Tuesday, August 15, 2006

What is the history of Ulleungdo? (Ch. 24)

King Mentions Muleungdo & Asks Gangwon Governor to Find Yodo

In April 1430, King Sejong sent officials to Hamgil (here) and Gangwon (here) Provinces to find a rumored island named "Yodo." In October that year, the Hamgil governor reported that he sent people to Cape Muji to look for the island and that his men had seen what looked to be an island, but it was not confirmed. After that, there was no more mention of Yodo until its mention in the following record, which is dated July 26, 1438. Based on the following record, we know that Yodo had not yet been found, but King Sejong still had hope.
Source:『世宗實錄』 卷 八十二, 世宗二十年 七月 戊申條

July 26, 1438

傳旨江原道監司 茂陵島 本人物所居之處 自昔徃來之地也 然近日差人經涉大洋 尙恐險阻 夙夜憂慮 况此蓼島 雖稱在某處 固無來徃之者 予以衰老之年 敢望尋覓 但本島諺稱在襄陽之東 不可不知其在何處也 卿宜更加訪問以達.

-----

강원도 감사에게 전지하기를, “무릉도(茂陵島)는 본래 사람이 살던 곳이며, 옛날부터 왕래하던 땅이다. 그러나 근일에 사람을 파견하여 큰 바다를 건너게 하고서는, 오히려 그 험난함을 두려워하여 주야로 이를 우려하여 왔다. 하물며, 이 요도(蓼島)는 비록 모처에 있다고는 일컬어 왔으나, 본시 내왕하는 자가 없었으니, 내가 이미 쇠로한 나이에 감히 그의 탐방(探訪)을 바라겠는가. 다만 본 섬이 양양(襄陽) 동쪽에 있다고만 일컬어 왔을 뿐이니, 어느 곳에 있다는 사실만은 불가불 알아야 할 것이다. 경은 마땅히 다시 이를 탐문하여 계달하라” 고 하였다.

-----

The King communicated the following to the governor of Gangwon Province:

"Muleungdo is a place where people once lived and have traveled to since ancient times. These days, however, when I dispatch people to cross the big sea, I fear the dangers and worry about this day and night. It is said that this Yodo is somewhere, but no one has travelled there. I am already too old and weak to dare hope to travel there, but I think we need to, at least, know where it is since it is said only to be east of Yangyang. Do another proper investigation and report."
Notice that before asking the governor to do another search for Yodo, King Sejong referred to Muleungdo and how he worried about the risks of sending people there. He seemed to be trying to say that he knew the risk of searching the sea for Yodo, but that it was a risk that needed to be taken. The fact that he used Muleungdo as an example seems to show just how risky he considered the trip to Muleungdo to be. He seemed to be trying to convince the Gangwondo governer that his desire to find Yodo was not based on some selfish wish to travel to the mysterious island, himself, but was based on a need to know its location for the benefit of the country.

King Sejong may have mentioned the journey to Muleungdo because he considered it the most dangerous of any journey to Korea's outlying islands. Of course, a trip to Dokdo/Takeshima is farther and more dangerous than a trip to Ulleungdo, so the fact that the king did not mention trips to any islands beyond Ulleungdo may be a indication that he did not know of any islands beyond Ulleungdo. I point this out just so that it is considered.

By the way, it sounds as if King Sejong might have wanted to travel to Yodo when he was younger. He must have heard some interesting stories about the island.

25 comments:

  1. Gerry,

    I'll admit that I haven't been reading your extensive notes on the history of Ulleungdo because I have no interest in the subject. I am curious as to where you obtain your source material? Perhaps you've already answered this in an earlier post, so forgive me for asking again.

    Have you ever done research with primary sources? Are there any official or unofficial restrictions on foreigners accessing historical archives?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sonagi92,

    The Samguksagi, the "History of Koryeo," and the "Annals of the Chosun Dynasty" are all online and are linked to in my "Links" list.The only thing that I cannot find online is the Annals of King Kojong and King Sunjong. The site where you can find the Annals of the Chosun Dynasty says that the reason the Annals of King Kojong and King Sunjong are not online is that that they were compiled during the Japanese colonial period, so I guess they do not trust them. I suspect that there are things in those records that the Korean government does not want too many people to see.

    I do not touch the original documents, and even if I could, I would not be able to read them. I know only enough Chinese characters to confirm things in the Classical Chinese texts.

    I do not know, but I would guess that foreigners have access to certain historical archives, but maybe not all. For example, I once worked at the Academy of Korean Studies for a while, and I remember that there was a vault under the main building there that I could not go into.

    By the way, you should try to read some of the records from the Chosun Dynasty. There is a lot of interesting stuff. I have noticed that Korean history books tend to sanitize much of the history, but the original records can get pretty gory. For example, here is a record from the Annals of King Sejong dated September 6, 1436:
    ----------------

    全羅道處置使柳漢捕倭船, 斬首二級以進。

    전라도 처치사 유한(柳漢)이 왜적(倭賊)의 배를 잡아 적의 머리 2급을 베어서 바쳤다.

    Cholla Province Cheochisa Yuhan captured a Japanese pirate ship, cut off two of the enemy's heads, and offered them as tribute.

    Link to the Text
    -------------------

    By the way, that Cholla Province commander was recognized for his actions and received a set of clothes in exchange for those two heads.

    ReplyDelete
  3. BTW, the Chinese text only said that 倭船 (Japanese ship), not the Japanese pirate ship.
    Which is the original, Chinese text or hanglu text?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Pacifist,

    You are right. The original Chinese said only "Japanese ship." The Korean translation, "Japanese enemy ship," is wrong.

    Of course, the Chinese text was the original. Thanks for pointing that out.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks Gerry,

    I was just curious.
    So the Korean translaters translated the original document with prejudices that all Japanese things are bad and they are "enemy", unconsciously or consciously, didn't they?

    Then the translation should be:
    Cholla Province Cheochisa Yuhan captured a Japanese ship, cut off two of their heads, and offered them as tribute.

    Right? (It sounds as Cholla Province Cheochisa Yuhan is a pirate, doesn't it?)

    Sorry for the interruption.

    ReplyDelete
  6. No need to be sorry, Pacifist.

    Yes, I agree that the translator seemes to have tried to justify the chopping off of the heads of the Japanese by adding something to the text that was not there.

    By the way, in 1436, Japan and Korea were not at war, so I do not understand why the translator added "enemy" in the translation.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Actually, the term 倭 is a rude way to say Japan/Japanese...Japan has long assumed her name of 日本 (I believe it was the 7th Century that Japan proclaimed her name of 日本). So, it is obvious that Koreans thought the Japanese were inferior barbarians and it was good to chop their heads off. I bet the 倭船 were just ordninary fishermen, and the petty Korean provincial official lied to boast about capturing pirates so he can be promoted or something.

    Koreans are persistent to this day in using 倭 for Japan/Japanese. It is very annoying that while the Koreans are acting so rude and barbarious against Japan/Japanese while they always moaning and groaning about their hurt feelings. Hard to take them seriously sometimes...

    ReplyDelete
  8. By the by, your original claim was that Korea is illegally occupying Japanese land. But i have yet to read your work proving that whilst the Koreans may be lying there were ever Japanese people on Dokdo in the first place. I hope this is to come, because i don't know much of the Japanese side of things. As an Ulleung resident i am genuinely fascinated. My opening thoughts are that Dokdo is Korean, but that opinion was not gained from Korean history books, that's for sure!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Greenman,

    Japanese documents and maps showing that the Japanese knew of Takeshima (Dokdo) will come later. I am posting in chronological order.

    So you are an Ulleungdo resident, Greenman? Have you ever seen "Dokdo" from one of the mountain peaks on Ulleungdo? And if you have, did you take a photo that you can share with us?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Oh, I could see Tsushima ( http://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EB%8C%80%EB%A7%88%EB%8F%84%EC%9D%98_%EB%82%A0

    http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tsushima
    ) at a Korean island in my childhood. What do you thnik of this fact?
    At any rate, which country dominates their island may not be so critical to the native mountain people of the island.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'm afraid to say i have seen the best and the worst of Ulleungdorian weather, and i have stood on the lookout above Jeodong-ri that, it is claimed, is the only place high enough and located well enough to see Dokdo from, but i never did see it. The only thought that comes to mind is that Dokdo might be visible from the top of Seonginbong, if one were tall enough and/or the vegetation low enough.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Also, as my friend has noted to me, there was once a time when you could see England from parts of Dublin, which is no longer possible. Geography doesn't hang around to wait for historians!
    I have revisited my videos of views from Seonginbong, it was a lovely day, but i couldn't really see much sea.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Gerry Bevers

    /you said...

    [[ 全羅道處置使柳漢捕倭船, 斬首二級以進。
    'You are right. The original Chinese said only "Japanese ship." The Korean translation, "Japanese enemy ship," is wrong.' ]]


    But the conclusion is hasty and misunderstanding.

    In Annals of Joseon Dynasty, the word '倭' is commonly used to mean 'japanese pirates, as an abbreviation of '倭寇'.

    In the Record, 倭船 meant 倭寇之船 (a ship of japanese pirates).

    ReplyDelete
  14. Annonymous,

    I have been reading a lot of Korea's old documents and from what I've read, 倭(왜) was used only to mean "Japan," not Japanese pirate. If they had wanted to say Japanese pirate, then they would have written 倭寇(왜구). See HERE.

    HERE is Naver's Chinese character dictionary's definition of 倭(왜):

    ㉠왜나라
    ㉡나라 이름
    ㉢삥 돌다
    ㉣유순하다(柔順--)

    ReplyDelete
  15. If they had wanted to say Japanese pirate, then they would have written 倭寇(왜구). See /

    I disagree.
    let's assume 倭船 simply means an ordinary japan ship.
    then, I don't know how to interpret the report below in a plausible way.


    [全羅道 水軍都按撫處置使 趙菑 報: “ 倭船一隻入 彩雲浦 , 虜三十餘人。”上遣三軍鎭撫 李伯仁 覆覈]

    世宗 16卷, 4年(1422 壬寅 / 명 영락(永樂) 20年) 7月 7日(壬戌) 2번째기사

    If im not mistaken,
    趙菑 reported 倭船 advanced in korea and capture about 30 korean people.

    As we know, Korea was not war at japan at the time. So, an ordinary japanese ship(倭船) came to korean and captured 30 korean people?

    ReplyDelete
  16. One more thing.

    From the late Goryeo Dynasty and to early chosun, activities of Japanese pirates were very frequent in korea.

    In my impression, it might be that you don't put much trust on credibility of the annals of chosun dynasty.

    Then, wikipedia account may be helpful. (at least, english resources may feel more credible to you than resoures written in korean.)

    ReplyDelete
  17. this is wikipedia account of Wokou(왜구 in korea)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wokou

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hi Annonymous,

    I think the "Annals of the Joseon Dynasty" has a lot of credibility, but I do have as much faith in the Korean translations of those annals. For example, let's look at the passage you posted and its Korean translation.

    Here is the original Chinese of that passage and the Korean translation by Korea's National Institute of Korean History:

    全羅道 水軍都按撫處置使 趙菑 報: “倭 船一隻入 彩雲浦 , 虜三十餘人。” 上遣三軍鎭撫 李伯仁 覆覈。

    전라도 수군 도안무 처치사(水軍都安撫處置使) 조치(趙菑) 가, 왜선(倭船) 한 척이 채운포(彩雲浦) 에 들어와 30여 명의 사람을 사로잡아 갔다고 보고하였다. 임금이 삼군 진무(三軍鎭撫) 이백인(李伯仁) 을 보내어 조사하게 하였다.

    The Korean translation says the following:

    Jolla Province Naval Domucheochisa (水軍都安撫處置使) Jochi reported, "A Japanese ship entered Port Chae-un, captured thirty people, and sailed off." The king sent Samgunjinmu Lee Bae-in to investigate.

    The problem with the Korean translation is that there was nothing in the Chinese about the ship leaving the port. The original Chinese did mention that "about thirty people were captured" (虜三十餘人), but it did not clarify who captured who.

    Since nothing was mentioned about the Japanese ship leaving the port, it seems that the passage was saying that the Koreans captured the thirty or so Japanese that were aboard the ship. If Koreans had been captured, I think the passage would have mentioned that fact by using something like 我民(아민), which means "our people."

    Also, why would they send Lee Bae-jin to investigate if the ship had already left? Lee may have been sent to interrogate the thirty Japanese prisoners.

    Here is how I would translate the original Chinese.

    Jolla Province (全羅道) Naval Doanmucheochisa (水軍都安撫處置使) Jochi (趙菑) reported (報), "A Japanese ship (倭船一隻) entered (入) Port Chae-un (彩雲浦) and about thirty people were captured (虜三十餘人)." The king (上) sent (遣) Samgunjinmu (三軍鎭撫) Lee Bae-in (李伯仁) to investigate (覆覈).

    I am just a beginner at reading Chinese, so maybe there is something in the grammar that I do not understand, but I do know enough to know that nothing was mentioned in the passage about the ship leaving the port. It seems that the translators at the National Institute of Korean History just added that to help justify their translation.

    Not all Japanese ships were pirate ships, and not even the people at the National Institute of Korean History translated 倭船(왜선) as "Japanese pirate ship."

    ReplyDelete
  19. A) I have been reading a lot of Korea's old documents and from what I've read, 倭(왜) was used only to mean "Japan," not Japanese pirate. If they had wanted to say Japanese pirate, then they would have written 倭寇(왜구).

    ===> 倭(왜) was used only to mean "Japan? Not at all. To see why, check these 2 another reports below quoted from the annals of the Choson dynasty.

    a) Original text : 倭 侵 南陽府 邊境, 掠 紫燕 、 三木島 鹽場。(太宗 1卷, 1年(1401 辛巳 / 명 건문(建文) 3年) 閏3月 11日(庚子) 3번째기사)

    Korean Translation at the National Institute of Korean History : 왜적 이 남양부(南陽府) 변경을 침노하고, 자연도(紫燕島) · 삼목도(三木島) 의 염장(鹽場)을 노략하였다.

    My word by word english translation : 倭 invaded(infringed-侵) outlying districts(邊境) of NamYangBu(南陽府), plundered(掠) the island of Jayeon(紫燕), salt ground in Sam-mok island(三木島 鹽場).

    This reported was written in 1401, when Korea was not at war against Japan at all.
    But, it reports that 倭 invaded(侵), plundered(掠) in korea.
    Still you would argue that 倭 was only used to mean "Japan"?
    In my view, it's reasonable and sensible to interpret 倭 in the original text as "japanese pirates", rather than "Japan".


    b) And also, instead of 倭, 日本 was often used to mean Japan, or Japan's government in the annals of the Choson dynasty.

    Original text : 日本國 使詣闕, 賜酒食。 日旣夕, 令軍器監張火戲以視之, 倭 驚曰: “此非人力所爲, 乃天神使之然也。”(定宗 1卷, 1年(1399 己卯 / 명 건문(建文) 1年) 6月 1日(庚子) 6번째기사)

    Korean translation at the National Institute of Korean History : 일본국(日本國) 사신이 예궐(詣闕)하니 주식(酒食)을 하사하고, 날이 이미 저물게 되자, 군기감(軍器監)으로 하여금 불꽃 놀이[火戲]를 베풀게 하여 구경시켰다. 왜사(倭使)가 놀라서 말하였다. “이것은 인력으로 하는 것이 아니고, 천신(天神)이 시켜서 그런 것이다.”


    Anyway, You will get [4914 hits in total] by keyword '日本' in search of original chinese texts.
    456 hits in Sejoing period, 235 hits in TaeJong period, 37 hits in Taejo period, etc...


    B) And there are more things to point about your reply.

    But, I will mention on just one here since I worry my comments may be too lengthy to read on the net. It is about your translation of "倭 船一隻入 彩雲浦 , 虜三十餘人". You would agree that the chinese character, '(虜)' is obviously used as a verb in the original text. But, you translated the passage in the passive voice. As far as I know, it's not reasonble to do so. Let's see your translation again.

    Your translation ==> 倭 船一隻入 彩雲浦 , 虜三十餘人。==> A Japanese ship entered Port Chae-un(彩雲浦) and about thirty people were captured (虜三十餘人)

    I don't see how you could translate "虜三十餘人" in the orginal passage in the passive voice. The word 虜 is used in the active voice in the orginal chinese sentence. If you prefer word by word style translation of it, a reasonable translation would be something like the following sentence.

    Word by word translation ==> Jolla Province (全羅道) Naval Doanmucheochisa (水軍都安撫處置使) Jochi (趙菑) reported (報) " A Japanese ship (倭船一隻) entered (入) Port Chae-un (彩雲浦), took captive of(or Captured) thirty-some people (虜三十餘人).

    Agreed?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Annonymous,

    倭 侵 南陽府 邊境 means "Japanese raided the border areas of Namyang-bu."

    Again, the sentence did not say "Japanese pirates"; it just said "Japanese," and that is all it needed to say since the verb "raided" implied they were pirates. Of course, since they "raided" (侵) that area, we can assume they were pirates, but the sentence did not say "Japanese pirates."

    You used your second example sentence to talk about "일본국(日本國)," but that sentence also used 倭 to refer to the Japanese envoy, and I do not think they meant to call the envoy a "Japanese pirate."

    You are right about my translation of 倭 船一隻入 彩雲浦 , 虜三十餘人. It was not written in the passive voice, but I used the passive voice because I was unsure of the subject of the verb.

    In Korean, the subject is often dropped when it is assumed or implied, so the Koreans could have captured the Japanese without having to say "we" captured them.. At any rate, even in this passage the Chinese said a "Japanese ship," not "Japanese pirate ship." If the Japanese ship did take away thirty people from the village, you could say a Japanese ship came into the port and kidnapped thiry people without using the word pirate, and the meaning would be conveyed.

    Anyway, it boils down to the fact that Korean dictionaries do not translate 倭(왜) as Japanese pirate. You can translate all the example sentences you gave without using the word "pirate," and the same meaning is still conveyed.

    I would advise people to simply translate 倭(왜) as "Japanese" and let the rest of the sentence speak for itself. If 倭寇(왜구) is used, then, yes, translate it as "Japanese pirate."

    ReplyDelete
  21. gerry/

    Hello, I have to mention on one thing before I post rather long comment.

    전라도 처치사 유한(柳漢)이 왜적(倭賊)의 배를 잡아 적의 머리 2급을 베어서 바쳤다.

    倭賊 means "Japanese thieves" in literal meaning, not "japanese enemies".

    As you probably know, 敵 is a common word for enemy. (Mistake seemed to arouse from that both 敵 and 賊 have the same sound in korean pronunciation.)

    ReplyDelete
  22. a) Original text : 全羅道處置使柳漢捕倭船, 斬首二級以進。

    b) Korean Translation : 전라도 처치사 유한(柳漢)이 왜적(倭賊)의 배를 잡아 적의 머리 2급을 베어서 바쳤다.

    c) Gerry's English translation of (b) : Cholla Province Cheochisa Yuhan captured "a Japanese pirate ship", cut off two of the enemy's heads, and offered them as tribute

    d) Pacifist's question about the english translation in (c) : The Chinese text only said that 倭船 "Japanese ship", not the Japanese pirate ship. Which is the original, Chinese text or hanglu text?

    e) Gerry's reply to Pacifist's question : You are right. The original Chinese said only "Japanese ship." The Korean translation, "Japanese enemy ship," is wrong.

    f) Pacifist's revised English translation of the original chinese text : Cholla Province Cheochisa Yuhan captured (a Japanese ship), cut off two of their heads, and offered them as tribute.

    g) Pacifist's comment : The Korean translaters translated the original document with prejudices that all Japanese things are bad and they are "enemy", unconsciously or consciously, didn't they?

    h) Gerry's reply to (g) : I agree that the translator seemes to have tried to justify the chopping off of the heads of the Japanese by adding something to the text that was not there. By the way, in 1436, Japan and Korea were not at war, so I do not understand why the translator added "enemy" in the translation.


    Phew...it seems that I didnt miss anything.
    And finally..... My first comment on a)~h)



    My comment 1)

    [[[ Gerry Bevers/
    you said...: [[ 全羅道處置使柳漢捕倭船, 斬首二級以進。
    'You are right. The original Chinese said only "Japanese ship." The Korean translation, "Japanese enemy ship," is wrong.' ]]

    But the conclusion is hasty and misunderstanding. In Annals of Joseon Dynasty, the word '倭' is commonly used to mean 'japanese pirates, as an abbreviation of '倭寇'. In the Record, 倭船 meant 倭寇之船 (a ship of japanese pirates) ]]]


    Gerry's reply 1)

    [[[ I have been reading a lot of Korea's old documents and from what I've read, 倭(왜) was used only to mean "Japan," not Japanese pirate. If they had wanted to say Japanese pirate, then they would have written 倭寇(왜구).
    Naver's Chinese character dictionary's definition of 倭(왜):

    ㉠왜나라 (japanese contury)
    ㉡나라 이름 (a name of contury)
    ㉢삥 돌다 (to go around)
    ㉣유순하다(柔順--) (gentel, meek, obedient) ]]]

    ReplyDelete
  23. Ok...Here we go...

    A) 倭 was not only to mean "Japan" but also to mean "japanese people who came to korea by ships and plundered".

    Gerry said that 倭(왜) was used only to mean "Japan," not Japanese pirate. But, I said that 倭(왜) were commonly used to mean '倭寇' as an abrreviation in The annals of the choson dynasty.

    Then, What is 倭寇?
    It means "japanese people who came to korea by ships and plundered". (Such activities of japanese bandits occured many times mainly from the late period of Goroy to the early period of choson dynasty.)

    And, I provided an example of original text where 倭(왜) was used to mean "some kind of japanese."
    Then, what kind of japanese people? It is " japanese people who came to korea by ships and plundered. "
    (see original text and gerry's translation again : 倭 侵 南陽府 邊境, 掠 紫燕 、 三木島 鹽場 - Japanese(倭) raided(侵) the border areas of Namyang-bu )

    As far as I can see, 倭 is obviously used to mean "japanese people who came to korea by ships and plundered", by Gerry's translation.
    I hope Gerry to agree that 倭 was not only to mean "Japan" but also to mean "japanese people who came to korea by ships and plundered".
    (by the way, " the literal meaning of 倭寇" is NOT japanese sailors who attacked other ships and took their properties away, but Japanese(倭) bandits(寇).)





    B) Reasons to believe that 倭船 was meant to be "a ship of japanese bandits" in the original text.

    If 倭 were used to mean "japanese bandits" in certain contexts, the next question is about 倭船 in the original text. (全羅道處置使柳漢捕倭船, 斬首二級以進)

    First- the literal meaning of 倭船 is "Japanese(倭)ship(船). Second- it was 處置使 of Cholla province who attacked "倭船". ("處置使" in this text is a naval office post in the early choson dynasty, 1420-1465 ).

    Now, these are several possible views on "倭船" in this text.

    1) "倭船" in this text meant simply a japanse ship. Nothing more than that. So There is no reason to conclude that this ship was meant as "japanese bandits, pirates, or something bad" --> This is what Gerry thinks, if I understand him correctly.

    2) Although the literal meaning of 倭船 is simply a japanese ship, there are very strong reasons to belived that "倭船" in this text was meant to be a "japanse bandits, or pirates, or thieves ship". ---> this is what I belive, and the reason why I think the korean translation can not be said to be wrong.

    3) any other possiblity? (I dont know yet)

    From now, I will show some reasons to believe that 倭船 was meant to be "a ship of japanese bandits"

    First - Activities of japanese bandits were very frequent in the early period of choson dynasty.

    So, It is very reasonable to guess that the naval officer, 處置使 attacked the japanse ship(倭船) for defense of korea border (or coastal lines of korea).
    As we all know, a naval officer is supposed to defend against enemies, not to attack non-harmful civilians from foreign contury.
    This guess becomes more plausible that he reported his attack to King Sejong. In my view, he would have not reported it to the king, if he had commited so shameful actions. After all, he got some compensations for it (some clothes) as Gerry already mentioned...

    Second - Someone might think...." Well...your inference is based on the assumption that Choson distingushed a military officer's righteous attack on japanese bandits from attack on just an oridnary japanese fisher men. But what if the chosun dynasty was so brutal contury that military officers could get praises and compensations from king by attacking japanese ships and chopping off thier heads blindly no matter it was really japanese bandits, or just ordinary japanese fisher men?

    For those who suspect that Choson recommended its millitary officers to attack "any kind of japanese" (bad japanese and good japanese...), I will provide some documents of the Annals of King Sejong's period.


    - to be continued...-

    ReplyDelete
  24. C) Choson dynasty and military officers who captured "Japanese(倭)" - Choi-wan's Case.

    The following is the original reports on Choi-wan's killing 11 japanse.
    I don't translate all original texts, but just in part.
    But, I think, it would be enough to see main story of the Case.


    - Oct 6, 1442 - (6 years after 處置使 Yu-han attacked a japanse ship, and got some clothes from king Sejoing for it)

    Cholla province 處置使 Yi-gak reported that a military officer, Choi-wan attacked and killed 11 japanese in Guem-um-mo island, and King Sejong ordered Ministry of Military affairs to investigate Choi-wan, saying " Since He killed every enemies who suffered from hunger and got tired, inquest him about the reasons (to do so)"

    全羅道 處置使 李恪 馳啓: “ 倭人 到 今音毛島 東面 亏兒浦 下陸, 呂島 副千戶 崔浣 追及與戰, 斬十一級, 其餘皆中箭溺死, 遂獲槍劍弓箭魚鹽等物。”
    傳旨兵曹:
    飢困之 倭 , 一不生擒, 盡殺斬頭, 其推鞫情由以聞 -
    世宗 98卷, 24年(1442 壬戌 / 명 정통(正統) 7年) 10月 6日(癸巳) 2번째기사


    - Oct 8, 1442 -
    Ministry of Military affairs(兵曹) reported " Choi-wan chased for the japanese ship, and the japanese landed on without no resistance from the beginning, but Choi didn't capture them alive but killed all of them. And also millitary materials, devices(軍器) were just a few, but a lot of devices for fishery, So it is suspected that they were not "Thief japanse(賊倭)". Choi-wan's assertion 'we fought against them" is very hard to be agreed. Please send a govt official to the province to investigate. "
    So, King Sejong agreed.

    兵曹啓: “ 呂島 千戶 崔浣 追及 倭 船, 倭人 勢窮乃下陸。 初無拒戰之迹, 不以言語開諭生擒, 乃盡殺無遺。 且所持軍器數少, 而多釣魚之具, 疑非賊 倭 , 乃是釣魚飄風之船。 又分竄山間, 至第四日乃被獲, 甚爲困頓而無拒戰之理, 其曰相遇拒戰, 亦難取實, 乞速遣朝官推覈。” 從之 (世宗 98卷, 24年(1442 壬戌 / 명 정통(正統) 7年) 10月 8日(乙未) 2번째기사)

    - November 13, 1442 -
    Cholla province 敬差官, Kim yeon-ji reported " Choi wan didnt chase and fight those japanse. When the japanese landed, Choi-wan called them to come to him, and chopped off all of thme. Im afraid that he might run away, so I ask him to be prisoned and investigated.

    King Sejong agreed.

    ○己巳/ 全羅道 敬差官 金連枝 馳啓: “ 呂島 副千戶 崔浣 , 非追逐 倭人 與戰, 倭人 到 今音毛島 下陸, 浣 揮手招來, 倭 親呈圖書文引, 浣 見之, 竝斬首。 浣 自知其罪, 逃匿可慮, 請禁身推鞫。” 從之。(世宗 98卷, 24年(1442 壬戌 / 명 정통(正統) 7年) 11月 13日(己巳) 1번째기사)


    - January 23, 1443 -
    Choi-wan got prisoned in 義禁府, and investigted again for his killing of japanese.
    命囚 崔浣 于義禁府, 更推捕斬 倭人 之由(世宗 99卷, 25年(1443 癸亥 / 명 정통(正統) 8年) 1月 28日(甲申) 2번째기사)


    - Febuary 26, 1443 -

    King Sejong ordered Cholla province 觀察使 : " The Japanese killed by Choi-wan were not Robbery japanese, but Choi killed them recklessly. Bury their skeletons and perform a religious service for them."

    傳旨 全羅道 觀察使:
    崔浣 所殺之 倭 , 非是賊 倭 , 妄行捕殺, 其令收骨埋之, 仍令置奠。(世宗 99卷, 25年(1443 癸亥 / 명 정통(正統) 8年) 2月 26日(壬子) 3번째기사)

    - April 9, 1443 -

    King Sejong said " Choi-wan decieved them to take on the ship and chased and killed them. It was too abusive. it's reasonble to sentence him to death penalty by law"

    甲午/召戶曹判書 朴從愚 、工曹判書 崔府 、兵曹判書 鄭淵 、前觀察使 韓確 、吏曹判書 朴安臣 、禮曹判書 金宗瑞 、右參贊 李叔畤 、刑曹判書 安崇善 、兵曹參判 辛引孫 、刑曹參判 尹炯 、戶曹參判 趙惠 、工曹參判 趙克寬 等, 議 崔浣 之罪。 從愚 、 確 、 宗瑞 、 炯 、 引孫 、 惠 、 克寬 等曰: “當依律科罪。” 崇善 、 叔畤 、 安臣 、 淵 、 府 等曰: “宜從末減。” 上曰: “ 浣 招誘 倭人 , 使之乘船, 從而殺之, 殊爲已甚, 可依律處斬, 其令堅囚。” - 世宗 100卷, 25年(1443 癸亥 / 명 정통(正統) 8年) 4月 9日(甲午) 1번째기사-

    Now, let's think about it. In a contury where a military officer could get death penalty by committing murder of just ordinary japanse (regareded as so serious incident as to be mentioned and discussed by King several times in official govt historic document), Is it sensible to assume that a military officer would dare to report he chopped off japanse people who were not japanese bandits?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hello. I found this definition of 왜선[倭船] in naver's dictionary :

    http://endic.naver.com/krenEntry.nhn?entryId=4b062cb590254fdb8e3df69fa49472e0&query=%EC%99%9C%EC%84%A0

    ReplyDelete