『중외역사강요』의 전근대 대외관계 인식 ― 두 차례 등장한 ‘종번관계’를 중심으로 ―

손성욱 ( Son¸ Sungwook ) 수선사학회 2021 史林 Vol.- No.78

China, which had implemented the textbook authorization system, announced a new curriculum for languages, political science, history in January 2018. As a result, The Outline of Chinese and Foreign History was newly adopted as a required subject in the high school curriculum, and the first volume which covers Chinese history and the second volume that covers the world history were published as the state-run textbook in 2019. In this textbook, the term “Zongfan relations” appears twice to describe pro-modern China’s foreign relations, which has not been mentioned before. This paper examines the context and implications of the term “Zongfan relations” appearing in The Outline of Chinese and Foreign History and attempted to understand the textbook in the context of the “Zongfan relations” theory by Zhang Haifeng, who was an authoritative figure in modern Chinese history and was the main editor of first volume. Although “Zongfan relations” is not used as a concept that permeates throughout the entire volume, it is problematic because it appears in the textbook despite its limited acceptance among historians and nonetheless it may be established as a basic framework for understanding pre-modern China’s foreign relations.

종번(宗藩)과 중화(中華)로 청제국을 볼 수 있는가 - 왕위안총 ‘조선 모델’의 가능성과 한계

손성욱(Son Sungwook) 동북아역사재단 2019 東北亞歷史論叢 Vol.- No.66

본고는 왕위안총의 『중화제국 다시 만들기: 만한(滿韓) 관계, 1616 -1911(Remaking the Chinese Empire: Manchu -Korean Relations, 1616 -1911)』을 소개하고, 청(淸)·조(朝) 관계를 중심으로 청제국을 중화제국으로 이해할 수 있는지를 탐색한다. 왕위안총은 청·조 관계를 종번 관계로 규정하고, 이를 추적하여 청이 중화제국임을 보여준다. 청은 입관 이전 스스로 중화제국임을 규정하였고, 조선을 통해 중화제국의 정통성을 획득하였다. 이후 중화문명의 담론 주도권을 확고히 하며, 서세동점의 위기 속에서 전통적 청·조 관계의 재확인을 통해 종번 관계를 강화해갔다. 그에 의하면, 조선은 청을 중화제국으로 만드는 데 핵심 요소이다. 여기서 중화제국은 정치-문화 제국으로서 영토 제국과는 구별되며, 저자는 이 구별을 통해 제국으로서의 청을 설명하고, 청 제국주의에 대한 비판을 극복한다. 1894년 청일전쟁을 통해 조선을 구하고 중화제국을 지키고자 했으나, 패배함으로써 정치-문화 제국은 쇠퇴하고 근대 국민국가로서의 중국이 흥기하였다. 그러나 청일전쟁의 결과에도 정치-문화 제국의 유산은 지속되었고, 그것이 완전히 청산되는 것은 한국전쟁 이후 한국이 남북으로 나뉘어 완전히 독립된 주권국가로 성립된 시점이다. 저자의 이와 같은 논리 속에서, 조선은 ‘중화제국/중국’으로서의 청제국을 설명하고 현대 중국의 이행을 설명하는 데 있어 핵심적인 위치에 자리하게 된다. 하지만 이를 설명하기 위해 내세운 종번주의에 대해서는 그 역사성과 성격에 대하여 논쟁의 여지가 있다. 그리고 이 책에서 과도하게 강조된 청·조 관계가 내번과 다른 외번 사이에 구체적인 역할을 했는지에 대한다층적 설명이 있어야만 중화제국으로서의 청제국을 제대로 이해할 수 있을 것이다. This paper reviews Yuanchong Wang’s Remaking the Chinese Empire: Manchu-Korean Relations, 1616 -1911 and how the book contributes to the study on the history of the Qing Dynasty and Korea-China relations beyond Han and non-Han dichotomy in understanding the Qing dynasty. It also explores the possibility of understanding the Qing Dynasty as one of the Chinese empires. Wang characterizes that the Qing Dynasty and Chosŏn had a suzerain-vassal relationship and thereby defines Qing as a Chinese empire. The author argues that Qing declared itself as a Chinese empire through the ascension of Hong Taiji even before the entry into the Central Plain (Zhongyuan), gained legitimacy as a Chinese empire through Chosŏn, secured its hegemony in the discourse of the Chinese civilization, and bolstered feudal Zongfan (China’s suzerainty over other small polities) relationship through reassurance of the traditional Qing-Chosŏn relationship in the midst of the crisis due to rising Western powers. According to his accounts, Chosŏn was a critical factor in making the Qing Dynasty a Chinese empire. The author establishes that the Chinese empires throughout history were politico-cultural empires, which differentiate them from territorial empires, and defines Qing as an empire based on such distinction, overcoming the criticism on the Qing imperialism. Despite efforts to save Chosŏn through the 1894 Sino-Japanese War and to protect the Chinese empire, the defeat led to the declination of the political and cultural empire and gave rise to new China as a modern nation-state. In spite of the consequences of the Sino-Japanese War, however, the legacy of the political and cultural empire persisted, and it was completely cleared after the Korean War when Korea was divided into North and South and established itself as a completely independent, sovereign state. According to the author’s line of reasoning, Chosŏn has been at the heart of characterizing the Qing Dynasty as a Chinese empire and at the transition into modern China. However, more advanced discussion on the historical characteristics and attributes of the Zongfan framework used for the aforementioned explanation seem necessary, and only when there is a multi-layered explanation on whether the overly emphasized concept of Qing-Chosŏn relationship played any specific role in internal and external Zongfan relations, it would become truly possible to understand the Qing Dynasty as a Chinese empire.

변함없는 카운터 파트너 : 중국학계의 『劍橋 中華民國史』·『劍橋 中華人民共和國史』 인식

손성욱(Son, Sungwook) 동국역사문화연구소 2021 동국사학 Vol.71 No.-

본고는 1990년대 중국어 번역본이 발간되어, 중국학계의 큰 주목을 받은 『케임브리지 중화민국사(劍橋 中華民國史)』와 『케임브리지 중화인민공화국사(劍橋 中 華人民共和國史)』에 대한 중국학계의 인식을 살펴보고, 두 책이 중국에서 갖는 학술적 및 현실적 의미를 고찰했다. 중화민국에서 중화인민공화국 전기에 이르는 시기는 장기적으로 굴곡진 중국 ‘現代化’의 과정을 이해하고, 20세기 초 시작되어 미완성의 혁명을 완수하기 위해 펼쳐진 지속적인 역정을 이해하는데 매우 중요하며, 중국공산당 黨史의 정통성 문제와 밀접하게 연결되어 있다. 중국학계에서 『케임브리지 중국사』 시리즈는 서구학계를 대표하는 중국사 연구서로 여겨지기 때문에, 중국의 이들에 대한 인식은 지난 30년 간 중국이 추구했던 방향과 미래의 방향성을 가늠할 수 있는 좋은 잣대이다. 1990년대 혁명사관과 마르크스주의사관에 대한 반성이 일어났고, ‘현대화’에 있어 국민정부의 영향과 항일전쟁에 있어서 국민당의 역할에 대한 객관적인 재평가 움직임이 있었기에, 두 책이 제시하고 있는 외부의 시각은 중국학계에 신선한 자극이 되었으며, 혁명사관의 시각에서 논쟁의 여지가 적지 않음에도 긍정적으로평가됐다. 하지만 중국학계는 중국의 주체적 역사 발전을 간과하는 ‘충격-반응’ 모델과 중화인민공화국의 정통성을 훼손하는 왕조순환론, ‘권력투쟁’론 등을 강하게 비판했으며, 이를 극복해야 할 대상으로 여겼다. 오늘날까지 두 책이 호명되고 소환되는 것은 중국이 여전히 그러한 시각을 극복하지 못했음을 보여주며, 중국의 특수한 역사발전을 제시하기 위한 끊임없는 노력의 일환으로 보인다. 이는 중화민족의 부흥과 중국몽 실현을 위해 반드시 극복해야 할 대상이기도 하다 This study examines views of the 1990 Chinese translations of The Cambridge History of China: The People’s Republic Part I and The Cambridge History of China: The People’s Republic Part II, and their subsequent attention by the Chinese academia. While these translations have been in existence for many years, they continue to be heavily referenced in China and appear to have a significant academic and contemporary meaning. The period from the formation of the Republic of China until the first half of the People’s Republic of China was a critical period for understanding the slow and nonlinear process of China’s modernization. This period is also important for understanding the journey of the unfinished revolution that began in the early 20th century. These connect as well to the legitimacy issues of the Communist Party’s history. In Chinese academic circles, the Cambridge Chinese History series is regarded as representing the views of the Western academia, making Chinese perception of the books as a good gauge of China’s direction over the past 30 years, as well as the future direction. In the 1990s, an objective re-evaluation of the influence of the central government on modernization, as well as its role in the war against Japan, took place based on the revolutionary and Marxist ideology. The perspective provided by the two books was a fresh stimulation for the Chinese academia, which was considered positively even though it was controversial from the point of view of the revolutionary ideology. However, the “impact-response” model that runs throughout China’s historical development and the dynastic cycle theory that undermines the legitimacy of the People’s Republic of China were strongly criticized, and this issue continues unresolved to this day. The fact that the two Cambridge books are still referenced proves that this issue has never been resolved, and provide evidence for the relentless efforts by the Chinese scholars to present the special historical development of China to the world. This issue in particular must be resolved in order to realize the revival of the China as a nation and for its people to live out the Chinese dream.

王世子 冊封으로 본 淸·朝 관계 (康熙 35년 乾隆 2년)

孫成旭(Son, Sungwook) 동양사학회 2019 東洋史學硏究 Vol.146 No.-

This paper examines the negotiations between Qing and Joseon on the petitions for the investiture of Joseon crown prince, made four times from the 35th year of Kangxi until the second year of Qianlong, so as to understand the significance that investiture had in the tribute-investiture relations and to paint a true picture of the bilateral relationship. In the 35th year of Kangxi, Joseon petitioned Qing for the investiture of Yi Yun, the eldest of the illegitimate sons of King Sukjong, as crown prince, but Qing refused. It was only after another petition made in the following year that Qing agreed to confer. Qing’s rejection in the 35th year of Kangxi was only after another petition made in the following year that Qing agreed to confer. Qing’s rejection in the 35th year of Kangxi was the first and the last for the duration of the Qing - Joseon relationship. Because it was the only time it happened, it is generally believed that Qing’s investiture for Joseon was a normally formality implemented without a problem. However, Joseon made the petition three times until the second year of Qianlong and ultimately received the answer it wanted, but the process in which the Joseon’s envoys were sent to Qing to get the formal acknowledgement was not without challenge. It was because Qing did not regard the crown prince of Joseon to be up to its investiture rites and also because Qing had reinforced its “rule by rites” (禮治). To address this issue, Joseon drafted a separate document to elaborate on the reason for investiture and justify the cause, and endeavored to get the conferment by negotiating Via unofficial channels. The process for investiture of crown prince, which consists of a contradiction between two countries, moderating the conflicts, seeking exits, and reaching a state of stability, mirrors the aspect of change that affected the Joseon - Qing relations.

변화된 ‘皇都’에서 서양과 조선의 접촉 - 1860∼70년대 조선 赴京使臣團의 사진을 중심으로 -

孫成旭(Son, Sungwook) 동양사학회 2019 東洋史學硏究 Vol.148 No.-

Chosŏn’s first photograph was taken in Beijing, in the year 1863. It was not a photo that was taken passively without awareness of the situation, but rather one that was taken purposely in a principal capacity. Prior to Chosŏn-Japan Treaty in 1876, all photos which principally depicted Koreans had been taken by westerners in Beijing. That photography of Koreans was possible in Beijing owed to the fact that it was virtually the only space where Koreans could come into contact with western civilization and material culture at the time. Furthermore, following the Second Opium War and the complete opening of Beijing to westerners, westerns were free to visit or reside in Beijing, thus creating more opportunities for contact between Koreans and westerners. After the Second Opium War, increased contact between Chosŏn and the West led to the deepening of mutual interest in each other. However, the directionality of such interest was not the same. Having opened up the ‘Imperial City (皇都)’ wherein the previous Qing-centric order was still firmly in place, westerners not only took a growing personal interest in Chosŏn, the ‘Hermit Kingdom’, but western powers also sought to open up Chosŏn, which still remained within the Qing-centric order. Beijing became a space wherein such tentative contemplations took place. On the other hand, Koreans took an interest in western civilization and material culture, and would recruit western photographers to have their pictures taken. Some Koreans contacted westerners and expressed keen interest in the West. However, due to Chosŏn’s policy of isolation, the experiences in Beijing were not conveyed to Chosŏn itself. Beijing represented a space where the inquisitiveness of Chosŏn and the West intersected, and was also a place where the West - which sought to expand its sphere of political influence beyond the ‘Imperial City’ - came into contact with Chosŏn, which was opposed to such machinations. As such, the positions of both parties lay behind the photos of Koreans taken in Beijing. Following the photos of Koreans taken in Beijing during the 1860s-1870s, this study traces the background and processes by which the photos were taken to explore the nature of Chosŏn’s contact with the West, in addition to considering the significance of the ‘Imperial City’ - which had undergone changes since the ‘Convention of Beijing’ of 1860 - as a ‘contact zone’ between Chosŏn and the West.

5.4운동 이전 상하이 영자신문의 3.1운동 보도

孫成旭(Son, Sungwook) 중국근현대사학회 2021 중국근현대사연구 Vol.90 No.-

1930년대 중국에서의 윤봉길 이미지 변화 양상 -잡지 기사를 중심으로-

손성욱(Son, Sungwook) 독립기념관 한국독립운동사연구소 2023 한국독립운동사연구 Vol.- No.82

이 글은 중국 잡지에 실린 훙커우공원사건 관련 기사를 분석하여 윤봉길의 지사(志士) 형상화 과정을 밝혔다. 1•28상하이 사변을 마무리 짓기 위한 정전협정 체결 직전, 1932년 4월 29일 일본군의 전승식이 열린 훙커우공원에서 윤봉길은 일본 요인을 암살하기 위해 폭탄을 던졌다. ‘미묘한’ 타이밍에 폭탄이 터졌기에, 윤봉길의 희생과 항일정신에 감복하는 이들도 있었지만, 암살이라는 방법을 비판하고 이 사건이 중국에 악영향을 끼치지 않을까 걱정하는 이들도 있었다. 윤봉길을 바라보는 시선은 복잡하게 존재했다. 하지만 김구가 위험을 무릅쓰고 윤봉길 선서 사진과 선서문을 공개하면서, 윤봉길을 바라보는 중국인의 시선은 지사로 수렴되었고, 국민정부가 한국 독립운동으 지원하기 시작하면서 윤봉길 의사의 지사 형상은 국•공 어느 편을 막론하고 중국인들의 마음 속에 확고히 자리 잡게 되었다. This article analyzes articles in Chinese magazines regarding the Hongkou Park incident to uncover the specific process of Yun Bong-gil’s personification as a patriot image. On April 29, 1932, just before the signing of the armistice with Japan to conclude the Sino-Japanese incident, China attempted to assassinate a Japanese official by throwing a bomb made by Yun Bong-gil in Hongkou Park. The delicate timing of the bomb had no way of predicting the impact it would have on Sino-Japanese relations. While some admired Yun’s sacrifice and anti-Japanese spirit, others criticized the assassination method and feared it would reflect poorly on China. Yun Bong-gil was viewed with mixed feelings. However, after Kim Koo took the risk of publishing Yun Bong-gil’s oath and its text, Chinese views of Yun Bong-gil converged on the image of a patriot. As the national government began to support the Korean independence movement, the patriot image of Yun Bong-gil became firmly entrenched in the minds of Chinese from both political parties.