King YeongJo gains evaluation as a great king who led the revival of the late Joseon era. He, on the other hand, is also the protagonist in the shocking incident that killed his own son, Prince Sado. Called the Imo Incident(壬午禍變), this incident had a number of political implications up to the end of Joseon, and various debates arose over the cause in academia as well. And because it has been covered several times in the contemporary mass media, it is a very familiar event to the general public. However, not many people understand the exact cause.
It is because the interpretation of Imo Incident(壬午禍變) has changed several times.
King YeongJo preached the justification theory that he had no choice but to order death because Prince Sado committed a big fault. On the other hand, as king Jeongjo, who inherited the throne of king YeongJo, was a son of Prince Sado by blood, while reducing Prince Sado's faults and emphasizing that there were many merits, he claimed that the cause of his father's death was due to the conspirators.
After the liberation in 1945, debates continued in the Korean history and Korean literature, and it was because the interpretation of 『Hanjoong‐ Rok (閑中錄)』, written by Princess Hyegyeong, the wife of Prince Sado, was different. In 『Hanjoong‐ Rok (閑中錄)』, it was stated that Prince Sado's lunacy (狂症) was the cause, and from the 1980s, the interpretation that Prince Sado's death was the result of a sacrifice in the faction has emerged.
Crown princess Hong's father, Hong Bong‐han, as Noron's leading force, had no choice but to intervene deeply in Prince Sado's death, and in 『Hanjoong‐ Rok (閑中錄)』, there was a passage where he was described differently from the facts in order to excuse Hong Bong‐han for intervening in the death of his son‐in‐law. Based on this, historians questioned the credibility of 『Hanjoong‐ Rok (閑中錄)』, and attempted the interpretation that Prince Sado was sacrificed in the political confrontation between Noron and Soron. As a result, the theory that it was the result of the party struggle prevailed, but the opinion that it is credible based on the recent findings as to Prince Sado's symptoms of mental illness described in 『Hanjoong‐ Rok (閑中錄)』 is gaining weight. Therefore, the contents of 『Hanjoong‐ Rok (閑中錄)』, which say that although king YeongJo was a very capable king politically, but that he showed a lot of favoritism to his family and that he emotionally abused Prince Sado, are also interpreted as being true. As the view that even though he was a figure who achieved outstanding social achievements, there may be a personality flaw is widely accepted in Korean society since the 1990s, the interpretation of historical events and historical records has also changed.
Through this, it can be seen that the neo‐Confucious view of history, which emphasizes legitimacy and justification, played an important role in the Joseon era. On the other hand, after the modern era, a view of history centered on political interpretation formed the mainstream.
However, in recent historical interpretations, there has been a change to accept the view that although the king is a very political being, personal characteristics or family history have a considerable influence on political behavior.
In conclusion, for learners of history, ‘historical records that record historical events do not change their contents, but they need education that can help them understand that various interpretations are possible depending on the historical view of future generations. Understanding this and cultivating a way of thinking that illuminates issues from various angles is also one way to achieve a qualitative improvement of university liberal arts education.