宣祖代 末 朝鮮의 對明 ‘虜情’ 보고와 그 여파
Circumstances of Jurchens in the Tumen River Basin in the Late Reign of King Seonjo and Joseon’s Reporting to Ming
1
조회
0
다운로드
8
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Joseon became subject to Qing and was taken into its international order after Byeongja-horan (Manchu’s invasion of Korea in 1636, 丙子胡亂). The Joseon-Qing relationship has been understood through “tribute system” which is similar to that of the previous diplomatic relationship between Joseon and Ming. However the Joseon-Qing relationship is essentially different from the Joseon-Ming relationship in which ideological objective corresponded with political landscape. Joseon viewed the Manchus as barbarians while perceiving political landscape through Kwon-do(權道) and ideological objective through Jeong-do(正道). What actually lay behind the Joseon-Qing relationship was Joseon regarding itself as the successor of Confucian culture. The hostility that arose in the early 17th century contributed to forming Joseon’s contradictory attitude. In the late reign of King Seonjo, Joseon’s hostility came from the conflict with Jianzhou Jurchen and Hulun surrounding Boundary Jurchens(藩胡). Joseon was forced to give up his authority on Boundary Jurchens(藩胡) in recognition of Jianzhou Jurchen and the corresponding Ming’s ‘mediation’ did not function properly. The hostility to Jianzhou Jurchen was gradually heightened and at the same time, the fear was amplified. Byeongja-horan was not the moment when the hostility of Joseon against Qing was formed or heightened, but rather the result of it. While Joseon’s capitulation functioned to eliminate the accumulated fears, the continuing hostility led to a contradictory attitude in which ideas and reality were separated. The purpose of this study is to understand when Joseon’s hostility arose by reviewing the background and trends of Joseon’s report on Jurchen to Ming. Unlike the existing view that examine the position of Joseon in the composition of the Ming and Qing wars, Joseon was another stakeholder. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the problem of Nourhachi’s entry into Tumen River basin, which has been dealt with from the viewpoint of ‘The Rise of Jianzhou Jurchen(興起)’, as a conflict of various stakeholders surrounding Boundary Jurchens(藩胡). In addition, it is intended to reveal that Ming’s arbitration that was considered to be the center of order failed to work in the process of situation, so that Joseon-Ming cooperation against the threat forged by Jianzhou Jurchen was formed accordingly.
Abstract
Joseon became subject to Qing and was taken into its international order after Byeongja-horan (Manchu’s invasion of Korea in 1636, 丙子胡亂). The Joseon-Qing relationship has been understood through “tribute system” which is similar to that of the previous diplomatic relationship between Joseon and Ming. However the Joseon-Qing relationship is essentially different from the Joseon-Ming relationship in which ideological objective corresponded with political landscape. Joseon viewed the Manchus as barbarians while perceiving political landscape through Kwon-do(權道) and ideological objective through Jeong-do(正道). What actually lay behind the Joseon-Qing relationship was Joseon regarding itself as the successor of Confucian culture. The hostility that arose in the early 17th century contributed to forming Joseon’s contradictory attitude. In the late reign of King Seonjo, Joseon’s hostility came from the conflict with Jianzhou Jurchen and Hulun surrounding Boundary Jurchens(藩胡). Joseon was forced to give up his authority on Boundary Jurchens(藩胡) in recognition of Jianzhou Jurchen and the corresponding Ming’s ‘mediation’ did not function properly. The hostility to Jianzhou Jurchen was gradually heightened and at the same time, the fear was amplified. Byeongja-horan was not the moment when the hostility of Joseon against Qing was formed or heightened, but rather the result of it. While Joseon’s capitulation functioned to eliminate the accumulated fears, the continuing hostility led to a contradictory attitude in which ideas and reality were separated. The purpose of this study is to understand when Joseon’s hostility arose by reviewing the background and trends of Joseon’s report on Jurchen to Ming. Unlike the existing view that examine the position of Joseon in the composition of the Ming and Qing wars, Joseon was another stakeholder. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the problem of Nourhachi’s entry into Tumen River basin, which has been dealt with from the viewpoint of ‘The Rise of Jianzhou Jurchen(興起)’, as a conflict of various stakeholders surrounding Boundary Jurchens(藩胡). In addition, it is intended to reveal that Ming’s arbitration that was considered to be the center of order failed to work in the process of situation, so that Joseon-Ming cooperation against the threat forged by Jianzhou Jurchen was formed accordingly.
참고문헌 (63)
- "宣祖實錄", ~
- "宣祖修正實錄", ~
- "光海君日記", ~
- "仁祖實錄", ~
- "英祖實錄", ~
- "謄錄類抄", ~
- "備邊司謄錄", ~
- "明神宗實錄", ~
- "滿洲實錄", ~
- "淸太祖實錄", ~
- "淸世祖實錄", ~
- "滿文老檔(太祖)", ~
- "事大文軌", ~
- "詔勅謄錄", ~
- "同文彙考", ~
- "萬曆疏鈔", ~
- "月沙集", ~
- "五峯集", ~
- "迎接都監都廳儀軌", ~
- 徐炳國, "宣祖時代 女直交涉史硏究" (1970), 敎文社
- 최소자, "명청시대 중･한관계사 연구" (1997), 이화여자대학교 출판부
- 김종원, "근세 동아시아 관계사 연구" (1999), 혜안
- 한명기, "임진왜란과 한중관계" (1999), 역사비평사
- 장페이페이(蔣非非), "한중관계사(中韓關係史)" (2005), 범우
- 계승범, "조선시대 해외파병과 한중관계" (2009), 푸른역사
- 고려대학교 민족문화연구원 만주실록역주회, "만주실록역주" (2014), 소명출판
- 박정민, "조선시대 여진인 내조 연구" (2014), 경인문화사
- 이훈, "만주족 이야기" (2018), 너머북스
- 稻葉岩吉, "光海君時代の滿鮮關係" (1933), 大阪屋號書店
- 周远廉, "淸朝兴起史" (1986), 吉林文史出版社
- 尹郁山, "烏拉史略" (1991), 吉林文史出版社
- 趙東升, "扈倫四部硏究" (2005), 吉林文史出版社
- 孟森, "滿洲開國講義" (2006), 中華書局
- 徐炳國, "朝鮮前期 對女眞關係史", 國史館論叢, 14 (1990)
- 盧基植, "滿洲의 興起와 東아시아 秩序의 變動", 中國史硏究, 16 (2001)
- 황지영, "李成梁事件을 통해서 본 17세기 遼東情勢의 變化", 조선시대사학보, (21), pp.5~36 (2002), 조선시대사학회
- 조병학, "後金의 東海諸部 平定 과정 및 복속 정책", 中央史論, 17 (2003)
- 정다함, "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", 동방학지, (141), pp.221~266 (2008), 국학연구원
- 홍성구, "중국 역사학계의 청사연구 동향" (2009), 동북아역사재단
- 김주원, "여진족 추장 하질이(何叱耳)의 실록상 이표기에 대하여", 인문논총, (64), pp.51~74 (2010), 인문학연구원[DOI]
- 한성주, "조선전기 두만강유역 ‘女眞 藩籬･藩胡’의 형성과 성격", 韓國史學報, (41), pp.163~201 (2010), 고려사학회
- 김순남, "조선전기 5진 藩胡 동향의 추이", 역사와 실학, (46), pp.71~101 (2011), 역사실학회
- 이훈, "주션에서 만주로", 내일을 여는 역사, 45 (2011)
- 정병진, "入關前 淸의 朝鮮에 대한 ‘三色人’ 刷還要求", 명청사연구, (37), pp.33~65 (2012), 명청사학회[DOI]
- 장정수, "선조대 對女眞 방어전략의 변화 과정과 의미", 조선시대사학보, (67), pp.169~213 (2013), 조선시대사학회
- 남의현, "16～17세기 豆滿江 邊境地帶 女眞의 성장과 국제질서의 변화― 瓦爾喀 등 女眞族 통합과정을 중심으로 ―", 명청사연구, (41), pp.67~106 (2014), 명청사학회[DOI]
- 박정민, "누르하치의 두만강 유역 진출과 조선의 藩胡 상실", 인문과학연구, (43), pp.179~206 (2014), 인문과학연구소
- 박정민, "임진왜란과 여진인 ‘來朝’의 종언", 만주연구, (18), pp.7~34 (2014), 만주학회[DOI]
- 한성주, "조선 변경정책의 허와 실 ― 두만강 유역 女眞 藩胡의 성장과 발전 ―", 명청사연구, (42), pp.159~186 (2014), 명청사학회[DOI]
- 金世容, "宣祖朝 尼湯介亂 硏究", 박사, pp.2016
- 장정수, "16세기 말~17세기 초 朝鮮과 建州女眞의 배후 교섭과 申忠一의 역할", 한국인물사연구, (25), pp.133~183 (2016), (사)한국인물사연구회
- 장정수, "선조대 말 여진 번호 로툰(老土)의 건주여진 귀부와 조선의 대응", 조선시대사학보, (78), pp.7~49 (2016), 조선시대사학회
- 의 침입 양상, "역사와경계", 2016, 271~300, pp.부산경남사학회
- 이훈, "1635년 후금의 와르카 공략", 동양사학연구, (142), pp.71~120 (2018), 동양사학회[DOI]
- 田中克己, "淸鮮問題の兀良哈ワルカ問題", 史苑, 20(2) (1959), 立敎大學史學會
- 董万仑, "明末淸初图们江內外瓦尔喀硏究", 民族硏究, 2003(1) (2003)
- 王冬芳, "地緣集團-忽剌溫卽烏拉部", 東北史地, 2010(4) (2010)
- 陈放, "朝鮮与女真･满族诸政权关系变迁硏究", 博士, pp.2012
- 殷雪征, "明末熊化出使朝鲜及其与东国的文化交流 -以『己酉皇华集』为中心-", 한중인문학연구, (47), pp.355~374 (2015), 한중인문학회
- 張雅婧, "明代海西女真硏究", 博士, pp.2015
- 周生美, "试论淸入关前后金对瓦尔喀部的征服", 才智, 2016(2) (2016)
- 李明泽, "明末建州、乌拉间的图们江瓦尔喀之爭-兼论東北亚秩序的变迁", 渤海大学学报, 2017(4) (2017)
- 李明泽, "努尔哈赤和皇太极与朝鲜间的瓦尔喀之争", 硕士, pp.2018