?? ??? ??, <????>? ?? ??? : ???? ????? ?? ??? ???? (The Portrait of Gisaeng Yeonhong, ��Portrait of Wonnangja��(�������): A Study on Its Relationship with Hong Gyeong-rae's Rebellion Texts)

? ???, 1914? ???? ?? <????>? ??? ??? ??, ? ??? ?? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ??? ????? ???. <????>? ?? ??? ?? ?????, ??? ?? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?????. ?? ???? ? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???? ????? ??????, ??? ?? ????? ???? ??? ???? ???. ??? ??? ��???�� (1861)? ��??��?? ??? ��?????��(1867)? �����ӡ�?? ???, ?? ?????? ???? ??? ????, ??? <????>? ??? ??? ?? ??? ????. ?? ???? ��??��? ???? ��??�� ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ????. ??? 1920~40?? ?? ??? ??? ? ??? ??? ??? ??????? ???. 1920??? ?? ??? ???? ????, 1930??? ????? ??? ??, 1940???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ?????. ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ????, ?? ???? ????, ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ????? ? ??? ??? ??.

This study examines the origin and meaning of the unique iconography in ��Portrait of Wonnangja�� (�������, 1914) by Chae Yong-shin, which depicts a woman holding a child. While the portrait is known to represent Yeonhong (ɏ�t), a gisaeng who showed loyalty during Hong Gyeong-rae's Rebellion, its mother-and-child format is unprecedented in traditional Korean painting, leading to various interpretations of its background. While previous studies have primarily focused on the art historical aspects of this unique iconography, its relationship with contemporary textual sources has not been sufficiently examined. This research traces how the expression ��ai (child)�� in the woodblock print Shinmirok (1861) and the term ��soja (young son)�� in Gaesongbuwonrok (1867) were transformed in subsequent texts and influenced the creation and interpretation of the portrait. Notably, this study reveals that while the term ��ai�� in the woodblock print originally referred to ��younger brother,�� contextual inconsistencies and oral transmission led to misunderstandings that significantly influenced later interpretations. Furthermore, it analyzes how the painting was reinterpreted during the modern period of the 1920s-40s. The interpretation evolved from the portrayal of a loyal gisaeng in the 1920s, through local cultural context in the 1930s, to a modern critique of the status system in the 1940s. This study thus demonstrates the dynamic process through which historical facts are recorded in texts, transformed into visual images, and continue to generate new interpretations through their complex interactions.