무진사행 의학문답 및 치험 사례 기록 연구 -『對麗筆語』, 『韓客治驗』, 『桑韓醫問答』을 중심으로-

Abstract

Until now, The majority of Korea medical history has been referred to relationship between Korea and China. Relatively, a medical history between Korea and Japan has been overlooked. Now that, we must focus on Korea medical history connected with Japan medical history with the sense of balance and new angle. There are few data on related to medical exchange in Joseon Tongsinsa(朝鮮通信使), but records by doctors of a direct or indirect joined in a medical exchange between Korea and Japan are valuable historic documents. Especially, Mu-jin(戊辰) envoys have distinctive feature different from a former envoys. Up to the mid 18th century, when Mu-jin(戊辰) envoys took place, Japan medicine was going the other way compared to Korea medicine. If we examined medical conversation records in SinMyo(辛卯) envoys and GiHae(己亥) envoys, in the early 18th century, the change of Japan medical trend would be predicted up to a certain point. But, in the mid 18th century, there were different from an early situation. A enthusiasm of Japan for accepting the Korea medical had cooled down in length of time. Similarily to Confucianism, it was occurred an ideology of Go-bang(古方) medicine in Japan medical field. The ideology of Japan medicine had changed a Hu-se-bang(後世方) medicine represented by Gum-won-sa-dae-ga(金元四大家) to Go-bang(古方) medicine. As if Sung Confucianism represented by Song-yu(宋儒) was weaken by I-dung-in-jae(伊藤仁齋)'s Go-hak(古學), medical part was also changed. Japan developed Go-bang(古方) medicine Similar to Go-hak(古學) instead of receiving Korea medical. In addition, the researchers who had studied medical history insisted that Japan accepted Dutch medicine and changed unique medicine of Japan. In this studies, we examined a medical trend and matter of concern of Korea and Japan doctors reflective on medical conversation records which were born in Mu-jin(戊辰) envoys. We inquired a point of sameness or difference of Japan medicine in Mu-jin(戊辰) envoys compared to former envoys through medical conversation records. We consulted early studies and a document relevant to Korea and Japan medical trend in the 18th century, and then studied Dae-Ryeo-Pil-yeo(對麗筆語), Han-gaek-chi-heom(韓客治驗), Sang-han-ui-mun-dab(桑韓醫問答) which are judged to have medical speciality. A theory which Go-bang(古方) medicine was prevailed or started prevailing in the 18th century or the mid 18th century had been generally accepted. Bearing this point in mind, when we founded out medical trend and matter of concern of two country doctors, Dae-Ryeo-Pil-yeo(對麗筆語) can be applicated to an established theory. But Han-gaek-chi-heom(韓客治驗)and Sang-han-ui-mun-dab(桑韓醫問答) could not be accepted to forenamed theory. Because of only limited study on three records, We must not broadly interpretate that these are general character of Mu-jin(戊辰) envoys in the medical conversation records.