병자호란 직후 청사출래(淸使出來)와 정치외교적 의의 = The Dispatch of Qing Dynasty’s Envoys and The Political-Diplomatic Significance after The Manchu War of 1636(丙子胡亂)

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

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 / [e-mail])

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 김한규, "한중관계사 Ⅱ" 아르케 1999

2 윤승희, "특집 : 문종의 조선국왕 책봉의례 복식에 대한 논의와 그 의미" 한국역사연구회 (98) : 141-168, 2015

3 김창수, "청의 조서(詔書) 반포 사신을 통해 본 조선의 지위" 한국역사연구회 (89) : 151-184, 2013

4 鮑方依, "청 입관 전후 심양관을 둘러싼 조청관계" 고려대학교 2017

5 이상배, "조선전기 外國使臣 접대와 明使의 遊觀 연구" 104 : 2004

6 신명호, "조선왕실의 책봉의례" 세창출판사 2016

7 김문식, "조선왕실과 외교의례" 세창 2017

8 동북아역사재단 북방사연구소, "조선시대 한중관계사" 동북아역사재단 2018

9 김경록, "조선시대 사신접대(使臣接待)와 영접도감" 30 : 2004

10 김성근, "조·청 외교관계 변화연구 : 조공·책봉을 중심으로" 강원대학교 대학원 2008

11 김근하, "정축약조로 본 현종~숙종 대 조청관계-안추원 사건과 북한산성 수축 논의를 중심으로-" 서강대학교 2015

12 한명기, "정묘·병자호란과 동아시아" 푸른역사 2009

13 김윤주, "순조대『빈례총람(儐禮總覽)』의 편찬과 빈례 정비" 경북대학교 2017

14 배우성, "서울에 온 청의 칙사 馬夫大와 삼전도비" 서울학연구소 (38) : 235-271, 2010

15 허태구, "병자호란과 예, 그리고 중화" 소명출판 2019

16 구범진, "병자호란, 홍타이지의 전쟁" 까치 2019

17 김남윤, "병자호란 직후(1637-1644) 조청관계에서 '청역'의 존재" 규장각한국학연구원 (40) : 249-282, 2007

18 한명기, "병자호란 시기 조선인 포로 문제에 대한 재론" 역사문제연구소 (85) : 202-234, 2008

19 최소자, "명청시대 중·한 관계사 연구" 이화여자대학교 출판부 1997

20 안유림, "명청교체기 瀋陽館의 역할" 규장각한국학연구원 (50) : 57-81, 2010

21 李鉉淙, "명사 접대고" 12 : 1961

22 김문식, "과거의 역사 현재의 역사: 소현세자의 외교활동" 4 : 2004

23 "通文館志"

24 "清太宗實錄"

25 "清史稿"

26 구범진, "淸의 朝鮮使行 人選과 ‘大淸帝國體制’" 인문학연구원 (59) : 179-228, 2008

27 송미령, "淸初 정책 결정기구 속의 滿洲人" 만주학회 (14) : 75-107, 2012

28 정병진, "淸使의 삼전도 행차와 양국의 기억" 전북사학회 (55) : 89-114, 2019

29 박종훈, "淸 使臣 阿克敦의 朝鮮 認識 — <奉使圖>와 연관하여 —" 온지학회 (31) : 149-192, 2012

30 김선민, "朝鮮通事 굴마훈, 淸譯 鄭命壽" 명청사학회 (41) : 37-65, 2014

31 황재영, "朝鮮前期 遠接使의 役割과 位相" 경북대학교 교육대학원 2012

32 김경록, "朝鮮初期 對明外交와 外交節次" 44 : 2000

33 안주혁, "朝鮮 前期 明使의 使行과 迎詔·勅 儀禮의 明禮 수용" 성균관대학교대학원 2016

34 유바다, "朝鮮 初期 迎詔勅 관련 儀註의 성립과 朝明關係" 한국역사민속학회 (40) : 123-160, 2012

35 허태구, "昭顯世子의 瀋陽 억류와 人質 체험" 한국사상사학회 (40) : 143-176, 2012

36 김문식, "明使 龔用卿이 경험한 외교의례" 조선시대사학회 (73) : 195-228, 2015

37 김경록, "明代 公文制度와 行移體系" 명청사학회 (26) : 123-168, 2006

38 "接敕攷"

39 "承政院日記"

40 한형주, "對明儀禮를 통해 본 15세기 朝－明관계" 한국역사민속학회 (28) : 39-75, 2008

41 정병진, "入關前 淸의 朝鮮에 대한 ‘三色人’ 刷還要求" 명청사학회 (37) : 33-65, 2012

42 김선혜, "入關 前後 淸과 朝鮮의 通婚과 侍女 問題" 중국사학회 (91) : 231-265, 2014

43 송미령, "入關 前 淸朝의 瀋陽館 統制樣相" 명청사학회 (30) : 129-155, 2008

44 "仁祖實錄"

45 한명기, "丙子胡亂 패전의 정치적 파장-청의 조선 압박과 仁祖의 대응을 중심으로-" 국학연구원 (119) : 53-93, 2003

46 김근하, "丁丑約條의 성격과 顯宗代 安秋元 사건" 조선시대사학회 (78) : 87-124, 2016

47 김남윤, "『瀋陽日記』와 昭顯世子의 볼모살이" 규장각한국학연구원 (29) : 45-60, 2006

48 김경록, "『同文彙考』를 통한 조선후기 외교사안 연구 ― 原編 ‘封典’ 事案을 중심으로 ―" 명청사학회 (32) : 69-103, 2009

49 김경록, "17세기초 명·청교체와 대중국 사행의 변화 - 대후금 사행을 중심으로 -" 사단법인 한국문학과예술연구소 (15) : 31-73, 2015

50 권내현, "17세기 후반~18세기 전반 평안도에서의 청사접대와 재정운영" 한국역사연구회 (43) : 249-278, 2002

51 이명제, "17세기 청·조선관계연구" 동국대학교 2021

52 김태동, "17세기 조선의 대청 자세: 교영을 중심으로" 서강대학교 2020

53 장정수, "17세기 전반 朝鮮과 後金·淸의 國交 수립 과정 연구" 고려대학교 대학원 2020

54 김경록, "17세기 朝淸관계와‘倭情’의 군사외교적 활용" 국방부군사편찬연구소 (94) : 205-245, 2015