『誠齋實紀』 「海東記」를 통한 回答兼刷還使의 外交史的 意味에 관한 硏究 : 蔣希春의 時代精神을 중심으로

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This paper is a study on the diplomatic meanings of Tongshinsa(通信使) 'Reply and Prisoner Repatriation Envoy'(回答兼刷還使) that was dispatched from Chosun to Japan in 1607 in order to reset Chosun and Japan's diplomatic relations, which had cut off after the Imjin war(壬辰倭亂, Japanese invasion of Korea in 1592-98). The main historical records used in the study is Jang Hee-Chun(蔣希春)'s diplomatic mission record(使行錄) Haedonggi(海東記) contained in Seongjaesilgi(誠齋實紀).
‘Reply and Prisoner Repatriation Envoy’ was Tongshinsa, which was dispatched to Japan as a diplomatic mission in response to the confused domestic situation and changes in the country's government in East Asia. In order to overcome the damages of the war, and to prepare for the weakening of the Ming(明) Dynasty, the growth of the Jurchens(女眞), and the reinvasion of Japan, Chosun's government had to re-establish diplomatic relationship of Japan.

1. The historiographical values of Seongjaesilgi(Haedonggi) and the Diplomatic Meanings of 'Reply and Prisoner Repatriation Envoy'

The study of historiographical values of Seongjaesilgi(Haedonggi) and the spirit of the era of Jang Hee-Chun are as follows. Jang Hee-Chun's a collection of works had was published in various forms of the early 1900's, and it was published as Seongjaesilgi in 1960, including Haedonggi. Haedonggi contained in Seongjaesilgi recorded the reason for dispatch of Tongshinsa in 1607, a journal for 209 days from departure date to return date, and the Japanese culture which he collected during the trip. It was classified into national capital(國都), surname(姓氏), humanity(人性), customs(風俗), music(音樂), food(飮食), clothing(衣服), hats and shoes(冠屨), house(第宅), measurement unit(計田), holidays(名日), laws(刑罰), and war practice(習戰).
Haedonggi has historiographical values of the follows. These historical records can be compared with Haesa-rok, can study the repatriation(刷還) of the kidnapped Chosun people, review 'forgery and modification of the sovereign's message'(國書 僞造), and study Chosun and Japan's diplomatic history. Also, it is possible to study the life and culture of Japan in the 17th century.
By the way, Seongjaesilgi is a personal collection of works, and has its limitations as a historical records. Accordingly, through comparison and review with adjacent historical records, the arguments raised in relation to them were demonstrated. As a result, Jang Hee-Chun's 'the civilian service examination' is inferred as a misinterpretation. In addition, 'Jeongrang of the Ministry of Justice'(刑曹正郎) and 'Sapyeong'(司評) are inferred to be related to participation in Tongshinsa and the situation in which he moved to the Ulsan country. In addition, the grounds raised in 'Officer'(軍官) of a recorder(從事官) are different from the facts, and he is interpreted as 'non-official civil service attendant'(文官隨行員) of Tongshinsa. Also, 'a recorder'(從事官) was an obvious error, but it has been still in use. On the other hand, if inferred from the rank of 'Three envoys'(三使) and the status of Officer, 'General Geon-gong'(建功將軍) derived from 'Officer' cannot be established.
And the theory claiming that Haedonggi is a fake books or a draft manuscript in Haesa-rok was partially interfering with historical records as the main text and additional text of the journal as a result of internal criticism. It is confirmed that it is a real book. The deeds of Jang Hee-Chun recorded in Seongjaesilgi can be evaluated as an expression of scholarship as well as an intellectual of the generation. In particular, he had participated in the negotiation of the Chosun and Japan during the war, and was sent to Japan as a member of Tongshinsa as a post-war Japanese expert.

Second, the meaning of diplomatic history of 'Reply and Prisoner Repatriation Envoy' as a superficial purpose to restore national friendship are as follows. In Haedonggi, it’s not confirmed the national scripts. This is interpreted to be due to the role of Jang Hee-Chun in Tongshinsa. However, even in a fragmentary record, Chosun performed a diplomatic action to recover the national friendship that had been cut off after the Imjin War while exchanging Japanese and Korean books through Tongshinsa. In addition, as a result of reviewing the official papers of King Sun-Jo(宣祖)'s 'reply' recorded in Haesa-rok and the official papers of the Ministry of Rites, Protocol, Culture and Education(禮曹)'s 'reply', this is a practical diplomatic document to resolve the issues between Japan and diplomacy after the war. As a prerequisite for restoring diplomacy, it sought to create favorable conditions for negotiations. In Haedonggi, the 're-answer(再回答)' a diplomatic document received by Tongsinsa was not recorded in detail. According to the 're-answer' a diplomatic document of Haesa-rok, the Edo Bakuhu(江戶幕府) fulfilled Chosun's requirements. On the other hand, it is inferred that there was little possibility of 'the forgery of official paper' discussed so far through the process of delivering a diplomatic document that Tongshinsa brought to Japan in 1607. A diplomatic document exchanged by Chosun and Japan between 1606 and 1607 was based on the premise of establishing national friendship. Chosun attempted to eliminate the threat from war against the south through diplomatic use. On the other hand, Japan tried to get the Edo Bakuhu's domestic stability and its legitimacy to be recognized externally through this.
And the purpose of the Prisoner Repatriation is interpreted as the implementation of Chosun's national duty to end the war. The Edo Bakuhu officially accepted the 'Repatriation(刷還)' requested by Chosun. Repatriation of Tongshinsa was also important to the will of the Edo Bakuhu, but the will of the kidnapped Chosun people(被擄人) was more important. Most of the kidnapped Chosun people hoped to return to Chosun and used Tongshinsa as a means. According to Haedonggi, prisoner repatriation was divided into cases that the kidnapped Chosun people flock to Tongshinsa, Tongshinsa persuades the kidnapped Chosun people to repatriate, and Japanese people directly repatriate the kidnapped Chosun people. In particular, most Japanese people rejected the prisoner repatriation and interfered with Tongshinsa's repatriation. There were also cases that the kidnapped Chosun people refused to repatriate to Chosun. It is inferred that the kidnapped Chosun people's rejection of repatriation was attributed to the Chosun society's perception of the kidnapped Chosun people.

Third, the diplomatic meaning of 'Reply and Prisoner Repatriation Envoy' as a practical purpose and collection of Japanese data are as follows. In 1607, when Tongshinsa was dispatched, Tokugawa Ieyasu(德川家康) opened the Edo Bakuhu and transferred power to his son who was Tokugawa Hidetada(德川秀忠). In other words, in Japan during this period, 'Tokugawa(德川)' family members and 'Toyotomi(豐臣)' family members had coexisted. The actual purpose of Chosun's dispatch of Tongshinsa was to check the possibility of recurrence of the war and the domestic situation in Japan after the war. In this regard, ① the stability of the Edo Bakuhu, ② the 'Tokugawa' family's view of Chosun, its power relations, ③ the influence of the 'Toyotomi' family, ④ data of major regions (Kyoto(京都), Edo(江戶), Sonpu(駿府), Osaka(大阪)), ⑤ The journal was reviewed from the perspective of Jang Hee-Chun's view of the 'Tokugawa' family. As a result, it is interpreted that Toyotomi Hideyori had an influence, but the stability of the Edo Bakuhu was highly evaluated. And Tongsinsa favorably evaluated Tokugawa Ieyasu, which was not related to Imjin war. Tokugawa Ieyasu was also friendly to Tongsinsa. Therefore, Tongsinsa judged that Japan was unlikely to start a war.
Meanwhile, at the end of Haedonggi, data collected by Jang Hee-Chun in Japan were recorded. This had been used in the diplomatic strategy for Japan by adding data collected during the mission based on Sin Sook-ju(申叔舟)'s Haedongjegug-gi(海東諸國記) in 1471. As a result, the Japanese data collected by Jang Hee-Chun were not limited to records of power relations or military power, but encompasses social and cultural aspects. Therefore, it was evaluated as a historiographical value that can collectively reveal the life and culture of Japan in the 17th century.

2. The modern meaning of 'Reply and Prisoner Repatriation Envoy' in Chosun and Japan's diplomatic relations

The 'Reply and Prisoner Repatriation Envoy' dispatched to Japan in 1607 revived Chosun and Japan's diplomatic relations, which had been cut off by the Imjin War, which led to Chosun and Japan's national friendship with the Kiyu-treaty(己酉約條) in 1609. After the establishment of national friendship, Chosun and Japan had maintained peaceful diplomatic relations for about 200 years. 'Reply and Prisoner Repatriation Envoy' can be a clue to the diplomatic history in the deteriorating Korean-Japanese today. Chosun dispatched a 'Reply and Prisoner Repatriation Envoy' to Japan, a hostile country that started the war. The dispatch of Tongshinsa to a hostile country in Japan was a diplomatic act that cannot be used in today's Korean-Japanese relations. The practical benefits of dispatching Tongshinsa to a hostile country in Chosun and Japan's relations suggest four meanings in diplomatic history.
First, it is the choice and concentration on the internal confusion and external security crisis. Chosun, dispatched by the 'Reply and Prisoner Repatriation Envoy', was faced with internal and external contradictions due to the depletion of his national power due to the war. If the security of the southern part was secured, Chosun could turn its power to a country that overcomes the war. Diplomatic relations of modern Korea and Japan stand out in the emotional aspect rather than the rational aspect. In today's emotionally confronting Korea and Japan's diplomatic relations, the choice and concentration that earned diplomatic gains by dispatching Tongshinsa to a hostile country that started a war should be considered.
Second, there is a clear pre-request for counterpart country misbehavior prior to diplomatic negotiations. Chosun urged Japan to curb domestic dissatisfaction prior to reconciliation negotiations with Japan, a hostile country, and at the same time admit its faults regarding Japan's aggression. This has implications for restraining domestic dissatisfaction and restoring self-esteem in today's Korea and Japan's diplomatic relations.
Third, it is the clear purpose of the diplomatic mission that promotes the national interest. The official purpose of 'Reply and Prisoner Repatriation Envoy' were 'Reply' to reestablish diplomatic relations, and 'Repatriation' of the kidnapped Chosun people to deal with post-war problems. And the non-official purpose is to check the possibility that Japan will invade again, and to collect the data necessary for the diplomatic strategy for Japan. Conversely, it is necessary to understand the purpose of the counterpart country and use it to maximize the interests in one's own country. Tongshinsa recognized their purpose of the data acquired during Sahaeng(使行), and actively pursued the purpose of the Tongshinsa. This is what we will take a look today in Korea and Japan diplomatic relations.
Fourth, it is the use of neighboring countries that is entangled with interests in diplomatic relations. Tsushima(對馬島), that was in charge of the Edo Bakuhu's Chosun diplomacy, actively relayed the two countries after the war to restore Chosun and Japan's diplomatic relations. Tsushima had belonged to Japan politically, but economically, it had been influenced by Chosun. Chosun actively used this position of Tsushima in diplomatic negotiations, from dispatching Tongshinsa to during his mission. This also has implications for the use of neighboring countries that are entangled in interests in the diplomatic relations of Korea in today's East Asia.

Key words: Chosun and Japan's diplomatic relations, Changes in the international order for East Asia in the early 17th century, The external and internal purpose of diplomatic mission, Reply and Prisoner Repatriation Envoy(Chosun Tongsinsa), A historiographical value of Jang Hee-Chun’s Haedonggi, The choice and concentration in diplomatic issues, The spirit of the age.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 緖論 1
• 1. 硏究의 必要性과 目的 1
• 2. 硏究의 方法 12
• 3. 先行硏究 分析 16
• Ⅱ. 17世紀初 時代精神과 回答兼刷還使 派遣 21
• 1. 朝·日의 對內·外狀況과 東아시아의 位相 變化 21
• 2. 外交關係 摸索을 위한 第1次 回答兼刷還使 派遣 33
• 3. 對馬島의 地理的 立地와 國書僞造論 再檢討 45
• 4. 時代精神에 나타난 回答兼刷還使의 歷史的 意味 65
• Ⅲ. 「海東記」의 史料的 價値와 蔣希春의 批評 68
• 1. 蔣希春의 生涯와 時代精神 68
• 2. 史料 解題와 史料的 價値 81
• 3. 蔣希春 評傳의 批判的 檢討 98
• Ⅳ. 回答兼刷還使의 明示的 目的과 外交史的 意味 115
• 1. 回答에 나타난 朝·日의 國交再開 推進 115
• 2. 刷還에 나타난 戰後處理와 國家責務 履行 138
• 3. 外現的 外交成果에 나타난 外交史的 意味 157
• Ⅴ. 回答兼刷還使의 黙示的 目的과 外交史的 意味 160
• 1. 蔣希春의 對日情報 收集方法 160
• 2. 敵情探知를 통한 日本의 再侵 可能性 判斷 166
• 3. 外交戰略을 위한 對日情報 深層化 190
• 4. 內含的 外交成果에 나타난 外交史的 意味 218
• Ⅵ. 結論 220
• 1. 史料的 價値와 外交史的 意味 220
• 2. 回答兼刷還使의 現代的 再照明 233
• 【참고문헌】 237
• 【ABSTRACT】 242
• 【부 록】 249

참고문헌 (Reference)

1. 『쓰시마일기』, 국립해양박물관, 서울: 민속원, , 2017

2. 『일본문화사』, 박규태, 폴 발리, 서울: 도서출판경당, , 2016

3. 『조선통신사』, 이근성, 신성순, 서울: 중앙일보사, , 1994

4. 표준국어대사전., 국립국어원, https://stdict.korean.go.kr/),

5. 『동아시아 연표』, 김안국, 서울: 도서출판청년사, , 1992

6. 『역주 성재실기』, 성범중, 경기도: 태학사, , 2020

7. 『시대정신과 지식인』, 김호기, 경기도: 돌베개, , 2017

8. 『조선통신사와 일본』, 김세민 , 유재춘 , 엄찬호, 미야케 히데토시, 강대덕 , 서울: 지성의샘, , 1996

9. 『통신사와 문화전파』, 임동권, 서울: 민속원, , 2004

10. 『일본의 역사와 문화』, 손대준, 서울: ㈜시사일본어사, , 2006

11. 『문화로 읽는 일본 역사』, 김현석, 서울: 신아사, , 2020

12. 「조선시대 使行과 使行記錄」, 김경록, 『한국문화』38호, 서울대학교 규장각 한국학연구원, 193-230쪽, , 2006

13. 『임진전쟁기 강화교섭 연구』, 김경태, 고려대학교대학원 학위(박사)논 문, 서울: 고려대학교, , 2014

14. 『조선시대 한일관계사 연구』, 손승철, 서울: 지성의샘, , 1995

15. 「조선시대 대일 사행과 양산」, 한태문, 『한국민족문화』41호, 부산대 학교 한국민족문화연구소, 103-27쪽, , 2011

16. 「통신사행록에 나타난 對馬島」, 정영문, 『온지논총』27호, 온지학회, 263-96쪽, , 2011

17. 「조선조 사행록 텍스트의 본질」, 조규익, 『한국문학과 예술』2(1)호, 숭실대학교 한국문학과예술연구소, 1-33쪽, , 2008

18. 「통신사행로 표기 유형과 문제점」, 진영미, 『열상고전연구』61호, 열 상고전연구회, 173-219쪽, , 2018

19. 『한일 관계 2천 년: 화해의 실마리』, 남창희, 대전: 상생출판, , 2020

20. 『조선통신사가 본 일본의 세시민속』, 노성환, 서울: 민속원, , 2019

21. 「조선통신사선의 항해기록과 항해술」, 문경호, 『해양문화재』11호, 국립해양문화재연구소, 83-110쪽, , 2018

22. 「17-19세기 한일 문화교류의 흐름과 의미」, 하봉우, 『대동문화연구』 98호, 성균관대학교 대동문화연구원, 269-97쪽, , 2017

23. 「조선시대 통신사 사행록에 반영된 上關」, 한태문, 『동양한문학연 구』42호, 『동양한문학회』, 235-63쪽, , 2015

24. 「통신사 사행록에 반영된 히로시마(廣島)」, 한태문, 『한국민족문화』 47호, 부산대학교 한국민족문화연구소, 63-91쪽, , 2013

25. 「17세기 사행록의 연구현황과 나아갈 방향」, 정영문, 『한국문학과 예술』17(2)호, 숭실대학교 한국문학과예술연구소, 35-65쪽, , 2015

26. 「家康국서문제의 僞造및 改作과 동아시아」, 김문자, 『한일관계사 연구』58호, 한일관계사학회, 213-54쪽, , 2017

27. 「조선후기 일본지식의 생성과 통신사행록」, 남송우, 정훈식, 『동양한 문학연구』29(29)호, 동양한문학회, 391-422쪽, , 2009

28. 「울산 무룡동 달곡마을의 역사민속학 연구」, 우승하, 『민속학연구』 41호, 97-124쪽, , 2017

29. 「임진왜란에 납치된 조선인과 정보의 교류」, 민덕기, 『사학연구』74 호, 한국사학회, 193-222쪽, , 2004

30. 「임진왜란후 첫 번째 회답겸쇄환사의 파견」, 이민호, 『동서사학』1호, 한 국동서사학회, 71-112쪽, , 1995

31. 「임진왜란을 통한 조 명 일 삼국의 문화교류」, 박재광, 『군사』84호, 국방부군사편찬연구소, 117-47쪽, , 2012

32. 「임진왜란 후 강화교섭기 국서문제의 재검토」, 김경태, 『한국사학 보』36호, 고려사학회, 43-86쪽, , 2009

33. 「사행록을 통해서 본 일본 법제도에 대한 인식」, 박상휘, 『열상고전 연구』49호, 열상고전연구회, 508-35쪽, , 2016

34. 『17세기초 조선 被擄人과 對日사신의 일본인식』, 박소연, 건국대학교 대학원 학위(석사)논문, 서울: 건국대학교, , 2018

35. 「장희춘의 「해동기」(1607) 사료비판과 자료해제」, 우승하, 『비교 민속학』70집, 비교민속학회, 131-71쪽, , 2019

36. 「1643년 통신사행과 趙絅의 일본 인식에 관한 小考」, 신로사, 『민족문 화』41호, 한국고전번역원, 71-99쪽, , 2013

37. 『무룡산 자락의 으뜸마을, 울산 무룡동 달곡마 을』, 최범석, 황무원, 우승하, 국립민속박물관, 서울: 디자인인트로, , 2017

38. 「신유의 『海槎錄』에 나타난 일본체험과 인식고찰」, 정영문, 『온지 논총』21호, 온지학회, 97-128쪽, , 2009

39. 「외교적 관점에서 본 조선통신사, 그 기록의 허와 실」, 손승철, 『한국 문학과 예술』2호, 숭실대학교 한국문학과예술연구소, 111-57쪽, , 2008

40. 「임진왜란 被虜人에 대한 회답겸쇄환사의 인식 변화」, 구지현, 『동악 어문학』63(2)호, 동악어문학회, 37-61쪽, , 2014

41. 『조선중기 대일 외교연구- 국교 재개문제를 중심으로』, 이민호, 단국 대학교대학원 학위(박사) 논문, 서울: 단국대학교, , 1998

42. 「임진왜란 ‘전후처리’와 동아시아 국제질서의 변동」, 민덕기, 『한일관 계사연구』36호, 한일관계사학회, 231-61쪽, , 2010

43. 「근대일본의 태동과 에도시대 회화로 본 일본의 근대성」, 강옥희, 『동양예술』43(1)호, 동악어문학회, 5-36쪽, , 2019

44. 『조선후기 通信使繪畵資料를 통해 본 朝 日文化交流연구』, 황은영, 강원대학교대학원 학위(박사)논문, 강원도: 강원대학교, , 2019

45. 『잊혀진 조선피로인- 일본 나에시로가와 조선인 사회의 명 암』, 김정호, 서울: 민속원, , 2018

46. 「사행록을 통해 본 피랍조선인 쇄환교섭의 정치외교사적 특 성」, 김정호, 『한국동북아논총』13(4)호. 한국동북아학회. 409-27쪽, , 2008

47. 「경섬의 『海槎錄』에 나타난 1607년 조선통신사 해로 여정 고찰」, 이주형, 김상원, 『어문논집』68호, 중앙어문학회. 59-88쪽, , 2016

48. 「17세기 초 조선피로인 쇄환교섭전략의 특성과 일본어역관의 역할」, 김정호, 『정신문화연구』31(4)호, 한국학중앙연구원. 253-74쪽, , 2008

49. 「16세기말-17세기 초 조선과 건주여진의 배후 교섭과 신충일 의 역할」, 장정수, 『한국인물사연구』25호, 한국인물사연구회, 133-83쪽, , 2016

50. 『역주 성재실기- 장희춘의 「해동기」를 통해 1607년 사행 길을 읽다』, 우승하, 서울: 민속원, , 2020

51. 「[해행총재]소재 사행록에 반영된 일본의 통과의례와 사행원의 인식」, 한태문, 『한국문학논총』26호, 한국문학회, 421-47쪽, , 2000

52. 『17세기 전반 조선의 대일관계 연구- 회답겸쇄환사 파견을 중 심으로』, 유준광, 동국대학교대학원 학위(석사)논문, 서울: 동국대학교, , 2008

53. 『東아시아 역사 속의 한국문명의 전환- 충격, 대응, 통합의 문명으로』, 김용섭, 서울: ㈜지식산업사, , 2008

54. 「임진왜란기 납치된 조선인의 일본 잔류 배경과 그들의 정체 성 인식」, 민덕기, 『한국사연구』140호, 한국사연구회, 35-65쪽, , 2008

55. 「임란 이후 ‘회답겸쇄환사'로 본 대일본외교전략 - 선조대를 중 심으로」, 이훈, 『한일관계사연구』49호, 한일관계사학회, 267-309쪽, , 2014

56. 「조선후기 違式書契를 통해 본 朝 日交涉의 특질 – 조선측 書 契를 중심으로」, 이훈, 『한일관계사연구』1호, 한일관계사학회, 48-81쪽, , 1993

57. 『조선후기 대일교린정책연구- 1636년 통신사와 조선의 對馬島 인식을 중심으로』,, 김정일, 숙명여자대학교대학원 학위(석사)논문. 서울: 숙명여자 대학교, , 1988

58. 「조선 후기 通信使와 朝鮮中華主義-사행기록에 나타난 對日認 識전환을 중심으로」, 정은영, 『국제어문』46호, 국제어문학회, 329-85쪽, , 2009

59. 「임진왜란 이후 朝 日간의 국내사정과 통신사 파견- 회답겸쇄 환사 파견을 중심으로」, 김문자, 『항도부산』29호, 부산광역시사편찬위원회, 41-8 0쪽, , 2019

60. 『필담창화집에 나타난 한 일 문사의 상호인식 비교- 「坐間筆 語」와 「江關筆談」을 중심으로』, 전지혜, 경북대학교대학원 학위(석사)논문, 대 구: 경북대학교, , 2015

61. 「조선과 일본 문헌에서의 통신사행원 명단 비교 고찰- <통신 사등록>과 <조선통신총록>을 중심으로」, 진영미, 『열상고전연구』49호, 열상고전 연구회, 314-46쪽, , 2016

62. 「통신사 사행원들의 일본에 대한 인식; 『해행총재』에 실린 사행록들의 부정적 인식의 변화를 중심으로」, 이재훈, 『일본사상』22호, 한국일본 사상사학회, 311-37쪽, , 2012

63. 「도쿠가와 이에야스의 1606년 조선에 보낸 ‘국서’에 대한 위조 설 검토 –요네타니說에 대한 비판을 중심으로」, 민덕기, 『한일관계사연구』58 호, 한일관계사학회, 91-128쪽, , 2015