조선시대 중국 파견 사신의 총칭 문제
On the Official Title of Joseon Missions to Imperial China
0
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper aims to find out which term was the official title of Joseon missions to Imperial China, and whether the widespread term yeonhangsa(燕行使), which is much more frequently used in Korea, China, Japan, and Taiwan after Fuma Susumu’s book is published, is a suitable to cover whole Joseon Missions to Ming and Qing dynasty. To clarify that, we investigated the government official records such as Veritable Records of the Joseon Dynasty and Journal of the Royal Secretariat. Our research findings indicate that during the early Joseon period(1392~1636), bugyeongsa(赴京使) was the most frequently used term for Joseon missions to Ming dynasty, while jocheonsa(朝天使), contrary to common belief, was much less used than anticipated, almost exclusively in the early 17th century. In the late 17th century, both bugyeongsa and buyeonsa(赴燕使) was used for Joseon missions to Qing dynasty. After 1706, buyeonsa was the frequently used term for Joseon missions to Qing dynasty. Meanwhile, throughout the late Joseon period yeonhaengsa was rarely used. Such transition of official titles of Joseon missions to Imperial China, namely bugyeongsa in Ming dynasty to buyeonsa in Qing dynasty, shows a change of attitude and perception of Joseon elites toward Ming and Qing dynasty, as bugyeongsa implies more respectful attitude toward Ming China while buyeonsa tries to maintain more neutral attitude toward Qing as a conquest dynasty ruled by yi(barbarians). As the both terms reflect crucial ideas and thoughts of the ruling elites of Joseon, suggesting that we should replace them with much rarely used, non-historical, ungrammatical term yeonhaengsa seems improper and ungrounded. If we are to avoid traditionally used bugyeongsa and buyeonsa and coin a new term for Joseon missions to Imperial China instead of yeonhaengsa, immyeongsa(入明使) and ipcheongsa(入淸使) should be used as they follow the traditional word formation of Korean missions to China.
Abstract
This paper aims to find out which term was the official title of Joseon missions to Imperial China, and whether the widespread term yeonhangsa(燕行使), which is much more frequently used in Korea, China, Japan, and Taiwan after Fuma Susumu’s book is published, is a suitable to cover whole Joseon Missions to Ming and Qing dynasty. To clarify that, we investigated the government official records such as Veritable Records of the Joseon Dynasty and Journal of the Royal Secretariat. Our research findings indicate that during the early Joseon period(1392~1636), bugyeongsa(赴京使) was the most frequently used term for Joseon missions to Ming dynasty, while jocheonsa(朝天使), contrary to common belief, was much less used than anticipated, almost exclusively in the early 17th century. In the late 17th century, both bugyeongsa and buyeonsa(赴燕使) was used for Joseon missions to Qing dynasty. After 1706, buyeonsa was the frequently used term for Joseon missions to Qing dynasty. Meanwhile, throughout the late Joseon period yeonhaengsa was rarely used. Such transition of official titles of Joseon missions to Imperial China, namely bugyeongsa in Ming dynasty to buyeonsa in Qing dynasty, shows a change of attitude and perception of Joseon elites toward Ming and Qing dynasty, as bugyeongsa implies more respectful attitude toward Ming China while buyeonsa tries to maintain more neutral attitude toward Qing as a conquest dynasty ruled by yi(barbarians). As the both terms reflect crucial ideas and thoughts of the ruling elites of Joseon, suggesting that we should replace them with much rarely used, non-historical, ungrammatical term yeonhaengsa seems improper and ungrounded. If we are to avoid traditionally used bugyeongsa and buyeonsa and coin a new term for Joseon missions to Imperial China instead of yeonhaengsa, immyeongsa(入明使) and ipcheongsa(入淸使) should be used as they follow the traditional word formation of Korean missions to China.
참고문헌 (61)
- 鈴木 信昭, "朝鮮仁祖八年問安官崔有海の傳聞した西學情報", 朝鮮學報, 221 (2011)
- 이원순, "부경사행의 문화사적 의의", 사학연구, 36 (1983)
- 백옥경, "조선 전기의 使行 密貿易 硏究- 赴京使行을 중심으로 -", 역사문화연구, (25), pp.3~ (2006), 역사문화연구소
- 정은주, "赴京使行에서 제작된 朝鮮使臣의 肖像", 명청사연구, (33), pp.1~40 (2010), 명청사학회[DOI]
- 이원순, "赴燕使行의 經濟的 一考: 私貿易 활동을 중심으로", 역사교육, 7 (1963)
- 김종원, "조선 후기 對淸貿易에 대한 일고찰: 潛商의 무역활동을 중심으로", 진단학보, 43 (1977)
- 許在惠, "朝鮮後期 醫官의 經濟的 活動樣相 : 英·正祖代를 중심으로", 석사, 사학, pp.1990
- 유승주, "조선 후기 명･청 무역 小考", 국사관논총, 30 (1991)
- 김태명, "조공무역체제에 관한 연구", 한국傳統商學연구, 14(2) (2000)
- 전해종, "韓中關係史 硏究" (1970), 일조각
- 김태준, "18세기 연행사의 思考와 자각: 『열하일기』를 중심한 여행자 문학론", 명대논문집, 11 (1978)
- 김태준, "홍대용과 그의 시대: 燕行의 비교문학", pp.13~ (1982), 일지사
- 三好 千春, "アヘン戰爭に關する燕行使情報", 史艸, 30 (1989)
- 三好 千春, "燕行使のロシア認識", 駿台史學, 96 (1996)
- 夫馬 進, "山根幸夫敎授退休紀念明代史論叢" (1990), 汲古書院
- 夫馬 進, "연행사와 통신사" (2008), 신서원
- 夫馬 進, "朝鮮燕行使と朝鮮通信使" (2015), 名古剭大學出版會
- "연행사와 통신사", ~
- 夫馬 進, "日本現存朝鮮燕行錄解題", 京都大學文學部硏究紀要, 42 (2003)
- "朝鮮燕行使と朝鮮通信使", 3~
- 한스 게오르크 가다머, "진리와 방법 2", pp.183~ (2012), 문학동네
- Gadamer, Hans-Georg, "Wahrheit und Methode. Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik", pp.305~ (2010), Mohr Siebeck
- 안대회, "조선 후기 燕行을 보는 세 가지 시선-燕行使를 보내는 送序를 중심으로", 한국실학연구, (19), pp.87~121 (2010), 한국실학학회
- 신익철, "18~19세기 연행사절의 북경 천주당 방문 양상과 의미", 교회사연구, (44), pp.143~183 (2014), (재)한국교회사연구소
- 이홍식, "연행사와 청대 북경의 조선사관(朝鮮使館)", 한국한문학연구, (57), pp.533~567 (2015), 한국한문학회[DOI]
- 胡婷, "康乾时期朝鲜燕行使眼中的大明衣冠", 忻州师范学院学报, 2016(3) (2016)
- 赵现海, "异域看长城——明清时期朝鲜燕行使的长城观念", 社会科学文摘, 2017(7) (2017)
- 鈴木 開, "一六二〇年の朝鮮燕行使李廷龜一行の交渉活動: 光海君時代における対明外交の一局面", 東洋学報, 91(2) (2009)
- 程 永超, "十七ˎ十八世紀朝鮮人の日本․中国体験: 通信使と燕行使の二重経験の人を中心に", 旅の文化研究所研究報告, 26 (2016)
- 楊雨蕾, "燕行使臣與西學初傳朝鮮", 輔仁歷史學報, 22 (2009)
- 羅樂然, "燕行使團擔任文化媒介的朝鮮譯官: 以金慶門為研究中心", 漢學研究, 33(3) (2015)
- 鄭光, "燕行使와 通信使: 燕行․通信使行에 관한 韓中日 三國의 國際워크숍" (2014), 박문사
- "삼국사기", ~
- "고려사", ~
- "고려사절요", ~
- "東人之文四六", ~
- "조선왕조실록", ~
- "선조수정실록", ~
- "광해군일기", ~
- 조영헌, "원·명·청 시대 首都 북경과 陪都의 변천", 역사학보, (209), pp.63~106 (2011), 역사학회
- "태종실록", ~
- "세종실록", ~
- "문종실록", ~
- "단종실록", ~
- "성종실록", ~
- "연산군일기", ~
- "선조실록", ~
- "인조실록", ~
- "숙종실록", ~
- "승정원일기", ~
- "영조실록", ~
- "정조실록", ~
- 李植, "澤堂集 권6"
- "경종실록", ~
- "일성록", ~
- 세종대왕기념사업회, "국역 통문관지 1", 100~106
- 하우봉, "조선후기 대일통신사행의 문화사적 의의", 사학연구, (95), pp.73~105 (2009), 한국사학회
- 漢語大詞典編纂委員會, "漢語大詞典" (1989), 漢語大詞典出版社
- 단국대학교 동양학연구소, "漢韓大辭典" (2008), 단국대학교출판부
- 박성주, "고려･조선 遣明使 연구", 박사, pp.2005
- "삼봉집", ~