Abstract:The thesis of "Confucian constitutionalism" has argued that ritual propriety was equivalent to constitutional law in Confucian political thought. By focusing on the shortcoming of the thesis, which is its lack of a theoretical place for sovereignty, this article examines the nature of perpetual sovereignty that ensured the continuous succession of political authority in the Chosŏn Dynasty. This article thereby presents the constitutional thought of reconciliation between political fact and constitutional value in sovereign succession. It also highlights the feature of the ritual discourse which lies in the fact that the tensions between the logic of sovereignty and the constitution of primogeniture were raised after a king's death. This suggests that Confucian royal rituals were the ex-post symbolic mediation between fact and value. In the ritual controversy (yesong), in which the tensions between them escalated, Song Siyŏl attempted to harmonize them but only by separating political succession from ritual representation. This constitutional thought of reconciliation represented the autonomy of politics, yet maintained the demarcation between fact and value. In conclusion, the Confucian ritual discourse of kingship was not the priestly power of Confucian scholar-officers but the practical reasoning of the theoretical conundrum of the throne.

中文翻译：

---

儒家礼仪话语中的君权继承问题：事实与价值调和的宪法思想

摘要：“儒家宪政”论断认为，礼礼在儒家政治思想中等同于宪法。本文着眼于本文的不足之处，即缺乏主权的理论地位，考察了确保朝鲜王朝政治权力连续继承的永久主权的本质。本文由此提出了在主权继承中协调政治事实与宪法价值的宪法思想。这也凸显了礼制话语的特点，即君主死后引发的主权逻辑与长子继承制之间的紧张关系。这表明，儒家皇家礼仪是事实与价值之间的事后象征性中介。在仪式之争（yesong）中，他们之间的紧张局势升级，Song Siyŏl 试图协调它们，但只是将政治继承与仪式代表分开。这种宪政的和解思想代表了政治的自主性，同时又保持了事实与价值的分界线。综上所述，儒家的王权礼制话语不是儒士文人的祭司权力，而是王位理论难题的实践推理。这种宪政的和解思想代表了政治的自主性，同时又保持了事实与价值的分界线。综上所述，儒家的王权礼制话语不是儒士文人的祭司权力，而是王位理论难题的实践推理。这种宪政的和解思想代表了政治的自主性，同时又保持了事实与价值的分界线。综上所述，儒家的王权礼制话语不是儒士文人的祭司权力，而是王位理论难题的实践推理。