특집: 조선후기 언어(言語).문자(文字) 연구와 지식 교류 : 조선 후기의 한어(漢語)학습서와 훈민정음의 사용

신용권 ( Yong Kwon Shin ) 한국실학학회 2015 한국실학연구 Vol.0 No.29

조선 후기에는 중국을 비롯하여 일본 등 외국의 문물과 접촉이 강화되고 있었기 때문에 이를 위한 노력은 국가와 민간 차원에서 다양하게 이루어졌다. 또한 18세기에 들어와 淸의 실상에 대한 정보가 늘어나고 이를 통해 조선 정부가 淸을 새롭게 인식하게 되는 흐름도 나타났다. 외국과의 활발한 교류를 위하여 조선 후기에는 외국어에 능통한 역관(譯官)과 사대부의 필요성이 대두되었고 외국어 학습과 연구를 위한 다양한 역학서(譯學書)가 편찬 간행되었다. 이러한 배경에서 편찬된 조선 후기의 한어(漢語)학습서에는 그 사회, 문화적 상황과 함께 중국과의 지식 교류와 소통을 위한 노력이 반영되어 있다. 조선시대에 간행된 漢語학습서는 조선시대 언어 연구의 주요한 성과일 뿐 아니라 중국과의 외교 관계나 교류를 위하여 우리나라가 어떤 노력을 기울였는가를 엿볼 수 있는 자료이다. 본 논문은 조선 후기의 주요 漢語학습서에 대하여 소개하고 이 책들이 반영하는 漢語의 성격을 고찰하며 최초로 한어음(漢語音)을 훈민정음으로 적은 홍무정운역훈(洪武正韻譯訓)과 최초의 역학서언해(譯學書諺解)인 번역노걸대(飜譯老乞大), 번역박통사(飜譯朴通事) 에서 정립된 語音표기방식이 조선 후기의 漢語 학습서에서 어떻게 나타나는가를 살펴보게 될 것이다. 이를 통해 조선 후기의 漢語학습서가 편찬된 사회, 문화적 배경과 효과를 검토하고 지식 교류와 소통의 조선 후기적 양상의 일면을 살펴보는 것이 본고의 목적이다. As Korea is situated in the northeastern corner of the Asian continent, it has been necessary for Koreans to maintain diplomatic relationship with the neighboring peoples for the security of the Korean states. Especially during Joseon dynasty, state policy toward foreigners was characterized by the single term 事大交隣 (service to a great power, friendly relationship with the neighbors). The Sayeokwon(司譯院) was maintained for Joseon dynasty as the unique institute for training in foreign languages in Korea and as an office of the Joseon government which was responsible for supplying all the official interpreters for diplomacy. In the Sayeokwon, the four languages-Chinese, Mongolian, Japanese and Jurchen (later replaced by Manchu)-were taught. Among these, Chinese was always the most important language. In the course of the long history of the Sayeokwon, various Chinese textbooks were published, revised and subsequently discarded. For example, Nogeoldae(老乞大) and Baktongsa(朴通事) were very popular Chinese textbooks that had been in use at least before the fifteenth century and their revised versions, each with slight revisions, were published; therefore, they also constitute very valuable historical data for the study of the Chinese language. In the late Joseon dynasty, more various versions of Chinese textbook were published. This paper aims to study the following problemsabout the Chinese textbooks of the late Joseon dynasty. First, I provide a description of the various versions of Chinese textbookspublished in the late Joseon dynasty, so that a reader can have some ideas of these textbooks which are useful in the study of linguistic change in Chinese. Secondly, I investigate the Chinese characteristics reflected in the Chinese textbooks of the late Joseon dynasty. The content of Guno(舊老) suggests that they have been written at the time of the Yuan dynasty and that the language of early versions of Chinese textbook reflect the Chinese characteristics in the period of Yuan dynasty. In the other versions published in the 18th century, this characteristics had all vanished. In addition, the Chinese language reflected in Chinese textbooks of the late Joseon dynasty have the following characteristics; modern Chinese, northern Mandarin with several Shandong dialectic elements, spoken language, etc. Finally, I will analyze the Korean transcription in Chinese textbooks ofthe late Joseon dynasty and look into the characteristics of the Chinese readings reflected in these books in connection with the motivation of publication. For scholars investigating modern Chinese, Chinese textbooks published in Korea provide important information about what the language was like at that time. To conclude this discussion, I would like to re-emphasize that the various versions of Chinese textbook published in the late Joseon dynasty are very important materials for studying modern Chinese and the study of foreign languages in Joseon dynasty.

투고논문 : 동월(董越)의 「조선부(朝鮮賦)」를 통해 본 중국(中國) 사신(使臣)의 조선(朝鮮) 인식(認識)

윤재환 ( Jae Hwan Yoon ) 동방한문학회 2012 東方漢文學 Vol.0 No.53

董越의 「朝鮮賦」는 성종 19년(1488) 頒詔正使로 조선을 찾았던 明나라의 右春坊右庶子 兼 翰林院侍講 동월이 조선 사행을 마친 뒤 조선의 산천과 풍속, 인정과 물정을 賦의 형식으로 기록한 글이다. 「조선부」는 간행되자마자 조선과 중국 두 나라 사람들에게 상당한 관심과 호응을 받았고 널리 읽혀졌다. 이 글은 「조선부」에 드러난 동월의 조선에 대한 인식을 살펴보고자 하는 것이다. 지금까지 동월이나 동월의 「조선부」에 대해 언급한 글들은 대부분 “동월이 조선을 진정으로 이해하려 하였고, 조선에 대한 우호를 바탕으로 「조선부」를 창작하였기 때문에 그의 「조선부」에는 중화주의적 발상이 숨어있기는 하지만 이전까지 나온 조선에 대한 글들과 달리 조선의 문화를 선양하고 조선의 참 모습을 널리 알리려고 하는 것이었다”. 라고 평가하고 있다. 그러나 이와 같은 선행 연구의 결과에 대한 의구심을 버릴 수 없다. 따라서 이 글에서는 ``동월의 「조선부」에서 확인할 수 있는 그의 조선 인식을 정말 지금까지의 연구 결과와 같이 정리할 수 있을까``하는 것과 ``정말 그렇다면 그 이유는 무엇인가`` 하는 것을 우선적으로 밝혀보고자 한다. 만약 동월의 「조선부」에 대한 분석 결과가 지금까지의 연구 결과와 달리 나타난다면 지금까지 연구자들이, 또 당대 조선 사람들이 동월과 동월의 「조선부」를 그렇게 우호적으로 보게 된 이유는 무엇이었을까 하는 것을 살펴보고자 한다. 이를 통해 동월과 동월의 「조선부」를 보다 객관적으로 바라보고, 당대 중국의 지식인과 중국 사신들이 지니고 있었던 조선에 대한 기본 인식을 유추해보고자 한다. 동월은 사신이라는 자신의 책무를 완수하기 위해 사실성에 입각하여 「조선부」를 저술한 것이라 할 수 있다. 동월의 「조선부」저술이 이러한 목적에 따른 것이라면, 「조선부」 속에 기재되어 있는 조선의 사정은 기본적으로 신뢰할 만한 것이라 할 수 있다. 그러나 이와 같은 「조선부」의 내용에 대해 중국 쪽에서 바라보는 시각과 조선에서 바라본 시각에는 엄연한 차이가 있음을 확인할 수 있다. 중국에서 바라보기에 동월의 「조선부」는 조선에 중화의 유풍이 남아 있어서 후대의 권계와 귀감이 될 수 있어 가치 있다는 것이고, 조선에서 바라보기에 동월의 「조선부」는 비록 조선의 실정과 다 들어맞지는 않지만, 그래도 조선이 중국을 섬기는 충심과 중국이 조선을 후히 대하는 성의를 보여 주는 것이기 때문에 가치 있다는 것이다. 동월의 「조선부」가 중국과 조선 두 나라에서 모두 인정받았지만, 그 이유는 다른 것이었다. 동월의 「조선부」는 그의 기본적인 의식 세계가 중화라는 문명권 중심으로 형성되어 있음을 보여준다. 중국 문명을 중심으로 조선을 바라보고 조선의 풍경과 풍속을 기술하는 것이 동월의 「조선부」 기술의 기본적인 태도였다. 이에 따라 동월은 「조선부」에서 중국과 관계되지 않는 사항이나 중국의 禮制와 어긋나지 않는 조선의 풍경과 풍속에 대해서는 긍정적이고 호의적인 시선을 보낼 수 있었다. 이 긍정적인 시선에 따른 조선에 대한 사실적 묘사가 조선의 문화적 상승 욕구와 결합하여 「조선부」에 대한 조선인들의 호응을 얻을 수 있었던 것으로 보인다. 동월의 대 조선 인식이나 「조선부」의 가치는 바로 이 지점에서 찾을 수 있을 것이라 생각된다. Dongyue`s Chaoxianfu is a writing in which Dongyue recorded Joseon`s landscapes, customs, people, and culture by the form of ``fu(賦)`` after Dongyue who was then the Youchunfangyoushuzi and Hanlinyuanshijiang of Ming Dynasty court completed his envoy trip to Joseon in 1488(19th year of King Seongjong`s throne). As soon as it was published, Chaoxianfu attracted a lot of attention and response of both Koreans and Chinese, and was widely read. This study is to examine Dongyue`s cognition of Joseon appearing in Chaoxianfu. Most previous researches about Dongyue or Dongyue`s Chaoxianfu till now evaluated, “since Dongyue tried to truly understand Joseon and wrote Chaoxianfu based on the amity with Joseon, though his Chaoxianfu hid Sino-centric ideology, it attempted to enhance Joseon`s culture and to promulgate the true Joseon unlike previous writings about Joseon”. However, such previous researches are very doubtful. Thus, this study tries to preferentially clarify ``if Dongyue`s cognition of Joseon referred from Chaoxianfu can be categorized like previous researches``, and ``what is the reason if so``. If this study`s analysis on Chaoxianfu appears different from previous researches, why previous researchers and contemporary Joseon people deemed Dongyue so friendly should be examined. By the examination, Dongyue and his Chaoxianfu can be understood more objectively, and basic cognition of Joseon which Chinese literati and Chinese envoys held can be analogized. It seems that Dongyue wrote Chaoxianfu based on authenticity in order to complete his duty as an envoy. If Dongyue wrote Chaoxianfu for such a goal, Joseon`s circumstances recorded in Chaoxianfu can be basically considered to be quite reliable. However, regarding such contents of Chaoxianfu, it can be verified that there were considerable differences between Chinese perspective and Joseon`s perspective. From Chinese point of view, Dongyue`s Chaoxianfu was valuable because the remaining Chinese customs in Joseon can be admonishment and paragon for future generations; from Joseon`s point of view, it was worthy as long as it showed Joseon`s loyalty toward China and China`s sincerity bountiful treatment for Joseon though Dongyue`s Chaoxianfu did not fully reflect Joseon`s circumstances. Dongyue`s Chaoxianfu achieved recognition from both China and Joseon, yet the reasons for the recognition were different. Dongyue`s Chaoxianfu shows that his fundamental consciousness was formed around the cultural core of Chinese civilization. Dongyue`s basic attitude in writing Chaoxianfu was to watch and describe Joseon`s circumstances and customs according to the cultural core of Chinese civilization. Due to the reason, in Chaoxianfu Dongyue could keep his positive and friendly perspective toward things not related to China and Joseon`s circumstances and customs that accord with Chinese rites and systems. It seems that as his realistic description of Joseon from such his positive perspective matched Joseon`s cultural upward desire, Chaoxianfu could receive fervent response from Joseon people. The value of Dongyue`s cognition of Joseon and of Chaoxianfu can be found at this point.

연행록을 통해 본 청대(淸代) 지방수재(地方秀才) 제패련(齊佩蓮)의 생애와 조선사신(朝鮮使臣)과의 교유

임유의 ( Lin Yu-yi ) 한국어문교육연구회 2018 어문연구(語文硏究) Vol.46 No.1

18세기말 19세기초 楡關 출신인 지방 수재 齊佩蓮은 1780년부터 1805년까지 조선 사절단이 의례적으로 지나가던 산해관 근처의 유관에서 조선 사신들을 맞이하여 필담과 교유를 청하였는데, 무려 20차례에 이른다. 본고는 먼저 연행록 기록을 통해 중국 문헌에서 보이지 않는 지방 수재 제패련의 생애를 재구성하고 조선 사신들과의 교유 경위 및 필담 내용을 고찰하겠다. 아울러 제패련과 조선 사신과의 교유를 두 가지 시각으로 살펴볼 것이다. 하나는 제패련의 입장에서 그가 조선 사신을 만난 이유를 (1)조선 문인에 대한 欽慕, (2)개인 문집을 위한 請序 및 評點, (3)스승 홍양호에 대한 敬仰, (4)한반도 특산품 청구 등 네 가지 주제로, 또 하나는 조선 사신의 입장에서 그들이 제패련을 만난 이유를 (1)중국 정치 현황과 중국 학술 현황에 대한 정보 수집, (2)조선 역대 인물에 대한 중국인의 평가, (3)필담을 통한 서로 한문 실력검증, (4)청나라 문인과의 가문 교유 계승 등 네 가지 주제로 나누어 분석해 보았다. After Qing Dynasty ruling Mainland China, envoys around East Asian countries were assigned to pay tribute to the empire. They not only conducted diplomatic tasks, but also absorbed Qing Dynasty culture/technology and collected situation information of Qing and surrounded country, whereby the Chinese culture circle, which is Qing Dynasty oriented, were formed. The phenomenon of Chinese culture circle seems a one-way acceptance, i.e., from surrounded countries to Qing Dynasty, since the empire had the advantage on diplomacy and culture. However, from the book Yeon hang rok(Book of travel to Qing), written by Joseon envoys, the cases of the reverse-way acceptance, i.e., from Chinese local scholars' active interaction with Joseon envoys, are not rare, which is the topic that worth paying attention among the Chinese and Joseon interaction. Among those cases, Qi, Pei-Lian(齊佩蓮), the scholar born near Yu Pass (?關) in the late 18th century, interacted with Joseon envoys through conversation by brush talk and chanting poems on the route from Joseon to Qing empire for about 20 times. The scholar interacted with 28 Joseon scholars, including Bak, Je-Ga(朴齊家)、Lee, hae-Ung(李海應)、Hong, Yang-Ho (洪良浩), which is not common in the society where Chinese culture were considered superiority. Qi, Pei-Lian realized that those Joseon envoys own solid Chinese ability and held a critical position in the government. Therefore, it is worth to investigating on what is the motivation for Qi, Pei-Lian as he intended to interact with them and what is the motivation Joseon scholars interact with Qi, Pei-Lian. In this study, we analyzed the background and meaning for the interaction between Chinese local scholars and Joseon envoys, and found out the purpose Qi, Pei-Lian interacted with Joseon envoys: 1). Admiration for the Joseon scholars, 2). Admiration for his teacher Hong, Yang-Ho(洪良浩), 3). Ask for comments to his literary collection, 4). Ask for the local specialities of Joseon. In the other way, the purpose Joseon envoys interacted with Qi, Pei-Lian could be 1). For the intelligence collection of Qing Dynasty, 2). To know Chinese scholar’s comment on Joseon scholars, 3). Compare the ability in Chinese writing with each other, 4). To retain the interaction between Chinese family and Joseon family.

燕行에서 書畵 求得 및 聞見 사례 연구

정은주,권혜은 한국미술사교육학회 2012 美術史學 Vol.- No.26

This study is aimed at reviewing the introduction of Chinese paintings through the tribute missions to Beijing in Joseon Dynasty. Joseon envoys prefer the paintings and calligraphic works of prior to Qing Dynasty, for example those of Emperor Huizong, Su Shi(蘇軾, 1037-1101), Li Gonglin(李公麟, 1049-1106), Mi Fu(米芾, 1051-1107), Zhao Mengfu(趙孟頫, 1254-1322), Dong Qichang(董其昌, 1555-1636), Qiu Ying(仇英, 1494-1552), Liu JI(呂紀, 1477-1505) Meng Yong-guang (孟永光). Because the paintings of Qing Dynasty as contemporary works tend to undervalue, Joseon envoys not purchase them but gain some works from Chinese acquaintances, such as Luo Ping(羅聘, 1733-1799), Zhu Henian(朱鶴年, 1760-1834). But all works of Ming Dynasty brought by envoy into Joseon are not original paintings. Some of them copied a genuine work or bought cheap imitation from a dealer in pictures and writings. Gim Deoksam as a court physician got some paintings of high standard for giving medical treatment to the Chinese. These kinds of case show us the background of a Physician Gim Gwang-guk, who went to Beijing, to be a famous collector of paintings in the late Joseon Period. Gim Jeonghee and his school took the lead to study the ancient Chinese epigraph and Confucian classics through the cultural exchange with Weng Fang-gang(翁方綱), Ruan Yuan(阮元, 1764-1849) and the literati of Qing Dynasty. Joseon envoys introduced some Joseon paintings to the Chinese during the tribute missions; they saw some works came from Joseon such as Yeolsang-hwabo. It is an album painted by noted Joseon artists before 1759. This album was sold to Chinese dealer by Joseon trader. Joseon envoys appreciated some masterpieces during their visit to the temples, churches and mansions in China. The works reflected the trends of collection at that time. Above all, we can understand that Joseon envoy experienced the cultural environment of the exchange of paintings.

1920년대 조선화교 노동이주의 배경 : 식민지조선과 중국 동북지역의 노동환경과 임금을 중심으로

한상협 경북대학교 인문학술원 2023 동서인문 Vol.- No.23

1920년대 급증하는 조선화교의 대부분은 산동출신의 노동자였다. 특히, 해당시기 중국인 노동자의 증가는 평안북도를 위시한 조선북부지역에 집중되었다. 이들 중국인 노동자의 이주노선과 관련하여, 조선북부를 산동출신 노동자의 이주 목적지로 설정할 경우, 이주노선 상 중간 경유지인 중국의 동북지역을 주목할 필요가 있다. 중국의 동북지역은 淸末 이래 화북 流民들의 이주가 지속되어 왔던 지역이었다. 산동을 비롯한 화북지역 流民의 대규모 동북이주를 흔히 ‘闖關東’이라 표현하는데, 이러한 동북이주 역시 식민지조선의 조선화교 증가와 마찬가지로 1920년대에 들어 급증하는 양상을 보이고 있다. 이러한 점에 착안하여, 이번 연구에서는 1920년대 산동과 동북, 조선을 일종의 ‘노동이주권역’으로 설정하고, 각 권역 간의 관계를 규명하기 위해, 그간 크게 주목받지 못한 동북과 식민지조선의 노동환경 및 임금에 대한 분석을 진행한다. 이러한 작업은 중국의 동북이주사와 조선화교사를 연결하는 작업의 일환이며, 1920년대 실제 산동출신 유민들이 동북이라는 유서 깊은 이주지 대신 조선북부지역으로 이주한 배경을 밝히는 작업이기도 하다. 분석은 동북과 조선화교의 인구 추이에 대한 비교분석으로 시작한다. 1920년대 동북지역과 식민지조선 모두 중국인의 이주 인구가 급격히 증가하는 추세이긴 하지만, 식민지조선의 중국인 인구는 동북지역 내에서도 大連, 奉天(現: 審陽), 安東(現: 丹東) 등 남만주지역과 유사한 추이를 기록하고 있다. 이에, 이번 연구에서는 남만주와 식민지조선의 인구 추이 이외에도 이주의 성격 및 노동환경, 임금 등에 대한 면밀한 분석을 통해 산동을 출발한 중국인 노동자가 동북지역 대신 조선으로 이주하게 된 배경을 면밀히 분석한다. 이러한 분석을 통해 양 지역 노동시장의 관계를 규명하고, 1920년대 중반 이후 급증하는 노동쟁의와 노동자 간 충돌 등, 노동시장에서 민족 간 갈등의 배경을 살펴보는 것이 이번 연구의 주요 목적이다. In the 1920s, most of the rapidly increasing “Overseas Chinese in Joseon (朝鮮華僑)” were workers from Shandong (中國山東). In particular, the increase in the number of Chinese workers was concentrated in the northern provinces of Joseon, including Pyeonganbuk-do (平安北道). When regarding cases where northern Joseon was the destination of workers migrating from Shangdong, it is necessary to pay attention to Northeast China (中國東北), which was an intermediate point on the migration route. The Northeast was a region where the migration of Chinese people had continued since the end of the Qing Dynasty (清朝). Large-scale migration in Northeast China, including Shandong, was often referred to as " 闖關東,” and this showed a rapid increase in the 1920s. Based on the above evidence, this paper sets Shandong, Northeast China, and Joseon in the 1920s as a type of "labor migration zone” and analyzes the working environment and the wages of Northeast China and Colonial Joseon to establish the relationship between each region, This research is a part of connecting “history of China's northeastern migration (東北移住史)” and “history of Overseas Chinese in Joseon (朝鮮華僑史).” This has significance in revealing the background of the fact that refugees from Shandong migrated to the northern part of Joseon in the 1920s, instead of the historic migration to Northeast China. This paper also provides a comparative analysis of the population trends of Northeast China and Overseas Chinese in Joseon. In the 1920s, both Northeast China and Colonial Joseon showed a rapid increase in the Chinese population. However, the Chinese population of Colonial Joseon showed a similar trend to that of South Manchuria(“南滿州”), especially Da-Lian(大連), Feng-Tian(奉天), and An-Dong(安東). In addition to analyzing population trends in South Manchuria and Colonial Joseon, this paper studies the background of the Chinese workers’ migration through a close analysis of the characteristics of the migration, the working environment, and the wages. By performing these analyses, this research aims to investigate the relationship between the labor markets in the two regions and examine the background of ethnic conflicts in the labor market, such as labor disputes and conflicts between workers, which have soared since the mid-1920s.

조선시대 外交儀禮의 특징

김문식 단국대학교 동양학연구원 2016 東洋學 Vol.62 No.-

This paper is to research the national status of three East Asian nations by studying the distinct feature of Joseon Dynasty’s diplomatic ritual. I consider the character appeared in the process of the three East Asian nations exchanging the diplomatic documents and the protocol of treating envoys. So I can find the distinct feature of Joseon Dynasty’s diplomatic ritual as this. A Chinese emperor and a king of Joseon were on the relationship between the ruler and the ruled exhaustively. The king should perform the ceremony of the ruled’s when he sent a diplomatic document to a Chinese emperor. Treating envoys, the Chinese minister of the Office of Protocol and Joseon’s envoy were on the relationship between the ruler and the ruled. But when a king of Joseon treated a Chinese envoy, the king and the envoy were on the same status. The status of a Joseon envoy in China was more downgraded in the Ching Dynasty than in the Ming Dynasty. When a Chinese government official arranged a banquet, a Joseon envoy should go to the Office of Protocol and receive fewer drinking cups after performing harder ceremony to a Chinese emperor in the Ching Dynasty. Receiving a Chinese emperor’s prize, the envoy received the prize on the front of the Imperial Palace’s gate not in the Palace. A king of Joseon and a Shogun were on the same status. They sent an envoys and exchanged diplomatic documents each other, their envoys performed the ceremony of the ruled’s to the king or the Shogun. The protocols of treating Japanese envoy and Joseon’s envoy were equal too. In Japan, a Joseon envoy and the Lord of Daemado and a Shogun’s bureaucrat were on the same status. A Japanese envoy could be given a same reception in Joseon too. During the former and the latter half of Joseon Dynasty, the protocols to treat a Japanese envoy were different. The Lord of Daemado sent an envoy and the envoy could meet an Dongnae Magistrate but he couldn’t meet a king of Joseon during the latter half. During the former half of Joseon Dynasty, the Joseon’s minister of the Office of Protocol and a Japanese envoy were on the same status, but during the latter half the status of an Dongnae Magistrate and a Japanese envoy were equal. As a emperor of Japan was reinstated in 1864, there happened a big change on the status of three East Asian nations. After the emperor of Korean Empire came on the scene in 1897, the two emperors could be on the same status. 이 논문은 조선시대의 外交儀禮를 통해 동아시아 삼국의 국가적 위상을 검토하기 위해 작성되었다. 본문에서는 동아시아 삼국이 외교문서를 교환하는 절차와 사신을 접대하는 의례에 나타나는 특징을 정리하였고, 이를 통해 조선시대의 외교의례에는 다음과 같은 특징이 있음을 발견했다. 중국 황제와 조선 국왕은 철저하게 君臣 관계에 있었다. 조선 국왕은 황제에게 외교문서를 보낼 때나 황제의 외교문서를 받을 때 반드시 군신의 예를 거행하였다. 사신을 접대하는 의례에서도 군신 관계가 잘 나타났다. 예부상서가 조선 사신을 접대할 때에는 두 사람이 군신 관계에 있었고, 조선 국왕이 중국 사신을 접대할때에는 대등한 항례를 했다. 중국에서 조선 사신의 지위는 명대보다 청대에 더 격하되었다. 조선 사신을 위한 연회는 장소가 숙소에서禮部로 바뀌었고, 황제에게 더 어려운 예를 거행한 후 더 적은 술잔을 받았다. 황제가 주는 선물을 받을 때에도 사신은 황제의 궁궐이 아니라 궁궐 입구에서 받았다. 조선 국왕과 일본 關伯은 대등한 항례를 했다. 국왕과 관백은 사신을 파견하여 國書를 전달하였고, 이 때사신은 국왕과 관백에게 군신의 예를 거행하였다. 조선과 일본의 사신을 접대하는 의례도 대등했다. 일본에서조선 사신은 대마도주, 막부의 관리들과 항례를 했고, 일본 사신이 조선에서 대접받은 의례도 이와 비슷했다. 조선에서 일본 사신을 접대하는 의례는 전기와 후기가 달랐다. 조선후기에는 대마도주가 사신을 파견했으며, 이 사신은 동래부사를 만나고 국왕을 만나지는 못했다. 조선전기에는 예조판서와 일본 사신이 항례를 했지만, 조선후기에는 동래부사와 일본 사신이 항례를 했다. 1864년 일본의 天皇이 복권되면서 동아시아 삼국의 국가적 위상에 큰 변화가 생겼다. 조선에서 일본의 천황과 대등한 항례를 한 것은 大韓帝國의 황제가 등장한 이후였다.

조선시대 외교의례(外交儀禮)의 특징

김문식 ( Moon Sik Kim ) 단국대학교 동양학연구원 2016 東洋學 Vol.62 No.-

This paper is to research the national status of three East Asian nations by studying the distinct feature of Joseon Dynasty’s diplomatic ritual. I consider the character appeared in the process of the three East Asian nations exchanging the diplomatic documents and the protocol of treating envoys. So I can find the distinct feature of Joseon Dynasty’s diplomatic ritual as this. A Chinese emperor and a king of Joseon were on the relationship between the ruler and the ruled exhaustively. The king should perform the ceremony of the ruled’s when he sent a diplomatic document to a Chinese emperor. Treating envoys, the Chinese minister of the Office of Protocol and Joseon’s envoy were on the relationship between the ruler and the ruled. But when a king of Joseon treated a Chinese envoy, the king and the envoy were on the same status. The status of a Joseon envoy in China was more downgraded in the Ching Dynasty than in the Ming Dynasty. When a Chinese government official arranged a banquet, a Joseon envoy should go to the Office of Protocol and receive fewer drinking cups after performing harder ceremony to a Chinese emperor in the Ching Dynasty. Receiving a Chinese emperor’s prize, the envoy received the prize on the front of the Imperial Palace’s gate not in the Palace. A king of Joseon and a Shogun were on the same status. They sent an envoys and exchanged diplomatic documents each other, their envoys performed the ceremony of the ruled’s to the king or the Shogun. The protocols of treating Japanese envoy and Joseon’s envoy were equal too. In Japan, a Joseon envoy and the Lord of Daemado and a Shogun’s bureaucrat were on the same status. A Japanese envoy could be given a same reception in Joseon too. During the former and the latter half of Joseon Dynasty, the protocols to treat a Japanese envoy were different. The Lord of Daemado sent an envoy and the envoy could meet an Dongnae Magistrate but he couldn’t meet a king of Joseon during the latter half. During the former half of Joseon Dynasty, the Joseon’s minister of the Office of Protocol and a Japanese envoy were on the same status, but during the latter half the status of an Dongnae Magistrate and a Japanese envoy were equal. As a emperor of Japan was reinstated in 1864, there happened a big change on the status of three East Asian nations. After the emperor of Korean Empire came on the scene in 1897, the two emperors could be on the same status.

조선시대 한중일(韓中日) 관계와 상호인식(相互認識)의 추이

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

원대 이전까지 중국의 일본에 대한 인식은 긍정적이었다. 견당사 등으로 왔던 일본 관인, 승려들과의 접촉 경험을 통해 일본을 ‘예의지국’, ‘군자지국’으로 보았다. 하지만 왜구가 발호하면서 중국의 대일인식은 몹시 부정적으로 바뀐다. 조선도 14세기 중반 이후 극심한 왜구의 침략을 겪으면서 일본에 대한 부정적인 인식이 고조되었다. 15세기 회유책이 효과를 발휘하여 왜구가 잦아지면서 일본에 대한 인식은 바뀌는 조짐을 보인다. 그런데 조선은 大國으로 자처하면서 일본에 대해 문화적 우월감을 드러냈다. 조일 양국의 상호 인식과 태도를 규정하는 바탕에는 양국의 명에 대한 태도와 인식의 차이가 자리 잡고 있었다. 15~16세기 조선 지식인들은 명과의 빈번한 접촉과 친연성을 바탕으로 일본에 대한 우월의식을 드러냈다. 일본은 神國임을 내세우면서 명에 대해 맞서거나 사대를 거부하는 ‘자주적인’ 자세를 바탕으로 조선을 멸시하려고 덤볐다. 임진왜란을 계기로 조명관계에서는 전쟁 이전의 事大와 字小를 표방했던 ‘軟性的인 관계’가 사라졌다. 명은 왜란을 계기로 자신들의 안보가 위협받자 조선에 대해 거칠고 부정적인 태도와 인식을 드러냈다. 왜란 이후 조선은 명을 ‘再造의 恩人’으로, 일본을 ‘萬世의 怨讐’로 규정했다. 또 전쟁 기간 일본의 武力과 잔학함을 목도하면서 일본에 대한 두려움도 확실히 지니게 되었다. 정묘, 병자호란 이후 조선에서는 일본을 ‘원수’가 아니라 청에 맞서기 위해 협력해야 할 우방으로 여기는 인식이 싹텄다. 명 또한 청의 위협에 맞서 조선이 일본과 협력하여 청을 견제해 주기를 기대했다. 19세기 들어 일본에서는 정한론이 대두된다. 실제로 일본의 힘이 다시 커지고 조선에 대한 위협이 증대하면서 청의 위기의식도 고조된다. 운양호 사건, 임오군란을 겪으면서 청의 양무관료들은 조선을 구미 열강과 立約하도록 勸導하는 한편 조선을 직할령으로 통치해야 한다고 주장했다. 그 와중에 흥선대원군을 납치하고 조청상민수륙무역장정을 강압적으로 체결하고, 원세개의 독단적인 행보까지 더해지면서 19세기 후반 조선에서는 반청감정이 비등해질 수 있는 환경이 조성되었다. 명과 청은 조선을 ‘충순한 번국’이란 운운했지만 일본이 양국 관계에 끼어들 경우 조선에 대해 거칠고 강퍅한 태도와 부정적인 인식을 드러냈다. 15세기 명의 신료들이 조선과 일본의 접촉에 신경질적인 반응을 보였던 것, 임진왜란 시기 명군 지휘부가 조선에 대한 직할통치론을 주장했던 것, 임오군란 이후 청의 양무관료들이 조선을 속방으로 만들려고 했던 것 등이 그 생생한 실례였다. 1894년 청일전쟁을 계기로 조선에서는 排日, 斥日論이 확산되고 대다수 관료와 민인들이 청군의 승리를 전망하거나 희구했다. 청이 패하자 조선에서는 당혹감과 함께 청의 허약한 실상에 대한 객관적인 인식이 대두했다. 청의 지식인들도 패전을 계기로 일본을 배워야 한다는 인식이 확산되었다. 조선시대 한국인들의 중국 인식과 일본 인식은 ‘끼여 있는 존재’라는 한반도의 지정학적 조건과 안보 상황 속에서 형성되었다. 나아가 그것은 한반도를 둘러싼 중일 양국의 역학 관계의 추이를 비롯한 상황의 변화에 따라 서로 길항하고 연동되는 모습으로 나타나고 있었다. 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’

朝鮮時代 外國語 收用에 대한 考察 - 漢語를 중심으로 -

金恩希 한국언어연구학회 2018 언어학연구 Vol.23 No.1

This paper takes an in-depth look into the learning situation of the Chinese Language (漢語) and how it was accepted by the government authorities (官) throughout the Joseon Dynasty in general via the entries recorded in the“Annals of the Joseon Dynasty”pertaining to this matter. It was imperative to emphasize both languages in Joseon Dynasty’s diplomatic relations with both the Ming Dynasty and the Qing Dynasty. This paper’s narration however is limited within the scope of the records of the ‘Chinese Language’(漢語) listed in the “Annals of the Joseon Dynasty”. If we were to take a closer look into the records of the “Annals of the Joseon Dynasty”, it can be seen that the number of literates who wanted to learn voluntarily were decreasing even if they had the ability because they only recognized language skills as one specific field even if language acquisition was necessary in the relationship amongst aristocrats of the Joseon Dynasty. In addition, it is of special note that conclusions can be drawn that the perspectives regarding the Chinese language by the literates were already changing during King Jungjoing’s reign even long before the transition from the Ming Dynasty to the Qing Dynasty. The Chinese Language (漢語) occupied a very prestigious position throughout the Joseon Dynasty as an interpretation language while its leaders also considered it to be the language of the domestic aristocrats as well as the instrument of diplomatic relations with its Chinese neighbor. However, it appears that other than the selected few official interpreters who had to learn the Chinese language for vocational purposes, there weren’t many who actually had a good command of spoken Chinese.

조선후기 변격시문에 관한 일고찰

심경호(Sim, Kyung-ho) 대동한문학회 2017 大東漢文學 Vol.53 No.-

전근대시기의 한국한문학의 산문 문체는 문언어법에 기초를 둔 정격 한문(고문, 의고문, 소품)만이 아니라 조선식 한문을 포괄했고, 후자는 실용의 공간에서 극히 비중이 컸다. 하지만 일부 문인들은 조선식 한문을 이용하여 俳諧體나 비실용적-문예적 글쓰기를 시도했다. 또한 조선후기에는 변격한문의 산문만이 아니라 한시의 변격인 조선식 ‘고풍’과 배해체 과시･과문도 발달했다. 이 논문을 작성하면서 다음과 같은 과제를 생각해 보았다. (1) 변격 한문산문의 문체 한국에서는 지방 군현의 관부문서(향리계층), 귀족 양반층의 민원소송, 매매계약, 상속치부문건과 가내의 의사소통, 왕실기록류[儀軌･謄錄 등] 에서는 이두문에 기반을 둔 변격의 한문을 광범하게 사용했다. 이두식 한문이 전근대시기의 문자생활에서 차지한 위치와 그 역사적 기능, 본격 문학과의 관련 양상 등에 폭넓은 연구가 필요하다. (2) 고풍 고풍은 본래 과시를 연마하는 과정에서 습작의 낮은 단계에서 출현했을것이다. 하지만 일부문인들은 無韻의 장편 고시를 조선의 독특한 ‘고풍’ 형식으로 인정하고, 시작에 활용했다. 이미 丁若鏞은 雅言覺非 에서 조선식 ‘古風’에 대해 언급한 바 있는데, 금번에 김삿갓의 한시를 분석하는 과정에서 대고풍의 구체적 예들을 확인할 수 있었다. (3) 俳諧 科詩･科文 조선후기의 독서층은 젊어서 과시와 과문의 연마에 열중했으며, 많은 낙방거자들이 과시와 과문의 습작을 남기고 매문을 하거나 행권처럼 습작집을 만들었다. 상층 지식인들은 과시와 과문을 저급한 양식으로 비난했으나, 민간에 行世한 과시와 과문은 민간의 삶을 반영하고 민간의 문체미학을 구현하고 있다고도 볼 수 있다. 특히 배해체의 과식･과문은 독특한 정서와 미학적 구상을 함유하고 있으므로, 이에 대한 현화의 조사와 연구가 필요하다. 앞으로 민족문화의 발달과 더불어 다양하게 발전해 왔던 실용적 한문산문(고문, 부, 이두문 등등), 고풍(특히 대고풍), 배해체의 과시･과문의 문체에 대해 깊은 관심을 두고, 그 자체의 발전 양상과 그것이 이른바 문예적 한시문과 상호 영향을 끼친 사실에 주목해야 하리라 본다. In Joseon period, prose style in Classical Chinese in pre-modern period includes not only regular style based on literary language but also irregular style which was widely used in practical writings including executive documents. However, some literati in late Joseon period attempted to write Paixie (俳諧) style writings or unpractical literary writings in so-called Joseon style irregular prose. In late Joseon, what is more, not only Joseon style irregular prose, but Joseon style poetry without rhyme (古風) and Paixie style exam poetry and prose (俳諧體 科詩文) were widely used. This article explores the meaning of ‘irregular style’ in Korean classical literature with some cases mentioned above and suggests future researches as well. (1) Joseon style irregular Chinese: Joseon style irregular Chinese was widely used in various kind of documents including official documents of local governments, civil affair documents, real estate trade contract, documents of inheritance of property, official documents concerning royal family. Further studies are needed including its status in literacy life, its historical functions and its relationship with belles-lettres in pre-modern period. (2) Josoen style poetry without rhyme It is presumed that Joseon style poetry without rhyme was emerged at first as the result of exam poetry study. However, some literati recognized this old style poems without rhyme as a distinctive poetry style of their own country and started to compose poems using that style. Jeong Yak-yong has already mentioned this Joseon style poetry without rhyme in his Aeon Gakbi (雅言覺非) of which cases were also found in Gim Rip’s poems in the recent research. (3) Paixie style exam poetry and prose Most of literati in the late Joseon period were absorbed in studying exam poetry and prose while they were young, and many of those who failed the national exam produced and sold their writings in exam poetry and prose style, or compiled their own anthology. Although literati of yangban class blamed its vulgarness, however, it is now estimated that it conveys the everyday life of ordinary people and represents the aesthetics of literary style of ordinary people. Further studies on Paixie style exam poetry and prose are needed as it has the uniqueness in emotional aspects as well as the aesthetic idea.