지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The objective set in this article, is to inspect how the discussions continued over the issue of dispatching an envoy to the Grand Ceremony(大禮議) of the Ming dynasty court(which has been considered as an important event that happened during the middle period of the Ming dynasty), and to examine what was the government officials' general perception of Joseon's Sadae(事大) in the 16th century. The question that should be addressed, is with what kind of values and standards that they proceeded with diplomatic functions and negotiations. Results of such examination revealed the fact that a new perception of the concept of Sadae(事大) centered on the Daegan(臺諫) officials was emerging at the time.
The concept of Sadae(事大) usually referred to a relationship in which the smaller country(小國) expressed goodwill and friendship by dispatching envoys to the bigger country(大國), maintaining diplomatic communications and also the norm of international order surrounding them. Yet the Daegan(臺諫) officials perceived the concept of Sadae(事大) as more of a moral courtesy based upon the teachings of classic texts. So they started to argue that before dispatching an envoy to a diplomatic function arranged by the Chinese government, the nature of such function or other related events must be ascertained, and envoys should be dispatched only when the nature of such function or the surrounding environment was proved legitimate and justified. At the same time, the ethics determining the relationship between King and the vassals started to recognize the concept of justice(義) more importantly than the order of the King, and this kind of ethic made them believe that the Joseon government, as a vassal, should be able to criticize and actively provide suggestions to China, the 'King' country, in the name of Justice. Surely in reality, the officials could not appeal directly to the Emperor of the Ming dynasty, but at least they maintained their position of not allowing envoy dispatches that were not justified.
This kind of attitude toward the concept of Sadae(事大) was related to the notion of 'The Debt that Joseon owed to Ming, for rescuing Joseon at Japanese invation of Korea in 1592'〔the so-called, Jaejo-ji-eun(再造之恩) sentiment〕. The argument that one should pay respect to the Chinese court only when the nature of a diplomatic function was justified, and not pay respect when it is not justified, was an argument where values were imposed upon diplomatic relationships. This argument was strongly in favor of 'paying debts', and not forgetting that someone helped them. Even when the national crises arisen by the war with the Japanese were over, the aforementioned 'Debt-paying' sentiment remained strongly among many Joseon officials, and the reason it maintained its influences for such a long time was because it was based upon a strong perception toward the concept of 'Sadae' which unlike before maintained the issue of justice as a priority. The 16th century was a time period when the perception of Sadae(事大) came to be firmly based upon the issue of justice. And this perception was put in a conflicting position(拮抗) with other practical opinions viewing the foreign situations. It was a transitional period, in terms of the diplomatic meaning of the Joseon dynasty's relationship with Ming dynasty.
The concept of Sadae(事大) usually referred to a relationship in which the smaller country(小國) expressed goodwill and friendship by dispatching envoys to the bigger country(大國), maintaining diplomatic communications and also the norm of international order surrounding them. Yet the Daegan(臺諫) officials perceived the concept of Sadae(事大) as more of a moral courtesy based upon the teachings of classic texts. So they started to argue that before dispatching an envoy to a diplomatic function arranged by the Chinese government, the nature of such function or other related events must be ascertained, and envoys should be dispatched only when the nature of such function or the surrounding environment was proved legitimate and justified. At the same time, the ethics determining the relationship between King and the vassals started to recognize the concept of justice(義) more importantly than the order of the King, and this kind of ethic made them believe that the Joseon government, as a vassal, should be able to criticize and actively provide suggestions to China, the 'King' country, in the name of Justice. Surely in reality, the officials could not appeal directly to the Emperor of the Ming dynasty, but at least they maintained their position of not allowing envoy dispatches that were not justified.
This kind of attitude toward the concept of Sadae(事大) was related to the notion of 'The Debt that Joseon owed to Ming, for rescuing Joseon at Japanese invation of Korea in 1592'〔the so-called, Jaejo-ji-eun(再造之恩) sentiment〕. The argument that one should pay respect to the Chinese court only when the nature of a diplomatic function was justified, and not pay respect when it is not justified, was an argument where values were imposed upon diplomatic relationships. This argument was strongly in favor of 'paying debts', and not forgetting that someone helped them. Even when the national crises arisen by the war with the Japanese were over, the aforementioned 'Debt-paying' sentiment remained strongly among many Joseon officials, and the reason it maintained its influences for such a long time was because it was based upon a strong perception toward the concept of 'Sadae' which unlike before maintained the issue of justice as a priority. The 16th century was a time period when the perception of Sadae(事大) came to be firmly based upon the issue of justice. And this perception was put in a conflicting position(拮抗) with other practical opinions viewing the foreign situations. It was a transitional period, in terms of the diplomatic meaning of the Joseon dynasty's relationship with Ming dynasty.
목차
머리말
1. 대례의(大禮議)와 그에 대한 별행파견 논의
2. 중종대 사대인식(事大認識)의 분화
맺음말
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
조선 초기 對明事大論의 역사적 성격 검토
동양사학연구
2016 .06
-
대화에서 지켜야 할 몇가지 례의
중국조선어문
2013 .07
-
嘉靖初 政治對立과 科道官 : 大禮議를 中心으로
동양사학연구
1985 .06
-
朝鮮 初期 中國語 通譯 發展 背景에 관한 硏究 －≪朝鮮王朝實錄≫의 記錄을 中心으로－
중국어문학
2015 .01
-
갑신정변과 갑오경장 시기의 사대와 독립의 의미
한국학연구
2010 .09
-
한국 의례의 구조와 의미 : 한국의례의 `목적과 기능`, `형태와 종류`를 중심으로
종교연구
1998 .12
-
朝鮮과 明의 실무적 외교문서 ‘咨文’ 분석
古文書硏究
2013 .01
-
壬辰亂 後 朝鮮 對明 認識의 變化 : ‘再造之恩’을 중심으로
아시아문화연구
2006 .12
-
朝鮮初期의 事大論
역사교육
1997 .12
-
조선 전기 對明 使行貿易의 교역지대와 구성원
인문과학연구
2017 .12
-
중국소설 《西遊記》 번역본의 조선후기 유통에 관한 연구 : 영남대 소장 번역필사본을 중심으로
중국어문논역총간
2017 .01
-
[조선 전기] 조선전기사 연구의 현황과 과제(2015~2016)
역사학보
2017 .09
-
鄭夢周與明人的交遊 - 以 ≪圃隱集≫ 為中心 -
포은학연구
2014 .01
-
대화에서의 몇가지 례의
중국조선어문
2013 .05
-
초기 대청 북경사행 기록과 사행 노정 검토
온지논총
2019 .01
-
조선시대 事大文書의 생산과 전달체계
한국사연구
2006 .09
-
섭외례의에 대하여
중국조선어문
2014 .03
-
조선시대 외교현장의 『詩經』 활용 고찰
중국학
2015 .01
-
十五~十六世紀中國與朝鮮的認識差異和溝通障礙－以崔溥≪漂海錄≫爲中心－
중국어문학
2014 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-911-017609220