본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

朝鮮初期 野人과 對馬島에 대한 藩籬 · 藩屛 認識의 형성과 敬差官의 파견

Creating Chosŏn's suzerainty over Jurchen and Tsushima and the dispatch of Ky?ngchagwan(敬差官)

0

조회

0

다운로드

60

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류기타인문학

초록

The Conventional understanding of Kyŏngchagwan(敬差官) in early Chosŏn was that it was one of king's envoys sent to local provinces to deal with specific state's affairs. It has been understood as Chosŏn Kings domestic envoy. However, many historical records show Kyŏngchagwan envoys were not only sent to domestic regions, but also dispatched to foreign regions such as Tsushima and Jurchens. Then, why were those Kyŏngchagwan envoys dispatched to those foreign regions? What were the roles of Kyŏngchagwan in these regions? What meaning does it bear for Chosŏn's foreign policy? My problematization of existing researches came from those simple questions. Trying to rebut the conventional understanding that Kyŏngchagwan is Chosŏn king’s domestic envoys, I have looked at the various aspects of Kyŏngchagwan dispatch including its practices and its ideological basis. It turned out that Chosŏn’s Kyŏngchagwan dispatch was a diplomatic practice which symbolized Chosŏn’s own idea of having vassals such as Jurchens and Tsushima in Northeastern interstate relationship. First of all, Kyŏngchagwan also was the envoy who delivered Chosŏn king’s order to foreign regions such as Jurchen and Tsushima, as well as the Chosŏn king’s domestic envoy. Its fundamental character is borne in the rhetoric of the term itself which means an official who carried out the Chosŏn King’s order respectfully to Jurchen and Tsushima regions which are regarded as inferior. This character culminated in the ceremonial rituals of receiving Kyŏngchagwan which symbolized Chosŏn’s superiority. Then, historical origin of this hierarchy where Chosŏn was able to force this practice on Jurchens and Tsushima, was Koryŏ and Chosŏn’s military subjugation of them and Chosŏn’s founder Yi Sŏng’gye’s contribution to it. According to the changes of East Asian interstate frame, the ruling elites of early Chosŏn used it as useful historical sources for legitimizing their superiority over those two foreign forces in writing its own history. Through this, the ideological basis of Chosŏn’s having its own vassals such as Jurchen and Tsushima was created. Now, Chosŏn became a suzerain of those two vassals which used to be the barbarians. On the basis of this idea, Chosŏn’s ruling elites try to perpetuate their suzerainty over them. The dispatch of Kyŏngchagwan was one of the typical diplomatic practices to symbolize this relation. Institutional origin of Kyŏngchagwan shed light on this symbolic meaning of Chosŏn’s Kyŏngchagwan more clearly. Ming sent its low level envoys called Qinchaiguan(欽差官) to its vassals such as Chosŏn. Following Chinese imperial model foreign policy, Chosŏn began to send Kyŏngchagwan(敬差官). However, this doesn’t mean that Chosŏn denied Sino-centric East Asian order. Rather, modifying its original model in Chosŏn’s own position under Ming, Chosŏn could still signify its suzerainty over Jurchen and Tsushima Wako, accepting Ming suzerainty at the same time.

Abstract

The Conventional understanding of Kyŏngchagwan(敬差官) in early Chosŏn was that it was one of king's envoys sent to local provinces to deal with specific state's affairs. It has been understood as Chosŏn Kings domestic envoy. However, many historical records show Kyŏngchagwan envoys were not only sent to domestic regions, but also dispatched to foreign regions such as Tsushima and Jurchens. Then, why were those Kyŏngchagwan envoys dispatched to those foreign regions? What were the roles of Kyŏngchagwan in these regions? What meaning does it bear for Chosŏn's foreign policy? My problematization of existing researches came from those simple questions. Trying to rebut the conventional understanding that Kyŏngchagwan is Chosŏn king’s domestic envoys, I have looked at the various aspects of Kyŏngchagwan dispatch including its practices and its ideological basis. It turned out that Chosŏn’s Kyŏngchagwan dispatch was a diplomatic practice which symbolized Chosŏn’s own idea of having vassals such as Jurchens and Tsushima in Northeastern interstate relationship. First of all, Kyŏngchagwan also was the envoy who delivered Chosŏn king’s order to foreign regions such as Jurchen and Tsushima, as well as the Chosŏn king’s domestic envoy. Its fundamental character is borne in the rhetoric of the term itself which means an official who carried out the Chosŏn King’s order respectfully to Jurchen and Tsushima regions which are regarded as inferior. This character culminated in the ceremonial rituals of receiving Kyŏngchagwan which symbolized Chosŏn’s superiority. Then, historical origin of this hierarchy where Chosŏn was able to force this practice on Jurchens and Tsushima, was Koryŏ and Chosŏn’s military subjugation of them and Chosŏn’s founder Yi Sŏng’gye’s contribution to it. According to the changes of East Asian interstate frame, the ruling elites of early Chosŏn used it as useful historical sources for legitimizing their superiority over those two foreign forces in writing its own history. Through this, the ideological basis of Chosŏn’s having its own vassals such as Jurchen and Tsushima was created. Now, Chosŏn became a suzerain of those two vassals which used to be the barbarians. On the basis of this idea, Chosŏn’s ruling elites try to perpetuate their suzerainty over them. The dispatch of Kyŏngchagwan was one of the typical diplomatic practices to symbolize this relation. Institutional origin of Kyŏngchagwan shed light on this symbolic meaning of Chosŏn’s Kyŏngchagwan more clearly. Ming sent its low level envoys called Qinchaiguan(欽差官) to its vassals such as Chosŏn. Following Chinese imperial model foreign policy, Chosŏn began to send Kyŏngchagwan(敬差官). However, this doesn’t mean that Chosŏn denied Sino-centric East Asian order. Rather, modifying its original model in Chosŏn’s own position under Ming, Chosŏn could still signify its suzerainty over Jurchen and Tsushima Wako, accepting Ming suzerainty at the same time.

참고문헌 (30)

  1. 鄭鉉在, "朝鮮 初期의 敬差官에 대하여", 慶北史學, 1 (1979)
  2. 李章雨, "朝鮮初期의 損實敬差官과 量田敬差官", 國史館論叢, 12 (1990)
  3. 任先彬, "朝鮮 初期 ‘外方使臣’에 대한 試論", 朝鮮時代史學報, 5 (1998)
  4. 김순남, "朝鮮初期 敬差官과 外官", 韓國史學報, (18), pp.335~360 (2004), 고려사학회
  5. 한문종, "朝鮮前期의 對馬島 敬差官", 全北史學, 15 (1992)
  6. "世宗實錄", ~
  7. "定宗實錄", ~
  8. "太宗實錄", ~
  9. "端宗實錄", ~
  10. "成宗實錄", ~
  11. "燕山君日記", ~
  12. 盧明鎬, "高麗時代의 多元的 天下觀과 海東天子", 韓國史硏究, 105 (1999)
  13. "高麗史", ~
  14. "世祖實錄", ~
  15. 金九鎭, "吾音會의 斡朶里 女眞에 對한 연구", 史叢, 17․18 (1973)
  16. 柳昌圭, "李成桂의 軍事的 基盤」-東北面을 중심으로-", 震檀學報, 58 (1984)
  17. 閔賢九, "高麗 恭愍王의 反元的 改革政治에 대한 一考察", 震檀學報, 68 (1989)
  18. "太祖實錄", ~
  19. 박원호, "明初朝鮮關係史硏究" (2002), 일조각
  20. 안준희, "朝鮮初期 太宗의 집권과정과 趙思義의 난", 외대사학, 5, pp.198~205 (1993)
  21. 한성주, "朝鮮初期 朝?明 二重受職女眞人의 兩屬問題", 조선시대사학보, (40), pp.5~44 (2007), 조선시대사학회
  22. 金九鎭, "3. 여진과의 관계, In 한국사 22" (1995), 國史編纂委員會
  23. Edward L. Dreyer, "Early Ming China:A Political History, 1355~1435" (1982), Stanford University Press
  24. Peter I. Yun, "Rethinking the tribute system:Korean States and Northeast Asian Interstate Relations, 600-1600", 박사, pp.1998
  25. 민현구, "高麗史에 反映된 名分論의 性格", 震檀學報, 40 (1975)
  26. 정두희, "朝鮮建國史 資料로서의『龍飛御天歌』", 震檀學報, 68, pp.83~ (1989)
  27. "高麗史節要", ~
  28. "西征錄", ~
  29. "文宗實錄", ~
  30. "英使馬戛爾尼訪華檔案史料彙編, 二", pp.256~ (1996), 國際文化出版公司

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (9건)