본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

明과 주변국의 外交關係 수립 절차의 재구성 ― 이른바 ‘明秩序’ 논의에 대한 비판을 겸하여 ―

Reconstruction of the Procedures for the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations between the Ming Dynasty and its Neighboring States

정동훈
명청사학회 (The Society For Ming-Qing Historical Studies)|2019.04|명청사연구 (Journal of Ming-Qing Historical Studies)|제51호|pp. 23-53|DOI 10.31329/jmhs.2019..51.002

1

조회

0

다운로드

17

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

전유책봉조서专有서한诏书봉표칭신书翰奉表称臣册封
주제분류역사학

초록

In common understanding, Ming Dynasty attempted to establish a unified international order right after its founding. They had believed in the ideal of international order which was a re-implementation of the feudal system of the Zhou Dynasty. This paper argues that this understanding is not based on a contemporary perspective. In the process of establishing diplomatic relations between the Ming Dynasty and its partners, the initiatives of the neighboring states played huge role. It has been understood that these processes have firstly lead to the Ming Dynasty’s notification of its foundation, secondly the submission of vassal documents(表) by neighboring states, and thirdly Ming’s investiture of its partners, believing that these were overall led by the Ming Dynasty. In fact, however, the Ming court did not have a perfect conception of ​​international order at the time of sending the first envoys to neighboring countries. Emperor Hongwu(r.1368-98) merely wanted to publicize his accession by sending a letter to Koryŏ and an imperial edict to Vietnam. Upon receiving the notice of the Ming Dynasty, the monarchs of Vietnam and Koryo sent vassal documents, declaring themselves vassals of Ming Dynasty. These were by no means coerced by the demands of the Ming Dynasty, but rather based on voluntary commitment by neighboring states. While Koryŏ and Vietnam had only changed the object of their previous practice to the Yuan Dynasty, the expectations of the new emperor were far exceeded. The Ming Dynasty appropriated this as its own practice and demanded the same steps from the future diplomatic partners who were to establish new relationships. The practices of investiture was also first proposed by Vietnam and Koryŏ, and Ming Dynasty complied. Among the numerous neighboring states, Ming Dynasty only invested those sovereigns who requested it. In other words, there was never a single principle to set up certain criteria and invest a large number of neighboring monarchs at once. The so-called “Ming order” or “unified international order centered on the Ming Dynasty” was neither planned in the first place, nor did the Ming Dynasty devote itself to the realization of such a roject. It was merely constructed by officials of the time, and modern researchers.

Abstract

In common understanding, Ming Dynasty attempted to establish a unified international order right after its founding. They had believed in the ideal of international order which was a re-implementation of the feudal system of the Zhou Dynasty. This paper argues that this understanding is not based on a contemporary perspective. In the process of establishing diplomatic relations between the Ming Dynasty and its partners, the initiatives of the neighboring states played huge role. It has been understood that these processes have firstly lead to the Ming Dynasty’s notification of its foundation, secondly the submission of vassal documents(表) by neighboring states, and thirdly Ming’s investiture of its partners, believing that these were overall led by the Ming Dynasty. In fact, however, the Ming court did not have a perfect conception of ​​international order at the time of sending the first envoys to neighboring countries. Emperor Hongwu(r.1368-98) merely wanted to publicize his accession by sending a letter to Koryŏ and an imperial edict to Vietnam. Upon receiving the notice of the Ming Dynasty, the monarchs of Vietnam and Koryo sent vassal documents, declaring themselves vassals of Ming Dynasty. These were by no means coerced by the demands of the Ming Dynasty, but rather based on voluntary commitment by neighboring states. While Koryŏ and Vietnam had only changed the object of their previous practice to the Yuan Dynasty, the expectations of the new emperor were far exceeded. The Ming Dynasty appropriated this as its own practice and demanded the same steps from the future diplomatic partners who were to establish new relationships. The practices of investiture was also first proposed by Vietnam and Koryŏ, and Ming Dynasty complied. Among the numerous neighboring states, Ming Dynasty only invested those sovereigns who requested it. In other words, there was never a single principle to set up certain criteria and invest a large number of neighboring monarchs at once. The so-called “Ming order” or “unified international order centered on the Ming Dynasty” was neither planned in the first place, nor did the Ming Dynasty devote itself to the realization of such a roject. It was merely constructed by officials of the time, and modern researchers.

참고문헌 (54)

  1. "高麗史", ~
  2. "明史", ~
  3. "明太祖實錄", ~
  4. "明太宗實錄", ~
  5. "皇明祖訓錄", ~
  6. "大明會典", ~
  7. "明太祖御製文集", ~
  8. "國朝文類", ~
  9. "宋學士文集", ~
  10. "牧隱文藁", ~
  11. "安南志略", ~
  12. 권선홍, "전통시대 동아시아 국제관계" (2004), 부산외국어대학교출판부
  13. 김순자, "韓國 中世 韓中關係史" (2007), 혜안
  14. 이명미, "13~14세기 고려･몽골 관계 연구 : 정동행성승상 부마 고려국왕, 그 복합적 위상에 대한 탐구" (2016), 혜안
  15. 단죠 히로시, "영락제-화이질서의 완성-" (2017), 아이필드
  16. 黃枝連, "天朝禮治體系研究 上-中國與亞洲國家關系形態論 : 亞洲的華夏秩序-" (1992), 中國人民大學出版社
  17. 山本達郞, "安南史硏究" (1950), 山川出版社
  18. 山本達郞 編, "ベトナム中國關係史" (1975), 山川出版社
  19. 伊藤幸司, "中世日本の外交と禪宗" (2002), 吉川弘文館
  20. 廣瀨憲雄, "東アジアの國際秩序と古代日本" (2011), 吉川弘文館
  21. 檀上寬, "明代海禁=朝貢システムと華夷秩序" (2013), 京都大學學術出版會
  22. 檀上寬, "天下と天朝の中國史" (2016), 岩波書店
  23. Feng Zhang, "Chinese Hegemony: Grand Strategy and International Institutions in East Asian History" (2015), Stanford University Press
  24. 朴元熇, "明初朝鮮關係史硏究" (2002), 一潮閣
  25. 구범진, "淸代 對러시아 外交의 성격과 그 변화―制約大臣과 交換 條約文의 言語를 중심으로", 대동문화연구, (61), pp.165~198 (2008), 대동문화연구원[DOI]
  26. 鄭東勳, "高麗-明 外交文書 書式의 성립과 배경", 韓國史論, 56 (2010)
  27. 윤은숙, "고려의 北元칭호 사용과 동아시아 인식 -고려의 양면 외교를 중심으로-", 중앙아시아연구, 15, pp.189~216 (2010), 중앙아시아학회[DOI]
  28. 김경록, "홍무제의 대외인식과 조공제도의 정비", 명청사연구, (37), pp.1~31 (2012), 명청사학회[DOI]
  29. 이익주, "14세기 후반 동아시아 국제질서의 변화와 고려-원", 명-일본 관계, 2012, pp.(114), 13~41[DOI]
  30. 정동훈, "明代 前期 外國 使節의 身分證明 方式과 國家間 體系", 명청사연구, (40), pp.1~34 (2013), 명청사학회[DOI]
  31. 정동훈, "특집 : 고려시대 사신 영접 의례의 변동과 국가 위상", 역사와 현실, (98), pp.103~140 (2015), 한국역사연구회
  32. 鄭東勳, "高麗時代 外交文書 硏究", 박사, pp.2016
  33. 김보광, "12세기초 송의 책봉 제의와 고려의 대응", 동국사학, (60), pp.43~84 (2016), 동국역사문화연구소[DOI]
  34. 정동훈, "10세기의 동아시아 국제질서와 외교문서의 서식－고려-거란 외교문서식의 비교사적 검토－", 한국중세사연구, (49), pp.73~108 (2017), 한국중세사학회
  35. 조영헌, "15세기 한중 관계사― 禮制的一元的 책봉ㆍ조공의 확립 ―", 동양사학연구, (140), pp.1~42 (2017), 동양사학회[DOI]
  36. 李新峰, "恭愍王后期明高丽关系与明蒙战局", 韓國學論文集, 7 (1998), 新华出版社
  37. 陳文源, "明朝與安南關系研究", 博士, pp.2005
  38. 李雲泉, "中國傳統外交關係的思想･制度與政策" (2007), 山東大學出版社
  39. 伍跃, "儒家文明與中韓傳統關係" (2008), 山東大學出版社
  40. 萬明, "明代詔令文書硏究-以洪武朝爲中心的初步考察-", 明史硏究論叢, 8 (2010)
  41. 萬明, "明代外交觀念的演進-明太祖詔令文書所見之天下國家觀-", 古代文明, 4(2) (2010)
  42. 池內宏, "滿鮮史硏究 中世 第三冊" (1963), 吉川弘文館
  43. 大隅晶子, "明初洪武期における朝貢について", MUSEUM, (371) (1982), 東京國立博物館
  44. 村井章介, "アジアのなかの中世日本" (1988), 校倉書房
  45. 岡本弘道, "明朝における朝貢國琉球の位置附けとその變化-十四･十五世紀を中心に-", 東洋史硏究, 57(4) (1999)
  46. 岩井茂樹, "明代中國の禮制覇權主義と東アジア秩序", 東洋文化, 85 (2005)
  47. 檀上寬, "明朝の對外政策と東アジアの國際秩序-朝貢体制の構造的理解に向けて-", 史林, 92(4) (2009)
  48. 木村可奈子, "明の対外政策と冊封国暹羅-萬曆朝鮮役における借暹羅兵論を手掛かりに-", 東洋学報, 92(3) (2010)
  49. J. K. Fairbank, "On the Ch'ing Tributary System", Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 6(2) (1941)
  50. Joseph F. Fletcher, "Chinese World Order: Traditional China's Foreign Relations" (1968), Harvard University Press
  51. Wu Chi–hua, "Basic Foreign-Policy Attitudes of the Early Ming Dynasty", Ming Studies, 12 (1981)
  52. Thomas T, "China among Equals" (1983), University of California Press
  53. Wang Gungwu, "The Cambridge History of China 8" (1998), Cambrige University Press
  54. David M. Robinson, "Rethinking the Late Koryŏ in an International Context", Korean Studies, 41 (2017)

관련 논문AI추천

明代 前期 外國 使節의 身分證明 方式과 國家間 體系정동훈명청사학회 · 명청사연구2013 · 제40호명대 고려⋅조선에 대한 詔書 반포와 그 추이 - 洪武 연간에서 임진왜란 이전까지 -이재경규장각한국학연구원 · 한국문화2022 · 제98호Was Joseon a Model or an Exception? Reconsidering the Tributary Relations during Ming China차혜원한국학중앙연구원 · Korea Journal2011 · 제51권 제4호명나라의 대외정책과 동아시아의 국제질서 — 조공체제의 구조적 이해양은걸중한연구학회 · 중한연구학간2024 · 제33호對明儀禮를 통해 본 15세기 朝－明관계한형주한국역사민속학회 · 역사민속학2008 · 제28호홍무제의 대외인식과 조공제도의 정비김경록명청사학회 · 명청사연구2012 · 제37호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (9건)

明初 韓中關係와 貢女 ― 洪武･永樂年間의 懷柔와 宥和策 ―임상훈pp. 1-21宣祖代 末 朝鮮의 對明 ‘虜情’ 보고와 그 여파장정수pp. 55-132淸의 日本 漂流民 送還과 朝鮮의 對應 ― 1644년 韃靼 漂流 事件을 중심으로 ―대림검pp. 133-166明 洪武年間 遼東認識과 軍政體制김경록pp. 167-199明代 土司制度 운용의 실상 ― 鎭雄府의 改土歸流와 革流歸土를 중심으로 ―이서현pp. 201-241
원문 보기