본문 바로가기
  • Home
Basic Search

The Description of Ancient History and the Recognition of the Relations between Korea and Japan in Samhangiryak(Sankankiryaku)

  • The Review of Korean History
  • 2018, (129), pp.61-105
  • Publisher : The Historical Society Of Korea
  • Research Area : Humanities > History
  • Received : March 6, 2018
  • Accepted : March 14, 2018
  • Published : March 30, 2018

CHONG SOONIL 1

1고려대학교

Accredited

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study is to analyze how Ito Togai’s Samhangiryak(Sankankiryaku) describes ancient history and examine how he recognized the history of relationship between Korea and Japan. Noticeable characteristics can be summed up as below: First of all, Gunjangryak (君長畧) lists such things as the genealogy of kings, period of reign, and particulars. Ito Togai does not simply state the career of kings in the ancient Korean Peninsula but compares it with Japanese literatures to describe historical records that do not match as a form of historical essay in detail. What is interesting here is that while he arranges things comparing the Korean Peninsula’s historical records like Samguksagi or Dongguktonggam with Japanese ones, for example, Ilbonseogi(Nihonshoki), he eventually takes a stand to respect (or value) Silla or Baekje’s historical records that are the Korean Peninsula’s ones. This is ‘the dominant principle’ that Togai adopts while compiling historical records. Next, it is also observed that considering the Korean Peninsula’s records, he corrects inconsistency between the years of origin (紀年) in Ilbonseogi(Nihonshoki). This may be referred to as Ito Togai’s unique ‘Ilbonseogi(Nihonshoki) Ginyeon-ron(Kinen-ron)’. It is why Samhangiryak(Sankankiryaku) is regarded valuable in the history of historical studies. It is noteworthy that in Jikpumryak (職品畧), while the names of Balhae’s public posts are listed, the article about Balhae’s envoys visiting Japan contained in Sokilbongi(Shokunihongi) appears abruptly in the last part. It is hard to figure out why the article about the fact that in 776, 187 Balhae’s envoys including Sa-Domong visited Japan in 187 is included in Jikpumryak clearly; however, we can assume that it may be associated with the fact that the public office of Sa Domong, the representative of that delegation, was ‘Heongadaebu Sabinsoryeong’. Analyzing Munjeokhwi (文籍彙), we can see that it is hard to conclude that Togai read all the literatures contained in it or Munjeokhwi includes only the things that he saw. Also, it should be explained why the names of major literatures including Sokilbongi(Shokunihongi) are omitted. Lastly, we can point out that in Samhangiryak(Sankankiryaku), the history of Balhae is understood within the system of ‘Samhan’s history (Korea’s history)’. Though it is a tentative conclusion, most of the records related to Balhae may have been from the records of Sindangseo. Yet, the fact that the history of Balhae is understood within the context of ‘Samhan’s history’ may be the result of Sokilbongi(Shokunihongi)’s awareness that ‘Balhae is the successor state of Goguryeo’.

Statistics

  • 349 Viewed
  • 2 Downloaded

Tools

Issue List

Citation status

* References for papers published after 2023 are currently being built.

Basic Search Advanced Search