본문 바로가기
  • Home
Basic Search

Brush Talks and Poetry Exchange in Travel Journals by the T’ongsinsa of 1711 and 1719

  • The Research of the Korean Classic
  • 2022, (57), pp.235-287
  • DOI : 10.20516/classic.2022.57.235
  • Publisher : The Research Of The Korean Classic
  • Research Area : Humanities > Korean Language and Literature > Korean Literature > Korean classic prose
  • Received : March 28, 2022
  • Accepted : May 2, 2022
  • Published : May 31, 2022

Jinyoup Jang 1

1성신여자대학교

Accredited

ABSTRACT

This study aims to review the brush talks and poetry exchanges included in the 18th century travel journals produced by the T’ongsinsa (通信使, the Chosŏn envoy to Tokugawa Japan) of 1711 and 1719. First, the brush talks from the T’ongsinsa travel journals of each era were examined. The T’ongsinsa of 1711 produced three different records. Cho Tae’ŏk’s Tongsarok includes exchanged poetry—95 verses under 74 titles. Im Sukwan’s Tongsailgi contains an independent account of brush talk titled Kangguanp’iltam, while Kim Hyŏnmun’s Tongsarok only documented significant episodes from the brush talks and poetry exchanges. Regarding the T’ongsinsa of 1719, the letters exchanged while negotiating diplomatic procedures were included in Haesaillok by Hong Ch’ijung. Chung Hukyo‘s Pusanggihaeng, in its diary portion, provided summarized accounts of the brush talks and poetry exchanges that took place in each era, and then provided 74 verses of exchanged poetry and 11 verses of original rhymes written by the Japanese. Sin Yuhan’s Haeyurok contains nearly 70 entries in diary, and Munkyŏnjapnok provides 36 accounts of brush talks and poetry exchange, showing a clear difference from the records produced in the previous era. Three aspects of the inclusion of the brush talk in these travel journals—produced by the T’ongsinsa of 1711 and 1719—are noteworthy. First, the T’ongsinsa travel journals of this period include more accounts of brush talks, as more such talks were held then. Second, people were becoming more open to the idea of leaving records of the brush talks. The term “brush talk” (筆談) appears frequently in the travel journals of this era, implying its increased recognition as a mode of communication that could be distinguished from the spoken word. Such notion led to a greater focus on “what was being said” in the brush talks than the mere fact that they occurred. The third aspect relates to the characteristics of narrative style. There are two stylistic characteristics apparent in 18th century brush talks in T’ongsinsa travel journals: recapitulation and reproduction of conversation. The former was widely used in T’ongsinsa travel journals of this era, while the latter was partly employed in Pusanggihaeng, and openly utilized in Haeyurok. Haeyurok in particular strategically employed the records of the brush talks in relations to the purpose of writing his travel journal—an important characteristic succeeded by the travel journals of later eras, including Wŏn Chunggŏ’s Sŭingsarok. The most crucial trait of the records of brush talks in 18th century T’ongsinsa travel journals is that an active consciousness formed regarding the utility of “brush talks” as a means of communication, and that its end product came to be employed as an object “worth documenting.” These findings may well be given consideration when examining the accounts of brush talks from Chosŏn envoys’ travel journals produced in later periods.

Statistics

  • 308 Viewed
  • 208 Downloaded

Tools

Issue List

Citation status

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

This paper was written with support from the National Research Foundation of Korea.
Basic Search Advanced Search