1710 년대 조선통신사와 류큐사절단의 국서 사건

조영심 조선통신사학회 2017 조선통신사연구 Vol.24 No.-

Around 1710, the Tokugawa Shogunate saw the change of three Shoguns in a span of 10 years. Accordingly, Ryukyu sent delegations in 1710, 1714, and 1718 while the Joseon dynasty sent the Tongsinsa ambassadors to Edo in 1711 and 1719. A total of 5 foreign delegations and envoys were sent in a period of ten years, and the national literature which the delegations and envoys caπied with them were a subject of diplomatic friction which flared up but ultimately calmed down. The literature of the Joseon Tongsinsa in 1711 contained mentions of a Wangho(王號) issue and Pihwi(避譯) incident. The Wangho issue arose when the Shogunate reQuested the Shogun’s title be changed from the previous wording of ‘大君’ to ‘ 日本國王’. Additionally, the Pihwi incident happened when Joseon reQuested that the character ‘↑뚫’, which was included in the birth n없ne of the 11th king of Joseon Jungjong( 中宗), be omitted from texts in Japanese literature. At this reQuest the Shogunate demanded that Joseon modify their own literature and take out the character 光, as this letter was in the name of a past Shogun, Tokugawa Iemitsu[ 德川家光]. Ultirnately , Joseon modified its national lite rature two times and the Shogunate their’s once. These modified versions were exchanged at Tsushirna [對馬] during the Tongsi nsa’s retum journey. In 1714 Ryukyu also sent their own delegation to Edo. The king of Ryukyu sent work of their national literature to Edo, but the recipient was not the Shogun but the Rõjü [老中]. For this literature, the Rõjü Abe Masat때a[ 阿部正홈] stated the words ‘貴 國’, ‘大君’, and ‘台聽’ were not used correctly. Al though Ryukyu explained that the words connoted a sense of respect, the Rõj디 asked for words with more rigid definitions. Fortunately this literature incident did not involve strained diplornatic relations as the Joseon literature incident , and henceforth the literature of the king of Ryukyu changed his wording style from a chinese based structure to a more Japanese one. However , it should be noted that a Ryukyu delegation visited Edo 4 years ago in 1710, and at that time , the words ‘貴國’, ‘大 君’, and ‘台聽’ were used without controversy from the Shogunate. Additionally the character ’宣’, which was part of the 6th Shogun’s name(德川家宣), was used without any problem from the Shogunate in the words such as ‘不宣’. At the center of many reasons of why word choices became an issue in 1711 and 1714 , and not 1710, is Arai H와mseki[新井白石]. When he c 하ne into a powerful position with the ascendency of 6th Shogun Tokugawa Ienobu , Arai Ha kuseki modified many regulations and structures regar이ng the Tongsinsa delegation. For the Ryukyu delegation in 1710, Arai Hakuseki ’s amendment could not be passed on in time , and more specifically, because his amendment was targeted toward the Joseon Tongsinsa, it did not cause complications with the Ryukyu literature. However, after 1711, when the amendment had officially affected Joseon’s diplomatic literature, Ryukyu ’s diplomatic literature was also subject to the new protocols and minor troubles occurred. Like his hasty amendment , the fall of Arai Hakuseki was just as swift. In 1716, when the 7th Shogun Tokugawa Ietsugu died , Tokugawa Yoshimune , a person not of direct descent, became the 8 th Shogun. With this new ascendency, Arai Hakuseki , who had aided the Shogunate from the 6th Shogun Tokugawa Ienobu, left the political world. Subsequently, the literature of the Ryukyu delegation when they went to congratulate the new ascendency in 1718, and the literature of the Joseon Tongsinsa in 1719, went back to the forms before the time of Arai Hakuseki.

필담창화집 『홍려필담(鴻臚筆談)』에 대하여 - 위작과 그 의의를 중심으로 -

조영심 열상고전연구회 2016 열상고전연구 Vol.49 No.-

본고는 일본 가가와대학(香川大学) 간바라문고(神原文庫)에 소장되어 있는 『홍려필담(鴻臚筆談)』에 대해 소개하고 분석했다. 『홍려필담』은 1711년도 통신사(辛卯․正徳)의 정사 조태억(趙泰億), 부사 임수간(任守幹), 종사관 이방언(李邦彦), 제술관 이현(李礥) 등과 당시 에도 막부의 집정관이었던 아라이 하쿠세키(新井白石)가 주고받은 서간문 및 필담이 기록되어 있는 텍스트이다. 아라이 하쿠세키의 처남인 구사카베 가게히라(日下部景衡)가 편집한 텍스트이자, 아라이 가문의 가장본(家藏本)으로서 ‘비서(秘書)’로 소장되어 왔다고 지어(識語)에 기록되어 있다. 『홍려필담』에는 14편의 서간문 및 필담이 수록되어 있다. 특히 주목할 만한 부분은 고비(古碑)․전각(篆刻)․종이 등 양국 문화에 대한 많은 화제가 제시되는 필담 부분이라고 할 수 있다. 그 중에서도 ‘일본에서 한국을 거쳐 중국으로’ 전해졌다는 일본 ‘다호비(多胡碑)’의 탁본 문제가 기록되어 있어 관심을 끈다. 현재 학계에서 다호비에 대한 정보는 1763-4년 조선통신사가 일본학자 사와다 도코(沢田東江)를 통해 조선에 들여온 것으로 알려져 있다. 사와다 도코 및 주변의 인물들과 1764년도 사행단원의 교류를 담은 『경개집』이라는 필담창화집을 확인한 결과, 『홍려필담』은 『경개집』을 거의 그대로 베낀 위작 텍스트라는 것을 확인할 수 있었다. 나아가 장서인 등을 통해 고증해보면 『홍려필담』은 1711년보다 적어도 150년 이상 후대에 작성된 텍스트라는 것을 알 수 있다. 그런데 위작이 확실시 되는 부분은 『홍려필담』의 필담 부분으로, 앞쪽에 실린 서간은 위작 여부가 확인되지 않는다. 만약 서간 부분이 실제 아라이 하쿠세키와 통신사가 남긴 기록이라면, 1711년도의 조일 교류뿐만 아니라 조태억과 이방언의 대일인식 및 아라이 하쿠세키의 조선인식을 보여주는 단서로서 활용될 수 있다. 이러한 위작을 작성한 의도에 대해서는 확정할 수 없으나, 확실한 것은 아라이 하쿠세키와 조선통신사의 만남이 있었던 1711년에서부터 적어도 150년 이후 아라이 하쿠세키가 다시 호명되었고, 더불어 조선통신사도 재언급되었다는 점이다. 이것은 일본 내에서 통신사를 둘러싼 필담창화집이 위작을 발생시킬 정도의 위치에 있었다는 것을 보여준다. This manuscript introduces and analyzes the Hongnyeopildam(鴻臚筆談) which is currently stored in Kanbaraboonko(神原文庫) at Kagawa University(香川大学). The Hongnyeopildam is a series of correspondences and written conversations that were exchanged between the 1711 Tongshinsa(辛卯․正徳) delegation which included Jeongsa Cho Tae-eok(趙泰億), Busa Im Su-Gan(任守幹), Jongsagwan Lee Bang-Un (李邦彦), and Jesulgwan Yi Hyun(李礥), and the Japanese executive official of the time, Arai Hakuseki(新井白石). The Hongnyeopildam was edited by Arai Hakuseki’s brother-in-law Kusakabe Kagehira(日下部景衡) and is mentioned in the JiUh(識語) to have been kept by the Arai family as a secret manuscript. The Hongnyeopildam contains 14 letters of correspondences and written conversations. One point of interest is a written conversation that focuses on cultural aspects that include memorial stones(古碑), engravings(篆刻), and writing papers. This written conversation mainly deals with the Dahobi(多胡碑), a engraving that made its way to China from Japan while going through Korea. Contemporary information on the Dahobi state that this engraving arrived from Japan with the return of the 1763~1764 Tongshinsa delegation that had met with the Japanese scholar Sawada Doko(沢田東江) during their journey. Upon analyzing the Pildamchanghwaejib Gyunggaejib, which contained information on the interaction between Sawada Doko and Tongshinsa delegation, and contrasting it with the Hongnyeopildam, we have identified the Hongnyeopildam to be a forgery manuscript that plagiarizes the Gyunggaejib. Additional analyses on the ownership stamp of the Hongnyeopildam, show that this manuscript has been written at least 150 years later than 1711. The written conversations in the Hongnyeopildam are identified to be plagiarism, but the situation with the correspondences is uncertain. If these correspondences are true, they hold clues that show more than just the exchange between Joseon and Japan in 1711, but also highlight how Cho Tae-eok and Yi Bang-Un viewed Japan and how Arai Hakuseki viewed Joseon. Although the motive behind the forgery cannot be identified, the fact remains that 150 years after Arai Hakuseki met with the Joseon delegation, the name Arai Hakusuki and his meeting with the Joseon delegation was brought into light was again. This mentioning of the past led to the forgery of the Pildamchanghwaejib.

함초 추출물 첨가가 요구르트 저장 중의 품질 특성에 미치는 영향

조영심,김순임,한영실,Cho, Young-Sim,Kim, Soon-Im,Han, Young-Sil 한국식품조리과학회 2008 한국식품조리과학회지 Vol.24 No.2

This study was performed in an effort to create a functional and stable yogurt product containing slander glasswort extract. The extract was added to milk at concentrations of 0.25, 0.5, and 1.0% (w/v), which was then fermented with lactic acid bacteria (Lactobacillus bulgaricus and Streptococcus thermophilus) at $42^{\circ}C$ for 6 hr. During a period of 15 days of storage, the quality characteristics of the yogurt samples were evaluated in terms of acid production (pH and titratable acidity), levels of lactic acid bacteria, color values, viscosity, and sensory characteristics. There were no significant differences in pH during the storage period; however, the control yogurt presented the highest pH value. The 1.0% slander glasswort yogurt had the highest titratable acidity; but again, there were no significant differences among the yogurts. The 1.0% slander glasswort yogurt also had the highest level of lactic acid bacteria, and both the control and slander glasswort-containing yogurts had increasing levels of lactic acid bacteria over the storage period. The 1.0% slander glasswort yogurt had the lowest L-value and highest a- and b-values. And the slander glasswort yogurts presented lower viscosity values than the control. In sensory evaluations, the 0.25% slander glasswort yogurt scored higher than the other groups for color, flavor, viscosity, sweetness, sourness, and overall palatability. The final sensory results indicated that the 0.25% slander glasswort yogurt was superior.

[P9-07] 냉압착 들기름과 시판들기름의 품질비교

조영심,임정호,박기재,김범근,김종찬,정진웅 한국식품영양과학회 2008 한국식품영양과학회 학술대회발표집 Vol.2008 No.10

기획논문: 기획의도 ; 동아시아 문학의 확장: 류큐 표류기, 군기, 설화

조영심 연민학회 2015 연민학지 Vol.24 No.-

조선통신사와 류큐사절단의 筆談(對談) - 아라이 하쿠세키(新井白石)를 중심으로 -

조영심 열상고전연구회 2014 열상고전연구 Vol.41 No.-

본고는 1711년 신묘통신사행을 보다 객관적으로 규명하기 위해 작성되었다. 이를 위해 동시대 일본에서 이뤄졌 던 외국인 행렬인 류큐사절단과 비교했는데, 18세기 초 막부의 집정관 아라이 하쿠세키(新井白石, 1657~1725) 가 조선통신사가 나눈 필담을 정리한 『강관필담(江關筆談)』과 류큐사절단이 나눈 필담을 정리한 『백석선생 류인문대(白石先生琉人問對)』를 주 텍스트로 이용하였다. 아라이 하쿠세키는 1682년과 1711년 통신사와 접촉했는데, 『강관필담』은 1711년 조선 측 삼사(三使) 등과 나 눈 필담을 정리한 것이다. 『백석선생류인문대』는 1710년과 1714년 류큐사절단을 만나 대담한 기록으로 보인 다. 이 시기 아라이 하쿠세키는 막부의 행정을 주도하는 인물이었기에 그의 위치에 따른 대담이 오갔다. 『강관필담』의 경우 아라이 하쿠세키와 조선통신사들 간에 자국에 대한 과시와 견제가 깔려있으나 우호와 사 귐의 정을 나누며 농담을 주고받는 모습도 나타났다. 대등한 관계에서 그 동안 쌓아놓은 지식을 표출하며 필담 이 진행되었던 것으로 보인다. 반면,『백석선생류인문대』의 경우는 아라이 하쿠세키의 일방적인 질문과 류큐 인 상대의 대답으로 이루어져있다. 아라이 하쿠세키는 류큐에 대한 정보를 서적을 통해 습득하던 중 발생한 질 문들을 문목으로 만들어놓고 류큐 사절을 만나자 질문했던 것으로 보인다. 아라이 하쿠세키에게 있어서는 자주 접할 수 없는 류큐인을 통해 이국에 대한 정보를 획득하는 기회였던 것이다. 두 텍스트에 모두 드러나는 것은 ‘중국’에 대한 아라이 하쿠세키의 관심이다. 그런데 이 관심이 표출되는 방식은 사뭇 다르다. 『백석선생류인문대』의 경우, 여러 차례 중국에 대한 질문을 류큐인에게 던지며 자신의 호기심 을 드러냈다. 반면, 『강관필담』에서는 중국 문헌을 인용하며 중국에 대한 지식을 표출하는데 집중한다. 중국 에 대한 호기심을 감추고, 일본이 중화의 제도를 이어가고 있는 모습을 강조하는 ‘내세우기 외교’의 일환으로 볼 수 있다. 이 속에는 조선에 대한 견제와 조선과 동등한 선을 유지하려는 노력이 담겨있다. This article was written to investigate Tongshinsa in 1711 (the year of Shinmyo(辛卯)) more objectively. To do so, comparison was made with Ryukyu diplomatic delegation, which was a third power, taken place during the contemporary period. Gang-gwan-pil-dam, which is the compilation of the conversations by writing exchanged between Joseon Tongshinsa and Arai Hakyuseki (1657-1725), who was a consul of Japan´ s feudal government in early 18thcentury, and Baek Suk Sun Sang Ryu In Mun Dae that is the conversations by writing of Ryukyu diplomatic delegation, were used as the main text for the study. Arai Hakyuseki contacted Josoen Tongshinsa in 1682 and 1711. Gang-gwan- pil-dam is the compilation of the conversations that he made with Samsa(三使) from Joseon. Baek Suk Sun Sang Ryu In Mun Dae seems to be a record on the conversations exchanged between Arai Hakyuseki and Ryukyu diplomatic delegation in 1710 and 1714. During this period, Arai Hakyuseki was the leading character in the administration of Japan’ s feudal government. He exchanged discourses to his position. Gang-gwan-pil-dam shows mutual affinity and jokes as well as connotes the ostentation and check on each country exchanged between Arai Hakyuseki and Joseon Tongshinsa. It seems that the both parties had exchanges conversations in equal footing, displaying knowledge that they had accumulated. On the other hand, Baek Suk Sun Sang Ryu In Mun Dae consists of the one-sided questions of Arai Hakyuseki and the answers of Ryukyu counterpart. It seems that when he met Ryukyu counterpart, Arai Hakyuseki had asked questions out of the question list he prepared while learning the knowledge of Ryukyu. It was a rare opportunity for Arai Hakyuseki to obtain information through Ryukyu. What was found from the two texts is the interest Arai Hakyuseki had in ‘China’. However, he used quite different ways to express. In Baek Suk Sun Sang Ryu In Mun Dae, Arai Hakyuseki appears to reveal his curiosity, tossing questions to Ryukyu counterpart about China several times. In the meantime, Gang- gwan-pil-dam shows that he had focused on expressing his knowledge in China, quoting Chinese literature. It can be regarded as part of ‘Showing-Off Diplomacy’, hiding his curiosity about China and showing that Japan supports Chinese system. In the hidden lines, he showed a check on Joseon and effort to stand on equal footing with Joseon.

정, 떼다 외 1편

조영심 심미안 2019 문학들 Vol.- No.57

윤지완 사행문학의 양상과 의미

조영심 열상고전연구회 2015 열상고전연구 Vol.46 No.-

『사유구록(使琉球錄)』의 조선 간행과 16세기 조선의 관심

조영심 열상고전연구회 2016 열상고전연구 Vol.54 No.-

본고에서는 갑진자 동활자로 조선에서 간행된 『사유구록(使琉球錄)』을 소개하고 이 텍스트가 간행되었던 16세기에 조선이 유구(琉球)에 대해 관심을 지속하고 있었음을 살폈다. 『사유구록』이란 현재의 오키나와현(沖縄縣)에 해당하는 옛 유구왕국(琉球王國)을 사신으로서 방문하고 남긴 기록을 말한다. 본고의 대상이 되는 『사유구록』은 조선인이 집필한 것이 아닌, 명나라인 진간(陳侃)이 저술한 것을 조선에서 편집 간행한 것이다. 1534년 쇼세이(尙淸)를 유구국 중산왕으로 책봉하기 위한 명나라 책봉사(冊封使)가 유구를 향했다. 진간은 이 사절단의 정사(正使)로서 사행에 임했다. 그리고 약 4개월 간의 유구 일정을 마치고 돌아와 유구의 실정을 담은 『사유구록』을 저술했다. 이것은 가정(嘉靖) 연간에 간행된 텍스트라고 하여 가정본 『사유구록』이라고 칭해진다. 이 텍스트는 조선에까지 전해져 조선본 『사유구록』으로 편집되었다. 조선본 『사유구록』은 갑진자 동활자로 중종 말기부터 명종조 시기에 간행되었으며, 2권1책으로 되어 있다. 임진왜란 시기 약탈되어 현재는 일본 국립국회도서관에 소장되어 있다. 그 내용은 가정본 『사유구록』에 비해 생략이 많은데, 생략 내용을 살펴보면 당시 조선이 명과 유구의 관계보다는 ‘유구’의 실상에 관심을 가지고 있었던 것을 볼 수 있다. 비슷한 시기의 텍스트인 어숙권(魚叔權)의 『패관잡기(稗官雜記)』에도 진간의 『사유구록』이 인용되어 있다. 조선본 『사유구록』에 생략된 부분이 인용되어 있어 『패관잡기』와 조선본 『사유구록』 사이의 상호 보완성을 살펴볼 수 있다. 또한 『패관잡기』의 기록에서도 ‘유구’ 자체에 대한 관심을 나타내는 부분을 찾아볼 수 있다. 조선본 『사유구록』과 어숙권의 『패관잡기』가 작성되던 무렵은 조선과 유구의 직접적이던 교린 관계가 간접적인 방법으로 변화한 직후였다. 종종 조선을 내방하던 유구의 사신들이 1519년 이후 더 이상 조선을 방문하지 않았고 조선 조정에서는 이러한 변화에 의문을 갖게 되었다. 중종(中宗)은 그들이 오지 않는 연유와 유구까지의 육해상 거리에 관심을 갖기도 했다. 더불어 조선에 표착한 유구 표류민과 유구에 표착한 조선 표류민의 송환 문제도 화제로 부상했다. 중국 또는 일본을 통한 송환이라는 두 가지 경로 사이에서의 유구의 실제 위치와 이동 방법 등에 관심을 갖게 되었던 것이다. 정리하자면, 이 시기 조선본 사유구록 이 간행된 것은 조선의 유구에 대한 관심을 반영한 것이라고 할 수 있다. This study discusses the publication of the Records of Visiting Ryukyu(使琉球錄) in Kapjin (甲辰字) copper type and the interest in Ryukyu of the 16th century Chosŏn. Records was written by Ming envoy Chen Kan(陳侃) and described his impressions of the Ryukyu Kingdom, or present-day Okinawa Prefecture, and was edited and published in Chosŏn. In 1534, Ming China sent Chen Kan as chief envoy to invest Shousei(尙淸) as King of Ryukyu, and wrote Records upon his return from traveling for about four months in Ryukyu. It was published during the reign era of the Jiajing(嘉靖) Emperor, and thus was called the Jiajing edition of the Records of Visiting Ryukyu. This text then moved to Chosŏn, and a Chosŏn edition of the text was made. The Chosŏn edition was published in Kapjin copper type during the end of King Chungjong’s reign until King Myŏngjong’s reign as one volume and two books. However, it was stolen by the Japanese during the Imjin War(壬辰倭亂) and is currently held by the National Diet Library in Japan. Although it omits much of the information contained in the Jiajing edition, the omitted content shows that Chosŏn was more interested in Ryukyu’s actual state of affairs rather than its relationship with Ming China. A text from a similar period, Ŏ Suk-kwŏn’s Paekwanjabgi(稗官雜記), also quotes from Chen Kan’s Records, particularly that of the content omitted in the Chosŏn edition of Records; both writings therefore complement each other. In addition, Paekwanjabgi also takes an interest in Ryukyu itself. The period in which the Chosŏn edition of Records and Ŏ Suk-kwŏn’s Paekwanjabgi were produced was when Chosŏn had shifted from direct to indirect relations with Ryukyu. After 1519, Ryukyu envoys no longer visited Chosŏn and the Chosŏn court was suspicious of this change in relations. King Chungjong became interested in their reasons for not visiting Chosŏn and in the distance from Chosŏn to Ryukyu. Moreover, the issue of repatriating Ryukyuan castaways that landed in Chosŏn and vice versa also came to the fore. Chosŏn became interested in the actual location of Ryukyu and the methods of transporting these castaways because repatriations took place through either China or Japan. In sum, the publication of the Chosŏn edition of Records shows how Chosŏn was interested in Ryukyu.

은유해석에 관한 연구

조영심 順天靑巖大學 2001 論文集-順天靑巖大學 Vol.25 No.-

Traditionally metaphors have been regarded as a matter of figure of speech, that is, decorative devices used for literary styles. They are viewed as characteristics of language alone, a matter of words rather than thinking or action. Now metaphors are no longer confined to the realm of stylistics. They've come to be considered to play a central role in our thinking and action and we know that they are pervasive in our everyday lives. Our ordinary conceptual system is fundamentally metaphorical in nature. Substitution theory, comparison theory, and interaction theory in the field of philosophical investigations and syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic approaches in the field of linguistics have some their own good points in explaining the meaning of metaphors based on the corresponding literal counterparts with the concept of similarities. But all of them have the definite weak points not to explain metaphors when we meet the difficulties in finding similarities between tenor(target domain) and vehicle(source domain) in actual world. Those problems can be solved well if metaphors are explained from the viewpoint of cognitive linguistics. Cognitive linguistics accepts the attitudes of synthesis against analysis, realism against idealism, and mentalism against objectivism as well as the so-called prototype theory and schema theory. And it defines metaphor as the following: metaphor is congnitive mapping from one domain of experience to another. Lakoff & Johnson(1980) suggests three sorts of conceptual metaphors based on the above-mentioned theoretical constructs: structural metaphors, orientational metaphors and ontological metaphors. They work well for the explanation of the pervasive phenomena of metaphors in our thinking and action. They can be used to explain the novel metaphors in, for example, poems. Thus, I think I can reach the conclusion that metaphors should be interpreted with the methods of cognitive linguistics.