淸代 江蘇省 江陰縣의 抗淸守城史 정리 양상 ― ‘우리 고장 역사 정리 작업’의 한 사례 ―

이준갑 동양사학회 2022 東洋史學硏究 Vol.161 No.-

This paper is a study that how gentry and literati from Jiangyin county(江陰縣) and nearby areas recorded the battle of Jiangyin county and the victims that occurred during the Ming-Qing transition times in terms of the arrangement of the historical event occurred at our county. In Jiangyin county where the castle fell after an 81-day battle against the Qing dynasty and all 100,000 residents were slaughtered by the Qing army, unusually, gentry and literati from Jiangyin county and nearby areas kept records of anti-Manchu battle at Jiangyin throughout the Qing dynasty. The gentry recognized that it was their mission and responsibility to reveal the loyalty of the Jiangyin people, who lost 100,000 lives while participating in the battle against the Qing dynasty to protect their unwavering principles of man and loyalty to Ming dynasty. Gentry and literati recorded the history of anti-Manchu battle at Jiangyin through their writings. Writings are divided into two areas : a day by day chronological records and biographies of the leaders of the battle. A day by day chronological record recorded the course of the battle of Jiangyin. In it, gentry and literati emphasized hostility toward the Qing army, criticism of the Han Chinese who plundered Jiangyin, the theory of heaven that gave the justification of the anti-Manchu battle at Jiangyin. The gentry and literati emphasized that all the Jiangyin people participated in the anti-Manchu battle. Officials and gentries in Jiangyin also continued to compile the Jiangyinxianzhi(江陰縣志) three times, organizing it’s official position on the history of anti-Manchu battle. In order not to reveal Qing Dynasty's memories of the Battle of Jiangyin, the amount of records of the anti-Manchu battle was greatly reduced in Jiangyinxianzhi(江陰縣志) compiled in 1683. But the Jiangyinxianzhi(江陰縣志) compiled in 1744, contains a wealth of matters related to anti-Manchu battle of Jiangyin. In November of the 40th year of Qianlong(1775), the Emperor Qianlong ordered a commendation by revealing the deeds of the victims during the conquest of Qing. When the Qing Dynasty took the lead in awarding the victims, the number of victims who recorded in the Jiangyinxianzhi(江陰縣志) compiled in 1840 was increased to 130. The commendation was also carried out in the way of the shrine. In the 13th year of Yongzheng(1735), the magistrate of Jiangyin county built a shrine for Chenmingyu(陳明遇) along with shrine for Yanyingyuan(閻應元) at the request of the gentries. In 1775, the two shrines received official approval from the Qing Dynasty. In the 21st year of Jiaqing (1816), the shrine for three person was established, which was combined with Fenghoudun(馮厚敦). In the 7th year of Daogwang (1827), 138 people were enshrined in the shrine for the loyalist and the righteous (忠義祠) with the permission of the emperor. The commendation of the Jiangyin victims was a consistent flow through the arrangement of the historical event occurred at our county Jiangyin. Whether it is a personal work of a gentry and a literati, Jiangyinxianzhi, or a shrine, the ultimate purpose of it was to express Jiangyin people’s death and sacrifice not as treason against Qing Dynasty, but as loyalty or purity to Ming Dynasty. The Qing Dynasty, which was at its peak during Qianlong reign, acknowledged that the resistance of Han Chinese in Ming-Qing transition was not an act of treason against them, but a righteous act of loyalty to the Ming Dynasty. And now, Qing dynasty wanted to establish himself as a loyal subject for Han Chinese.

조청관계에 대한 편의적 이해 사례

이영옥 동북아역사재단 2012 東北亞歷史論叢 Vol.- No.35

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.

18세기 조선의 청조인식 -『노가재연행일기』를 중심으로

이호윤 동아대학교 석당학술원 2018 石堂論叢 Vol.0 No.72

In the 17th century, the substitution of the Qing Dynasty for the Ming Dynasty was the incidentin which the Ming Dynasty that was ‘the Mainland China’s Splendid Civilization’ was destroyed by the Qing Dynasty that was ‘the barbarian intruder’and the Mainland China’s Splendid Civilization became extinct in the world of which the center was thought to be the mainland China by intellectuals in China and some Asian countries, and Joseon that surrendered to the armed force of the Qing Dynasty was included in the order of tribute to an dinstallation by the Qing Dynasty, however ideologically the theory of ‘Qing= barbarian intruder’ and ‘Joseon = the Mainland China’s Splendid Civilization’ began. But after the fall of the Ming Dynasty, on the contrary the Qing Dynasty showed heyday without hesitation, Confucian scholars in Joseon had to newly interpret the zenith of the prosperity of ‘the barbarian intruder’. In that situation, in Joseon two ideologies appeared, one ideological flow was the ‘Joseon’s Splendid Civilization Principle’ and another was the ‘Learning from the North’ that Joseon needed to learn the Qing’s advanced products of civilization. However, Kim Changeop visited the Qing Dynasty in person in the earlier period of the 18th century and wrote the traveler's journal 『NoGaJaeYeonHaengIlgi』, and in his awareness of the Qing Dynasty, ‘Joseon’s Splendid Civilization Principle’ coexisted with ‘Learning from the North’ that acknowledged the Qing Dynasty’s advanced products of civilization, while the two ideologies crossed each other. Kim Changeop, a direct descendant of Kim Sangheon who advocated the theory of the rejection of peace at the time of the Manchu war of 1636 to have spent a long time in captivity in the Qing Dynasty, boasted of the superiority of Joseon’s ‘Manners, Music and the Products of Civilization’ to his heart's content while he had affirmative awareness of the Qing Dynasty’s practical products of civilization instead of ‘the Opinion to take Revenge on the Qing’. Therefore, the ‘Learning from the North’ is thought not to be the ideology that appeared suddenly but is thought to have appeared gradually as the interchange with the Qing Dynasty by visit of envoy to Qing and the experience in and the awareness of advanced products of civilization accumulated. 17세기 명청 왕조 교체는 ‘중화’인 명조(明朝)가 ‘이적(夷狄)’인 청조(淸朝)에 의해 멸망하여 천하에서 중화가 소멸한 사건이었으며 청조의 무력에 굴복한 조선은 청조를 중심으로 하는 조공책봉질서에 편입되지만 관념적으로는 ‘청=이적(夷狄)’, ‘조선=중화’론이 태동하게 된다. 그러나 명조 멸망 이후 청조가 오히려 전성기를 구가하자 조선의 유자(儒者)들은 ‘이적’의 전성에 대해 새로운 해석을 해야만 했다. 이러한 상황 속에서 조선에서는 두 가지 사상이 등장하는데 하나는 ‘조선중화주의(朝鮮中華主義)’이며 또 다른 사상적 흐름은 선진적인 청의 문물을 배워야 한다는 ‘북학론(北學論)’이다. 그런데 18세기 초 청조를 직접 방문하여 기행문 『노가재연행일기』를 남긴 김창업의 청조에 대한 인식은 ‘조선중화주의’와 청조의 선진 문물을 긍정하는 ‘북학론’이 교차하며 공존하고 있었다. 병자호란 당시 척화론을 주창하여 청조에서 오랜 기간 포로 생활을 한 김상헌의 직계인 김창업은 조선의 ‘예악문물(禮樂文物)’의 우월성을 마음껏 자랑하면서도 ‘대청복수론(對淸復讐論)’ 대신 청조의 실용적인 문물에 대해서는 긍정적 인식을 가지고 있었다. 따라서 북학론은 갑자기 등장하는 사상이 아니라 대청사행으로 청조와의 교류 및 선진 문물에 대한 체험과 인식이 축적되면서 점진적으로 나타났던 것으로 여겨진다.

병자호란 직후 청사출래(淸使出來)와 정치외교적 의의

리샤오칭 ( Li¸ Xiaoqing ) 대구사학회 2021 대구사학 Vol.144 No.-

본고에서 병자호란 직후 조선으로 파견된 청사를 연구대상으로 선정하였다. 청사의 파견 목적과 한양에서의 교섭 활동 및 조선에서의 청사 접대를 살펴봄으로써 병자호란 직후 청의 대조선사행의 정치적·외교적 의미를 규명해보았다. 병자호란 직후 조선은 1637년 4월과 9월의 사행을 통해 청의 징병 요구 중지를 청하였다. 청은 1637년 10월에 조선에 인조 책봉을 이유로 사신을 파견하였는데, 이는 조선이 奏請한 것이 아니라 청의 자의로 파견한 사신이었다. 이때 청사는 향화인·한인·주회인 쇄환 문제를 중점으로 조선과 교섭하였다. 청의 대조선 사행에서 쇄환 문제는 중요한 교섭 사안이었다. 조선의 경우, 징병 문제를 해결하는 것이 가장 중요한 사안이었다. 청에게는 조선과의 군신관계 유지와 이를 통해 청중심의 국제질서 구축이 가장 중요한 사안이었다. 조선의 주청 없이 이루어진 인조 책봉은 조청의 조공책봉 관계를 현실적으로 성립시켰음을 의미한다. 청의 관심 문제는 1639년 11월 삼전도비 감독으로 온 청사의 출래에도 반영된다. 조선에서 인질로 잡혀간 왕세자의 귀국 또한 징병 문제만큼 중요한 사안이었다. 1637년 9월의 대청사행에 조선은 왕세자의 귀국을 요청하였으나, 청에게 거절 당하였다. 1639년 2월에 조선에서 왕비와 왕세자의 책봉을 요청하는 사신을 파견하였는데, 이 때 세자의 귀국을 위한 교섭을 벌이기도 하였다. 이후 인조의 병세 악화로 조선은 청에게 왕세자의 귀국을 적극적으로 요청하는 명분으로 삼았다. 하지만 청의 입장에서 인조 책봉의 연장선에서 왕비, 왕세자 책봉을 시행한 것은 明制를 모방해서 조청의 계서적인 군신관계를 공고할 수 있는 절차였다. 청이 조선보다 먼저 왕세자의 책봉 요청을 요구한 것은 이와 같은 이유 때문으로 왕세자의 귀국을 고려할 사안이 아니었다. 정축약조가 맺어진 후, 조선에서는 청사를 접대하기 위해서 청사 접대 기준에 대한 논의가 진행되었다. 처음에 唐差에 대한 접대방식을 원용하고 청사를 접대하려고 하였다가 명사 접대의 규례에 따라 시행하였다. 1637년 10월 인조 책봉으로 온 청사에 대한 영접은 명사의 접대규정에 따라 청사 접대를 정례화하기 시작한 첫걸음이라고 할 수 있다. 조선이 1639년 9월의 滿達爾漢 일행에 대한 접대는 앞의 청사 접대와 차이가 있었다. 만대르한은 병문안하러 오는 差官이기 때문이었다. 조선은 만대르한을 황제의 명을 받들고 온 차관으로 보고 있었지만, 접대도감이 아닌 격이 가장 낮은 접대소를 설치하여 만대르한을 접대하였다. 이는 명 황제의 명을 받들어온 欽差官의 경우 조선은 접대도감을 설치하여 접대하였던 것과 차이가 있었다. 이는 정묘호란 이후의 金差 접대방식의 영향을 받은 것으로 청에 대한 반감이 접대방식에 반영한 것이라고 할 수 있다. 1639년 9월의 만대르한과 11월의 마푸타 일행에 대한 영접에서 주목되는 사항은 인조가 교영을 나가지 않았던 것이다. 이 2차례 청사 일행이 왔을 때 인조는 교영을 나가지 않았던 것이다. 9월의 청사는 차관이기 때문에 의례 규정상에 인조는 교영할 필요가 없었지만, 11월 마푸타 일행의 경우 인조는 마땅히 교외에 나가 영접해야 하였다. 그러나 1639년 11월부터 인조가 자신의 병환을 이유로 교영에 친림하지 않은 것이 하나의 선례가 되었다. 이후 조선은 국왕이 교영을 시행하지 않는 경우를 숙종대의 『通文館志』에 기록하여 하나의 관례로 만들었다. In this paper, by examining the purpose and the negotiation activities in Hanyang of Qing Dynasty’s Envoys dispatched to Joseon after the Manchu war of 1636(丙子胡亂), the political and diplomatic significance of the Qing Dynasty’s Sahaeng(使行) toward Joseon was investigated. After the Manchu war of 1636(丙子胡亂) Joseon requested an end to the Qing's request for conscription through Sahaeng(使行) in April and September 1637. In October 1637, the Qing dispatched an envoy to Joseon for the installation of King Injo without Joseon‘s resquest, and the Qing dynasty’s envoys negotiated with Joseon focusing on the issue of repatriation of Naturalized jurchen(向化人), Chinese(漢人), Joseon people who captured by the Qing tried to come back Joseon(走回人). The issue of repatriation was an important negotiation issue even in later Sahaeng(使行) toward Joseon. It can be said that in the relationship between the two countries the most urgent task of Joseon was the resolution of the issue of conscription. However, what the Qing dynasty considered important was the maintenance of hierarchical relationship with Joseon and the establishment of a Qing-centered international order. Besides exemption from conscription, Joseon's other concern is the return of the crown prince. In September 1637, Joseon requested the return of the crown prince , but was rejected by the Qing Dynasty. In February 1639, an envoy was sent with a request for the installation of the queen and crown prince, and it was also expected that the crown prince could return to Joseon through the installation of the crown prince. After that, Injo's illness also made it a reason to request the crown prince to return to Joseon. However, from Qing's point of view, the installation of the queen and the crown prince was a procedure that could settle a hierarchical relationship of Joseon and Qing Dynasty. It is for this reason that the Qing Dynasty mentioned the installation of Crown Prince before Joseon’s request. In November 1639, the Qing dynasty’s envoy who came for the monument of Samjeondo(삼전도비) stayed in Hanyang until December 5 and supervised the construction of the monument. All work was completed on December 8th. From the Qing point of view, the monument of Samjeondo was regarded as a symbolic space for the success of the Manchus and the victory of the war to Joseon. From the point of view of Joseon, it was the result of the defeat and a symbol of obedience to the Qing Dynasty. For the first time the Qing dynasty dispatched a envoy after the Manchu war of 1636(丙子胡亂), Joseon discussed the standard of treatment for the Qing dynasty’s envoy. At first, it was intended to use the rules of treatment for Tangcha(唐差), but it was implemented according to the rules of treatment for Ming dynasty’s envoys(明使). the Qing dynasty’s envoy dispatched this time seemed to be satisfied with the reception of Joseon. In October 1637, the reception to the Qing dynasty’s envoy dispatched for the installation of King Injo was the first step in making the reception of Qing dynasty’s envoys regular. In September 1639, the reception for Qing dynasty’s envoy who is named Mandaerhan is different from that of the previous treatment for Qing dynasty’s envoys. It was because Mandaerhan was a official temporarily dispatched(差官) who came to visit King Injo. Joseon viewed Mandaerhan as a official temporarily dispatched who came under the emperor's orders, but the lowest level department(접대소) was installed to entertain Mandaerhan. This is different from the case of the reception for officials who were temporarily dispatched and served the Ming emperor's orders. It can be said that this was influenced by the the reception for Jin dynasty’s envoys, and the antipathy towards Qing was reflected in the reception. The reception of Mandaerhan in September 1639 and Maputa in November 1639 is another point worth noting. King Injo did not go out for greeting the two envoys. In September, Mandaerhan was a official temporarily dispatched, so there was no need for Injo to greet according to the ceremonial regulations. However, it was a precedent that Injo did not greet envoy on the excuse of his illness from November 1639. Afterwards, Joseon recorded cases in which the king did not greet envoy and made it a custom. (Kyungpook National University / lixiaoqing0313@naver.com)

청나라 점취머리장신구 문양을 활용한 현대 중국 장신구다자인 사례 연구

양형우(Liang, Jiongyu),이형규(Lee, Hyung Kyu) 한국디자인문화학회 2021 한국디자인문화학회지 Vol.27 No.4

현재 정보기술의 발전은 인간사회의 고도성장은 물론 소비자가 얻을 수 있는 정보의 양을 크게 늘렸고, 소비자들은 같은 디자인에 그치지 않고 차별화 · 개성화된 디자인을 요구하면서 디자인의 혁신과 전통 수공예의 현대화를 불러일으키고 있다. 그러나 전통공예 장인이 고령화되고 종사자가 줄어 전통공예의 실종이 우려되고, 전통공예 진흥계획이 나오면서 다시 주목받고 있다. 가장 전통 장신구를 대표할 수 있는 청나라 점취장신구는 재질과 문양이 풍부하고 조형과 공법이 섬세하고 복잡하였다. 그러므로 전통과 현대기술이 점취장신구에 대한 연구를 통해 청나라 점취장신구문양의 조형요소를 활용하여 장신구디자인을 개발한다면 새로운 시장 진출에 기대효과가 높을 것이라고 판단된다. 더불어 현대장신구의 설계와 제작하는 디자이너와 창업자들에게 좋은 아이템 선정과 기초자료로 활용하는 데 그 목적을 두었다. 본 연구의 방법 및 범위로 청나라 점취공예의 제작과정을 역사 고서적과 문헌자료, 논문에서 살펴보고 점취공예에 대한 연구를 진행하였다. 그리고 점취와 관련된 역사서적과 박물관의 점취장신구 소장품을 살펴보았다. 청나라 점취장신구의 이미지를 대량으로 수집해 문양별로 분류한 뒤 청대 점취장신의 문양을 분석하였다. 청나라 점취장신구의 문양을 정리하고 청나라 점취공예와 현대 기술의 융합을 위한 기반을 제공되어졌다. 청나라 점취장신구에 대한 연구와 고찰을 통해 우리는 점취장신구의 구조와 공예를 고찰하였다. 춘추시대부터 물총새 깃털을 사용한 기록이 있고, 청대에 이르러서는 물총새와 물총새 깃털의 종류에 대한 상세한 기준을 고찰하였다. 청나라 점취장신구의 문양에는 주로 의미를 담은 동식물과 길 문자가 들어있다는 점도 살펴보았다. 청나라의 점취장신구들은 의미 있는 문양을 사용해 아름다운 삶, 재부와 권력에 대한 향수를 표현하였다. 현대 중국 점취장신구에 나타난 청나라 점취 머리장신구 문양 사례를 분석하여 다음과 같은 결론을 도출하였다. 첫째, 점취공예를 기초로 하여 심플한 문양을 사용하여 디자인한 점취 장신구로 이러한 종류의 일상적인 착용에 적합한 것을 알 수 있었다. 둘째, 중국 현대의 점취 장신구를 대표할 수 있는 중국 최대온라인 쇼핑몰 타오바오(taobao)에서 장신구를 판매하는 기념화사(纪年花事)와 삼천원(三千院) 조판소를 고찰하였다. 기념화사는 청대 점취장신구는 간략하게 디자인되었고, 소재는 동도금과 공작 깃털, 민물진주와 저가 보석을 상감하였다. 가격을 낮춰 소비자들이 일상적으로 착용할 수 있게 하였다. 삼천원 조판소는 청대 점취 장식의 문양을 사용해 새롭게 디자인했으며 소재는 은도금, 공작 깃털, 진주, 루비, 옥석 등 고가의 보석을 상감하였다. 청나라 점취장신구를 복원하고 새로운 디자인을 접목해 점취장신구 소재에 대한 욕구가 높은 소비자들은 사극이나 소장용으로도 활용할 수 있도록 하였다. 따라서 본 논문 연구를 통해 청나라 점취머리장신구 문양을 활용한 현대화된 차별화된 점취장신구 디자인을 개발한다면, 장신구디자이너와 창업을 원하는 창업자들에게 좋은 아이템과 기초자료로서 도움을 줄 수 있다고 판단된다. The current development of information technology has greatly increased the amount of information consumers can obtain as well as rapid growth in human society, and consumers are not only demanding the same design but also differentiated and personalized designs, sparking innovation of design and modernization of traditional handicrafts. However, as traditional craftsmen age and the number of workers decreases, they are concerned about the disappearance of traditional crafts, and the promotion plan for traditional crafts has emerged, drawing attention again. The Qing Dynasty’s DianCui ornaments, which represent the most traditional ornaments, were rich in material and pattern, and delicate and complex in shape and construction methods. Therefore, if tradition and modern technology develop jewelry designs using the sculptural elements of the Qing Dynasty’s DianCui ornaments pattern through research on DianCui ornaments, the expected effect of entering the new market will be high. In addition, the purpose was to select good items and use them as basic data for designers and entrepreneurs who design and produce modern ornaments. With the method and scope of this study, the production process of DianCui crafts in the Qing Dynasty was examined in historical books, literature materials, and papers, and research on DianCui crafts was conducted. In addition, we looked at historical books related to DianCui and the collection of DianCui ornaments at the museum. A large collection of images of DianCui jewellery in the Qing Dynasty. After classifying them according to patterns, the patterns of DianCui jewellery in the Qing Dynasty are analyzed. It organized the patterns of the Qing Dynasty’s DianCui ornaments and provided the foundation for the convergence of Qing Dynasty’s DianCui crafts and modern technology. Through research and consideration on the DianCui ornaments in the Qing Dynasty, we considered the structure and crafts of the DianCui ornaments. Since the Spring and Autumn Period, there has been a record of the use of common kingfisher, and in the Qing Dynasty, detailed standards for the types of common kingfisher and common kingfisher feather were considered. It was also examined that the patterns of DianCui ornaments in the Qing Dynasty mainly contain meaningful animals and plants and Gil characters. DianCui ornaments of the Qing Dynasty used meaningful patterns to express nostalgia for beautiful life, wealth and power. The following conclusions were drawn by analyzing the Qing Dynasty DianCui ornaments pattern cases in modern China’s DianCui ornaments. First, based on DianCui craft, DianCui ornaments designed with simple patterns can be seen to be suitable for daily wear. Secondly, I inspected the products of GiNyeomhwasa and SamChunwon jopanso, which can represent modern Chinese Diancui jewelry, on TaoBao, the largest online shopping website in China. GiNyeomhwasa’s Qing Dynasty DianCui ornaments use a simple design, the materials use gold-plated brass, peacock feathers, inlaid with freshwater pearls and cheap gems. The price was lowered so that consumers could wear it on a daily basis. SamChunwon jopanso’s products are redesigned using the design of Qing Dynasty DianCui ornaments. The materials use gold-plated 925 silver, peacock feathers, and are inlaid with high-priced gems such as pearls, rubies, and jade. DianCui ornaments in the Qing Dynasty were restored and new designs were combined so that consumers with high desire for DianCui ornaments materials could also use them for historical dramas or collections. Therefore, it is judged that developing a modernized differentiated DianCui ornaments design using the pattern of DianCui ornaments in the Qing Dynasty can help jewelry designers and start-ups who want to start a business as good items and basic materials.

청전기(淸前期) 해관(海關) 설치(設置)와 그 의미(意味)

이윤희 ( Yun Hee Lee ) 역사교육학회 2012 역사교육논집 Vol.48 No.-

After suppressing the anti-Qing movement of Zheng`s forces(鄭氏勢力) in 1683, the Qing dynasty had been stable in domestic and foreign situation. In 1684, the Qing dynasty abolished the embargo on overseas trade(海禁) and established the maritime customs. The Qing dynasty built the maritime customs in Fujian, Guangdong, Jiangsu, Zhejiang province respectively. The main affairs of the maritime customs were managing imports and exports of Chinese and foreign merchant ships, serving tributary envoys and supervising a tributary trade. There are many studies about the maritime customs of system. However, in most studies it has been recognized that the maritime customs was established instead of Shibo(市舶) or was in the transitional stage between Shibo and maritime customs in modern period(=近代 海關). The maritime customs should be recognized as important stage because the Qing dynasty abolished the embargo on overseas trade and established the maritime customs in the Chinese southeast coastal region. After the abolishment of the embargo on overseas trade, as overseas trade was legalized, foreign merchant ships headed for Guangdong province. Chinese merchant ships also increased in large numbers. The Qing dynasty′s active policy of overseas trade can be compared with the Ming dynasty`s policy of overseas trade. The Ming dynasty clamped the embargo on overseas trade under the Tributary System(朝貢體制) and put in force a negative policy of overseas trade. But the Qing dynasty, as soon as the Chinese southeast coastal region had been comparatively stable, abolished the embargo on overseas trade, and trade on the seas was allowed freely. The Qing dynasty had a different point of view about overseas trade. The Qing dynasty realized that over seas trade was helpful not only to the economy in the Chinese southeast costal region but also to the Qing dynasty`s public finance. Therefore the Qing dynasty allowed trade on the seas freely and supervised it with the maritime customs. In the Qing dynasty, the establishment of maritime customs can be seen a system that reflected the Qing dynasty`s active viewpoint about the overseas trade.

18세기 조선의 청조인식-『노가재연행일기』를 중심으로

이호윤 ( Lee Ho-yun ) 동아대학교 석당학술원 2018 石堂論叢 Vol.0 No.72

17세기 명청 왕조 교체는 ‘중화’인 명조(明朝)가 ‘이적(夷狄)’인 청조(淸朝)에 의해 멸망하여 천하에서 중화가 소멸한 사건이었으며 청조의 무력에 굴복한 조선은 청조를 중심으로 하는 조공책봉질서에 편입되지만 관념적으로는 ‘청=이적(夷狄)’, ‘조선=중화’론이 태동하게 된다. 그러나 명조 멸망 이후 청조가 오히려 전성기를 구가하자 조선의 유자(儒者)들은 ‘이적’의 전성에 대해 새로운 해석을 해야만 했다. 이러한 상황 속에서 조선에서는 두 가지 사상이 등장하는데 하나는 ‘조선중화주의(朝鮮中華主義)’이며 또 다른 사상적 흐름은 선진적인 청의 문물을 배워야 한다는 ‘북학론(北學論)’이다. 그런데 18세기 초 청조를 직접 방문하여 기행문 『노가재연행일기』를 남긴 김창업의 청조에 대한 인식은 ‘조선중화주의’와 청조의 선진 문물을 긍정하는 ‘북학론’이 교차하며 공존하고 있었다. 병자호란 당시 척화론을 주창하여 청조에서 오랜 기간 포로 생활을 한 김상헌의 직계인 김창업은 조선의 ‘예악문물(禮樂文物)’의 우월성을 마음껏 자랑하면서도 ‘대청복수론(對淸復讐論)’ 대신 청조의 실용적인 문물에 대해서는 긍정적 인식을 가지고 있었다. 따라서 북학론은 갑자기 등장하는 사상이 아니라 대청사행으로 청조와의 교류 및 선진 문물에 대한 체험과 인식이 축적되면서 점진적으로 나타났던 것으로 여겨진다. In the 17^th century, the substitution of the Qing Dynasty for the Ming Dynasty was the incidentin which the Ming Dynasty that was ‘the Mainland China’s Splendid Civilization’ was destroyed by the Qing Dynasty that was ‘the barbarian intruder’and the Mainland China’s Splendid Civilization became extinct in the world of which the center was thought to be the mainland China by intellectuals in China and some Asian countries, and Joseon that surrendered to the armed force of the Qing Dynasty was included in the order of tribute to an dinstallation by the Qing Dynasty, however ideologically the theory of ‘Qing= barbarian intruder’ and ‘Joseon = the Mainland China’s Splendid Civilization’ began. But after the fall of the Ming Dynasty, on the contrary the Qing Dynasty showed heyday without hesitation, Confucian scholars in Joseon had to newly interpret the zenith of the prosperity of ‘the barbarian intruder’. In that situation, in Joseon two ideologies appeared, one ideological flow was the ‘Joseon’s Splendid Civilization Principle’ and another was the ‘Learning from the North’ that Joseon needed to learn the Qing’s advanced products of civilization. However, Kim Changeop visited the Qing Dynasty in person in the earlier period of the 18th century and wrote the traveler's journal 『NoGaJaeYeonHaengIlgi』, and in his awareness of the Qing Dynasty, ‘Joseon’s Splendid Civilization Principle’ coexisted with ‘Learning from the North’ that acknowledged the Qing Dynasty’s advanced products of civilization, while the two ideologies crossed each other. Kim Changeop, a direct descendant of Kim Sangheon who advocated the theory of the rejection of peace at the time of the Manchu war of 1636 to have spent a long time in captivity in the Qing Dynasty, boasted of the superiority of Joseon’s ‘Manners, Music and the Products of Civilization’ to his heart's content while he had affirmative awareness of the Qing Dynasty’s practical products of civilization instead of ‘the Opinion to take Revenge on the Qing’. Therefore, the ‘Learning from the North’ is thought not to be the ideology that appeared suddenly but is thought to have appeared gradually as the interchange with the Qing Dynasty by visit of envoy to Qing and the experience in and the awareness of advanced products of civilization accumulated.

『열하일기』의 〈皇城記〉, 청 왕조 정통론

이현식(Lee Hyun-Sik) 국어국문학회 2009 국어국문학 Vol.- No.152

「The Record of the capital of Qing dynasty」 is an article of 『Yeolhe-ilgi』 of Yeonam Park Jiwon(燕巖 朴趾源, 1737~1805)' writing. He arrived at Beijing, the capital of Qing dynasty on August 1, 1780. He wrote this article the day. He said in it that a few sages set up the Sinic civilization, while many fools had carried on the Sinic civilization, who had pursue their own interests instead of following of former sages' mind. And he also talked about a grand scale of Beijing and the status of Qing dynasty as a ruler of China. His statements signified that Qing dynasty was a successor to the Sinic civilization like many fools. He said, so to speak, that the orthodoxy of Qing dynasty had to be recognized. It was his agenda that he proved that Qing dynasty was also a successor to the Sinic civilization. People of Chosun dynasty generally had believed that Only a Han Chinese dynasty could became a successor to it. But He said that Han Chinese dynasties and barbarian dynasties had ruled China by turns, and that as they was equal for foolishness except a few sages, so there was not only no difference between the two dynasties, but also no connection between the blood and the qualification of succession More surprisingly, he regarded Qing dynasty as a practicing follower of Confucius. The contemporary intellects of Chosun dynasty looked at Qing dynasty in view of the doctrines of great land to change the barbarians(尊周攘夷), which was regared as the teachings of Confucius. So the doctrines of Confucius was not recognized to be a compatible concept with the orthodoxy of Qing dynasty But Park had an different angle on the problem. He thought that though Qing dynasty was a barbarous in the blood, it had already practise the teachings of Confucius, and so transformed into a successor to Confucius. He believed that there was no conflict relationship between the doctrines of Confucius and he orthodoxy of Qing dynasty, and there was only a succeeding relationship between the two. The argument for Qing dynasty in 『Yeolha-ilgi』 build up to a climax in this article. During the travel to Beijing, he was absorbed in thinking of what Qing dynasty was to Chosun dynasty, and of how Chosun dynasty could appreciate it. It was the result of an immense amount of labor that He raised the doctrines of Qing dynasty's transforming into the Sinic civilization, and suggested to recognize the orthodoxy of Qing dynasty.

아편전쟁을 바라보는 조선의 다중 시선 - 19세기 중후반 조선 조정, 지식층, 서민층의 대청인식 연구 -

장보운 ( Zhang Bao Yun ) 한국사상사학회 2017 韓國思想史學 Vol.0 No.56

본 연구는 제1차·제2차 아편전쟁에 대한 조선 조정, 지식층 그리고 서민층의 반응을 중심으로 당시 조선 사회 각 계층의 대청인식에 대해 고찰하였다. 제1차 아편전쟁에 대해 당시 조선에서는 유신환(兪莘煥), 이항로(李恒老) 등 극소수의 지식인을 제외하고는 조선 조정 내부나 지식층, 서민층에서 모두 큰 위기로 인식하지 않았고 무덤덤하거나 낙관적인 반응을 보였다. 이는 서민층이나 일부 지식인들이 전쟁 소식을 신속하게 접하지 못했던 것도 한 원인이었을 것으로 파악된다. 또한 청이 제1차 아편전쟁에 대해 보여준 상황에 대한 인식이 낙관적이었기 때문에 조선사회에서도 청의 패전에 대해 큰 관심을 가지지 않았다고 분석된다. 한편 제1차 아편전쟁에서 청의 패배를 충격이나 위기로 받아들인 일부 지식인들 간에도 사상적 균열을 보이며, 청의 멸망을 기대하는 부류와 청과의 공동운명 관계를 강조하는 부류가 나뉘는가 하면 서민층에서는 대청(對淸)복수의식이 여전히 상당부분 남아 있었다. 이는 서세(西勢)의 위협이 각 계층 조선인들에게 동일한 위기감으로 인식되지 않았기 때문으로 사료된다. 그러나 제2차 아편전쟁은 조선 조정이나 지식층, 서민층에서 모두 순망치한의 위기감을 느끼게 했다. 이러한 위기에 대한 대응 및 청에 대한 태도에서 당시 각 계층은 다양한 견해를 보였다. 조선 조정이나 지식층 중 일부 관료적 지식인은 청을 연합세력으로 이해했다. 반면, 재야지식인이나 서민들 가운데에는 청이 약해짐에 따라 대청(對淸)복수론을 펼치는 사람이 있는가 하면, 청을 객관적으로 파악하거나 청의 위기에 대해 관망적 자세를 취한 사람도 있었다. 이는 각 계층의 서로 다른 서세인식, 그리고 조선에 대한 정치적, 문화적 자신감 등 조선의 주체성에 대한 태도의 차이와 관련된다고 생각된다. This article considers how the different society strata of the Joseon Dynasty`s perceptions of the Qing Dynasty were affected by the First and Second Opium Wars with attention to the reactions of the Joseon Dynasty, intellectuals, and commoners at that time. As regards the First Opium War, except a few intellectuals, such as Yu Shin-hwan(兪莘煥, 1801~1859) and Yi Hang-no(李恒老, 1792~ 1868), the Joseon government, the intellectuals and the commoners did not recognize it as a serious crisis and reacted with a calm, even optimistic, attitude. The fact that the commoners and some intellectuals did not receive the latest news about the war in a timely manner contributed to this perception. Additionally, Qing Dynasty`s own attitude to the First Opium War reduced concerns about the Qing`s defeat in Joseon society. In contrast, even those intellectuals who viewed the Qing defeat as a threat still had different viewpoints. Firstly, some of them expected the destruction of the Qing Dynasty; while others emphasized the common destiny between the two countries. Further, commoners retained a significant amount of revenge consciousness regarding the Qing Dynasty. That the Western powers were not viewed with the same sense of crisis by Koreans of different class influenced the diversity of opinion. However, the Second Opium War induced in all Joseon social strata an extreme sense of crisis. Still, opinions about the crisis and attitudes toward the Qing Dynasty varied among the classes. On one hand, the rulers of government and some intellectuals who participated in realpolitik understood the Qing as an allied force. On the other hand, due to the weakness of the Qing Dynasty, the commoners and some intellectuals who were out of power expanded calls for revenge against the Qing; finally, some also looked at the Qing Dynasty objectively, and took a wait-and-see attitude to the Qing`s crisis. Different social strata`s perceptions of Western powers and their own attitudes toward the identity of the Joseon Dynasty, such as the level of self-confidence in the realms of policy, culture, and so on, directly affected their perceptions of the Qing and its level of crisis in the aftermath of both Opium Wars.

朝鮮申錫愚與淸人筆談考述

천금매 대동한문학회 (구.교남한문학회) 2016 大東漢文學 Vol.46 No.-

This article do a textual research on the content and features of written discussions between Sin Xiyu from Chosun dynasty and the literati of Qing dynasty. Sin Xiyu went to Qing with the identity of winter solstice ambassador in October 1860. He met a number of the literati in Qing Dynasty and left a great number of materilas, such as Yeon Heng Rok, letters, written discussions, poetries and so on. However, there were only four written discussions with six people including Lee Wenyuan, Shen Bincheng, Xie Zeng, Chen Gongshou, Song Shuxing and Song Shuxun. The contents of written discussions between Sin Xiyu and Lee Wenyuan were mianly about the family friendship between Sin Xiyu and Lee Boheng, bemoaning for Lee Boheng and enquiries related issues of Taiping movement. The contents of written discussions among Shen Xiyu, Shen Binchengand Xie Zeng were mainly about introduction to each other and making an appointment to catch up at Zhongheju on the 3rd of the first month of lunar year. The written discussions between Sin Xiyu and Chen gongshou were mainly about the admiration for Chen Gongshou, the return date of the emperor, contemporary issues about Taiping movement and the Nian army, and introduction of and Evaluation on famous painter Kin zhenxi and Zhao xilong who come from Chosun. The discussions between Sin Xiyu and Song Shuxing, Song Shuxun were mianly about what he saw and heard in Songjiazhuang on the way to Beijing. Song family was rich and built barriers to protect themselves from Qing’s entry. Many Chosun Dynasty ambassadors knew this story and they all visited Song. Sin XiYu mainly visited the building in songjiazhuang and inquired about their ancestors’ stories, related text materials and the issues for ritual and dressed. From the written discussions between Sin Xiyuan and literati in Qing Dynasty we can see that Sin Xiyu actively communicated with literati in Qing Dynasty, who have communicated with Chosun Dynasty, and new friends in Qing Dynasty. Furthermore, he also actively inquired the contemporary issues in Qing Dynasty. Although the written discussions are not long, it has rich contents. The written discussion between Sin Xiyuan and liberati in Qing Dynasty is signficiant to investigate literati communication between Qing and Chosun Dynasty in 19th century, to enrich communication between Qing and Chosun Dynasty, and to explore the truth and the details for social history at that time, with evidence. Therefore, they are of great literature value in studies about literati relationship History between China and Korea. 本文考述了朝鮮文人申錫愚與淸朝文士的筆談內容及特點。申錫愚曾在1860年十月以冬至正使的身份岀使淸朝,結識了眾多淸朝人士,留下了燕行錄、尺牘、筆談、詩文等眾多資料,但是筆談資料卻只有4篇,筆談人物只有6人,分別爲李文源、沈秉成、謝增、程恭壽、宋舒惺與宋舒恂。 申錫愚與李文源的筆談內容主要談到申錫愚與李伯衡的世交以及對李伯衡的哀吊、探問太平天國運動相關問題。與沈秉成和謝增兩人的筆談,主要是相互通姓名,并約新正初三日再于中和局相見會談。與程恭壽的筆談主要涉及對程恭壽的欽慕之情,詢問皇帝回鑾時期以及太平天國與捻軍等時局情況,介紹很評價朝鮮著名書畫家金正喜與趙熙龍等內容。與宋舒惺、宋舒恂的筆談是在進入北京的途中經過宋家莊,宋氏家富豪築城壘,自保於淸人入關之時,朝鮮使臣多聞知其事跡,光顧者很多。申錫愚主要觀看了宋家莊舍城樓,并詢問其宋氏祖先事跡和相關文字資料、以及祭祀是的衣冠问题。 申錫愚與淸人的筆談中我們可以看到申錫愚積極結交與朝鮮人士有交情的淸人,主動結交新的淸朝友人,積極探詢淸朝時局情勢,雖然篇幅不長,但內容豐富等的筆談特點。申錫愚與淸人的筆談對於了解19世紀末中朝兩國文人的交流,豐富兩國文人交流內容,以及了解當時社會歷史真相與細節,有很好的補充和見證意義,因此對於中韓文人關係史研究具有寶貴的文獻價值。