『모후의 반역』에 대한 오수창 교수와 계승범 교수의 논쟁을 바라보며

정다함 역사비평사 2023 역사비평 Vol.- No.143

조선 태종대 世子와 明 帝女의 혼인 논의와 그 정치적 맥락

정다함 호서사학회 2023 역사와 담론 Vol.- No.105

Within the historical context of post-1945 south Korean historiography where Korean historians began undertaking their sacred mission to rewrite their “own” history of their “own” nation state as an independent and self-contained national history, main stream historiography of Chosŏn history has largely overlooked the discussions on the marriage between Chosŏn royal house and Ming imperial house in early Chosŏn and their meanings. Going beyond this nationalist master narrative of the post-1945 south korean historiography, this paper seeks to rethink the discussions on the marriage between Chosŏn's crown prince and Ming emperor's princess in king T'aejong's reign and seeks further to reconsider their meanings within this particular historical context of early Chosŏn where the kings and the Yangban ruling elites continuously represented them in many different ways by recalling and redefining the past of the marriage between Koryŏ royal house and Yuan imperial house. 조선 초기 태조대와 태종대에, 조선 왕실과 명 帝室 사이의 혼인 논의가 진행된 것에 대해서는 지금까지 연구가 미진하였다. 아마도 그 이유는, 해방 이후의 한국사 연구가 근대국민국가 역사학의 관점을 바탕으로 고려후기 고려와 몽고의 관계를 최대한 “자주적”으로 재정의하는 과정에서, 가장 어려운 과제 중 하나가 원 제실과 고려 왕실의 혼인 관계였다는 사학사적 맥락 속에서, 이해될 수 있을 것이다. 선초 태조대와 태종대 명 제실과의 혼인 논의는, 공민왕대 이후에서 鮮初까지의 “대외관계”를, 元을 중심으로 설정되었던 동아시아의 광역적 통치질서로부터 고려가 벗어나는 과정과 명에 대한 조선의 “사대”가 지니는 “자주성”에 주로 초점을 맞춰 설명해 왔던 통설과는 달리, 그러한 과거의 광역적 통치질서 자체가 이 시기의 특정한 역사적 맥락 속에서 다시 재구성되고 조선도 그 질서에 다시 연동되는 관계를 보여준다는 점에서, 앞으로 우리가 그 의미를 더욱 고민해보아야 할 지점을 제시해준다. 이 논문은, 이러한 문제의식에 입각해, 조선 태종대 세자와 명 帝女 사이의 혼인 논의가 어떠한 역사적 맥락 속에서 전개되었는가를 구체적으로 살피는 연구이다. 이 논문에서는 혼인 논의가 진행된 태종 3년의 역사적 맥락과 다시 이 논의가 재개되는 태종 7년의 역사적 맥락을 비교/검토하되, 그 사이에 발생한 조선 조정에서의 권력구조의 변화와 두 혼인 논의의 추이를 연동시켜 분석함으로써, 태종대 세자와 明 황제 딸의 혼사 논의를 보다 맥락적으로 이해하려 한다. 나아가 태조대 조선 왕실과 명 제실 사이의 혼인 논의와도 비교해 그 역사적 의미를 파악해보려 한다.

‘한국사’ 상의 조선시대상 -조선전기를 중심으로

정다함 국제한국문학문화학회 2010 사이 Vol.8 No.-

Up until this point, the early Chosŏn period has taken on a significant position in the historical framework of linear development found in the “Korean history(Han’guksa)” or “National History of Korea(kuksa)” established in modern Korean historiography. In general, the Chosŏn period has been viewed in Korean history as a period full of unprecedented development and change, which enabled Korean historians to define this period as a early modern one that marks the evolution in Korean history from the feudal (chungse) period to the modern period(kŭndae). These developments and changes, which were thought to be clearly evident when using this view of history, were believed to be the unique origins of the Korean nation whose modernity had originated from even before the introduction of Western modernity that took place during Japanese colonization. This view of history enabled Korean people to imagine the early Choson Dynasty as a prototype of the modern Korean nation-state that contributed to the nation-building process of Korea. This research demythologizes the still dominant nationalist arguments about the early Chosŏn period found in modern Korean historiography(as outlined above)-efforts made to territorialize the modernity of the Korean nation by setting the origin of Korean modernity in the “unique” traditions of the premodern era. Through revealing the implications of these arguments about the early Chosŏn period―which were thought to signify such evolution steps in Korean history as the transformations from the irrational to the rational, from aristocracy to bureaucracy, from mystical knowledge to empirical science, from despotic monarchy to people-oriented politics, and from Sinocentrism to unique Koreanness―this research argues that what modern Korean historiography has highlighted as sprouts of early Korean modernity that emerged from Korea’s own soil, is in fact the modern invention of Korean historiography which has been modeled after the historical models found in Western and Japanese historiography. 현재의 ‘한국사’ 혹은 ‘국사’의 체계 속에서, 조선전기라는 시기는 매우 중요한 위치를 점하고 있다. 일반적으로 ‘중세’에서 ‘근대’를 향해 발전하는 도상에 있는 ‘근세’로 설정되고 있는 이 시기는 세종대를 중심으로 하여 ‘한국사’ 상에서 유래를 찾아보기 힘든 ‘발전’이 출현했던 시기로 이해되어지고 있다. 그리고 이러한 ‘발전’과 ‘변화’들은 현재까지도 서구와 일본을 통해 근대적 문물이 들어오기 이전에, 이미 근대 한국의 근대성이 발원되고 있던 고유한 기원으로 인식되어지고 있으며, 근대 국민국가인 대한민국의 원형과 같은 이미지로 이해되면서, 근대 국민국가 창출과 유지에 기여해 왔다. 그러나 사실, 이러한 시각과 이를 통해 파악되고 재현된 조선전기의 역사상은, 당대의 맥락 속에서 조선전기의 역사를 재구성한 것이 아니라, 사실 서구 혹은 일본을 통해서 들어온 근대성을 보편적 기준으로 삼아 그와 비슷한 것을 ‘한국사’ 속에 설정하려는 근대 국민국가의 시선과 기획에 따라 만들어진 것이었다. 이 논문은 해방 이후 자신의 근대성의 기원을 그 고유한 전통 속에서 찾아내려 했던 노력 속에서 만들어진 ‘한국사’ 상의 조선시대상(朝鮮時代像), 즉 비합리적인 것에서 합리적인 것으로, 귀족제적인 것에서 관료제적인 것으로, 미신적인 것에서 경험적 지식으로, 전제적인 정치에서 민본적인 정치로, 중국적인 것에서 조선적인 것으로의 ‘변화’ 혹은 ‘발전’으로 규정되어 온 이 시기의 역사상이 매우 통국가적(transnational)으로 구성된 것임을 밝히려는 시도이다. 이 시기의 역사상이 한국 근대성의 고유한 기원임을 주장해 온 ‘한국사’의 주장에도 불구하고, 사실상 이는 서구로부터 발원하여 일본을 통해 전해진 근대성을 보편적 기준으로 해서 마련된 근대 국민국가 기획의 구성물이었으며, 때문에 그러한 기획과 그 결과물 속에 ‘한국사학’이 저항의 대상으로 삼았던 제국주의의 논리와 영향이 내면화되어 있다는 점을 밝히려는 것이다. 이를 위해 ‘한국사’ 상의 조선시대상, 특히 조선전기라는 시대상이 어떤 과정을 통해 ‘중세’보다 ‘근대’에 더욱 가깝게 접근한 ‘근세’로 파악되었는가를 살펴보고, 그러한 위치에 맞는 역사상을 구성하기 위해 ‘한국사학’이 그간 강조해 온 주요한 개념과 주장들, 즉 ‘양반관료국가’, ‘중인’, 세종대 ‘과학기술 및 문화의 발전’, ‘사대’와 ‘교린’ 등을 학설사적으로 검토함으로써 ‘한국사’라는 체계가 어떠한 논리에 입각해서 어떠한 세부적인 연구영역에서 구체적인 연구성과를 축적하면서, 조선시대와 관련된 현재의 역사상과 연구지형을 만들었는가를 비판적으로 분석하여 그 ‘가까운 기원’을 드러내고 대안을 모색하려 한다.

「조선왕조 정체성의 역사적 창출과 대명사대론」에 대한 토론문

정다함 동양사학회 2016 동양사학회 학술대회 발표논문집 Vol.2016 No.1

Self-healing Gelatin-Oxidized Sodium Alginate/Poly(acrylamide) Double Network Hydrogel

정다함,주상우,김선목,김철구,정선호 한국공업화학회 2018 한국공업화학회 연구논문 초록집 Vol.2018 No.0

Self-healing hydrogels have drawn significant attention because they can respectively result in longer lifespans and highly enhanced mechanical performances than classical hydrogels. Here, a self-healable double network hydrogel was developed using reversible imine formation network between aldehyde groups of oxidized sodium alginate (OSA) and amines of gelatin (GLT) chains as the first and poly (acrylamide) (PAAm) as the second network covalently crosslinked by allyl β-cyclodextin ether (ACE). The self-healable double network hydrogel held its loading energy, unloading energy, and ability to dissipate energy constant despite 10 cycles of compression tests at 80% strain. Besides, the mechanical strength was higher than a double network hydrogel for which N,N′-methylenebisacrylamide (MBA) is used as a second network crosslinker.

Making Chosŏn's Own Tributaries : Dynamics between the Ming-centered World Order and a Chosŏn-centered Regional Order in the East Asian Periphery

정다함 고려대학교 한국사연구소 2010 International Journal of Korean History Vol.15 No.1

Kyŏngcha’gwan, conventionally known as Chosŏn kings’ domestic envoys, were the envoys who also delivered the Chosŏn kings’ orders to their vassals such as the Jurchens and Tsushima. This fundamental characteristic of Kyŏngcha’gwan culminated in the ceremonial rituals of receiving Kyŏngcha’gwan, which signified Chosŏn’s “lesser suzerainty” over its vassal, under the bigger umbrella of Ming “suzerainty.” The reason why these vertical dimensions of Chosŏn-Jurchen and Chosŏn-Tsushima relations in 15th century have not been scrutinized actually lies in the “Kyorin” frame, which was modern invention of the same term in modern Korean historiography. “Kyorin” as a modern frame implies that Chosŏn tried to maintain peaceful relations with the Jurchens and Tsushima, based on its Confucian orientation. Korean historians could not conceptualize what did not fit in that frame,because they were too overwhelmed by traditional “Sino-centric” perspective to provincialize and de-centralize it, on the one hand. And they were also stuck in the mythology of a peace-loving and innocent Korea produced by their single lineal evolutionary frame of “Korean History (Hanguksa)” which is based on the hereditary victimhood of modern Korean historiography, on the other hand. With their eyes blinded, it was unable for them to provincialize both the “Sino-centric”and “Korea-centered” perspectives, they were not able to re-conceptualize the various active dimensions of regional dynamics that constituted Chosŏn-Jurchen and Chosŏn-Tsushima relations in 15th century. Furthermore, the nature and logic of the Kyorin frame, which argued that early Chosŏn’s advanced cultures helped the Jurchen and Tsushima to be more civilized and which have deliberately downplayed early Chosŏn’s expansionist military and interstate policies toward the Jurchens and Tsushima, ironically takes exactly after the nature and logic of Japanese Imperialist’justifications of the colonization of Chosŏn, which Korean scholars have continued to reject up to the present. In fact, the historical origin of this regional hierarchy where Chosŏn was able to force this practice on Jurchens and Tsushima was not something just mainly “cultural.” Rather, it was Koryŏ and Chosŏn’s military subjugation of them and Chosŏn’s founder Yi Sŏng’gye’s contribution to it. According to the changes in the East Asian interstate frame, the ruling elites of early Chosŏn used these subjugations as useful historical sources for legitimizing their superiority over those two non-Chosŏn polities in writing its own history. Through this, the ideological basis of Chosŏn’s having its own vassals such as the Jurchen and Tsushima was created. And on the basis of this idea, Chosŏn’s ruling elites tried to perpetuate their imagined “suzerainty” over them. The dispatch of Kyŏngcha’gwan was one of the typical diplomatic practices to symbolize this relationship. The institutional origins of Kyŏngcha’gwan shed light on this symbolic meaning of Chosŏn’s Kyŏngcha’gwan more clearly. Ming sent its low-level envoys called Qinchaiguan (欽差官) to its vassals such as Chosŏn. Imitating the Ming’s imperial mode of interstate policies, Chosŏn came up with Chosŏn’s own version of Ming imperial model, such as Kyŏngcha’gwan (敬差官) dispatches to the Jurchens and Tsushima that Chosŏn identified as its vassals. However, this does not necessarily mean that Chosŏn denied the “Sino-centric” East Asian order. Rather, by modifying its original imperial model according to Chosŏn’s own position under Ming, Chosŏn could still signify its suzerainty over the Jurchen and Tsushima, without violating Ming suzerainty. Chosŏn’s ruling elites who carried out interstate policy in 15th century were very shrewd, aggressive, and even mean. Was Chosŏn ruling elites’superiority to the Jurchens and Tsushima only “cultural” as t...

朝鮮初期 習讀官 制度의 運營과 그 實態

정다함 진단학회 2003 진단학보 Vol.- No.96

우왕대 호발도(胡拔都)의 재침과 동아시아 광역적 통치질서의 재구성 그리고 경계인 이성계

정다함 한국사학회 2022 史學硏究 Vol.- No.147

Hobaldo(胡拔都 Qubatu)'s invasion on Koryŏ northern frontier in King Wu’s reign and Yi Sŏnggye’s victory against it have merely been understood so far as a simple battle between Jurchen aggressor Hobaldo(胡拔都) and patriotic Koryŏ general Yi Sŏnggye. However, in doing so, much more contingent and much more complicated historical context around this historical event, has been almost unexplained. Going beyond the existing nationalist perspective, this paper seeks to rethink Hobaldo(胡拔都)'s invasion in King Wu’s reign and Yi Sŏnggye’s engagement to defeat it, by putting them together with Ming court’s demand to return formal Yuan Liaodong residents previous Koryŏ king Kongmin’s expeditionary forces including Yi Sŏnggye’s warriors have taken from Yuan Tongnyŏng Commandery, Ming Dingliaowei commandery(定遼衛)’s instigation of Liaodong Jurchen forces such as Hobaldo(胡拔都) against Koryŏ, Koryŏ King Wu’s need to be recognized as the legitimate successor of King Kongmin and “tributary” by Ming imperial authority, and Yi Sŏnggye’s tricky position as the powerful warlord of Koryŏ frontier with hybridity his family has obtained by crossing the borders among Koryŏ, Mongol, and Jurchen societies. 우왕대 호발도의 고려 재침은, 그간 외세와 우리라는 이항대립을 본질화하는 민족주의적 역사관에 입각해 고려를 침략한 여진족 호발도를 고려인 무장 이성계가 격퇴한 일로만 이해되어져 왔다. 이러한 비판적 문제의식에 입각해 이 연구는 우왕대 호발도의 고려 재침과 이성계의 대응을, 횡단경계적(transnational)이고 변경사적인 관점으로 새롭게 조명한다. 공민왕대와 우왕대에 걸친 두 차례 호발도의 고려 침입을 관통하는 동아시아의 광역적 통치질서 재구성 과정에 유의하며 우왕대 호발도 고려 재침을 재조명함으로써, 이 연구는, 당시 高麗와 明과 北元과 女眞 사이에서 어떻게 그 광역적 통치질서를 이루는 경계들이 끊임없이 재구획되거나 흔들리고 있었으며, 그렇게 요동치는 경계들 ‘사이’를 이성계와 호발도와 같은 遼東과 高麗 東·西北面 변경의 ‘경계인’들은 또 어떻게 부단히도 횡단하려 했었는가에 대해, 살피려는 것이다.

조선 초기의 ‘征伐’: 천명, 시계, 달력, 그리고 화약무기

정다함 문화사학회 2011 역사와 문화 Vol.21 No.-

The Logic of Zhengfa: Warfare, Calendar, Clock, and Firearm Weapon in 15th-Century Chosŏn Daham Chŏng(Hanyang University) This paper is to rethink 15th century Chosŏn’s warfare against Jurchens with transnational perspective. Unlike Korean historians’ views that underestimate those wars as self-defense, which originated from nationalists historiography’s hereditary victimhood on “foreign invasion”, those wars were clear representation of the political idea Early Chosŏn created on its position in Northeast Asian interstate order, which situated Chosŏn high above Jurchens. Basically, those wars were defined as “war for punishment and correction of world order”, Zhengfa(Kr. Chŏngbŏl), by the bipolar rhetorics of the language of Universal Empire, which Chosŏn kings dared to appropriate. Accordingly, on the other side of physical violence of war, Chosŏn’s egocentric rhetorics which kept bipolarizing the heavenly mandated punisher and the convict, were repeatedly represented. Along with proclamation of war, it was emphasized Jurchens have belonged to Chosŏn since the dynastic founder. Then, Chosŏn kings were described as benevolent parents, and Jurchens were inevitably characterized with immorality of parricide. It was those particular rituals and traditional sciences which symbolized this vertical hierarchy in this war. From the departure of armies, via battle fields, to their returning to the capital, powerful combination of traditional rituals and sciences including clock, calendar, and firearms, kept justifying physical violence of war, by representing the imagined hierarchy under heaven where divine legacy of Chosŏn king ruled and Jurchens should obey. Through this warfare, Chosŏn kings ultimately tried to build up its “Lesser Suzerain” status in Northeast Asia vassalizing those Jurchens, in a periphery of the bigger frame of Ming Sinocentric East Asian order.

Preparation of a Novel Chiral Stationary Phase Containing Rhizobial Cyclic β-(1 → 2) Glucans for the Chiral Separation of Some Flavonoids

정다함,김환희,Someshwar D Dindulkar,이재영,정선호 대한화학회 2015 Bulletin of the Korean Chemical Society Vol.36 No.9