조선시대 유적 출토 明代 자기에 대한 몇 가지 再考

김은경 고려대학교세종캠퍼스 한국학연구소 2019 한국학연구 Vol.70 No.-

In the Joseon Dynasty, white ceramic culture continued to develop through active exchanges with China, which had a high level of ceramic culture. The pottery exchange with the Ming Dynasty continued from the early Joseon period, According to the records, especially during the reign of King Sejong(世宗), Chinese ceramics were handed down to the royal family of Joseon by Xuande(宣德) Emperor of the Ming Dynasty. The porcelain ware of the Ming Dynasty, unearthed in Korea, is quite specific and diverse, including when it was made, where it was produced, and what kind of products it was, which makes one guess at the active exchange of ceramics with the Ming Dynasty at that time. The absolute majority of Ming Dynasty ceramics introduced into Joseon are Blue and White Porcelains produced in Jingdezhen of Jiangxi Province, followed by Blue and White Porcelains and Wucai Porcelains produced in Fujian Province. There are some questions in this situation, and the most notable of them is the fact that no Porcelains from the Royal Kiln of Ming Dynasty has been unearthed. Until now, all of the Ming Dynasty ceramics from Korea are known to be privately produced, however Based on the 『Veritable Records of the Joseon Dynasty』(朝鮮王朝實錄), 「Five Rites」(五禮儀), Presented by Xuande Emperor to King Sejong, and the official-style of Ming Royal Kiln in early Blue and White porcelain of the Joseon Dynasty, It is highly likely that the porcelain of Royal Kiln of the Ming Dynasty came into Joseon through this fact. In this regard, a comparison between held the Vassal State of a foreign country of Joseon and other Vassal State of Ming Dynasty countries, can give a clue as to the inflow of porcelains of Royal Kiln or higher-level privately produced ceramics into Joseon. Next, many of the excavated relics are biased toward blue-and-white porcelain. The patterns and forms of blue-and-white porcelain are also limited to certain patterns, so it is not possible to see in Korea the variety of materials and types of colors that were popular in China during the same period. Only a small amount of Docai(鬥彩), Wucai(五彩) porcelains, which has exploded since the mid Ming Dynasty, was excavated in Korea, which is worth considering whether it was a result of the aesthetic feelings of the Joseon people at that time or for other reasons. Fortunately, a considerable number of Ming Dynasty ceramics have been reported in Seoul's consumer sites in recent years, providing important data to expand and move forward in previous research. In this study, intend to discuss a series of inflow situations and related issues that arise during the process of exchange of ceramics between Joseon and Ming Dynasty through accumulated data. 조선시대의 백자문화는 이웃 국가이자 당시 선진 자기문화를 이끌었던 중국과의 활발한 교섭을 통해 끊임없이 발전하였다. 명과의 도자교류는 조선 초부터 지속적으로 이어졌으며, 특히 세종년간에는 명나라 선덕제로부터 많은 도자기가 조선왕실에 전해졌음을 기록을 통해 알 수 있다. 현재 한국에서 출토된 명대의 자기는 제작 시기, 생산지, 종류 등 상당 구체적이면서 다양한 면모를 보이고 있어 당시 명과의 활발한 도자 교섭을 어느 정도 짐작케 한다. 조선에 유입된 명나라 자기의 절대 다수는 江西省 景德鎭窯에서 생산된 청화자기이며, 이어 복건성 일대에서 제작된 청화자기 및 오채자기들이 뒤를 잇는다. 이러한 출토상황을 살펴보면 몇 가지의 의문점이 따르는데, 그 중 가장 주목되는 상황은 바로 명대 관요품의 미출토이다. 지금까지 한국 출토 명대 자기 모두는 민요품으로 알려져 있지만, 『朝鮮王朝實錄』,「五禮儀」등의 문헌기록에서 선덕제가 직접 하사한 그릇이나 禮器 관련 기록, 조선 전기 청화백자에서 명 官樣 요소의 확인 등을 통해 명대 관요품이 전해졌을 가능성은 매우 높다. 이와 관련하여 外藩國의 지위를 가지고 있었던 조선과 명나라 藩國과의 비교는 당시 관요품 자기 혹은 이에 준하는 상급 민요품의 조선 유입에 대한 일말의 실마리를 얻을 수 있다. 다음으로 출토 유물의 상당수는 청화백자에 편향되어 있다는 점이다. 청화백자의 양식 및 기형 또한 특정 문양에 한정되어 있어 동시기 중국에서 유행하였던 다양한 문양소재와 기형들의 다채로움을 한국 내에서는 확인할 수 없다. 명 중기 이후 폭발적으로 증가한 유상채 자기인 두채, 오채 자기 역시 한국에서는 매우 소량만 출토되었는데, 이는 당시 조선인들의 미감에 의한 결과인지 혹은 다른 이유가 있는지에 대하여 한번 생각해 볼 만 하다. 다행히 근래 들어 서울 사대문 내의 주택지에서 상당한 수량의 명대 자기들이 출토 보고되고 있어 과거 기존 연구에서 한 단계 확장되어 나아갈 수 있는 중요한 자료를 제공하고 있다.

명시대 조롱박 모양 병에 나타난 우의에 대한 연구

이강,김승호 한국기초조형학회 2023 기초조형학연구 Vol.24 No.5

Ming gourd-shaped vase is one of the traditional porcelain bowls made in imitation of gourds, and is classified as decorative porcelain. Previous research on gourd-shaped bottles has mainly focused on the period before the Ming Dynasty, focusing on modeling and ornamentation. At the modeling level, the research analyzes how the modeling characteristics of gourd-shaped bottle porcelain have been inherited and changed in the historical development before the Ming Dynasty, and at the level of ornamentation, the individual ornamentation of gourd-shaped bottle porcelain before the Ming Dynasty is classified, and the artistic expression and production techniques of ornamentation are analyzed. These are concentrated before the Ming Dynasty, so the symbolic analysis of the shape and ornamentation of the gourd-shaped vase in the Ming period needs to be improved. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to analyze the shape and ornamentation of gourd-shaped vase in the Ming Dynasty in order to understand the values of Ming citizens towards happiness and longevity. In this study, the iconographic research method was used to analyze the auspicious meaning of gourd-shaped vase in the Ming Dynasty from three aspects: historical development, modeling, and ornamentation. First, from a historical perspective, examine the meaning of the Ming Dynasty's gourd-shaped vase. In this paper, we use documentary data to examine whether the gourd-shaped vase before the Ming Dynasty contained specific allegorical elements. Secondly, this paper analyzes how the gourd-shaped vase of the Ming Dynasty imitates the shape of the real gourd to form the modeling characteristics, as well as the auspicious meaning that appeared under the influence of social customs and religion in the Ming Dynasty. Finally, this paper analyzes how the auspicious meaning of the Ming Dynasty gourd vase porcelain is reflected in various ornaments such as plants, animals, and figures. The results of this study show that the gourd vase in the Ming Dynasty is not only a simple ornament, but also carries a profound cultural and spiritual symbol, reflecting the ideal pursuit of happiness, health and longevity in the Ming Dynasty.

明代的“律贖”

張光輝(Guanghui-Zhang) 경북대학교 아시아연구소 2009 아시아연구 Vol.- No.5

소위 贖刑이라는 것은, 죄인이 재물, 노역 혹은 관직으로 과해진 형벌을 면하는 것이다. 속형은 중국전통사회에서 매우 빨리 출현하였는데, 유학자들은 하상시기부터 시작되었다고 보거나, 서주시기에서 시작되었다고 보는 등 학자에 따라 그 견해가 다르지만, 속형은 일종의 제도로써 진시기에 성립되어 만들어 졌다는 것에는 이견이 없다. 진 이후 한, 당, 송, 원, 명, 청 각 시기의 속형제도는 비록 같지 않았으나, 이러한 조항제도는 쇠퇴하지 않고 계승되어 청말까지 이어져 '大清新刑律'이 완성되고서야 폐지되었지만, 속형제도는 중국고대법제 중 중요한 위치를 차지하고 있었다고 볼 수 있다. 명조속형의 실시는 이전보다 왕조가 더욱 광범위하고, 제도가 완비되며, 또한 많은 혁신한 부분이 있어, 명 한 시기의 법제 중 하나의 큰 특징이 된다. 명대의 속형제도는 大明律의 “律贖”와 역대왕조에서 반포한 鄭 “贖例”의 “例贖”, 두 부류로 나누어진다. “例贖”는 유연하고 잘 바뀌어서, 적용할 수 있는 대상이 매우 넓어서, 실제적인 정부의 필요에 따르는 일이 많았기에, 혹 재물, 예를 들어 쌀을 납속하거나, 말을 납속하거나, 여물, 벽돌 등을 받기도 하고, 혹은 노역으로 취해 대신하고, 무게는 재정적 실용을 보충하고, 사정이 대단히 복잡해서, 학계는 이러한 점에 대해서 관심을 기울이고 있다. “律贖”은, 명률을 홍무말년 부터 고정시킨 이후부터 명대 끝까지 변하지 않았고, 미미한 관련만이 있었다. 명대 “律贖”은 형벌을 신중히 하였고, 그 적용대상을 단지 노인과 아이, 신체장애자, 부녀 등에만 한정하였다. 그러나 재물의 수효가 “例贖”보다 아득하게 낮아서, 명대 속형제도의 양조를 병행하는 방식의 하나가 되었다. “律贖”의 법률은 大明律에 의거한 것이다. 大明律은 태조 주원장 재위하던 홍무시기에 완성되어, 홍무년간에 四部大明律, 즉 홍무7년률(1374), 홍무9년률(1386), 홍무22년률(1389)과 홍무30년률(1397)이 모두 제정되었으며, 속형내용을 구체화하여 차이가 있었다. 홍무 30년에 정해진 大明律은, 명초법률실천의 총결이자, 조훈적 성질을 갖추고 있으며, 주원장이 후사를 정하여도 변화가 없었다. 大明律로 인하여 법률에 의거한 “律贖”은 상대적으 로 온정성을 가지고 있어서, 우리들이 고찰하기 편하다. 하지만, 홍무시기의 전, 지폐, 은의 통용으로 말미암아, 차후 寶鈔이 큰 폭으로 값어치가 낮아져서, 律贖등을 조훈을 지키는 전제하에 이용하고, 특히 그 명중후기의 백은이 화폐로 유통되는 현실 하에서, 그에 상응하는 변화를 가져올 수밖에 없었다. 그래서 본문 머리말에는 홍무 30년의 大明律과 律解辨疑를 비교하고, 大明律直解소재의 홍무의 다른 시기에 완성된 大明律의 속형내용을 비교하여, “律贖”의 발전과정을 해명 한다. 그리고 나서 홍무 30년 大明律에 의거하여, “律贖”의 범죄, 주체, 형벌, 律贖의 내용, 律贖의 방식 등의 적용을 분석한다. “律贖”제도에 대해서 분석을 하는 동시에, 구체적 안건을 통해 사법 실천 중 律贖의 구체적인 실시 정황과 그 실시효과를 고찰하겠다. 그러한 후에 명대 화폐체계의 연혁을 통하여 “律贖”방식을 따라 납속된 동, 동전, 지폐, 은의 전환과 그 원인 등을 고찰하고, 동시에 “例贖”등 칙의 대조를 통하여, 지폐의 가치가 떨어지는 명대 사회형세변화와, “律贖”방식이 은의 전환으로 향하는 정황 하에서, “律贖” 등은 처음부터 끝까지 비교적 낮게 유지되어 휼형목적을 달성했다는 것을 밝힌다. Expiation of penalty means that one can expiates or atone a crime with property, penal servitude, or official position. The system of Expiation of penalty likely came into being in Xia-Shang dynasty, or West-Zhou dynasty, even Qin dynasty of China. Scholars’ opinions differ from each other. After the Qin dynasty, this system, which may had similarities and differences, was carried on in Han, Tang, Song, Yuan, Ming and Qing dynasty, Until the late Qing Dynasty when The new criminal law of Qing was enacted. So it played an important role in ancient China’s legal system. In Ming dynasty, the system of expiation of penalty, which came into maturity, and had many innovation, was put in practice more extensive than ever before. It was not only affected all levels of society of Ming dynasty, but also the society of Ming dynasty for many hundreds of years, because it was inherited mostly by the latter. So we can say that the system is of great significance. This paper makes a comprehensive and systematic study on it. The system of expiation of penalty in Ming dynasty can be divided into two parts, one was according to Daming law, and another was according to statutes promulgated in reigning of many emperors of Ming dynasty. This paper emphasizes particularly on the former. Daming law was emended in reigning of Yuanzhang-Zhu, the first emperor of Ming dynasty. In reigning of Yuanzhang-Zhu, four Daming laws were promulgated respectively in the years or 1374, 1376, 1389, and 1397. The Daming laws promulgated in 1397 was the summary of legal practice of the early Ming dynasty. It was the ancestor’s prescript which must be abided by the latter emperors. So the system of expiation of penalty according to Daming law promulgated in 1397 of Ming dynasty was relatively fixed, and can be studied easily. In this paper, the recordation of expiation of penalty of three Daminhg law, which was embodied respectively in the Daming laws promulgated in 1397, “Law of Discrimination”, and “Minglv straight solution”, was compared firstly. Then, according to Daming law promulgated in 1397, provisions of the offence, the main penalty, content, method, etc. applied the expiation system, were analyzed. In the analysis of the system, Investigation of specific cases to judicial practice in the implementation of the expiation of penalty was carried on. Thirdly, thinking over the evolution of the monetary system in Ming Dynasty, the reason why the method of expiation of penalty changed from paying coins, bill, and silver, and so on.

조선시대 양명학에 관한 연구의 과거, 현재, 미래 -조선시대 양명학 일반에 관한 연구를 중심으로-

김세정 ( Kim Sea-jeong ) 충남대학교 유학연구소 2020 유학연구 Vol.52 No.-

The research on Yang-ming studies in the Joseon Dynasty which started since the 1970s has achieved amazingly remarkable results in both quantitative and qualitative aspects during the last 50 years. The author has collected those achievements and made a “List of Works on Yang-ming Studies in the Joseon Dynasty.” The works in that list include 78 books, 46 translations from original texts, two translations from foreign works, 97 doctoral dissertations, 213 master's theses, and 1287 academic papers, totaling up to 1719. The author intends to carry out the analysis of that huge compilation in several stages. In this paper as the first stage, the author considers a part of writings contained in that list (15 books, seven doctoral dissertations, 94 academic papers) which are related to the ‘general Yang-ming studies in the Joseon Dynasty,’ that can draw a general outline of the research on Yang-ming studies in the Joseon Dynasty. Through that, the author makes some evaluations of the current situation of that research and the outstanding problems that must be resolved. In those works, 15 published books can be divided according to the time of publication: the 1980s when the research on Yang-ming studies in the Joseon Dynasty established its first base, the 1990s and 2000s when that research developed, and the 2010s when that research was internationalized. While the first half of them provide a foundation to the research on the general Yang-ming studies in the Joseon Dynasty, i.e. the introduction, reception and development of Yang-ming studies, in the second half we can see that the research focuses more on the negotiation and interconnection between Yang-ming studies and Neo-Confucianism in the Joseon Dynasty. In addition, the subjects, viewpoints and contents of those books show the diversification and improvement. For the doctoral dissertations on the general Yang-ming studies in the Joseon Dynasty, it can be said that those eight dissertations are not much in quantity, but the variety of academic areas they are in - philosophy, history, politics, religious studies, literature, etc.-shows that the main results they obtained are the consideration of Yang-ming studies in the Joseon Dynasty from various aspects, the profound knowledge of Yang-ming studies in the Joseon Dynasty, and the enrichment of the base for the research on Korean Yang-ming studies. For the 93 academic papers, they can be divided into 3 parts according to their publication time. The first one is the papers published until the 1980s when the research on Yang-ming studies in the Joseon Dynasty started to be established. The second one is the papers published in the 1990s when the research on Yang-ming studies in the Joseon Dynasty was regularly carried out. And the third one is the papers published in the 2000s and 2010s when that research reached maturity. Despite the remarkable results, the research on general Yang-ming studies in the Joseon Dynasty still has problems that must be solved. Firstly, the results of research according to the time and domain, and the research on each scholar of Yang-ming studies must be reflected in the research showing the outline of Yang-ming studies in the Joseon Dynasty. Secondly, the results of the research on the general Yang-ming studies in the Joseon Dynasty that focused much on the philosophical aspect must be balanced among all philosophical, literal, and historical aspects. Only so can Yang-ming studies be fully described and their true character be shown. Thirdly, it is necessary to advance arguments about Yang-ming studies in the Joseon Dynasty in the connection with problems of the present era. The ultimate aim should be that the research on Yang-ming studies in the Joseon Dynasty must completely succeed and revive, in the present reality, the self-control and independence and the spirit of time that were showed in ‘variation according to time (隨時變易)’ and the ‘way of adaption (權道)’, the spirit of loving the people and the spirit of practice that were showed in the terms of ‘sincere mind (實心)’ and ‘empathy (感通),’ i.e. the spirit of Yang-ming studies that scholars in the Joseon Dynasty manifested.

명ㆍ청 교체기 대명 사신과 거주민의 교류 - - 최현의 『조천일록』을 중심으로

정영문 사단법인 한국문학과예술연구소 2022 한국문학과 예술 Vol.43 No.-

Choi Hyun visited the Ming Dynasty as an envoy from August 3, 1608 to March 22, 1609 and left a diary in which he recorded his travel history in the meantime. The diary also recorded stories of people Choi Hyun had met in Joseon and in the Ming Dynasty. Since Choi Hyun did not have frequent contact with Ming officials or indigenous residents, his meeting with them did not form a close relationship as to be called ‘friendship’. Moreover, the official whom Choi Hyun met was a person who made Choi Hyun’s diplomacy conducting difficult by asking for bribes, and there was a limit in meeting with indigenous people because the method of communication with them was also limited. Therefore, there were not many specific details about the conversations with them in the 『Jocheon Ilrok』written by Choi Hyun. In spite of these limitations, the meeting between Choi Hyun and the people of the Ming Dynasty can be said as a valuable resource that conveys the situation in Northeast Asia in the early 17th century to the present. If we categorize the people of the Ming Dynasty that Choi Hyun met, we can classify them into merchants, Confucian scholars, and indigenous residents. Using the opportunity of the meetings with them, Choi Hyun revealed a difference in economic views not only with Joseon and Ming Confucian scholars, but also with local residents of the Ming Dynasty. Although he met the people who supported the Ming Dynasty, he also found the fact that the Confucian culture and customs of the Ming Dynasty were declining. Unlike the Ming Dynasty, Confucian culture and customs flourished in Joseon. The meeting between Choi Hyun and the people of the Ming Dynasty became an opportunity to recognize that although Joseon was devastated by the Imjin War(Japanese Invasion of Joseon in 1592), Joseon could advance ahead of the Ming Dynasty in terms of culture. 최현은 1608년 8월 3일부터 1609년 3월 22일까지 명나라를 사행하고 돌아와 그동안의 행적을 기록한 일기를 남겼다. 그 일기에는 최현이 국내와 명나라에서 만난 사람들에 관한 이야기도 기록되었다. 최현이 명나라 관리나 지역민과 자주 접촉한 것은 아니었기에 그들의 만남이 ‘교유’라고 부를 정도로 친밀감을 형성한 것은 아니었다. 더구나 최현이 만난 관리는 뇌물을 밝히면서 최현의 외교 수행을 어렵게 하는 존재였고, 지역민들과의 소통 방법도 제한적이었기 때문에 만남에 있어서 한계가 있었다. 그러므로 최현이 기록한 『조천일록』에는 그들과의 대화도 구체적인 내용이 많지 않았다. 이런 한계를 지니고 있음에도 최현과 명나라 사람들과의 만남은 17세기 초 동북아시아 상황을 현재까지 전해주는 귀중한 자료라고 할 수 있다. 최현이 만난 명나라 인물을 유형화하면 상인, 유학자, 지역민으로 구분할 수 있다. 이들의 만남을 계기로 최현은 조ㆍ명 유학자만 아니라 명나라 지역민과의 경제관에 있어서도 차이점을 드러내었다. 그는 명나라를 지탱하는 인물들도 만났지만, 명나라의 유교 문화와 풍속이 쇠퇴하고 있는 실상도 발견할 수 있었다. 명나라와 달리 조선에서는 유교의 문화와 풍속이 융성하고 있었다. 최현과 명나라 사람과의 만남은 조선이 임진왜란으로 인해 폐허가 되었지만, 문화적인 측면에서 명나라보다 앞서 나갈 수 있다고 인식하는 계기가 되었다.

조선시대 한중일(韓中日) 관계와 상호인식(相互認識)의 추이

한명기 ( Han Myunggi ) 인하대학교 한국학연구소 2020 한국학연구 Vol.0 No.57

The three countries of Korea, China and Japan are often referred to as the “Chinese Character Culture Zone” and “Confucian Culture Zone” or “Sinosphere” to emphasize the cultural commonality of the three countries. However, in the past, the interactions and exchanges between the people of the three kingdoms were cut off. This was because all three countries strictly forbade the movement of their subjects between the respective countries. Under this restriction, it was impossible for the majority of the residents, except for the envoys, interpreters, and some merchants, to contact people in other countries. The Chinese perception of Japan was positive before the advent of the Yuan Dynasty. Through contact with Japanese officials and monks who had been envoys, Japan was regarded as a “country of courtesy” and a “country of virtues”. However, Japanese pirates became a major problem for China by the end of the Yuan dynasty, China's perception of Japan became the opposite. The Joseon Dynasty in the late 14 ^th century, also suffered heavily from frequent invasions of the Japanese pirates, started to regard the Japanese with contempt. This antagonistic sentiment is shown in the terms that were used to describe Japan such as “The Island Barbarians”, “The Japanese Enemy” and “The Wicked Scoundrels”. However, since the middle of the 15 ^th century, the ensuing success of the policy of appeasement with the Japanese pirates and the resulting decrease of the invasions, the Korean perception of the Japanese changed, this time for the better. However, Joseon's attitude that they were a Great country and Japan was a subordinate nation continued as before . Joseon Dynasty in the 15 ^th century, had frequent contacts with the Japanese nation while concealing them from the paternal Ming dynasty. The Ming Dynasty did in fact were opposed to Joseon having communication with Japan. 15^th to 16 ^th century intellectuals of Joseon touted that Joseon was the “most loyal subjectnation” to the Ming Dynasty and the “honoured pupil of the Great Chinese Civilisation” therefore they treated Japan as “barbarians” and a “country yetto-be-reformed”. On the other hand, Japan asserted itself as a “God's nation”, and rejected being a tributary state to the Ming Dynasty and scorned the Joseon Dynasty. The geographical difference between Joseon and Japan in relation to China, that Joseon peninsula(the Korean peninsula) is attached to the Chinese continent and Japan is separated from the Asian mainland by ocean, caused the difference in their attitude and perception towards China and this furthermore affected the mutual perceptions they had of each other. In the wake of the Japanese invasions of Korea (Imjin War 1592-1598) contacts between peoples of the three kingdoms increased explosively. First of all, after the war, the mutual perceptions of Joseon and Ming revealed a new face. As the military and geopolitical importance of Joseon emerged after the war, Ming recognised Joseon as their “front” and “defense base”. Ming pressured Joseon and even planned to colonise it. On the other hand, after the war, the Joseon Dynasty recognised the Ming Dynasty as “saviours” despite the serious havoc the military of Ming created in Joseon. But then, they perceived Japan as an “eternal enemy”. In addition, the Joseon Dynasty experienced the formidable prowess of the armed forces of Japan through the war which raised fears. It was through the Imjin War that hostility and fear toward Japan were made to coexist. With the replacement of the Ming Dynasty with the Qing Dynasty, the mutual perceptions of Joseon and Ming, and Joseon's perception of Japan showed signs of change. In particular, through the Later Jin invasion of Joseon (Jeongmyo-Horan 1627) and the Qing invasion of Joseon (ByeongJa-Horan 1636-1637) their perception towards Japan showed sings of change. Some intellectuals began to perceive Japan as an ally to cooperate with in the fight against the “barbarian forces of Qing”, not “the eternal enemy” they once thought Japan was. In the 19th century, the approaching threat of the West gave impetus to Japan's national defence efforts and they were of the opinion that Korea had to be conquered. Indeed, as Japan's power grew again, Qing's sense of crisis toward Japan also grew. In particular, some of Qing's officials who believed that Japan conquering Joseon would prove to be dangerous for Qing, argued that Joseon should be ruled directly. In 1882, during the riots of Joseon soldiers, Qing militarily intervened in the country, established military rule and attempted to make Korea a colony. The situation changed after the First Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895). Anti-Japanese sentiment spread in Joseon as Japan occupied the Gyeongbokgung Palace, oppressed peasant forces and attempted to colonise Joseon. During the war, the Qing Dynasty was overwhelmed in the face of the superior force of Japan, but many intellectuals in Joseon hoped for the victory of the Qing. However, when Qing was defeated in the First Sino-Japanese War, Joseon through embarrassment was forced to recognise Qing's waning power over the East. Qing's intellectuals also recognised that through the loss of the war they were to learn from Japan. In conclusion, Korean perceptions of the Japanese and of the Chinese during the era of Joseon Dynasty were formed under the geopolitical conditions and security conditions of the Korean Peninsula, which is sandwiched between the Chinese continent and the Japanese archipelago. And they appeared to antagonise or facilitate each other depending on the changes of relationship and situations between Korea and the two countries of China and Japan surrounding the Korean Peninsula. mutual perceptions, “country of courtesy”, “country of virtues”, Japanese pirates, the “most loyal subjectnation” to the Ming Dynasty, Imjin War, “defense base”, “the eternal enemy”, the Later Jin invasion of Joseon, ‘the situation sandwiched between the Chinese continent and the Japanese archipelago’

고려말권근(高麗末權近)의 사행(使行)과 그 의의

김동석 ( Kim Dong-suk ) 온지학회 2017 溫知論叢 Vol.0 No.50

權近은 1389년 6월에 고려를 떠나 남경에 갔다가 9월에 돌아온다. 당시 이성계는 위화도 회군으로 정국을 주도하고 있었고, 왕실은 이성계와 첨예한 대립을 하고 있던 시점이었다. 권근은 남경에서 자문을 가지고 왔지만 대신들과 함께 열어보지 않고 직접 열어본다. 이 열어본 자문에서는 우왕과 창왕이 왕씨가 아니라는 것이 쟁점이 된다. 『明實錄』에는 우왕과 창왕이 왕씨가 아니라는 언급은 없었다. 자문 사건이 일어날 때 우왕은 이성계를 제거하려고 하였지만 실패한다. 이어 이색과 조민수가 실권에게 물러나게 되고, 우왕과 창왕이 처형된다. 모두 권근이 남경에 다녀온 후 몇 달 사이에 발생한 일연의 사건이다. 권근의 『奉使錄』을 보면 이동하는 노정에 따라 각기 다른 감회를 보이고 있다. 요동을 지나 북경에 들어갈 때는 四海一家, 崇明같은 말을 자주한다. 진흙에서 꽃을 피우는 연꽃을 동경하며 자신의 심회를 보이기도 한다. 다시 通州에서 남경으로 갈 때에는 스스로를 泛梗에 비유하기도 하고, 산동을 지날 때에는 공자와 증점의 일화를 떠올리며 긴장된 자신의 마음을 보이기도 한다. 하지만 남경에서 고려로 돌아올 때는 崇明에 대한 말은 하지 않고 고향과 부모를 그리워하는 말만 한다. 고려에 거의 다가올 무렵인 ?蘭店驛에서는 앞으로 펼쳐질 운명을 낙관적으로 점치기도 한다. 권근은 남경에 다녀오면서 보고 들었던 사실을 『봉사록』에 기록하고 있다. 전쟁이 치열했던 당시 요하를 건널 때 수많은 배를 목격하였고, 운하를 건너면서 운하와 지명에 대한 상세한 기록을 남기기도 한다. 전란의 시대 국경을 건너 명나라에 살고 있는 고려 사람을 만났고, 산동성蓬萊驛에서 배를 타고 旅順口에 도착할 때와 고려 근처에서 당시 있었 던 왜구의 참상을 노래하기도 한다. 권근이 운하를 통하여 남경에 간 것은 훗날 崔溥가 표류하여 조선으로 되돌아 올 때까지 고려와 조선의 다른 사신들은 이 운하로 다녀간적이 없는 것으로 보인다. 육로의 牛家莊은 청나라 때 통행이 금지된다. 牛家莊은 산동의 登州와 萊州로부터 遼河를 거쳐 동북지역으로 올 때군사적 요충지였기 때문이다. 권근이 우가장을 지날 때에는 이미 北元이 몰락했을 때였다. 『奉使錄』을 통하여 『고려사』와 『고려사절요』를 권근이 사행한 시점에 묶어 두고 살필 수 있으며, 한 개인으로서 권근이 겪고 있던 시대적 고민과 현안 문제를 가장 가까이에서 살필 수 있다. GuanKun[權近] had been to Ming[明] dynasty as an envoy. BongSaLok[奉 使錄] is the document written by GuanKun[權近] during his journey. Through this book, we could read what is happening during his journey. Above all things, Ming[明] dynasty has involved in the change from The Koryo Dynasty to Chosun Dynasty. Through this research, may be from this time Chosun Dynasty came to close to Ming[明] dynasty. He received a report delivered by the head of Ming government on affair of Goryeo dynasty. But GuanKun[權近] opened a report delivered by the head of Ming government[咨文], maybe collect it. The amended document contains that king of Wo and Chang is not the descent from Goryeo blood. In the Annals of the Ming Dynasty only shows that after this accident Goryeo report to the Ming dynasty that the king of Wo and Chang is not the descent from Goryeo blood, so they had to purge. During his journey to the NanJing he had meet Goryeo drifting people who are the military man involved in the War between Ming and Yuan dynasty. GuanKun[權近] wrote many poem about what he has seen and thinking, feeling in his BongSaLok[奉使錄]. And at that times many envoy writing poem is universal partly because that Many literary person in Goryeo would like to write poem after military coup. During Goryeo envoy journey to the NanJing they would take the land route come back by sea in order to espionage the Ming country. At onetime the king of principal Joo in Ming dynasty complained about this. It means that Ming dynasty have paid great attention to trifles of Goryeo. The route by the sea Which Goryeo envoy used is an important military operations route. When the king of principal Joo in Ming dynasty browbeat Goryeo, he usually mentioned this seerout to attack Goryeo attack miliotary boat from allover his country such as by MingZhou[明州], WenZhou[溫州], Quanzhou[泉州], TaiChang[太倉], GuangDong[廣東] SiChuan[四川] etc. Within BongSaLok[奉使錄], GuanKun[權近] say that admire Ming dynasty about its culture and its civilization which is against many officials in Goryeo who are still take side the Yuan dynasty.

‘列聖御製別編’에 나타난 對明義理論의 전개

안장리 열상고전연구회 2014 열상고전연구 Vol.42 No.-

본고는 두 가지를 밝히려고 하였다. 첫째는 조선 역대 왕의 글을 모은 列星御製 에 別編이 존재하는 이유와 존재양상이며, 둘째는 열성어제별편에 표출된 대명의 리론의 국왕별 전개양상이다. 열성어제별편은 청나라에 저촉되는 글만 모아 진상․보관용으로 두고 반사하지 않았으며, 숙종, 영조, 정조, 순조, 익종 등 5명만 남겼다. 별편 시문의 분량을 보면 숙종은 시가 많고 문이 적으며 문은 숙종, 영조, 정조 순으로 확대되다가 순조․익 종 대에는 현격히 줄어들었는데 이는 대명의리론의 전개와 연계되어 있었다. 본고에서는 대명의리론의 전개를 왕대별로 형성기, 정립기, 확대기, 강화기로 각각 나누었다. 대명의리론 형성기의 숙종은 대명의리보다는 청나라에 대한 분노 와 북벌의지가 컸고, 명나라에 대해서도 再造之恩의 대상인 神宗을 제향하는 대 보단을 세우는 등 신종 중심의 어제를 남겼다. 대명의리론 정립기의 영조는 신종 뿐 아니라 명나라 마지막 황제인 毅宗 그리고 명나라 태조에 대한 의리를 강조하 여 대보단에 이 세 황제를 향사하게 함으로써 단순히 재조지은에 대한 감사가 아 니라 명나라 전체에 대한 의리를 강조하였다. 즉 이 시기에는 재조지은보다 尊周 大義의 이념이 더 중시되었다. 대명의리론 확대기의 정조는 조선을 존주대의의 정신을 이은 나라로 보고 더 나아가 존주대의의 혈통을 이은 명나라 후손을 표창 함으로써 대명의리론의 범주를 현저히 확대해 나갔다. 대명의리론 강화기의 순조 와 익종은 명나라 황제에 대한 불손한 언행을 징치의 대상으로 삼았다. 이 시기 대명의리론은 의심의 여지없는 당대 이데올로기로 강화된 것이다. This study aimed at examining two things. One is to find out why there is a separate publication to Yeolseongeoje, a collection of writings by the kings of Joseon Dynasty, and the status of the existence of the collection. Second is to examine how Joseon's loyalty to the Ming Dynasty developed by king's reign in Yeolseongeoje-byeolpyeon. Yeolseongeoje-byeolpyeon contains the writings of Kings Sukjong, Yeongjo, Jeongjo, Sunjo and Ikjong and says that writings unfavorable to the Qing Dynasty were separately published and then tributed to kings or kept instead of being distributed. As for poems and proses in Yeolseongeoje-byeolpyeon, the collection includes more poems by King Sukjong than his proses. The number of proses by kings in the collection topped in King Jeongjo's reign, followed by Yeongjo's reign and Sukjong's reign. The figure sharply decreased in the reigns of Kings Sunjo and Ikjong. In this study, the development of Joseon's loyalty to the Ming Dynasty is divided into four stages by king's reign: forming stage; establishing stage; expanding stage; and enhancing stage. According to Sukjongeoje-byeolpyeon, King Sukjong's reign was the period when resentment against the Qing Dynasty and the willingness to conquer the north were strongly prevailed. In addition, the view to regard the Ming Dynasty, specifically Ming emperor Sin-chong, as the one who saved Joseon from Japanese Invasion of Korea in 1592 appeared, resulting in the formation of Joseon's loyalty to the Ming Dynasty. In King Yeongjo's reign, such view was intensified, emphasizing loyalty to the entire Ming Dynasty including Taejo and the last emperor Uijong. That is, during this period, respect for Zhou Dynasty that represents sinocentrism was more emphasized than repaying the Ming Dynasty's help during the Japanese Invasion. This is the essence of the argument for Joseon's loyalty to the Ming Dynasty, so King Yeongjo's reign is considered as the period when Joseon's loyalty to the Ming Dynasty was established. King Jeongjo regarded Joseon as the nation that had inherited the spirit of respecting Zhou Dynasty that represents sinocentrism and commended the descendants of the Ming Dynasty who inherited the spirit of respecting Zhou Dynasty that represents sinocentrism, significantly expanding the scope of Joseon's loyalty to the Ming Dynasty. In the reigns of Kings Sunjo and Ikjong, Joseon's loyalty to the Ming Dynasty was enhanced as the absolute ideology of the time, and therefore insolent words and behaviors towards the Ming Dynasty were subject to punishment. This period, therefore, is considered as enhancing stage. In conclusion, this study showed through Yeolseongeoje-byeolpyeon that Joseon's loyalty to the Ming Dynasty initiated from resentment against the Qing Dynasty and then developed from the movement to repay emperor Sin-chong's help in the Japanese Invasion to loyalty to the entire Ming Dynasty based on the respect for Zhou Dynasty that represents sinocentrism. Joseon's loyalty to the Ming Dynasty was further intensified through the reigns of kings Jeongjo, Sunjo and Ikjong.

“丁卯之役”前后朝鲜对东江情势的关注与对应

石少颖 한중인문학회 2016 한중인문학연구 Vol.51 No.-

동강진은 조선과 더불어 명 조정의 삼방포치책(三方布置策)의 중요한 부분으로 명 말 중한관계에 중요한 역할을 하였다. 인조정권의 ‘오랑캐 토벌에 협력하겠다(协力讨虏)’는 구상역시 동강진 때문에 제기된 것이다. 하지만 동강진의 장수인 모문룡은 후금을 빈번히 교란시켜 조선에 화를 초래했으며 이는 객관적으로 조선과 동강진의 불화를 심화시켰다. 명과 후금이 대립하는 역사적 상황에서 조선이 ‘오랑캐 토벌에 협력하겠다’는 기치를 내걸었던 실질적의도는 명의 비호 아래 이를 이용해 후금과의 정면 충돌을 회피하는데 있었다. 사실 조선은어떻게 하면 군사적으로 명을 지원하느냐 하는 문제보다 어떻게 하면 명과 외교관계의 안정성을 유지할 수 있는가 하는 문제를 더 중시했다. 조선이 오랑캐 토벌에 동참을 표방한 것은사대주의 이념을 실질적 행동으로 옮겨야 한다는 긴박성과 현실성을 이미 자각하고 있음을보여준다. 이러한 상황에서 인조정권은 때마침 정치적 어려움에 처한 천조(天朝)인 명(明)을속국으로서 어떻게 돕고 지켜주느냐 하는 문제에 당면하게 된다. 조선이 동강진의 움직임에주목했던 것은 명과 조선 양국관계 더 나아가 자국의 안위를 걱정했기 때문이다. 그런데 요동이 후금에 의해 점령된 후 조선은 명과 해로를 통해 왕래할 수 밖에 없게 되었다. 이에 따라조선과 동강진의 관계는 당시 명과 조선 양국 관계의 축소판이 되었는데 조선의 명 조정에대한 ‘충성 여부’가 동강진 장수인 모문룡의 상주문에 의해 결정되곤 했다. 모문룡은 조선과명 조정의 정보 교류 및 소통에 보이지 않는 걸림돌이 되었다. 이러한 상황에서 조선은 모문룡과의 협력관계를 중시하는 동시에 모문룡에 대한 경계를 한시도 늦출 수 없었다. 명에 충의지심(忠義之心)을 보여주고자 했던 인조정권은 부득이 명과 정치적 거리를 유지하게 되는데이러한 도광양회(韜光養晦)하는 정치적 성격은 조선 사대 외교의 현실적 태도를 여실히 보여주고 있다. 인조반정에 대한 정당성을 해명한 때부터 조선의 ‘숭명사대(崇明事大)의 명분(名 分)’은 이미 모문룡과 밀접한 관계를 갖게 되었다. 하지만 인조반정 해명 때와 달리 모문룡은더 이상 명분상의 위기를 해결해 주는 중재자가 아니었다. 끊임없이 조선과 명의 신뢰관계를 위협하는 역할을 했다. 정묘호란은 조명관계의 중요한 전환점이다. 명과 조선의 종번관계(宗 藩關係)가 후금과 조선의 형제지맹(兄弟之盟)으로 와해되지는 않았지만 전쟁이 조선을 자연스럽게 이원적 외교체제로 향하게 만들었다. 조선은 ‘명분’때문에 곤혹스러웠지만 명의 쇠퇴와 동강진의 혼란 또한 조선을 고통스럽게 했다. 조선은 명과 후금이 대항하는 중간에 서서시비의 양극을 피해 자국의 안전을 꾀하고자 했으며 이 때문에 명에 대한 실제 정책에 있어융통성 있고 유연하게 대응해야 했다. 이러한 의미에서 볼 때 조선은 사대주의 노선에서 점점멀어지고 있었다. 명의 삼방포치책과 조선의 오랑캐 토벌에 협력한다는 계획은 모두 현실화되지 못했는데 이는 모문룡 때문이기도 하고 조선의 자국이익을 우선시하는 정치적 성격이 만들어낸 결과이기도 했다. Dongjiang(The Ga-Island), which had been controlled by Mao Wenlong during the late Ming Dynasty, used to play an important role in Joseon-Ming relations. Dongjiang and Joseon were both the pivotal parts in Ming's military plan of Sanfangbuzhice, which meant resisting Houjin Dynasty by three powers, and King Injo's diplomatic policy of Xielitaolu, which meant helping Ming attack Houjin, had also considered Mao Wenlong as the most dependable partner. Joseon had realized the urgency and necessity of putting traditional flunkeyism into practice, and King Injo's policy of Xielitaolu was just the main manifestation. However, Mao Wenlong had continually struck Houjin and brought unexpected troubles to Joseon, so that the diplomatic crack between Joseon and Dongjiang had been in fact enlarged. Under the background of Ming-Houjin War, the practical purpose of the policy of Xielitaolu was to strive for and take advantage of more protection from Ming Dynasty, so as to avoid direct conflicts with Houjin. Thus, compared to how to help Ming Dynasty on military, Joseon had actually paid more attention on how to reinforce the Suzerain-Vassal relations between Ming and Joseon on diplomacy. Since Houjin occupied Liaodong Area, Joseon-Ming connection had been dependent on seaway and the communication between Joseon and Dongjiang had correspondingly become the miniature of Joseon-Ming relations. Joseon's loyalty to Ming Dynasty would be to a large extent reflected by Mao Wenlong's reports to the throne of Ming Dynasty. Thus, Mao Wenlong had actually become intangible barriers between Joseon and Ming Dynasty. Although Joseon on conscience expected to show its loyalty to Ming Dynasty and needed to cooperate with Mao Wenlong, Joseon had to take certain precautions against Mao Wenlong. Joseon's forbearance to Mao Wenlong had indicated Joseon's realistic attitude towards its diplomatic tradition of flunkeyism. Since King Injo's enthronement, Joseon's flunkeyism and national reputation in front of Ming Dynasty had been closely connected with Mao Wenlong. However, compared to the affair of helping Joseon justify the Coup of 1623, Mao Wenlong had not been the role of defusing the crisis of reputation for Joseon, but the mischief-maker who used to make several crises of confidence between Joseon and Ming, especially before and after the First Manchu Invasion (Jeongmyo Horan) in which Joseon suffered a defeat and had to accept the peace negotiations with Houjin. Although having not negatived the tributary relations with Ming Dynasty, Joseon had been overtly driven into a dualistic diplomatic situation between Ming and Houjin, which afterwards had become a cause for gossip for Mao Wenlong to threaten and control Joseon on diplomacy. Joseon hoped to maintain the reputation as Ming's vassal state, but Joseon had also felt much more pricking according to the decline of Ming Dynasty and the turbulence of Dongjiang. Thus, in order to protect Joseon's own safety, Joseon would rather choose to change the policy of Xielitaolu than get involved into Ming-Houjin military conflicts. In this sense, Joseon had been in fact going further away from its diplomatic tradition of flunkeyism. Joseon's policy of Xielitaolu had finally been disillusioned partly because of the factor of Mao Wenlong, but it had also been the inevitable result due to Joseon's own safety and national interests.

鄭夢周與明人的交遊 - 以 ≪圃隱集≫ 為中心 -

여국강(Yu Guojiang) 포은학회 2014 포은학연구 Vol.14 No.-

원나라부터 명나라까지 왕조가 바뀐 후에 명나라는 동아시아의 조공 체계를 신속하게 재건하였다. 하지만, 이 체계는 홍무(洪武) 연간에 결코 공고하지 않았고 건국 초기에 명나라와 고려의 관계가 여러 번 풍파를 겪은 것이다. 바로 이런 상황에 정몽주가 외교 사절로 명나라에 여러 차례 가서 두 나라 관계의 정상화에 지대한 공헌을 하였다. 외교 사절로써 명나라에 가는 도중 정몽주는 매우 많은 시문을 지었는데 사행길에서 따라 보고 들은 모든 것을 매일 반드시 시문으로 기록하였다. 명나라의 사신이 고려에 갔을 때에 정몽주도 여러 차례 시로 화답하였다. 그 시문들이 당시 사람들의 높은 평가를 받았다. 예를 들면 이색(李穡)은 그 교유시들이 바로 시사라고 평가하였다. 본 논문에서는『포은집(圃隱集)』에 수록된 시문들을 통해 정몽주가 교유했던 명나라 사람들을 확인한다. 이 사람들 중에는 고려에 간 명나라 사절도 있고, 정몽주가 외교 사절로 명나라에 갔던 도중에 지났던 지역의 군사장관, 문신, 고승, 사대부들도 있다. 이를 통해 정몽주가 명나라 인사들과 광범하게 교유한 것을 알 수 있다. 정몽주의 교유시 중에는 명나라와의 외교 정치 요구에서 비롯하여 명나라의 전국 통일, 화이(華夷)지서를 재건하기, 명나라 대신들의 문재무공, 자기가 성세를 친히 만나 보는 것들을 표현하는 작품들도 있고, 정몽주 자신의 기호와 취향을 표현하는 작품도 있다. 명나라 인사들의 인품과 덕성에 대한 흠복과 앙모를 표현한 것이다.『포은집(圃隱集)』중의 시문들을 통해 중국측 사료의 부족한 부분을 보충할 수도 있고, 고려 쪽의 관련 시문들과 함께 대조하면서 읽을 수도 있다. 특히 정몽주가 고손지 등 인사들과 사상에 대해 교류한 시문들은 정몽주의 생애과 사상에 대한 연구에 있어서 아주 특별한 의미가 있음을 알 수 있다. 이를 통해『포은집(圃隱集)』이 시사로써도 가치가 있음을 확인할 수 있다. After replaced the Yuan Dynasty, the Ming government quickly rebuilt the tributary system in East Asia. However, this system was not stable enough. In the Hongwu (洪武) period, there were a lot of problems between the Ming Dynasty and Goryeo. In this case, Jeong Mong-ju was appointed to the Ming Dynasty as the envoy, and made a great contribution to repair the relationship between the two countries. On the way to the Ming dynasty, Jeong Mong-ju wrote a large number of poems. When the Ming dynasty envoys visiting Goryeo, Jeong Mong-ju also wrote many poems. At that time, people spoke highly of these works. For example, Ri-Sag (李穡) said these poems “can be called historical poetry (詩史)”. According to Puyin Ji (圃隱集), this paper has carried on the textual research of the figures in the Ming Dynasty who made a contact to Jeong Mong-ju. Some of these people is the Ming Dynasty envoy to Goryeo, another part is the Ming Dynasty military governors, ministers, buddhists and other hermits. We can find that Jeong Mong-ju had contact with a lot of people in the Ming Dynasty. These poems can be divided into two categories. On the one hand, Jeong Mong-ju wrote some poems for political needs. The contents include the unity of the Ming Dynasty, the reconstruction of Sino-foreign country system (華夷秩序), the great achievement of the Ming Dynasty, the joy of a golden age, and so on. On the other hand, Jeong Mong-ju also wrote some personal poems. He expressed his own likes and ambition, or admiration for the figures in the Ming Dynasty. These poems have great significance. They can make up for the inadequacy of Chinese historical materials, and also prove the relative historical materials of Goryeo. Especially some of them play an important role in the research on Jeong Mong-ju’s life and thought. Therefore, we think Puyin Ji (圃隱集) is of great value as a historical poetry (詩史).