병자호란중 남한산성내에서의 주요 국정운영자들의 담론분석

Abstract

In the history of Joseon Dynasty, Byungjahoran was one of the shameful historical events that the King had kneeled down to the Manchurian who were so barbaric. The world view of the mainstream ruling class based on Confucianism served as a justification to abolish the Gwanghaegun and to make the king Injo into the throne. From the beginning of the crown, the king Injo was friendly to the Ming Dynasty but was exclusive to the Manchurian. However, the invasion of the Manchurian in the 5th year of Injo(1627) brought about a change in this foreign policy trend. Especially in the 14th year of the king Injo(1636), the Manchurian invaded Joseon across the Yalu River unexpectedly on December 9 of the year. Qing's army arrived in Hanyang after the five days after crossing the the Amnokgang. On December 14, Injo tried to escape to Ganghwa Island but failed. He escaped to Namhansanseong that evening. In Namhansanseong, he fought for 47 days but eventually surrendered to Qing's army. This study examines what happened during the 47 days in Namhansanseong. The core of the main public opinion politics in Namhansanseong were the escape of Ganghwa Island, the hostage of the royal family, the hostage of the crown prince, the issue of national diplomatic documents, and the surrender of the king. The important views of crossing these issues are two classes of a person who claims to the rejection of negotiations and an advocate of peace. Therefore, it is necessary to examine what their key issues are and what their core keywords are. And to analyze how major policy makers form a network is also very important to understand the situation at the time. Therefore, this study periodically analyzed what happened during 47 days in Namhansanseong by text mining analysis and network analysis. Through this study, we could examine the attitudes and beliefs of the main policy makers at the time of the national crisis. Text mining analysis and network analysis are considered to be worthy of a new research methodology in history research. In this study, however, the individual figures of major state actors were not thoroughly examined. This is worth doing as a research project in the future.