Earticle

This study is to examine how we will actually understand the records of the early times in Samkuksaki(『三國史記』). First of all, this saw how a angle of disbelief in them was formed and have been changed, and then whether the records of "Dong-i chon"(｢東夷傳｣) in the Samgukchi(『三國志』) were trusted which were used to deny early records of Samkuksaki. And by trying to more actively interpret early records of Samkuksaki, the thesis is to push the button of the transformation of perception that we should newly interpret them. For early history of establishments of the Three-Kingdoms in the surveys of Korean history, history of Shilla was recorded to skip suddenly from founder Park Hyeokgeose(朴赫居世) in 57 B.C. to 17th Nea-mul Maripkan(奈勿麻立干: 356∼402), history of Goguryeo from founder King Dong-myeong(東明王) in 37 B.C. to 6th King Tea-Cho(太祖王: 53∼146) and history of Baekje from founder King On-cho(溫祚王) in 18 B.C. to King Ko-I(古爾王). Contemporary records of "Silla-bonki"(｢新羅本紀｣), "Goguryeo-bonki"(｢高句麗本紀｣) and "Baekje-bonki"(｢百濟本紀｣) in the Samkuksaki were quite rich, and recorded dynamic and varied appearances of Three-Kingdoms. Nevertheless, early history of Three-Kingdoms in the surveys of Korean history was neglected. For most Korean historians mainly avoided that age with accepting the disbelief in early history as the orthodoxy of Korean history. Although some records were mentioned, they were treated as history of Sam-Han(三韓) on the basis of "Dong-i chon" or early histories of Samkuksaki were seen as the later age's articles after Japanese analyzed and readjusted contemporary records' chronology(紀年). Because this phenomenon was influenced by a view of disbelief in early records of Samkuksaki which was produced to limit, distort and obliterate Korean history in the end of 19th. In this manner, they modified the king genealogy(王系) and chronology of Three Kingdoms, analyzed some of records with other records, and reformed early records of Samkuksaki. This, however, was based on the records of “Dong-i chon” in the Samgukchi. After all, they could not believe early records of Samkuksaki in themselves, and thus reform them according to the contents of “Dong-i chon”. While we distrusted the early records of Samkuksaki and denied the history of Three-Kingdoms, Chinese and Japanese have taken up this historical blank, distorted the Korean history and stolen Korea`s ancient history. Accordingly, we need the transformation of perception that we accept positively and interpret the early records of Samkuksaki, and thereby require to fill up the blank in history of Three-Kingdoms.

We tend to consider name of place to be fixed and unchanged. Some place, however, have been changed for different reasons over historical periods. For this reason, we should regard the various conditions to know where the place name of ancient times located. According to the existing common view, Siljik(실직) had been seen as Samcheok(삼척) and Hasla(하슬라) as Gangneung(강릉). But many records which were written in SamgukSagi(『삼국사기』) could have been understanded, if Siljik and Hasla had been located there from the first. This is because they were transferred to the north with Shilla's territory extended. First Siljik located around Chunbuk-myun(천북면) Kyung Ju(경주), Gyeongsangbuk-do, was moved to the north part of Gyeongsangbuk-do and then fixed to the present Samcheok. And Hasla initially had been on the northern coast of Gyeongsangbuk-do and then by sixth century was transferred to the present Gangneung.

The Mongol-Yüan laws(元律) and Koryo laws(高麗律) were used jointly since the intervention of Mongol-Yüan had started after the collapse of military regime. This brought about the disorder of Koryo laws. The first case on the Mongol-Yüan laws was the efforts for the change of slavery laws by ‘Georges’(闊里吉思) in the 26th year of King Chungyoul. Georges tried to reform the principle of Koryo laws from ‘Il-Chun-Jeug-Chun’(一賤則賤) to ‘Il-Ryang-Jeug-Ryang’(一良則良). Georges‘s effort to reform Koryo laws was broken down because the ruling class including King Chungyoul had recognized the law reform as the attack against the national system of Koryo. Thus, the ruling class opposed vigorously and Georges was withdrawn to Mongol-Yüan. However, King Chungsun, a son of King Chungyoul, was in an active position for adopting the Mongol-Yuan laws. King Chungsun was the first king who had tried to unify the Koryo laws and Mongol-Yüan laws. He recognized that both political systems of Mongul-Yüan and philosophical system, Neo-Confucianism, were much developed and valuable enough to be followed. Accordingly, King Chungsun tried to restructure the governmental systems of Koryo by adopting those of Mongul-Yüan, presenting political principles grounded on Confucianism in his restoration message. However, his efforts brought out severe oppositions of courtiers. The courtiers held fast strongly to critical position with a cause following Qubailai's system(‘Sae-Jo-Gu-Jae’:世祖舊制) and 'national tradition'(國俗). The conflicts became obvious after the downfall of King Chungsun from Mongul-Yüan. His cronies attempted ‘Ip-Sung-Chaek-Dong’(立省策動) which was a political move to incorporate Koryo into a local district of Mongul-Yüan. The recrown situation of King Chungsuk and King Chunghae, and the trouble on throne between King Chungsuk and King Sim aggravated the conflicts. Koryo got to use jointly Mongul-Yüan laws and Koryo laws as suffering repatriating of the king. The term, 'Koryo-GongSa-Samil'(高麗公事三日), showed political disorder in the late period of Koryo dynasty, which was the same situation in terms of application of laws. Consequently, the reorganization of Koryo laws was requested due to the above troubles. The compilation of new laws by Chung MongJu(鄭夢周) in the 4th year of King Gongyang was the last attempt to reorganize the legislative system during Koryo dynasty. The new laws were not be issued for the fall of Koryo dynasty a few months later. The laws were the unified code of laws which incorporated Dae-Myung-Yul(大明律) and Jijungjogyeok(至正條格) into Koyro laws. Thus, Koryo did not complete the code of laws for downfall of the dynasty and had to transfer the task to Juseon dynasty.

This study is to investigate on the records about Imjinwaelan (Japanes Invasion to Korea in 1592~1598) written by An Bang-jun(1573~1654) and how it influenced on compilation of Seonjo sillok and Corrected-Seonjosillok. An Bang- jun and his records already has been introduced several times by other scholars. But it hasn't been studied about influence on authentic record compilation by his description about Imjinwaelan. This study mainly focuses on that point. An Bang-jun, a scholar living at Imjinwaelan period was a disciple of Seng Hon(成渾)who was a great master of New Confucianism. And he set much value on practical ethics in his life. He changed his pen name from Woosan(牛山), the name of local area, to Eunbong(隱峯) at his later years. The Eunbong came from Po-eun which was Chungmongjoo's pen name and Joongbong which was Johoen's pen name. Chungmongjoo was the first scholar who adhered to Korean scholor's principle. An Bang-jun expressed a sworn relation to Johoen through publishment of Hanguishinpoen(抗義新編) gathering Johoen's activities and his memorials to the throne. The records about Imjinwaelan written by An Bang-jun are total 7 articles and those are mainly about leaders of righteous troops. He left on record about them due to feeling guilty on no prize after the war even they raised an army in the cause of justice. He left abundant records about righteous troops in Cholla Province(Honam district). This was a different opinion from Yi Hang-bog's one who played a leading role in editing Seonjo sillok. Yi Hang-bog was a bureaucrat who was leading administration of army as the Minister of War during Imjinwaelan six times. He had been a responsible person of administration for Cholla-do district after Imjinwaelan and led editing Seonjo Sillok after Seonjo died. After Seonjo Sillok completed, King kwanghae has been forced from power by coupt' of Injo and the power moved from Boogin party to Soein party. Due to the factional strife the argument come up to modify Seonjo Sillok and Yi Sik(李植) took this role. An Bang-jun and Yi Sik exchanged letters many times presenting opinions about the history at that time, and the result has been reflected to Corrected-Seonjosillok. Therefore An Bang-jun's records about history have been reflected to Corrected-SeonjoSillok which has been delivered to the present. An Bang-jun was a great scholar of Neo-confucianism and intended to leave record and to give a tribute to righteous troops who spent blood and treasure for the country, and he made big efforts on activities for that. Since he was one of Seoin party and expressed obviously Soein party's standpoint, some of scholars are reluctant to quote from his books. His description about history plays an important role in checking a historical fact. But his writing was focusing on ruling class so it has been described around not the actual circumstance of the unwashed but the leaders of righteous troops. This is the key example of Sarim(士林) age's historical description characteristic.

In this paper I examined several problems of the northern territory in the late Joseon dynasty after 1897, especially Korean perception of Tomun and Duman rivers, a theory of 'vacant lots' in the north of Abnok and Duman rivers, and resurgence of 'homeland awareness.' The cause and the essence of Korea's policy toward the Gando were also studied. The analysis led to the followings. The Joseon government tried to manage the northern district of the Duman river when Russia occupied Manchuria. It came not simply from Korean attachment to the territory, but from her policy of territorial expansion with the escalated national consciousness. It showed the adventurous spirit of the independent "Great Han Empire." But the policy failed in the face of the resistance of China, because it threatened to claim the territorial loss to her.

“Is Christianity a Korean religion?” or “Is it still a imported religion?” The process to find an answer for these questions is the road to introspect whether Korean Christianity is a substantial subject and to seek for potentialities of thought history in Korean Christianity. First, I tried to think over current point of the theories on Taksa Choi Byung-hun in this essay. Choi Byung-hun left his great footprints as a pioneer of Korean theology, the founder of religious history of Korea, a leading pastor of the early Korean church, a church administrator, and a social activist. Above all, his position in Korean thought history is huge in that he is the father of 'Korean theology' by accepting Christianity with independent point of view. I arranged the current position of theories on Choi Byung-hun focusing on themes such as potential form of Taksa's theological thought, his consciousness of the times and ideology of social activities, the recognition and its context of religious-cultural transition in this essay. And I tried to find out the possibility of describing thought history on the basis of the above mentioned issues. First, we need even deeper and context-embedded research on the background of Taksa's thought. Second, we need much stricter biographical study on his life and activities. Third, we need highly comparative study to make clear the status and meaning of Taksa's thought. Fourth, we need to face the difference between the Methodist Church and neighboring orders, furthermore, between in and out of the whole field of theology. I attempted to find out a road to the description about thought history of Korean Christianity on the basis of current situation of the theories dealing with Choi Byung-hun. The above mentioned four proposals seem to be useful for another examination on other persons' thought as well. In this process of discussion one of the core proposals emphasized here is 'context-embedded approach'. It means that a new description of thought history in Korean Christianity has to be carried out through reinterpretation of texts considering context seriously.

This article studies how modern Japan has maintained international order within the international order of pre-modern East Asia, how it differentiated the '華' from the '夷', and how this should be identified within the history of East Asia. Some key points of this article are as follows. First is the fact that the tendency of Japan to regard itself as a divine nation grew stronger with the change in the traditional world view of Japan, and that this was a basis for a change in international order. Since ancient times, Japan maintained a mythological world view, but with the influx of Buddhism this changed into a three nation world view(三國世界觀) of India(天竺)․China(震旦)․Japan(本朝). This view became established as the traditional world view of the warrior family society. Then since the mid 16th century when Western Europe began penetrating Japan and the influence of Buddhism began to fade, the view changed to comprise the West․China․Japan, and around the time of Toyotomi Hideyoshi's invasion into Joseon, the divine nation view of Japan was reinforced, finally leading to the view that '本朝=Japan=divine nation' after breaking away from China when the Chung dynasty took over the Ming. Then in the 18th century effects of 'the study of Japanese classical literature'(國學) led to the two nation world view(二國世界觀) comprised of the West․Divine Japan(神國日本). Secondly, the 'Japanese Centrism' theory which is a development on the 'Japanese Idea of Centrism' connected with the concept of 'coastal defence'(海禁)-the foreign polices of controlling the seas-which was commonly found throughout the world and became firmly established as a academic term representing the Japan centered international order after the Chung dynasty was established. However, there still existed too many problems for it to be viewed as a theory encompassing the entirety of the East Asian international order. Such issues were results of reinforcing Japan centered 'centrism' without conducting an overall review of the relationships with relative nations. Third, 'Japanese Centrism' recognizes the 'Centrism order' of nearby empires(China․Joseon․Ryukyu[琉球] etc.), but from another perspective includes the relationships of the '4 diplomatic windows'(四つの口) of Joseon․Ryukyu․Ezo(蝦夷)․Netherlands․China in 'Japanese Centrism', thus giving rise to a contradictory aspect. When limiting this to Japan, it can be evaluated as a characteristic of the 'Japanese Centrism' and when considering the entire East Asian region, the achievements and significance of the theory can be evaluated by regarding it as a beneficial methodology of history that departs from the international order centered around China and emphasizes the political independence of nearby nations. However, the issue of whether we can evaluate such a Japan centered international order(though this is the same in the case of other nations) not recognized mutually by the nations comprising the international relations of East Asia as 'Japanese Centrism' should be reconsidered in light of globalism and the study of transnational history.

King Kojo's 9 years reign in the Tang dynasty was in the process of the founding of a nation and the unification into an empire through his positive diplomacy. And the comings and goings of envoys among Tang and its foreign nations underwent a change with the expansion of its domestic influence. Kojo dispatched envoys to the foreign countries 19 times during his reign, and 13 of them fell to the Turks. At that times various kingdoms in China, including Tang, felt keenly the necessity of the cooperation with the Turks, a northern supreme ruler. Then Tang frequently dispatched envoys for entering into friendly relations with him. But the dispatch was strikingly diminished after the year 622, when Tang succeed to repulse various ethnic nations in the neighborhood. On the other hand, Tang began to dispatch hwachinsa, envoys for friendship, to Silla, western Turks, Koguryo, and Baekje from the end of the year 621 on The types of the envoys dispatched during Kojo's reign could be classified into requesting troops, alliance, friendship, investiture, a call of condolence, appeasement, reply and assassination. Among them the dispatch of the envoys for friendship was extremely most in number. And it must be remembered that the envoys for reply, alliance, investiture, a call of condolence, and appeasement were also sent for friendship. Kojo was facing a serious crisis even until 624, when he tried to give up hadong district or to transfer the capital to other place. He had no time to practice a policy of expansion. Therefore he had sent no one anmusa who might have a possibility of collision and political discord with foreign nations. The dispatches of seyusa for appeasement were only for a formal protest. And through chaekbongsa, he gave investiture except titles to kings of other countries. This meant that it was just an establishment of diplomatic relations for friendship. Such a flexible or positive diplomatic policy of Kojo served as a stepping-stone for the foundation and the unification of the empire Tang.

중세 일조관계에 있어서는 다양하고 많은 일본인이 조선왕조와 통교하였다. 이 중에서 조선에 향화한 왜구의 首魁에게는 관직이 제수되었고, ｢수직왜인｣이라고 불렀던 조선통교자의 한 유형이 출현했다. 필자는 이전에 조선초기의 수직왜인을 ｢전기수직인｣ 壹岐 왜구인 藤九郞의 수직이후의 수직왜인을 ｢후기수직인｣이라고 규정하였다. 그러나 전기수직인의 성격과 그 종언, 후기수직인의 출현요인에 대해서는 명확하지 못하였기 때문에, 본고에서는 이를 고찰하였다. 또 후기수직인 중에서 예외적인 사례에 대해서도 초점을 맞추어, 수직왜인의 성격이 어떻게 변질했는가에 대해서도 고찰하였다. 조선초기의 수직왜인은 왜구계 수직왜인ㆍ기술계 수직왜인ㆍ平道全의 세 종류로 분류할 수 있다. 그 대부분은 수직 본래의 목적인 왜구회유책에 의해 출현한 왜구계 수직인이었고, 일본 기술의 도입을 목적으로 했던 기술계 수직왜인과, 對馬와의 교섭 창구로써 수직했던 平道全은 명확히 성격이 다르다. 己亥東征[대마도정벌] 이후, 왜구계 수직왜인의 수직관행은 단절되었다. 이 조선 측의 요인으로는, 왜구가 점차 감소함에 따라 왜구를 철저히 단속할 필요가 없어지게 된 점과, 平道全ㆍ表思溫의 불법행위에 의해 대마도에 대한 불신감이 증대되었던 점을 고려할 수 있다. 한편, 대마 측의 요인으로는, 1410년대에 추진되었던 왜구의 무역상인화 및 수직왜인의 대우가 감소함에 따른 수직요구의 消失을 들 수 있다. 세종 후기에 수직한 藤九郞이 향화 후에 귀국해서, 수직 권익을 기초로 조선과 무역을 행하게 되자, 다시 일본인에 대한 수직 관행이 부활하였다. 이 시기의 수직왜인은, 일본에 거주하면서 조선과 교역하는 것을 목적으로 했던 ｢수직인통교자｣가 대부분이었다. 또 이 시기에 조선에 향화했던 수직왜인도, 그 향화의 목적은 조선과의 교역에 있었다. 결국 왜구회유책을 단서로 하여 태조~태종기에 수직한 ｢전기수직인｣과, 세종후기 이후 조선과의 교역을 위한 통교권으로써 수직을 요구했던 ｢후기수직인｣은 명확히 성격이 다른 조선통교자이었다.

The lepers are the group that represented the contradictory and hesitant attitude of the people of middle age like did the vagabonds, the beggars and the mad men. While the vagabonds and the baggers kept an important position in the "economy of salvation“ with the image of Jesus Christ, the mad men were often considered as messenger of the God. In addition, the lepers were the object of Christ's love and compassion as well as the symbol of Christ's miracle. On the other hand, they were the threats to society with their habit of laziness, imposture, gambling, or being obstacle to worship. Nonetheless, these contradictory attitude changed decisively around 16th-17th centuries. The vagabonds and the baggers became the object of oppression with the ideology of value of labour whereas the mad men became the object of imprisonment with the background of dichotomy of 'reason' and 'un-reason". However, in this kind of social changes at the beginning of the Modern age, it's difficult to observe the similar changes in attitude towards the lepers. That's because the lepers had disappeared rapidly before the advent of the modern age. This is the difference between the lepers and the other marginal men of medieval society. The lepers could obtain full-qualified membership of the society around the transition period from the medieval to modern eras. It was due to the accumulation of medical knowledges and the improvement of standard of life. With the disease disappearing, they could recover easily their social status as the normal member of the society. Accordingly the analysis on the lepers has the periodic limits such as being confined to the medieval era. Then what was the difference between the lepers and the other marginal men in medieval times? It's not so difficult to guess it. The lepers were the object attracting the most attention among the social marginal men because of their high 'possibility of contagion'. This reason led naturally to their separation from the society. Of course, the attitude towards the lepers were often contradictory, but dominated by negative image, which made the leprosery a positive place protecting the society from the leprosy. In fact, the leprosy is considered as the image of the sin of temptation and heresy and as the object of the oppression. But the leprosery has the aspect of exalted spiritual salvation and the virtue of seclusion. Focusing on this point, this paper examined the dual attitude of medieval people towards the lepers as well as the establishment and operation of the leprosery. Through these analyses, we can conclude that the leprosery had a different image from concentration camp of the poor or madmen prison, a somber place of modern times. Around the late middle age, the number of the leprosery started to shrink in numbers drastically because of the reduction of the lepers. The poor, the vagabond and the madmen have gradually replaced the leper in the society but in the involuntary way. This phenomenon means that the disease and sexual desire gave up their place to the idleness and un-reason. But there is a big difference in the social attitude to the lepers between the middle age and the modern age. That is to say, the medieval society was hesitant about the leprosy so that the lepers could have a room for breathing to a certain extent while the modern age has negative opinion, dominantly oppressing, towards poverty and mental disease.