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))

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국사연구회
· 수록지 정보 : 한국사연구 / 141호 / 51 ~ 82페이지
· 저자명 : 김병곤

초록

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 traces we can find inside extant sources. But considering his level of historical knowledge, it would be safe to say that he was well aware of the possible connection between Byeonhan and Gaya/伽倻 as we

영어초록

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 traces we can find inside extant sources. But considering his level of historical knowledge, it would be safe to say that he was well aware of the possible connection between Byeonhan and Gaya/伽倻 as we

참고자료

· 없음