崔致遠의 三韓觀 再考 = Another Review(再考) of Choi Chi Weon/崔致遠's Perspective Viewing the Historical concept of Sam-Han/三韓(三韓觀)

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Choi Chi Weon's opinion of the so-called Sam-Han/三韓(Three Han entities), in which he figured that Mahan/馬韓 became Goguryeo(‘高麗’=‘高句麗’), while Byeonhan/卞韓 became Baekjae/百濟 and Jinhan/辰韓 became Shilla/新羅(“馬韓卽高麗 卞韓卽百濟 辰韓卽新羅”), had been considered to be a legitimate one true to historical fact since the Goryeo dynasty period, yet lost its status of a legitimate theory since the middle period of the Joseon dynasty when scholars chose to view it with fair amount of skepticism. Choi Chi Weon's opinion of this matter originally appeared in the <Sang Taesa Shijung-jang/上太師侍中狀(Letter to the Taesa Shijung Excellency)> document, which was displayed in the biography of Choi Chi Weon inside the ≪Samguk Sagi/三國史記≫ text. Yet, in another writing of his, namely the <Jijeung Daesa Bimun/智證大師碑文(Epitaph for Buddhist Master Jijeung)>, he wrote a line which said ‘有百濟蘇塗之儀(featuring the ceremonial figure of Baekjae Sodo)’. This line essentially suggested a connection between Baekjae and Mahan, and also suggests today that Choi Chi Weon was well aware of the possibility of such connection. We can say so because inside Chinese historical texts, comments regarding ‘Sodo/蘇塗’ have only appeared in the ‘Mahan-jeon/馬韓傳’ and ‘Han-jeon/韓傳’ chapters. In other words, Choi Chi Weon connected Mahan with the Goguryeo dynasty in the former, and then connected Mahan with the Baekjae dynasty in the latter.
As we can see from the contents of <Sasan Bimyeong/四山碑銘(Epitaphs from Stone Monuments of the Four Mountains>, Choi Chi Weon was well versed in the history of both China and the Korean peninsula. He must have learned the possible connection between Mahan and Baekjae from Chinese historical texts such as ≪Samguk-ji/三國志≫, ≪HuHan-seo/後漢書≫ and ≪Jin-seo/晋書≫. And he must have written that ‘有百濟蘇塗之儀’ line based upon such knowledge and understanding.
On the other hand, his mention of the “馬韓卽高麗 卞韓卽百濟 辰韓卽新羅” part seems to have been derived from a point of view which prevailed in those days and considered Sam-han entities as basically the same entities with the three dynasties. This kind of perspective should have had nothing to do with the general perspective that had originally been shared by the Chinese Su/隋 and Dang/唐 dynasties or the Unified Shilla government, and should have been a point of view which was just being widely accepted at the time. The <Sang Taesa Shijung-jang> document was originally drafted when the envoy of which Choi Chi Weon was included was stranded. Choi Chi Weon had to request the Chinese official in the region to issue a passage licence for the envoy. In such circumstances, Choi Chi Weon must have passively commented upon the general belief of the time. We should not consider the line inside this document to be carrying weight equal to that of the line he wrote inside the <Jijeung Daesa Bimun>.
In order to properly understand Choi Chi Weon's perspective viewing the historical Sam-Han entities, the ‘有百濟蘇塗之儀’ line inside the <Jijeung Daesa Bimun> must be newly reviewed, and adequately interpreted. This line is the ultimate source which shows us that he had an accurate understanding of the ancient history(connecting Mahan with Baekjae), based upon his knowledge of the ‘Sodo’-related references found inside historical texts.
Also, examination of documents such as the aforementioned <Sang Taesa Shijung-jang> document, and other pieces such as the <Sasa Joseo Yangham-pyo/謝賜詔書兩函表> and <Jucheong Sukwi Haksaeng Hwanbeon-jang/奏請宿衛學生還蕃狀> documents, reveals that Choi Chi Weon was also thinking that Jinhan was definitely connected to Shilla.
Yet, it is not certain what kind of insight Choi Chi Weon might have had regarding the Byeonhan issue. There ar...

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Choi Chi Weon's opinion of the so-called Sam-Han/三韓(Three Han entities), in which he figured that Mahan/馬韓 became Goguryeo(‘高麗’=‘高句麗’), while Byeonhan/卞韓 became Baekjae/百濟 and Jinhan/辰韓 became Shilla/新羅(“馬韓卽高麗 卞韓卽百濟 辰韓卽新羅”), had been considered to be a legitimate one true to historical fact since the Goryeo dynasty period, yet lost its status of a legitimate theory since the middle period of the Joseon dynasty when scholars chose to view it with fair amount of skepticism. Choi Chi Weon's opinion of this matter originally appeared in the <Sang Taesa Shijung-jang/上太師侍中狀(Letter to the Taesa Shijung Excellency)> document, which was displayed in the biography of Choi Chi Weon inside the ≪Samguk Sagi/三國史記≫ text. Yet, in another writing of his, namely the <Jijeung Daesa Bimun/智證大師碑文(Epitaph for Buddhist Master Jijeung)>, he wrote a line which said ‘有百濟蘇塗之儀(featuring the ceremonial figure of Baekjae Sodo)’. This line essentially suggested a connection between Baekjae and Mahan, and also suggests today that Choi Chi Weon was well aware of the possibility of such connection. We can say so because inside Chinese historical texts, comments regarding ‘Sodo/蘇塗’ have only appeared in the ‘Mahan-jeon/馬韓傳’ and ‘Han-jeon/韓傳’ chapters. In other words, Choi Chi Weon connected Mahan with the Goguryeo dynasty in the former, and then connected Mahan with the Baekjae dynasty in the latter.
As we can see from the contents of <Sasan Bimyeong/四山碑銘(Epitaphs from Stone Monuments of the Four Mountains>, Choi Chi Weon was well versed in the history of both China and the Korean peninsula. He must have learned the possible connection between Mahan and Baekjae from Chinese historical texts such as ≪Samguk-ji/三國志≫, ≪HuHan-seo/後漢書≫ and ≪Jin-seo/晋書≫. And he must have written that ‘有百濟蘇塗之儀’ line based upon such knowledge and understanding.
On the other hand, his mention of the “馬韓卽高麗 卞韓卽百濟 辰韓卽新羅” part seems to have been derived from a point of view which prevailed in those days and considered Sam-han entities as basically the same entities with the three dynasties. This kind of perspective should have had nothing to do with the general perspective that had originally been shared by the Chinese Su/隋 and Dang/唐 dynasties or the Unified Shilla government, and should have been a point of view which was just being widely accepted at the time. The <Sang Taesa Shijung-jang> document was originally drafted when the envoy of which Choi Chi Weon was included was stranded. Choi Chi Weon had to request the Chinese official in the region to issue a passage licence for the envoy. In such circumstances, Choi Chi Weon must have passively commented upon the general belief of the time. We should not consider the line inside this document to be carrying weight equal to that of the line he wrote inside the <Jijeung Daesa Bimun>.
In order to properly understand Choi Chi Weon's perspective viewing the historical Sam-Han entities, the ‘有百濟蘇塗之儀’ line inside the <Jijeung Daesa Bimun> must be newly reviewed, and adequately interpreted. This line is the ultimate source which shows us that he had an accurate understanding of the ancient history(connecting Mahan with Baekjae), based upon his knowledge of the ‘Sodo’-related references found inside historical texts.
Also, examination of documents such as the aforementioned <Sang Taesa Shijung-jang> document, and other pieces such as the <Sasa Joseo Yangham-pyo/謝賜詔書兩函表> and <Jucheong Sukwi Haksaeng Hwanbeon-jang/奏請宿衛學生還蕃狀> documents, reveals that Choi Chi Weon was also thinking that Jinhan was definitely connected to Shilla.
Yet, it is not certain what kind of insight Choi Chi Weon might have had regarding the Byeonhan issue. There are no ...

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 李基東, "羅末麗初 近侍機構와 文翰機構의 擴張 in:新羅骨品制社會와 花郞徒" 一潮閣 262-, 1984
• 2 崔圭成, "羅末麗初의 시대적 배경 in:신라 최고의 사상가 최치원 탐구" 주류성 18-19, 2001
• 3 윤명철, "황해의 지중해적 성격 연구(1) in:한중문화교류와 남방해로" 국학자료원 221-, 1997
• 4 郭丞勳, "최치원의 중국사 탐구와 그의 고민 '대낭혜화상비명'에 인용된 중국역사사례를 중심으로" 24 : 2002
• 5 郭丞勳, "최치원의 중국사 탐구와 귀국 직후의 정치개선방안 '대숭복사비명'에 인용된 중국역사 사례를 중심으로" 37 : 2004
• 6 崔英成, "최치원의 유교적 개혁사상 in:신라 최고의 사상가 최치원 탐구" 주류성 152-153, 2001
• 7 申瀅植, "최치원의 역사관 in:신라 최고의 사상가 최치원 탐구" 한국사학회 91-92, 2001
• 8 이강래, "최치원의 고대 인식과 그 함의(含意)?‘一統三韓’을 매개로" 2 : 47-, 2004
• 9 추만호, "나말려초 선종사상사 연구" 이론과 실천 56-, 1992
• 10 崔英成, "고운 최치원의 역사의식 연구" 11 : 103-119, 1998
• 11 趙法鍾, "高句麗의 馬韓繼承 認識論에 대한 檢討" 102 : 63-, 1998
• 12 許興植, "韓國金石全文 古代" 亞細亞文化社 247-, 1983
• 13 國史編纂委員會, "韓國古代金石文資料集Ⅱ(新羅?伽倻篇)" 522-, 1995
• 14 胡中丞, "靑莊館全書 :寒竹堂涉筆(上):'… 觀此則中國人記新羅事 不獨孫穆鷄林類事而已 亦有柳子珪所錄'" 靑莊館全書 68-,
• 15 "趙挺, ≪東史補遺≫ 卷1"
• 16 韓國古代社會硏究所, "譯註 韓國古代金石文 第3卷 (新羅?渤海篇)" 駕洛國史蹟開發硏究院 178-, 1992
• 17 崔英成, "譯註 崔致遠全集 1?四山碑銘" 亞細亞文化社 37-, 1998
• 18 崔英成, "註解 四山碑銘" 亞細亞文化社 172-, 1987
• 19 崔英成, "註解 四山碑銘" 亞細亞文化社 216-, 1987
• 20 申瀅植, "統一新羅史硏究" 三知院 227-, 1990
• 21 李昊榮, "統一意識과 ‘一統三韓’意識의 成長 in:新羅 三國統合과 麗?濟敗亡原因硏究" 書景文化社 169-, 1997
• 22 李昊榮, "統一意識과 ‘一統三韓’意識의 成長 in:新羅 三國統合과 麗?濟敗亡原因硏究" 書景文化社 164-172, 1997
• 23 朝鮮總督府, "朝鮮金石總覽 上" 景仁文化社 89-, 1967
• 24 崔柄憲, "新羅下代 禪宗九山派의 成立?崔致遠의 四山碑銘을 中心으로" 7 : 81-, 1972
• 25 金炳坤, "新羅 王號 ‘寐錦’의 新羅系 使用例 分析" 22 : 13-14, 2003
• 26 "新唐書"
• 27 "後漢書"
• 28 김문경, "張保皐시대의 해상활동과 교역 in:한중문화교류와 남방해로" 국학자료원 142-, 1997
• 29 李賢惠, "崔致遠의 歷史認識" 1 : 12-14, 1983
• 30 趙仁成, "崔致遠의 歷史敍述" 49-, 1982
• 31 李道學, "崔致遠의 高句麗 認識" 24 : 213-214, 2005
• 32 梁太濟, "崔致遠의 文章을 통해 본 羅?唐交涉 in:中國의 江南社會와 韓中交涉" 集文堂 222-, 1997
• 33 郭丞勳, "崔致遠의 四山碑銘 撰述에 대한 試論 in:實學思想硏究" 19-20, 2001
• 34 장일규, "崔致遠의 儒佛認識과 그 의미" 19 : 36-, 2002
• 35 金炳坤, "崔致遠의 三韓觀에 대한 認識과 評價" 44 : 219-252, 2005
• 36 金福順, "孤雲 崔致遠의 思想硏究" 24 (24): 1980
• 37 李丙燾, "國譯 三國史記" 乙酉文化社 677-, 1977
• 38 朱江, "唐과 新羅의 海上交通 in:張保皐 海洋經營史 硏究" 도서출판 李鎭 245-246, 1993
• 39 權悳永, "古代韓中外交史?遣唐使硏究" 一潮閣 228-231, 1997
• 40 崔致遠, "初月山大崇福寺碑 in:崔文昌侯全集" 成均館大學校 大東文化硏究院 162-, 1972
• 41 圓仁, "入唐求法巡禮行記" 도서출판 중심 243-244, 2002
• 42 李宗勳, "中國 山東半島에서의 張保皐와 新羅人들 in:張保皐 海洋經營史 硏究" 도서출판 李鎭 147-, 1993
• 43 李成珪, "中國 古文獻에 나타난 東北觀 in:동북아시아 선사 및 고대사 연구의 방향" 한국정신문화연구원 25-, 2003
• 44 "上太尉別紙 in:桂苑筆耕集"
• 45 盧泰敦, "三韓에 대한 認識의 變遷" 38 : 130-133, 1982
• 46 金貞培, "三韓位置에 對한 從來說과 文化性格의 檢討" 20 : 1968
• 47 "三國遺事"
• 48 "三國史記"
• 49 趙仁成, "三國 및 統一新羅時代의 歷史敍述 in:韓國史學史의 硏究" 乙酉文化社 30-, 1985
• 50 丁若鏞, "丁茶山全集(上)" 文獻備考刊誤
• 51 "≪魏書≫ 志20, 釋老10 “案漢武帝元狩中 遣?去病討匈奴 至?蘭 過居延 斬首大獲 昆邪王殺休屠王 將其衆五萬來降 獲其金人 帝以爲大神 列于甘泉宮 金人率長丈餘 不祭祀 但燒香禮拜而已 此則佛道流通之漸也”"
• 52 "≪舊唐書≫ 本紀 第20上, 昭宗 龍紀 元年 10月條"
• 53 "≪翰苑≫ 蕃夷部, 三韓條"
• 54 "≪晋書≫ 卷97, 列傳67, 四夷馬韓條"
• 55 "≪新增東國輿地勝覽≫ 卷6, 京畿條"
• 56 "≪三國志≫ 卷30, 魏書東夷傳30, 韓條"
• 57 李賢惠, "<崔致遠의 歷史認識" 1 : 12-13, 1983
• 58 金文經, "7～10世紀 新羅와 江南의 文化交涉 in:中國의 江南社會와 韓中交涉" 集文堂 131-132, 1997
• 59 李在云, "'帝王年代曆'을 통해 본 崔致遠의 歷史認識" 6 : 4-5, 1998