조선 전기 개념어 분석을 통해 본 수도의 성격 (The Nature of the Joseon Capital: Examined through Conceptual terms used in the Early half period of the Joseon dynasty)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 서울시립대학교 서울학연구소
· 수록지 정보 : 서울학연구 / 52호 / 33 ~ 66페이지
· 저자명 : 장지연

초록

Examined in this article is the nature of the early Joseon capital as well as its status throughout the country, which can be seen through local geographical records as well as certain terms that were actually used in this time period.
The Joseon people considered the Hanseong(漢城) city as the ‘Capital(Gyeongdo, 京都),’ as it was a place where the King lived and also crucial offices of the government were positioned. In their eyes, it was a place that was different from others. This term ‘Gyeongdo’ symbolizes the governance of the state, and also a symbolic authority that all the previous capitals of Korea had maintaine . Meanwhile, the term ‘Hanseong-bu’ was more of a geographical concept, and referred to an actual region with a discernible outline. The nature of this city as a geographical unit was recorded with far more details in the 『Newly revised, Collection of Geographical Information of Dong’guk[Joseon] (Shinjeung Dong’guk Yeoji Seung’ram, 新增東國輿地勝覽)』. The layout of this text was influenced by 『Ming’s Grand Assembly of Geographical Information(Daming yitong zhi, 大明一統志)』 and showed similarities in many points.
These two texts, however, also showed some differences in their descriptions of the two cal image, and a power to tractor cultural potentials to the capital. Ming had literally two capitals(“兩京”), while Joseon had only one. In the case of Joseon altars and shrines(壇廟) from the capital to the outer local units were all on a single Service structure, which suggests the level of unity and singularity the Joseon governance brought to the overall culture of the entire country. Also in Joseon, the palace was open to the outside, while the main palace of Ming was not. We can see that the Joseon king’s leadership was more opened up to the general society.
Another thing that we can see from Joseon’s geographical information books(地志) is the fact that the information reflected the so-called “Tributary-Appointment” relationship between the Korean peninsula and China. And so was the case with the Ming Geography manuals. We can see that it was a common facet in all East Asian geography manuals.
Many of the conceptual terms that referred to the Capital City Hanseong-bu shows us what kind of meaning the Joseon capital had in the minds of the Joseon people. Many words which were used to call the capital, such as Gyeongdo(京都), Gukdo(國都), Gyeongseong(京城), Doseong(都城), Do’eub(都邑), Gyeongsa(京師), Suseon(首善), Wangdo(王都), Wang’gyeong(王京), Je’gyeong(帝京), Jedo(帝都), Hwangdo(皇都), and Hwangseong(皇城), all extracted from the Annals of the Joseon dynasty, should provide us with at least portions of the real nature of the Joseon capital city.
There are certain aspects confirmed from all the words mentioned above. First, words based upon the concept of ‘fortresses’ were used to describe the capital. Second, certain terms reflected a mentality firmly based upon the aforementioned Tributary-Appointment system of East Asia. And third, a notion that the capital was the ultimate center where morality and the king’s leadership(and benevolence[“王化”]) originates was firmly embedded in many of these terms.
It seems that fortresses were considered as a rather crucial component in establishing a capital, by the people of the time. And considering the capital as the center of morality and benevolent governance was a purely Neo-Confucian idea that had not existed before. Also, terms that reflected the Tributary-Appointment sentimentality were used rather strictly, while there seems to have been an interesting change in choices of words calling the capital especially around the time when Ming was being replaced by the Jurchen Qing. People at the time seem to have hesitated in calling the Qing’s capital using the words Hwang(皇), Je(帝) or Gyeongsa(京師). Then again, it should also be noted that these words were not used that much at all. And the term ‘Wang’gyeong(王京)’ served as a term referring to the Joseon capital in the context of Joseon people’s exchanges with the outside.
The variety of terms used to describe the Joseon capital makes the meaning of the city pretty special. The Joseon capital was the living place of the king who was morally trained(修身), and therefore was where his benevolent governance was emanating. It was also a place that symbolized the East Asian world order, and fortresses were important in visualizing that kind of authority. All these facets indicate that the Joseon capital was different from the capitals that came before, which were essentially ‘holy places’ where the king’s heritage was literally born. The Joseon capital was based upon a new order and a new philosophical belief system. It was designed as a superior place domestically, and it also established itself in the context of East Asian order in its own way. We can see that the Joseon society was multi-faceted and hierarchy-based.

영어초록

Examined in this article is the nature of the early Joseon capital as well as its status throughout the country, which can be seen through local geographical records as well as certain terms that were actually used in this time period.
The Joseon people considered the Hanseong(漢城) city as the ‘Capital(Gyeongdo, 京都),’ as it was a place where the King lived and also crucial offices of the government were positioned. In their eyes, it was a place that was different from others. This term ‘Gyeongdo’ symbolizes the governance of the state, and also a symbolic authority that all the previous capitals of Korea had maintaine . Meanwhile, the term ‘Hanseong-bu’ was more of a geographical concept, and referred to an actual region with a discernible outline. The nature of this city as a geographical unit was recorded with far more details in the 『Newly revised, Collection of Geographical Information of Dong’guk[Joseon] (Shinjeung Dong’guk Yeoji Seung’ram, 新增東國輿地勝覽)』. The layout of this text was influenced by 『Ming’s Grand Assembly of Geographical Information(Daming yitong zhi, 大明一統志)』 and showed similarities in many points.
These two texts, however, also showed some differences in their descriptions of the two cal image, and a power to tractor cultural potentials to the capital. Ming had literally two capitals(“兩京”), while Joseon had only one. In the case of Joseon altars and shrines(壇廟) from the capital to the outer local units were all on a single Service structure, which suggests the level of unity and singularity the Joseon governance brought to the overall culture of the entire country. Also in Joseon, the palace was open to the outside, while the main palace of Ming was not. We can see that the Joseon king’s leadership was more opened up to the general society.
Another thing that we can see from Joseon’s geographical information books(地志) is the fact that the information reflected the so-called “Tributary-Appointment” relationship between the Korean peninsula and China. And so was the case with the Ming Geography manuals. We can see that it was a common facet in all East Asian geography manuals.
Many of the conceptual terms that referred to the Capital City Hanseong-bu shows us what kind of meaning the Joseon capital had in the minds of the Joseon people. Many words which were used to call the capital, such as Gyeongdo(京都), Gukdo(國都), Gyeongseong(京城), Doseong(都城), Do’eub(都邑), Gyeongsa(京師), Suseon(首善), Wangdo(王都), Wang’gyeong(王京), Je’gyeong(帝京), Jedo(帝都), Hwangdo(皇都), and Hwangseong(皇城), all extracted from the Annals of the Joseon dynasty, should provide us with at least portions of the real nature of the Joseon capital city.
There are certain aspects confirmed from all the words mentioned above. First, words based upon the concept of ‘fortresses’ were used to describe the capital. Second, certain terms reflected a mentality firmly based upon the aforementioned Tributary-Appointment system of East Asia. And third, a notion that the capital was the ultimate center where morality and the king’s leadership(and benevolence[“王化”]) originates was firmly embedded in many of these terms.
It seems that fortresses were considered as a rather crucial component in establishing a capital, by the people of the time. And considering the capital as the center of morality and benevolent governance was a purely Neo-Confucian idea that had not existed before. Also, terms that reflected the Tributary-Appointment sentimentality were used rather strictly, while there seems to have been an interesting change in choices of words calling the capital especially around the time when Ming was being replaced by the Jurchen Qing. People at the time seem to have hesitated in calling the Qing’s capital using the words Hwang(皇), Je(帝) or Gyeongsa(京師). Then again, it should also be noted that these words were not used that much at all. And the term ‘Wang’gyeong(王京)’ served as a term referring to the Joseon capital in the context of Joseon people’s exchanges with the outside.
The variety of terms used to describe the Joseon capital makes the meaning of the city pretty special. The Joseon capital was the living place of the king who was morally trained(修身), and therefore was where his benevolent governance was emanating. It was also a place that symbolized the East Asian world order, and fortresses were important in visualizing that kind of authority. All these facets indicate that the Joseon capital was different from the capitals that came before, which were essentially ‘holy places’ where the king’s heritage was literally born. The Joseon capital was based upon a new order and a new philosophical belief system. It was designed as a superior place domestically, and it also established itself in the context of East Asian order in its own way. We can see that the Joseon society was multi-faceted and hierarchy-based.

참고자료

· 없음