이나바 이와키치(稻葉岩吉)의 丁卯․丙子胡亂 관련 주요 연구 검토 (A Critical Review on Inaba Iwakichi's Study of the Jeongmyo Ho’ran(丁卯胡亂, Manchu's invasion in 1627) and the Byeongja Ho’ran(丙子胡亂, Manchu's invasion in 1636))

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 조선시대사학회
· 수록지 정보 : 조선시대사학보 / 81호 / 7 ~ 48페이지
· 저자명 : 허태구

초록

이 논문은 일제 강점기 대표적 식민주의 사학자인 이나바 이와키치[稻葉岩吉]가 남긴 정묘․병자호란 관련 연구의 특징과 한계를 살펴본 연구이다.
첫 번째로, 『淸朝全史』(1914년) 상권 제13․20절의 사료 구사, 내용상 특징과 한계 등을 검토하였다. 그는 이 저서에서 胡亂 전후 후금(청)측의 사정을 상세히 정리하면서, 양국 관계의 변동 요인으로 경제적 측면을 부각하였다. 그러나 조선측의 대응은 결과론적이고 피상적으로 고찰하였다. 뿐만 아니라, 17세기 동북아 정세의 변동 주체로서 일본의 위치와 역할은 과도하게 강조하였다.
두 번째로, 『光海君時代の滿鮮關係』(1933년)를 검토하였다. 이 책은 당시 수준에서는 가장 정밀하게 明末淸初 전후 조선․명․청의 3국 관계와 현안을 복원하고 분석한 책이라고 평가할 만하다. 그러나 지금의 시점에서 보면 ‘監護說’ 및 毛文龍의 역할을 과대평가한 오류가 보인다. 광해군 ‘澤民主義’의 사상적 계보와 연원도 착각하였으며, 결과론적인 입장에서 중립적 외교 노선의 근본적 한계를 도외시하였다. 광해군대 主和․斥和의 대립 구도와 인적 구성 또한 오해하였는데, 이것은 근본적으로 이나바 이와키치가 당시 조선 내 斥和論의 자발적 동력과 보편적이면서도 당위적 성격을 제대로 이해하지 못했기 때문으로 판단된다.
향후에는 이러한 성과를 토대로 하여, 植民主義史學이란 전체적 시야 속에서 식민지 시기 다른 일본인 학자들의 정묘․병자호란 관련 연구를 비교․검토하고자 한다.

영어초록

Examined in this article are studies of Inaba Iwakichi(稻葉岩吉), who was the leading scholar in Colonial historical studies during the Japanese occupation of Joseon, especially in the area of the Manchurian invasion of Joseon which broke out respectively in the Jeongmyo and Byeongja years. Such studies are analyzed here with the intention of determining their characteristics and limitations.
First examined are chapters 13 and 20 of his History of Qing(『淸朝全史』), in order to examine how he treated historical records, what kind of emphases he put in his research, and in the end what he left to be desired. In this book, he discussed the situation of the Manchurian Hu-Geum state ‘around’ the time of its invasion of Joseon with great details, and suggested that the reason the relationship between two countries ‘changed’ was in fact economic in nature. But compared to his insight on that matter, his analysis upon Joseon's response was superficial at best, only uttering the end result we all know. And it should also be noted that he placed too much of an importance upon Japan's role and place in the 17th century Northeast Asia, as well as the changes that were in progress at the time.
Then examined in this article is the Relationship between Manchu and Joseon during King Gwang’hae-gun's reign(『光海君時代の滿鮮關係』). This may be the finest achievement of the time for a book that tried to meticulously examine the dynamics between Joseon, Ming and Qing in the Ming/Qing transitional period(明末淸初) as well as what were the issues among these three entities. But considering the perspective we have today, I must say that he overly exaggerated the meaning of the so-called “Suggestion of Protections(‘監護說,’ A Ming Proposal to serve as Superintendence of Joseon),” as well as the role of Mao Wenlong(毛文龍). He also misunderstood the sources of King Gwang’hae-gun's aspirations and ideas(while curiously referring to them as ‘Favoritism to the Public(澤民主義, Populism?)’ of which the supposed stance is not entirely clear or ever fully elaborated), and eventually dismissed some inherent limitations an ‘Evenhanded policy’ could have in diplomatic policy. He then went onto misinterpret how the Ju’hwa(主和) and Cheok’hwa(斥和) voices were colliding with each other inside the Joseon government, and proved that he was never correctly aware of who was on which side. This is ultimately because Inaba Iwakichi never properly understood the nature of the Anti-peace negotiation voice(斥和論) inside the Joseon government, which had a universal quality and an obligatory nuance, with of course a supportive domestic boost.
Later, based upon what is examined here in this article, I would like to examine other Japanese scholars’ work upon the Manchurian invasions of Joseon as well, and compare them with each other, to determine various aspects within the entire Colonial historical studies.

참고자료

· 없음