이 글에서는 陜川 三嘉에 있었던 龍巖書院 운영주체들의 성격과 활동을 고찰하였는데, 특히 인조반정 이후 그들이 보여주었던 학문적 지향에 관해 주로 논의하였다. 또한 1609년에 공히 사액되었던 德川書院ᆞ新山書院 등 타 남명 제향 서원의 경우와 비교해 봄으로써, 용암서원 운영주체들의 특징을 좀더 부각시키고자 하였다.용암서원은 임진왜란 때 소실된 뒤, 1601년경 재건되었는데, 이때 관여한 인물 다수가 鄭仁弘과 밀접한 관련이 있는 것으로 판단된다. 용암서원의 원장ᆞ원임을 맡은 인물로는 정인홍, 文景虎, 李屹, 鄭蘊, 林眞怤, 朴絪 등이 있는데, 정온ᆞ임진부ᆞ박인은 인조반정 이후에도 용암서원 내에서 남명 선양 사업을 활발히 진행하였고, 덕천ᆞ신산서원의 추가 배양 논의에서도 남명 위상의 제고를 위한 방법을 제시하였다.임진부는 용암서원에서의 강학을 통해 남명 정신을 강조했고, 박인은 남명 관련 기록물의 정리ㆍ편집을 맡았는데, 이 일들을 정온의 자문을 받아 진행하였다. 정온은 趙任道에게 신산서원 원장을 맡길 만큼 용암서원ㆍ신산서원 내에서 영향력이 있었고, 조임도는 용암서원 측의 입장을 참고하며 신산서원 내의 일을 처리한 것으로 보인다.한편 덕천서원에서는 1635년 무렵 覺齋 河沆을 배향하려는 논의가 있었다. 여기서 사액서원의 지위를 포기하면서까지 배향을 강행하려는 의견도 있었지만, 정온 등 용암서원 운영주체 측에서는 사액의 지위를 인정해야 한다는 의견을 피력함과 동시에 하항 외에 鄭逑 등 남명 高弟를 함께 배향해야 타당하다고 주장하였다. 이는 인조반정 이후 추락해가는 남명의 위상을 제고할 방법을 모색한 것인데, 정구에게서 남명의 영향을 지우려는 집단의 반대로 결국 실현되지 못한 것으로 보이지만 정인홍이 생전에 추구했던 남명 선양 정신의 잔존이라 할만하다. 신산서원에서 金宇顒만을 제향하려는 움직임에 대해서도 이들 용암서원 운영주체들은 정구도 함께 배향할 것을 주장하였다.인조반정 이후 덕천서원ᆞ신산서원에서는 서원 내 서로 다른 성향을 가진 집단끼리 논의하고 충돌함으로써, 반정 이후 바뀐 환경에서 적응할 방법을 모색해 나갔다면, 용암서원은 변신이 불가능할 정도로 정인홍 계열의 영향력이 컸던 곳으로 판단되지만, 이러한 점 때문에 인조반정 이후에도 한동안은 정인홍의 정신을 계승하여 남명학의 학습과 교육, 정리와 출판 사업 등이 추진될 수 있었던 것이다.

Most studies on Nammyeong Jo Sik's literary works have been focused mainly on the discussion about his poems and aesthetic sense on which his literature was based. Moreover, researches on his prose unlike that on poetry have made little progress, especially with no studies on epitaphs, which are considered important among his prose in classical Chinese. This thesis is to examine Nammyeong Jo Sik's style of writing and the underlying aesthetic sense, focusing on his epitaphs, which most researchers have had little interest in so far. When he wrote epitaph, Nammyeong Jo Sik put great emphasis on frank narration among other things, which is to describe the truth about the dead person in question. Besides, he stressed two points; first, to know the dead concerned very well and to frankly describe the fact about the dead person without flattering attitude, under any circumstances. We can prove that he applied these rules to the writing of epitaph. Above all, it is clear in the fact that among about 22 epitaphs, most of them were for his own father, relatives, close friends and relatives of his pupils whose family history and specific situations he himself knew very well. Secondly, as shown explicitly from the epitaph for his deceased father, he faithfully followed his own rule not to flatter a dead person by exaggerating or making an excuse. In addition to the rule of truth, he exalted epitaph to the high place of literary works not only by narrating the fact frankly, but also freely expressing his own feelings. At this point, it is worth mentioning the episode concerning the epitaph he wrote for the late father of Guam(龜巖) Yi Jeong(李楨), who was one of major scholars living in Yeongnam(嶺南) province and Nammyeong Jo Sik kept in contact with. As Guam Yi Jeong sent the epitaph to T'oegye(退溪) Yi Hwang(李滉), asking for correction, this led to an indirect argument between T'ogye Yi Hwang and Nammyeong Jo Sik. Exceptionally T'oegye Yi Hwang corrected a lot the epitaph written by Nammyeong Jo Sik, severely criticizing the form and content of the epitaph. Naturally, Nammyeong Jo Sik did not accept the criticism of T'oegye Yi Hwang, because they were much different in a philosophical inclination and view of study as well as literary taste and style. Consequently, they both showed great opposition to each other's style and aesthetic sense concerning the epitaph beyond compromise. Nammyeong Jo Sik thought that he was not so much literarily successful, but he himself was the successor of 'ancient prose'(古文) tradition, while he criticized T'oegye Yi Hwang's style naming it 'popular prose'(今文) despite his success in the world. On the other hand, T'oegye Yi Hwang criticized Nammyeong Jo Sik's epitaph for his consistently changing rule, mentioning that there are certain rules of epitaph narration, which are the fixed rule and changing rule. Form this controversy between the two persons concerning epitaph writing, we can understand to some extent the thought of men of noble family in the early Chosen dynasty period concerning epitaph as an important form of prose in classical Chinese.

The article aims to compare the thought and practice between Nammyeong Jo Sik(1501-1572), the Confucian scholar of the mid Choso˘n period and Yamazaki Ansai(1618-1682), the Confucian scholar of the early Tokugawa Japan. Most of the comparative studies are conducted to highlight the differences between the cases compared. People, for example, will expect from the comparative study of Nammyeong and Ansai's thoughts to see the differences of reception and development of the Neo-Confucian thought in Choso˘n and Tokugawa Japan. This article, however, focuses on the commonalities and similarities shared by the two Neo-Confucians who lived in the totally different political systems and backgrounds. Both of them concentrated not on how to philosophize their own thinking but on ways to actualize the truths revealed by their antecedents. Their lives, therefore, were consistent in practising the truths discovered by the sages. Their concrete methods of practice were Jing(敬) and Yi(義). The two thinkers actualized their beliefs: Nammyeong as Chushi(處士) in times of the massacre of literati in mid Choso˘n period, and Yamazaki Ansai as Binshi(賓帥) in the barrack state, a counry unfamiliar with Neo-Confucianism. They shared the common dreams of being the Wangshi(王帥) and truly corresponded to Chu Hsi(朱熹)'s idea of the citizen of the cosmopolitan world.