1876年 朝日修好條規 締結부터 1885年까지 朝鮮은 總 5次例 메이지(明治) 日本에 公式 使節團을 派遣하였다. 이들은 ‘메이지’ 日本이라는 새로운 外交 對象과 交涉했을 뿐 아니라, ‘近代’라는 새로운 時代的?文化的 狀況 속에 派遣된 最初의 使節團이라는 點에서 그 意味가 있다. 하지만 이 時期 使節團의 名稱 變化나 參與 射倖員과 員役 等 基本的인 事項에 對한 硏究조차 제대로 이루어지지 않았으며, 外交私的 意味를 眺望하는 綜合的인 硏究 亦是 充分치 못하다.
이에 本考에서는 各 使節團의 名稱과 性格, 射倖員役 等을 論하면서 19世紀末 朝鮮이 變化하는 國際 外交 秩序에 어떻게 對應하고 受容하였는지 考察하고자 하였다. 1876年 最初로 派遣된 1次 修信使 時期 ‘受信(修信)’이란, 救護(舊好)를 닦아 信義를 敦篤히 하는 交隣(交隣)的 次元의 意味였다. 그러나 1881年 第3次 受信蛇行부터는 國書와 個國 年號 等 從來의 中華 體制에서 벗어나고자 했던 試圖가 엿보이며, 第4次 修信使는 ‘全權公使’ 職銜을 겸하여 전보금(塡補金) 問題를 直接 交涉하고, 近代的 外交 시스템에 積極的으로 編入하고자 하였다. 甲申政變 以後 派遣된 1884年 欽差大臣 서상우 使節團은 直接 交涉할 수 있는 處地는 아니었지만, ‘欽差大臣’이란 公式 職銜 亦是 ‘受信’이라는 求禮(舊禮, 中和體制)에서 벗어나 龜尾 帝國(諸國)의 公使들과 交涉하기 위한 近代的 意味의 外交官 職銜이었던 것으로 볼 수 있다.
또한, 射倖院 情報가 記載된 資料들을 韓日 兩國에서 蒐集?比較하여 5次例의 施行에 參與한 射倖院 모두의 聲明과 職責을 밝히고 그 意味를 導出내고자 하였다. 이에 따라 使節團의 員役 構成에서 儀禮的 人員이 優先的으로 줄었다는 點을 알 수 있었다. 이는 根本的으로 朝鮮의 對日 外交街 傳統의 交隣(交隣) 外交에서 全權자거를 活用한 近代 外交 시스템에 適應하고 있었던 反證으로, 더 以上 中華的 次元의 儀禮나 文化로 優位를 占하기 어렵다는 自覺에서 나온 變化로 보인다.
이와 같은 對日 使節團의 名稱과 參與 射倖員驛 變化에 對한 硏究로, 그동안에는 主로 對中國 關係 中心으로 이루어진 19世紀 末 朝鮮의 近代 外交 秩序 受容의 樣相을 多角度로 確認할 수 있다.
After the Chosun-Japan Treaty of 1876, the Joseon Dynasty sent delegations to Japan five times in total until 1885. Not only did they negotiate with the diplomatic targets of the new Meiji Japan, but they are also meaningful as delegates who have first visited the ‘modern’ culture. Until recently, however, no thorough analysis of the basic issues, such as names, members, and activities of these delegations, has been conducted. Moreover, comprehensive studies of diplomatic significance have not been sufficient.
In this article, we intended to discuss the names, characteristics, and the role of the envoys, and how Chosun responded to and accepted the changing international diplomatic order at the end of the 19th century. At the first delegation in 1876, the term “Susin(修信)” meant the doctrine that the government should strengthen the trust by old friendship in the level of good-neighbor policy. In the third Susinsa at 1881, however, we can find an attempt to get out of the traditional Chinese system such as credentials and era name. The fourth Susinsa Park Young Hyo in 1882, by being given the title of a minister plenipotentiary, was involved in actual compensation negotiations and actively sought to join the modern diplomatic system. Although the Imperial Commissioner Seo Sang-woo who was dispatched in 1884 after the Gapsin Coup could not negotiate directly with, the official name ‘Imperial Commissioner’ can also be seen as a diplomatic title in the modern sense to negotiate with diplomats of Western countries, away from the old Chinese title ‘Susinsa’.
In the chapter 3, We attempted to find out the names, positions, and historical significance of all envoy staffs by collecting and comparing all the materials from Korea and Japan containing the information of envoy staffs in each Susinsahang. First of all, it was shown that the number of personnel decreased in the composition of the delegation's propensity and members. The fundamental reason was that Chosun’s diplomacy with Japan was adapted from good-neighbor policy to modern diplomatic systems using plenipotentiary, which is seen as a result of the awareness that it is no longer possible to gain superiority through Chinese rituals or culture. Since the envoy staffs were not at the center of attention and the detailed information of them was hard to obtain, their names were incorrectly written or even omitted and sometimes only the total number was recorded, especially in the lower classes such as attendants and valets. Although such errors were mostly found in Japanese literature because of the limitation of accessibility to information, similar errors were also found in Chosun’s literature, suggesting that a sense of fellowship might have been lacking among different classes of envoy staffs.
As a result, by investigating the changes of names and members of the delegation, we can see the acceptance of modern diplomatic order of Chosun in the late 19th century, which had been previously centered on Chinese relation. Further, obtaining data of additional participants and identifying the situation of the delegates and the characteristics of the members may contribute to further research about the contents and results of the experience as well as the impact of the experience on individuals.