1811年 對馬島 易地通信硏究 :기미책을 중심으로

Abstract

Studies on delegators have been increased by accomplishments of researches in which delegators are symbols of amicability. However, location modifying diplomacy in Tsusima in 1811 is yet not considered as research material. The reason lies in the issue of contempt of Chosun. In research on delegators emphasize amicability, ignorant comment on delegators made by Matsudaira Sadanobu has been an obstacle for researches on location modifying diplomacy. This is why this paper started from his literature on issue of contempt of Chosun, titled 『Words under the roof』. To connect location modifying diplomacy and contempt of Chosun, political/economic background and actual negotiation process should be included in the examination. However it has been rather emphasized on the comment on contempt of Chosun than such perspectives. This paper is focused on Matsudaira’s intentions to solve two conflicting issues of moving ceremony location to Tsusima for economic purpose, and making ignorant comment on Chosun delegators politically. As a result, it suggested that there was no longer need for Bakuhu to treat delegator in Edo, which gave Matsudaira a justification to move the location to Tsusima. Insufficiency of study on location modifying diplomacy has been providing impression that there was not much diplomatic policy of Chosun or, if there was, it did not fully function. However, it is bound to have a room for re-examination considering it is a premature conclusion without overall examination on the issue. The paper divided location modifying diplomacy into two periods to understand location modifying diplomacy more systematically. First period is of Matsudaira’s development of the location modification, and the other is of modifying process in Tsusima. Since official position of Bakuhu had stayed unchanged, it is understandable that it has been interpreted consistently without a doubt. However in continuos context, logical explanation on attitude of Tsusima since resumption of modifying location to agreement in 1858 is difficult, which only can be explained as sudden gesture of Tsusima. The second point in the paper is that diplomatic policy of Chosun was focused on policy for barbarian toward Tsusima. Temporary delegators from Tsusima were ill-treated because they were not regulated by an agreement by the time of negotiation by Matsudaira. Assertion on interpreter entering Edo can be divided into first(1805) stage in which punishment on Tsusima was emphasized, and second stage(after 1808) in which confirmation of Bakuhu’s position was emphasized. First stage was emphasized on punishment on Tsusima because illegal act of interpreters was revealed, which triggered public request for punishing Tsusima as well. The other was revealed as a direct request of entry certificate to Bakuhu, eventually high official of Bakuhu went to Tsusima to deliver Bakuhu’s position. Chosun repeatedly asserted interpreter’s entering Edo to oppress Tsusima constantly. Through this negotiation, both countries finally agreed to new formality called location modifying diplomacy which respectfully reflected opinions from both countries. Lastly, the point in which location modifying diplomacy was appropriate for contemporary circumstance of 19th century and had no problem in terms of diplomatic formality should not be neglected. It was an opportunity for Chosun to continue exchanges of delegation with Japan in late Chosun and resolve ill relationship with Tsusima, while Japan could save expenses for entertaining Chosun delegators to improve poor domestic economy. There was internal conflict in Tsusima, though it could be rewarded from Bakuhu by succeeding location modifying diplomacy.