魚呂之亂硏究 = Catastrophe of EO-RYEO

국문 초록 (Abstract)

몽원제국시의고려에대한빈번한공녀요구와그와관련된연구는중국의 喜蕾등을비롯한여러학자들에의해이미널리알려져있다.
그에비해조선초의공녀연구상황은원나라때와비교하여볼때그규모나수량에서상당한차이를보여그다지관심을받지못했던상황이다.
그러나,그연구범위와수량은원조의그것과필적할정도로광대하고많다.
14세기말에들이닥친원명교체,한반도에서역시고려와조선의교체,이와관련된친원적성격이강한고려에대한명의경계등등이러한민감한정치적상황에서명나라황제의조선에대한공녀요구원인을어느학자들은정치적인이유즉,화친(和親)이라고보지만,필자는물론정치적인이유도완전히배제할순없지만,그보다더큰이유는명황제의사욕,허영심을채우기위해서였다고본다.
실제로선덕조에그동안명궁궐에남아있던공녀들을보내면서,섭정을하다시피한장황태후가처녀들이온건알고있지만,음식만드는시녀,노래부르는시녀들이들어온건모르고있었다.
이로볼때명황제의조선에대한공녀요구는정치적목적보다는일신의쾌락을위한것이었다고보는것이타당할것이다.
명황제의이러한무리한요구는조선의군신으로하여금유가적도덕관념을위배하면서까지처녀들을준비해진공하게했다.
이당시조선의왕과양반들의고충이이만저만아니었을뿐만아니라,백성들의삶역시큰영향을받았음은의심할여지가없다.
그러나조선의왕과양반,백성들의고충은실제로조공품으로끌려가는공녀들의아픔에비하면비할바가아니었다고생각된다.
당시공녀들의중국을향한진공행렬을지켜보던백성들은그것을산송장(生送葬)이라고까지할정도였으니말이다.
실제로중국궁궐에도달한공녀들은겉으로는화려해보이지만속으로는항상바늘방석에앉은듯한삶을이어갔고,대부분의공녀들은두차례에걸친영락제의대량학살로인해만리타향에서원한을품은채객지의원귀가되었다.
본연구는영락조에발생한두차례의명궁궐내의대학살궁궐비사인 ‘어려지난(魚呂之亂)’에초점을맞추어그발생시기와주모자등에관한몇가지의문점에대한아래와같은해결과연구방향을제시하였다. 먼저,사건의원흉인 呂씨에관한신분을연구해본결과,실제로사건의원흉인呂씨는조선의공녀출신 呂씨가아닌중국 呂씨상인의딸인 “贾吕”로서명궁궐에들어온중국인으로조선과는하등관계가없는인물이었다.
둘째로,본문은 조선왕조실록에대거의존하여어려지난에대해서설명해봤는데,정확한발생시간등 조선왕조실록에기록되지않은내용은명사,명실록,국각등중국사료에약간이나마출현하는기사를통해서간접적으로접근하였고,그결과영락제의 呂씨주살은영락11년(태종13년, 1413년)에발생,어려지난은영락19년(세종3년, 1421년)에발생했다는것을알수있었다.
셋째로,어려지난의또다른주모자어(魚)씨의신분에관한것으로,그어씨의성이 魚가아닌, 喩라는것이다.
두번째연구결과인어려지난의구체적발생시간이틀리지않는다면, 명사,명실록,국각등중국사료에등장하는영락제의후궁 喩씨의사망시간이 조선왕조실록에기록된어려지난의발생시기에자살한시간과거의일치한다는사실을알아냈다.
또,중국어발음에있어서위의두한자는다같이 ‘위’라는발음으로글을쓸줄모르거나,알더라도어떤중국어발음 ‘위’의한자인지모르는김흑이발음하는것을사관이오기했을가능성이커,어려지난의또다른주모자 魚씨가사실은영락 ...

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This research will focus on ‘Catastrophe of EO-RYEO’(Simple Chinese: 鱼吕之乱, Traditional Chinese 魚呂之亂)’ which is a palace secret history occurred two times in MING during YONGLE dynasty and suggest the solution and research direction about questions regarding the occurrence time and mastermind.
First, as a result of studying about status of ‘呂(RYEO)’ who is a main culprit beside the incident, ‘呂(RYEO)’ was turned out as Chinese ‘呂(RYEO)’’s daughter,“贾吕(GORYEO)”, not ‘‘呂(RYEO)’ from women tribute in Chosun dynasty.
Therefore, She was Chinese coming to MING palace and had nothing to do with Chosun dynasty.
Secondly, this thesis have explained about ‘Catastrophe of EO-RYEO’ based on the Annals of the Chosun Dynasty and approached indirectly the contents, which were not recorded in the Annals of the Chosun Dynasty, through reports in China historical records such as MINGSHI, MING shi-lu, and GUOQUE etc.
Consequently, it was found that putting to death of ‘呂(RYEO)’ occurred in 1413and ‘Catastrophe of EO-RYEO’ did in 1421.
Third, regarding a status of another main culprit ‘魚 (EO)’ in ‘Catastrophe of EO-RYEO’, the family name of ‘魚 (EO)’ is not ‘魚’ but ‘喩’. If the specific occurrence time which is in second part is not wrong, a death time of ‘喩’ ,who is the YONGLE dynasty’s concubines, corresponds with the suicide time during ‘Catastrophe of EO-RYEO’. Moreover, the pronunciation of above two Chinese letters is the same as ‘YU’, so there might be a possibility that a history writer miswrote ‘Kim Heuk’s pronunciation who couldn’t write or know which letter has a pronunciation ‘YU’. With this result, it was discovered that another main culprit ‘魚 (EO)’ was the YONGLE dynasty’s concubines.
However, this research has some problems like below.
First, there is a limitation in using a historical records. The main subject,‘Catastrophe of EO-RYEO’, is a palace secret history in MING. It was very difficult to find in China historical records likewise are cord about women tribute.
Actually, Ming RENZONG who ascended the throne after Emperor YONGLE death was reluctant to publicize about this incident to the Chosun Dynasty. For that reason, this research have depended on the Annals of the Chosun Dynasty unavoidably.
Secondly, For reasons above, it is not certain how much of this historical records is true since relying on the Annals of the Chosun Dynasty. Even though the Annals of the Chosun Dynasty do not have false records, there might be problems such as exaggeration and miswriting for some reasons. ‘Catastrophe of EO-RYEO’ occurred in 1421. ‘Kim Heuk’, who is Han’s nanny, returned to Chosun Dynasty in 1435 and informed about ‘Catastrophe of EO-RYEO’ to Se Jong 15 years later of the incident. Also, there may existed an exaggeration and miswriting as I said above because aged ‘Kim Heuk’ talked about what happened at that time to a history writer. Miswriting the family name of ‘魚 (EO)’ cited as an instance.
Third, this research ended in explaining that main culprit “贾吕(GORYEO)” in ‘Catastrophe of EO-RYEO’ was not Chosun people but Chinese ‘呂(RYEO)’’s daughter and come to palace as a court lady by reaching limitation of the writer ability. I consider disclosing her exact status raises a value of this research to a higher level. But there is a sense of frustration about making this research as following-up study project because of writer’s limitation.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 柳洪烈, "高丽对元朝的贡女" 18 : 1957

2 全海宗, "韩中关系史研究" 一潮阁 1986

3 胡凡, "论明代的选秀女之制" 哲学社会科学版 6 : 1999

4 曹佐镐, "李朝对明贡女考——韩国女人哀史的一区, In 黄义敦先生古稀纪念史学论丛" 东国大学出版社 1960

5 韩国国史编纂委员会, "朝鲜王朝实录" 国史编纂委员会 1958

6 吴晗, "朝鲜李朝实录中的中国史料" 中华书局 1980

7 姜舜源, "明清宫廷朝鲜“采女”研究" 4 : 1997

8 程彩霞, "明成祖朱棣宠杀后妃秘闻" 10 : 2007

9 中央研究院历史语言研究所, "明实录" 中央研究院历史语言研究所出版 1984

10 张廷玉, "明史" 中华书局 1974

11 李新峰, "明前期赴朝鲜使臣丛考" 4 : 2004

12 肖春娟, "明初朝鲜贡女问题研究" 中央民族大学 2006

13 申时行, "明会典万历朝重修本" 中华书局 1989

14 程彩霞, "明代后妃制度的政治文化解读" 12 : 2006

15 姜龙范, "明代中韩关系史" 黑龙江朝鲜民族出版社 1999

16 谈迁, "国榷" 中华书局 2005

17 金成奎, "入宋高丽国使的朝贡仪礼和其周边" 24 : 2001

18 喜 蕾, "元代高丽贡女制度研究" 民族出版社 2003

19 陈尚胜, "中韩交流三千年" 中华书局 1997

20 刘永智, "中朝关系史研究" 中州古籍出版社 1994

21 金富轼, "三国史记" 青化出版社 1984