조청관계에 대한 편의적 이해 사례 = Two Cases of Arbitrary Understandings of the Relationshipbetween Joseon and Qing China

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

What kind of attitude is reasonable for Korean and Chinese to face the other and develop a future-oriented relationship? One way to answer this question is to study how the two peoples regard the relationship between them. This thinking led me to analyze the historical and scholastic materials of the Joseon-Qing wars and the tribute system.
First, I analyzed how the court annals of Joseon and of Qing recorded the Joseon-Qing wars. The wars, I thought, had a strong influence on presenting the Chinese image to average Koreans. The average Koreans regard the wars as an accident that barbarians invaded and caused chaos. They are accustomed to calling it “Horan ”(胡亂), and not war. The Joseon annals tell us that the recorders of Joseon looked down upon Manchus as barbarians, and their army as bandits.
After the war, they did not change their attitude and opinion regarding the Manchus. There was a contradiction that Joseon continued to look down upon the Manchus, even though they presented tribute to the Qing Dynasty. We can say that people in the Joseon period made an arbitrary understanding of the relationship with the Qing Dynasty.
Second, I analyzed how several Chinese scholars, including Pu Baichen, describe the tributary relationship between Joseon and the Qing dynasty. They took the suzerain-vassal relationship based on the tribute system as the basic frame to analyze and state the relations between Joseon and Qing Dynasty. However, the tribute system displays its falsity in that the relations with Joseon were analyzed through the management of the Qing Dynasty, and when referring to the relation of suzerain-vassal(宗藩), 藩 means fanbu (藩部) and is not an accurate term in the sense that it has a different meaning from that of fan in earlier periods. They use the terminology, and this led writings to flow focused on the Qing Dynasty.
They insisted that the Qing Dynasty was very considerate of Joseon,and claimed that the Qing Dynasty requested much tribute in the beginning stage, but the quantity gradually lessened as they were politically stabilized, and when Joseon suffered from the famine, Qing Dynasty sent food and provided dispensation. Also, it is insisted that the Qing Dynasty promised to militarily protect Joseon from Japan, and that domestic affairs and diplomacy could enjoy considerable freedom.
However, they overlook the following matters. The political stabilization of Joseon from the standpoint of Qing Dynasty was directly related to the stabilization of that country’s border regions. Because of this, it is natural to interpret that since it was believed that the requests for numerous tribute and excessive political interference could trigger unwanted issues and the quantity of tribute was reduced.
Next, by focusing on the responsibility of Japan in the process by which the tributary relationship was broken, they tried to hide the fact that the Qing Dynasty could not cope with the changed situation. The Sino-Japanese War occurred as Qing China and Japan fought to exert exclusive influence, and the people of Joseon suffered material losses due to the war. We believe that both Qing Dynasty and Japan are not freed from responsibility in the war. However, Pu insists as follows:Japan could not hide its warlike nature and intrusive expansionist policies and provoked the war, and Qing Dynasty encouraged the conclusion of treaties between Joseon and foreign nations in order to protect Joseon from danger.
In short, it is not true that only one country among Korea and China has the attitude of arbitrary understanding of the other. This kind of understanding was transferred to the average people by official records,and resulted in distortion of the historical facts. We should have a mature attitude to accept uncomfortable truth. If so, we can develop a future-oriented relationship between Korea and China.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 김태승, "한중일학계의 한중관계사 연구와 쟁점" 동북아역사재단 2009

2 국사편찬위원회, "한국사 29-조선중기의 외침과 그 대응 29" 국사편찬위원회 1995

3 김경춘, "한·청 국경문제의 일시점" 6 : 1987

4 陳尙勝, "최근 15년간 중국학계의 淸朝와 朝鮮關係史에 대한 연구 논평" 이화사학연구소 (37) : 43-73, 2008

5 강효숙, "청일전쟁기 한·중·일 삼국의 상호 전략" 동북아역사재단 2009

6 김소영, "중국의 충격" 소명출판 2009

7 민경준, "중국번속이론과 허상" 동북아역사재단 2010

8 강석화, "조선후기의 북방영토의식" 한국사연구회 (129) : 95-115, 2005

9 한명기, "정묘·병자호란과 동아시아" 푸른역사 2009

10 이삼성, "동아시아의 전쟁과 평화 1" 한길사 2009

11 이시바시 다카오, "대청제국" 후마니타스 2009

12 권혁수, "근대 한중관계사의 재조명" 혜안 2007

13 김기혁, "근대 한·중·일 관계사" 연세대학교출판부 2007

14 전해종, "韓中關係史硏究" 一潮閣 1970

15 魏志江, "關于淸朝與朝鮮宗藩關係硏究的幾個問題" 1 : 2007

16 魏志江, "論淸兵入關後大淸與朝鮮的關係" 6 : 2002

17 張永江, "論淸代的藩部與行省" 2 : 2001

18 陳尙勝, "試論淸朝前期封貢體系的基本特徵" 2 : 2010

19 宋慧娟, "簡析<中朝商民水陸通商章程對中朝關係的影響" 9 : 2006

20 張永江·, "略論淸代的屬國" 4 : 1999

21 付百臣, "略論日本在東亞朝貢體系中的角色與作用" 6 : 2007

22 滿文老檔硏究會, "滿文老檔 Ⅵ·Ⅶ" 東洋文庫 1955

23 이영옥, "淸朝와 朝鮮(大韓帝國)의 외교관계, 1895～1910" 한국중국학회 50 : 217-236, 2004

24 王其榘, "淸實錄-鄰國朝鮮篇資料" 中國社會科學院中國邊疆史地硏究中心(內部發行) 1987

25 張存武, "淸季中韓關係之變通" 14 : 1985

26 遼寧大學歷史系, "淸太宗實錄稿本" 遼寧大學出版社 1978

27 宋慧娟, "淸代調整中朝關係措施初探" 4 : 2007

28 張世明, "淸代宗藩關系的歷史法學多維透視分析" 1 : 2004

29 劉爲, "淸代中朝宗藩關係下的通使往來" 3 : 2000

30 "朝鮮王朝實錄, In 承政院日記"

31 秋月望, "朝中間の三貿易章程の締結經緯" 115 : 1985

32 孫昉, "晩淸中國用條約强化中朝宗藩關係的失敗(1876~1895)」," 4 : 2005

33 김용덕, "昭顯世子硏究" 18 : 1964

34 閻崇年, "明亡淸興六十年" 中國書店 2006

35 付百臣, "改革開放以來中國高句麗史硏究述評" 2 : 2009

36 한진호, "島潭行程記" 일조각 1995

37 송미령, "天聰年間(1627-1636年) 支配體制의 確立過程과 朝鮮政策" 중국사학회 54 (54): 161-190, 2008

38 張衛明, "在宗藩體制與國際公法之間:晩淸中朝秩序的重新建構" 3 : 2011

39 付百臣, "中國歷代朝貢制度硏究" 吉林人民出版社 2008

40 김용흠, "丙子胡亂期의 主和·斥和 論爭" 국학연구원 (135) : 91-131, 2006

41 강상규, "19세기 동아시아의 패러다임 변환과 한반도" 혜안 2008

42 권혁수, "19世紀末 韓中 關係史 硏究" 백산자료원 2000

43 이영옥, "1840년대 청조의 풍경 하나 ― 오랑캐의 전화로부터 ‘천조’ 지키기 ―" 명청사학회 (33) : 167-195, 2010

44 박현모, "10년 간의 위기: 정묘-병자호란기의 공론정치 비판" 한국정치학회 37 (37): 27-46, 2003