朝鲜王朝“仁祖反正”辨诬与《明史》编纂
Disputation on Injo Banjeong and Compilation of Ming History in Joseon Dynasty
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The recordation about Injo Banjeong event in Ming unofficial history books brought an important event of China-Korea relationship, which was the disputation on Injo Banjeong. The disputation started from Hyeonjong 10th (1673, Kangxi 12th) to Yeongjo 15th (1739, Qianlong 4th), until Qing Dynasty gave the Ming History Chuan Korea to Joseon Dynasty. The beginning was that Joseon Dynasty plead to Qing Dynasty on compiling Ming History not believing the recordation in the Ming unofficial history books about Injo Banjeong event. In the end Joseon Dynasty inquired strongly that Qing Dynasty correct the false recordation in compiling official Ming History. The event of negotiation with compiling Ming history brought by disputation on Injo Banjeong promoted Ming History to spread in Joseon Dynasty. Comparing different editions of Ming History, the methods and contents of the modified words required by Joseon Dynasty in the process of compiling Ming History are found and confirmed. The negotiation with compiling official history also is an important constitute of China-Korea relationship, which catch our eyes. After Korea became the tributary of Qing China, the policy of Sadaejuui of Joseon Dynasty strictly suited for Manchus Dynasty. Joseon Dynasty fulfilled the responsibility of tribute, in the event of Injo Banjeong, they sent envoy to Qing China many times to appeal to acquire the approval of Qing, and strongly wished to correct Ming History. Joseon Dynasty rejected Qing China in mentally, which they thought Jurchen was the same foreigner. Joseon could not cut off the relation with Ming in the cultural state, which the ideas of respecting Ming and depreciating Qing was unbreakable. We can find that the China-Korea relation developed in the sinuous situation. In the disputation on Injo Banjeong, the contradictory between the senior of politics and the deviation of cultural state can be found in the China-Korea relation.
Abstract
The recordation about Injo Banjeong event in Ming unofficial history books brought an important event of China-Korea relationship, which was the disputation on Injo Banjeong. The disputation started from Hyeonjong 10th (1673, Kangxi 12th) to Yeongjo 15th (1739, Qianlong 4th), until Qing Dynasty gave the Ming History Chuan Korea to Joseon Dynasty. The beginning was that Joseon Dynasty plead to Qing Dynasty on compiling Ming History not believing the recordation in the Ming unofficial history books about Injo Banjeong event. In the end Joseon Dynasty inquired strongly that Qing Dynasty correct the false recordation in compiling official Ming History. The event of negotiation with compiling Ming history brought by disputation on Injo Banjeong promoted Ming History to spread in Joseon Dynasty. Comparing different editions of Ming History, the methods and contents of the modified words required by Joseon Dynasty in the process of compiling Ming History are found and confirmed. The negotiation with compiling official history also is an important constitute of China-Korea relationship, which catch our eyes. After Korea became the tributary of Qing China, the policy of Sadaejuui of Joseon Dynasty strictly suited for Manchus Dynasty. Joseon Dynasty fulfilled the responsibility of tribute, in the event of Injo Banjeong, they sent envoy to Qing China many times to appeal to acquire the approval of Qing, and strongly wished to correct Ming History. Joseon Dynasty rejected Qing China in mentally, which they thought Jurchen was the same foreigner. Joseon could not cut off the relation with Ming in the cultural state, which the ideas of respecting Ming and depreciating Qing was unbreakable. We can find that the China-Korea relation developed in the sinuous situation. In the disputation on Injo Banjeong, the contradictory between the senior of politics and the deviation of cultural state can be found in the China-Korea relation.
참고문헌 (91)
- 赵翼, "《廿二史札记》卷三十一《明史》, 王树民校正《廿二史札记校正》" (2001), 中华书局
- 李肯翊, "《燃黎室记述》卷二十二《仁祖朝故事本末·癸亥靖社》" (1976), 景仁文化社
- "《朝鲜仁祖实录》卷一, 一年三月甲辰", ~
- "《朝鲜仁祖实录》附录《仁宗大王行状》", ~
- "《明熹宗实录》卷五六，天启五年二月丙午", ~
- "《明熹宗实录》卷三二，天启三年四月戊子。", ~
- 参见黄建国, "古代中韩典籍交流概说", 韩国研究, (3) (1996), 杭州出版社
- 参见邹振环, "明末清初的赴京使团与汉文西书的东传", 韩国研究, (4) (1998), 上海人民出版社
- 谢国桢, "增订晚明史籍考 卷一 通记有明一代史乘", pp.38~ (1981), 上海古籍出版社
- 高傅川, "《月峰集》卷三《封进丛信录疏》", 韩国文集丛刊续, 19 (2005), 韩国民族文化推进会
- 高傅川, "《月峰集》卷三《避嫌》", 韩国文集丛刊续, 9 (2005), 韩国民族文化推进会
- 陈建辑, "《皇明从信录》卷首《从信录总例》", 续修四库全书, 355, 史部
- 沈国元, "《两朝从信录》卷十八，天启三年四月", 续修四库全书, 356, pp.499~, 史部
- 沈国元, "《两朝从信录》卷十八，天启三年四月", 续修四库全书, 356, pp.502~, 史部
- 陈建辑, "《皇明十六朝广汇纪》卷二十三", 四库禁毁丛刊, 42, pp.560~, 史部
- 江旭奇, "《皇明通纪集要》卷五十二，天启三年", 四库禁毁丛刊, 34, pp.597~598
- 金锡胄, "《息庵先生遗稿》卷十九《请改癸亥被诬事奏》，《", 韩国文集丛刊, 145 (1995), 韩国民族文化促进会
- "《朝鲜显宗实录》卷二十一，十四年二月辛亥。", ~
- "《朝鲜肃宗实录》卷五，二年一月戊申", ~
- 李宜显, "《陶谷集》卷三十《壬子燕行杂识》", 韩国文集丛刊, 181 (1996), 韩国民族文化推进会
- "朝鲜肃宗实录》卷五，二年一月戊申", ~
- "《朝鲜肃宗实录》卷五，二年一月辛亥。", ~
- "《朝鲜肃宗实录》卷五，二年八月丙辰。"
- "《朝鲜肃宗实录》卷五，二年十二月庚寅", ~
- "《朝鲜肃宗实录》卷六，三年二月壬戌", ~
- 金锡胄, "《息庵先生遗稿》卷十九《请改癸亥被诬事奏》", 韩国文集丛刊, 145 (1995), 韩国民族文化推进会
- "《朝鲜肃宗实录》卷八，五年三月壬寅", ~
- "《朝鲜肃宗实录》卷八，五年三月丙辰。", ~
- 参见乔治忠, "论清顺治朝与康熙朝初期对《明史》的纂修——兼与香港大学何冠彪博士商榷", 河北学刊, (3) (2003)
- 参见李晋华, "《明史纂修考》之三《纂修中之三时期》, in: 明史编纂考", pp.97~ (1968), 台湾学生书局
- 李宜显, "《陶谷集》卷三十《壬子燕行杂识》", 韩国文集丛刊, 181 (1996), 韩国民族文化推进会
- "《朝鲜英祖实录》卷六，一年五月戊申。", ~
- 参见黄爱萍, "〈明史〉纂修与清初史学——兼论万斯同王鸿绪在〈明史〉纂修中的作用", 清史研究, 2 (1994)
- 赵文命, "《鹤岩集》册六《燕行日记》乙巳八月初一日丙寅", 韩国文集丛刊, 191 (1997), 韩国民族文化推进会
- "《朝鲜英祖实录》卷九，二年二月辛未", ~
- "《清世宗实录》卷四十四，雍正四年五月己未。", ~
- "(朝鲜王朝）《承政院日记》英祖二年八月十六日（雍正四年丙午八月十六日乙亥）", ~
- "《朝鲜英祖实录》卷十一，三年闰三月庚申。", ~
- "《朝鲜英祖实录》卷二十五，六年四月己亥", ~
- "《朝鲜英祖实录》卷二十九，七年四月癸巳", ~
- "《朝鲜英祖实录》卷三十，七年十一月丙寅。", ~
- "《清世宗实录》卷一百十六，雍正十年三月戊辰。", ~
- "《朝鲜英祖实录》卷三十一，八年五月甲子。", ~
- "朝鲜英祖实录》卷四十三，十三年四月丁卯。", ~
- "朝鲜英祖实录》卷四十七，十四年七月乙亥。", ~
- "《朝鲜英祖实录》卷四十八，十五年二月己卯。", ~
- "《朝鲜英祖实录》卷四十八，十五年二月己卯条记：“上复御熙政堂，引见三使臣劳之。", ~
- 谓在鲁等曰, "史事顺成可幸，然恨未得全帙来也", ~
- "《朝鲜英祖实录》卷五十一，十六年四月甲戌。", ~
- "（朝鲜王朝）《承政院日记》英祖十七年四月四日（乾隆六年辛酉四月初四日戊戌）", ~
- "《朝鲜英祖实录》卷三十一，八年五月甲子", ~
- "《朝鲜英祖实录》卷二十九，七年四月癸巳", ~
- "《八旗满洲氏族通谱》卷七十二，金氏条，转引自徐凯《满洲八旗高丽士大夫家族》, in: 《明清论丛》第一辑" (1999), 紫禁城出版社
- "参见《朝鲜王朝实录》卷二十九，七年四月癸巳；卷三十一，八年五月甲子。", ~
- "《朝鲜英祖实录》卷二十九，七年四月癸巳。", ~
- "（朝鲜王朝）《承政院日记》英祖二年八月十六日（雍正四年丙午八月十六日乙亥）", ~
- 黄胤锡, "颐斋乱稿", 韩国学资料丛书, 2, pp.490~ (1995), 韩国精神文化研究院
- "《朝鲜英祖实录》卷二十九，七年四月癸亥。", ~
- "《朝鲜英祖实录》卷三十一，八年五月甲子", ~
- "《朝鲜英祖实录》卷五十九，二十年五月庚子。", ~
- 王鸿绪, "《明史稿》卷二百九十九《外国传·朝鲜传》", 高丽大学图书馆藏雍正元
- "参见《朝鲜显宗实录》卷二十一，十四年二月癸丑", ~
- "《英祖实录》卷六，一年五月戊申", ~
- "《英祖实录》卷三十一，八年四月己丑", ~
- "《承政院日记》英祖二年二月八日（雍正四年丙午二月初八日辛未）", ~
- 金锡胄, "《息庵先生遗稿》卷十九《请改癸亥被诬事奏》", 韩国文集丛刊, 145 (1995), 韩国民族文化推进会
- "《朝鲜英祖实录》卷九，二年二月辛未。", ~
- "《朝鲜显宗实录》卷二十一，十四年二月癸丑。《改修朝鲜显宗实录》此条记为：“祖宗受此诬蔑，伸辨之举，似不可少缓。而第臣之愚见，与改宗系时道理，时势事体皆异。所谓道理者，不待烦说，而圣明必思之矣。时势云者，设令兹事得以辨诬，时异事变之后，明人所纪，彼人改之，则岂能有光于后世乎?所谓事体云者，大臣亦既发端而未毕矣。盖《会典》之书，如我国之《经国大典》，天子与宰相、学士纂成者也。此而有爽实之言，则固不可不陈辨而改之，至如《从信录》等书，皆野史小说，不过以一人之误闻误传随录者，何可一一请改乎?”", ~
- "《朝鲜肃宗实录》卷五，二年一月辛亥。", ~
- "《朝鲜肃宗实录》卷五，二年一月辛亥", ~
- "谈者或以为:‘事异往昔，不必辨明", 此恐不深思也
- "元朝所成之《宋史》，后人不废看，则今日燕京所修之《明史》，安保其不传信于后代，而任其诬捏而不为辨白乎?", ~
- "（朝鲜王朝）《承政院日记》英祖二年一月十七日（雍正四年丙午正月十七日庚戌）", ~
- 李惟泰, "《草庐先生文集》卷二十三《赠李齐说说》", 韩国历代文集从书, 925 (1993), 韩国景仁文化社
- "《朝鲜孝宗实录》卷五，即位年八月己亥", ~
- "《朝鲜肃宗实录》卷四，元年六月甲子。", ~
- "《朝鲜肃宗实录》卷十五，十年六月壬子。", ~
- "《清圣祖实录》卷二四八，五十年十月丙辰朔。", ~
- 赵文命, "《鹤岩集》册六《燕行日记》乙巳八月初一日丙寅", 韩国文集丛刊, 191 (1997), 韩国民族文化推进会
- "《朝鲜肃宗实录》卷一，即位年十一月己卯。", ~
- "《朝鲜肃宗实录》卷四十一，三十一年一月庚戌", ~
- "（朝鲜王朝）《承政院日记》，英祖二年二月初八日（雍正四年丙午二月初八日辛未）。"
- "《朝鲜肃宗实录》卷六，三年二月壬戌。", ~
- "《朝鲜肃宗实录》卷六，三年十月丙寅。", ~
- 李惟泰, "《草庐先生文集》卷二十三《赠李齐说说》", 韩国历代文集从书, 925 (1993), 韩国景仁文化社
- "《朝鲜英祖实录》卷四十八，十五年二月己丑", ~
- "（朝鲜王朝）《承政院日记》英祖八年四月三日，（雍正十年壬子四月初三日庚寅）。", ~
- "《光国志庆录》卷末《宣祖御制序》，高丽大学图书馆藏肃宗二十七年（1701）刻本。", ~
- "《清太宗实录》卷三十九，崇德三年十月庚申。", ~
- "《朝鲜英祖实录》卷六十九，二十五年三月己酉。", ~
- 参见孙卫国, "试论朝鲜王朝尊明贬清的理论基础", 史学月刊, 6 (2004)