŏmokkwa igwangsaŭi pokkoŭishige taehan koch'al” 許穆과 李匡師의 復古意識에 대한 考察.” Sŏyebip'yŏng 4 (2009): 67-86.
- Hŏ Pong. “Choch'ŏn'gi” 朝天記. In Yŏnhaengnokchŏnjip 6. Seoul: Dongguk University, 2001.
- Hŏ Mok. “Kiyŏn” 記言. In Han’guk munjip ch’onggan 98. Seoul: Institute for the Translation of Korean Classics, 1988.
- Hong Ŏnch'ung. “Uamjip” 寓庵集. In Han’guk munjip ch’onggan 18. Seoul: Institute for the Translation of Korean Classics, 1988.
- Hong Taeyong. Tamhŏnsŏ 湛軒書. Seoul: Institute for the Translation of Korean Classics, 1989.
- Hong Yangho. “Igyejip” 耳溪集. In Han'guk yŏktaemun jipch'ongsŏ 783-788. Paju: Kyŏnginmunhwasa, 1993.
- Hwang, Chŏngyŏn. “Nangsŏn'gun iu, 17segi changshik'an yesul aehoga” 낭선군 이우, 17세기 장식한 예술 애호가.” Naeirŭl yŏnŭn yŏksa 38 (2010): 212-229.
- Hwang, Chŏngyŏn. “Nangsŏn'gun iuŭi sŏhwa sujanggwa p'yŏnch'an” 낭선군 이우의 서화 수장과 편찬.” Changsŏgak 9 (2003): 5-44.
- I Kichi. “Iramyŏn’gi” 一庵燕記. In Han'guk anmunyŏn haengmun hŏnsŏn p'yŏn 12-13. Fudan University, 2011.
- Kang Sehuang. “P’yoamyugo” 豹菴稿. In Han’guk munjip ch’onggan 80. Seoul: Institute for the Translation of Korean Classics, 2009.
- Kim Kisŭng. Han'guksŏyesa 한국서예사. Seoul: Chŏngŭmsa, 1975.
- Kim Suchŭng. “Mun'gokchip” 文谷集. In Han'guk yŏktae munjip ch'ongsŏ 2326-2329. Paju: Kyŏnginmunhwasa, 1997.
- Kwŏn Munhae. “Ch’oganjip” 草澗集. In Han’guk munjip ch’onggan 42. Seoul: Institute for the Translation of Korean Classics, 1988.
- Nam Kong-ch’ŏl. Kŭmnŭngjip 金陵集. Seoul: Kuk'akcharyowŏn, 1990.
- Nam Kŭkkwan. “Mongyejip” 夢囈集. In Han'guk yŏktae munjip ch'ongsŏ 2474. Paju: Kyŏnginmunhwasa, 1997.
- Nam, Tongsin. ““Kŭmsŏkch'ŏngwan yŏn'gu” 金石淸玩 연구.” Han'gukchungsesayŏn'gu 34 (2012): 361-434.
- Pak Chiwŏn. “Yŏnamjip” 燕巖集. In Han’guk munjip ch’onggan 252. Seoul: Institute for the Translation of Korean Classics, 2000.
- Pak Ch’ŏlsang. “Chosŏnshidae kŭmsŏk'ang yŏn'gu” 朝鮮時代 金石學 硏究. Ph.D. diss., Sangmyung University, 2014.
- Pak Saho. “Shimjŏn'go” 心田稿. In Yŏnhaeng noksŏnjip 9. Seoul: Institute for the Translation of Korean Classics, 1977.
- Qiu Xigui. Wenzixuegaiyao 文字學概要. Taipei: Wanjuanlou tushu youxiangongsi, 2001.
- Sŏ Hosu. “Yŏnhaenggi” 燕行記. In Yŏnhaengnokchŏnjip 50-51. Seoul: Dongguk University, 2001.
- Sŏng Haeŭng. Yŏn'gyŏngjaejŏnjip 硏經齋全集. In Han’guk munjip ch’onggan 278. Seoul: Institute for the Translation of Korean Classics, 2001.
- Song Siyŏl. Songjadaejŏn 宋子大全 1-7. Pohang: Samunhak'oe, 1971.
- Tian, Juan. ““Chosŏnmunindŭrŭi sŏkkoe taehan kwanshimgwa kwallyŏn shimun koch'al” 조선문인들의 石鼓에 대한 관심과 관련 시문 고찰.” Tongainmunhak 35 (2016): 1-29.
- Yi, Wan-u. ““Chosŏn hugiŭi munhwa-sŏye” 조선 후기의 문화—서예.” Hakkuksa 35 (1998): 480-495.
- Yi, Wan-u. ““Pich'ŏbŭro pon han'guksŏyega-nangwŏn'gun iuŭi taedonggŭmsŏksŏ” 비첩으로 본 한국서예가―朗善君 李俁의 大東金石書.” Kuk'akyŏn'gu 1 (2002): 1-17.
- Yu Minzhong et al., Rixiayouwenkao 日下舊聞考. Beijing: Beijing guji chubanshe, 1981.
- Yun Hyu. Paekhojip 白湖集. In Han'gukyŏktaemunjipch'ongsŏ 957-960. Paju: Kyŏnginmunhwasa, 1993.
- Zhang Zhenglang. Zhongguo dabaike quanshu·yuyuan wenzi 中國大百科全書·語言文字. Beijing: Zhongguo dabaike chubanshe, 1998.
- The Database of Korean Classics 한국고전종합DB (http://db.itkc.or.kr/).
- Chinese Text Project 中國哲學書電子化計劃 (https://ctext.org/zhs/).
News
