Korea-Japan Relations in History and Future Directions

Museum of Korea-Japan Exchange · Kim Deok-hwan · Seoul National University

Introduction

The first site visited on the third day of our expedition was the Nagoya Castle Museum.

It

(名護屋城博物館) is located on the site of Nagoya Castle, which Toyotomi Hideyoshi used as a forward base during the Imjin War. Opened in 1993 as a prefectural museum in Saga Prefecture, it preserves and researches the Nagoya Castle ruins while also hosting a permanent exhibition themed around the 'History of Exchange between the Japanese Archipelago and the Korean Peninsula' from ancient times to the present. For this reason, it is also known and introduced in Korea as the 'Museum of Korea-Japan Exchange.' Considering that this museum, which prompts reflection on the complex and difficult relationship between Korea and Japan, actually covers the period from prehistory to the present, its scale was not very large. For us, who could not spend enough time due to the tight expedition schedule, it was sufficient to gain a macroscopic perspective on the history of Korea-Japan relations. The relationship between Korea and Japan is currently in a deadlock, with various complex issues intertwined, such as the verification of the Kono Statement, the Yasukuni Shrine visit controversy, the Dokdo territorial dispute, and the Abe administration's rightward shift. 5. Korea-Japan Relations in History and Future Directions: Museum of Korea-Japan Exchange. Recently, there have been significant repercussions in domestic politics due to the controversy surrounding the so-called 'colonial history view' and 'pro-Japanese sentiment' regarding the nomination of Moon Chang-uk as Prime Minister. With such high domestic and international interest in Korea-Japan relations, we departed on the morning of our last day with anticipation and interest towards the Nagoya Castle Museum, which chronicles the history of Korea-Japan relations.

Korea-Japan Relations in History

Recent Korea-Japan relations have become an international issue, drawing attention not only from both countries but also from the United States and China. Through this, we can see that memories of the past still influence today's politics, and conversely, the process of recreating memories of the past greatly impacts current politics. In particular, the experience that has had the greatest and most significant impact on our consciousness in Korea-Japan relations is undoubtedly Japan's colonial rule. Korea continues to demand a sincere apology and reflection from Japan, while Japan insists on its own position, leading to a stalemate.

One of the efforts that has been continuously made to deepen understanding of the relationship between Korea and Japan, where the gap of conflict is so deep, and to seek constructive changes has been the historical narrative of Korea-Japan relations. Since centralized political entities were established on the Korean Peninsula and the Japanese archipelago, the political entities on both sides have established friendly relations or confronted each other in hostile ways due to the international political situation and internal needs of the time. Viewing Korea-Japan relations from this historical perspective makes it possible to seek new relations based on mutual perception and understanding.

However, in many cases, Korea-Japan relations have been viewed from the perspectives of official diplomatic relations, economic trade, or cultural exchange. Therefore, there is a need to research how the two countries have historically perceived and treated each other in terms of intellectual history. Given that current Korea-Japan relations go beyond mere adjustments of military security or economic interests between nations, and that conflicts and misunderstandings between them are creating negative situations, this kind of research will provide significant insights into the present. 5. Korea-Japan Relations in History and Future Directions: Museum of Korea-Japan Exchange

Fundamentally, 'Korea' and 'Japan' can be seen as concepts that emerged from the integrated construction of political histories that existed in their respective geographical units from a modern perspective. Political actors in each period recognized their own history and foreign relations by constructing narratives of succession from preceding political entities. Therefore, we need to deeply study and research the process of creating these narratives to understand how Korea has been constructed as 'Korea' and Japan as 'Japan' in relation to others. This will help in understanding the current perceptions of each other between Korea and Japan and in seeking future directions for exchange. The Nagoya Castle Museum, in a way, was also a space where a 'narrative' was exhibited, as it reconstructed the relationship between Korea and Japan from Japan's perspective and arranged artifacts accordingly.

As our expedition team toured the Nagoya Castle Museum, we discovered a particular characteristic. Although the museum covered a vast historical period from the relationship between the Korean Peninsula and the Japanese archipelago in prehistoric times to the present, it placed a relatively significant emphasis on artifacts and history from the mid-to-late Joseon Dynasty onwards. This might be because many materials from this period remain, but it also reflects the significant historical importance of the mid-to-late Joseon period in Korea-Japan relations. In fact, during my preparation for the expedition, I focused particularly on the period from the Imjin War until the wave of modernization swept across East Asia. This was because, during my preliminary research, I learned that the Museum of Korea-Japan Exchange held a relatively large number of materials corresponding to the Joseon Dynasty. This period was also a time when relations between the two countries were relatively peaceful and continuous exchange occurred. The Joseon missions to Japan during this period were symbolic of Korea-Japan exchange. Of course, the museum also displayed a painting depicting the procession of the missions. Reflecting on the diplomatic characteristics of this period, particularly the late Joseon Dynasty, it seems important to re-examine this period in our current efforts to seek reconciliation and cooperation between Korea and Japan.

However, while viewing the artifacts related to the missions displayed in the museum, I had a thought: Do the missions truly symbolize only the peaceful and friendly relations between Korea and Japan? What processes allowed the two countries to form exchange relations after the great conflict of the Imjin War? And what was the international order in East Asia at the time that enabled such exchanges? While the museum's artifacts visually presented the history of Korea-Japan relations, they were insufficient to allow us to directly feel the thoughts and emotions of the people in history that we were truly curious about. The explanations accompanying the artifacts were mostly brief, dictionary-like information, which further amplified our disappointment. 5. Korea-Japan Relations in History and Future Directions: Museum of Korea-Japan Exchange

Fortunately, as I was feeling this sense of disappointment, I recalled Shin Yu-han's 'Haeyurok' (海遊錄), which I had read before during my preliminary preparation. 'Haeyurok' is a travelogue written by Shin Yu-han in the early 18th century (1719), recounting his experiences during his trip to Japan accompanying the mission led by Hong Chi-jung. In fact, my impression from the records currently available regarding the missions was that a significant portion were official and formal records kept by the government. In contrast, this record is valuable as a historical source because it is a 'record as fact' that provides concrete details of the experience of visiting Japan as part of a mission, and it also faithfully records the inner consciousness of the Joseon person, Shin Yu-han, as a 'record of cultural consciousness.' Furthermore, it is noteworthy that Shin Yu-han distinguishes between Japan during the Imjin War and the period of Toyotomi Hideyoshi,

and Japan under the Tokugawa

(豊臣秀吉)

(德川) Shogunate, while simultaneously perceiving them continuously, revealing a complexity and highlighting the subtle nature of Korea-Japan relations and the differences across eras. In the following section, through the medium of 'Haeyurok,' we will further examine the Korea-Japan relations and the East Asian international order of the late Joseon period.

Sojunghwa Joseon and Japan

To understand the Korea-Japan relations of the late Joseon period through Shin Yu-han's 'Haeyurok,' a basic understanding of the international political order of the time is necessary. As Professor Ha Young-sun walked us through the museum, he explained the Korea-Japan relations chronologically, stating that from ancient times to the mid-Joseon period, Japan was more interested in Korea, but this relationship reversed thereafter. He also explained that before the Imjin War, Korea's view of Japan was generally that Japan was culturally inferior, but due to the humiliation experienced militarily, Korea showed a dual attitude and instability. In the exhibition hall showing this period, we could see artifacts such as the Pensive Bodhisattva and the golden crown that we had seen in textbooks. Professor Ha Young-sun mentioned that if ceramics were a Korean export product with international competitiveness during the Joseon Dynasty, then cultural content such as Buddhist statues were the attractions of the Korean Peninsula in ancient and medieval times. 5. Korea-Japan Relations in History and Future Directions: Museum of Korea-Japan Exchange

However, he also explained that the underlying reason for the tendency to look down on and despise Japan culturally in Korea's view of Japan until the mid-Joseon period was the Sinocentric worldview that distinguished the periphery from the center. China, which had established a centralized unified kingdom early on and reached a high level of economic and cultural development, greatly influenced the political economy and cultural development of surrounding countries, although the degree of political integration varied by dynasty and period. Within this international political order, political entities in each region accepted tributary relations with China as a means to maintain their own uniqueness, secure legitimacy domestically, and be recognized as independent spheres of influence internationally. In the case of Japan, Ashikaga Yoshimitsu

succeeded in establishing a tributary relationship with the Ming dynasty while consolidating the period of division between the Northern and Southern Courts,

(足利義滿)

which not only gave him an advantage among the competing daimyo within the country but also led to the international recognition of the Muromachi

(室町) Shogunate (Nakamura Hiroshi 2005, 19-21).

While the tributary system primarily regulated relations between China and other states, it also exerted a certain influence on regulating relations among states other than China. The Korean dynasties prior to the founding of Joseon were far more interested in China than in Japan, demonstrating that they considered Japan a peripheral region within the East Asian international political order centered on China. This cultural disdain for Japan as a peripheral nation became particularly pronounced during the early Joseon period. In fact, looking again at the case of Ashikaga Yoshimitsu cited above, Japan had established a tributary relationship with the Ming Dynasty, similar to Joseon, and obtained the status of 'King of Japan,' thus holding a formally equal position. This can also be confirmed through the Annals of the Joseon Dynasty, which consistently referred to envoys from Japan as "Envoys of the King of Japan" (日本國王使) (Nakamura Hiroshi 2005, 24).

However, alongside the formal tributary system, a hierarchical order of cultural dimensions also existed in the international order of the time. According to David Kang's 'East Asia Before the West,' which describes the East Asian international order from the 14th to the 20th centuries (Ming and Qing dynasties) as a period of long-term peace under the 'tributary system' centered on China, China engaged in tributary exchanges with various political entities, including Joseon, Japan, Vietnam, Ryukyu, Siam, and Myanmar. Among these, Joseon and Vietnam, which were more assimilated into Chinese civilization, engaged in more frequent tributary exchanges and received greater benefits from China. In contrast, Japan was considered relatively peripheral, and the volume of exchange was much smaller (Kang 2010, 59).

Of course, the hierarchical order centered on Chinese civilization did not necessarily reflect the dynamics of physical power. Although it ended in failure, the Imjin War was a significant event where Toyotomi Hideyoshi, who had unified the Warring States period, intended to advance into China, causing great damage to Joseon and Ming. However, the humiliation suffered by Joseon militarily did not lead to admiration or respect for Japan's strength and prosperity. Instead, after the Manchu invasion of Joseon, Joseon reinforced the Sojunghwa (Little China) ideology, advocating for a northern expedition, and this consciousness, combined with the belief that Joseon, with its emphasis on civil rule, was culturally superior to the military power of Japan, was maintained. Japan, on the other hand, maintained a dual attitude towards Korea, exhibiting both inferiority and superiority complexes. During this period, Japan, on a national level, considered itself part of the China-centered order while also possessing a consciousness of its distinctiveness from that order (Kang 2010, 60).

The 18th century was a period when the China-centered hierarchical order was established, but it was also a time when Joseon and Japan were independently developing their own perceptions of international politics. Although Joseon maintained a traditional tributary relationship with the Qing, who had replaced the Ming as the hegemon of China, it held the consciousness of Sojunghwa (Little China), believing that Joseon, not the Qing founded by military conquest of the Manchus, had inherited the standard of civilization, 'Zhonghua,' previously held by the Ming.

Japan also sought to establish its own international relations, refraining from using the title 'King of Japan,' which indicated a tributary relationship with China, and instead using Japanese era names (Nakamura Hiroshi 2005, 84-85). The Edo Shogunate generally maintained a policy of national isolation, prohibiting Japanese people from traveling abroad and allowing only limited trade for foreigners. Within controllable limits, it also established stable diplomatic relations with Joseon, Ryukyu, and even Western countries like the Netherlands. In this context, Joseon and Japan, in their diplomatic relations, recognized each other as equals between the Joseon Dynasty and the Edo Shogunate, continuing diplomatic exchanges such as the missions to Japan. However, each side also maintained the perception that it held a superior position relative to the other from its own perspective.

Formation of Joseon's View of Japan in Later Periods and 'Haeyurok'

Shin Yu-han and his work 'Haeyurok' can be seen as a record from a period when Joseon, after the Imjin War, harbored animosity towards Japan while simultaneously viewing Japan based on the Sojunghwa ideology.

Shin Yu-han's record clearly reveals the characteristics of late Joseon. Here, we will first focus on the parts of 'Haeyurok'

that extensively deal with the mutual perceptions of Korea and Japan. Then, we will address the parts concerning the international status of Korea and Japan in relation to the Sinocentric order.

5. Korea-Japan Relations in History and Future Directions: Museum of Korea-Japan Exchange

A Strong and Prosperous Japan, But...

First, a recurring characteristic in Shin Yu-han's writings is his highly positive assessment of the economic level of the various regions of Japan he visited. Shin Yu-han noted that the Tokugawa Shogunate had finally ended internal strife, established order, and was pursuing peace and prosperity through efforts to improve relations with Joseon. For instance, Shin Yu-han wrote, 'The prosperity and abundance of this country, the advantages of its geography, and the uniqueness of its scenery are perhaps unparalleled in the world; even the Indian kingdom of Kebin or the country of Pasa mentioned in ancient texts could not surpass this (Shin Yu-han 2006, 146).' In observing various regions, he highly praised Japan's material prosperity and stability. Furthermore, as revealed in the following quote, when introducing Japan's military system, he noted the regularity of troop training and the superiority of their swords and firearms.

The soldiers are trained regularly and, when faced with any situation or enemy,

they charge forward like moths flying into a flame, heedless of fire or water. Even if the commander is incompetent, the soldiers' desperate

fighting spirit can be obtained, and even if the soldiers are weak, they are brave in battle, so even if it is a barbarian custom, it can indeed be called a good strategy for strengthening the military. Troop training is conducted six times a month. There is naval

training at sea and infantry training on land, with musketeers considered the best, but the cavalry of Gabiju and the swordsmen of Salma are said to be the most formidable and difficult to contend with (Shin Yu-han 2006, 326).

However, this perception does not lead to a favorable evaluation of Japan. One of the most frequently mentioned and discussed topics in 'Haeyurok' is Shin Yu-han's annoyance at having to write literary pieces for the numerous Japanese people who sought him out, and his description of how he reluctantly obliged them. Shin Yu-han reveals Joseon's culturally superior position relative to Japan by stating that Japan considers itself culturally backward and views Joseon as a land of etiquette, seeking to learn from it.

is a good strategy to strengthen it. The military is trained six times a month. At sea, there is naval

training, and on land, infantry training, with musketeers considered the best.

but the cavalry of Gabiju and the swordsmen of Salma are said to be the bravest and most difficult to

confront (Shin Yu-han 2006, 326).

However, this perception does not lead to a favorable evaluation of Japan. One of the most frequently mentioned and discussed topics in Haeyurok is how Shin Yu-han had to reluctantly compose texts for the numerous Japanese individuals who sought him out to obtain his writings, which he found very bothersome. Shin Yu-han reveals Joseon's culturally superior position relative to Japan by describing how Japan considered itself culturally backward and how it demonstrated an attitude of learning from Joseon, recognizing it as a "Land of Eastern Propriety".

And while he seems to evaluate the military system positively, he ultimately concludes by discussing archery, emphasizing that Joseon's bows are superior and that the Japanese were so intimidated by Joseon's bows that they lacked the strength to draw the bowstrings. Shin Yu-han also introduces and evaluates various aspects of Japanese customs and culture, ultimately focusing on aspects that do not align with Confucian cultural norms. Thus, we can confirm that the perception that at least the Joseon elite of the time held towards Japan was still based on a sense of superiority, as in the past. 5. Korea-Japan Relations in History and Future Directions: Museum of Korea-Japan Exchange

A Difficult Transition from War to Friendly Relations: An Incident at Daibutsu-ji Temple

With this fundamental perception that Joseon is superior to Japan, Shin Yu-han and his entourage consistently maintain a confident attitude when dealing with the Japanese. In this regard, we would like to introduce the Daibutsu-ji Temple episode, one of the most dramatic parts of 'Haeyurok.' This episode succinctly illustrates the nature of the relationship between Joseon and Japan after the Imjin War. The general outline of the incident is as follows:

During the mission's itinerary, an incident occurred where the Japanese Kanpaku (Regent) arranged for the envoy's party to visit Daibutsu-ji Temple near Kyoto and enjoy a banquet. However, the envoy's party objected, stating that Daibutsu-ji Temple was a shrine dedicated to Toyotomi Hideyoshi, who was the enemy of Joseon, and therefore they absolutely could not attend the banquet held there, leading to a conflict. The feudal lord of Tsushima, who was in a position to carry out the Japanese Kanpaku's orders, found himself in a very difficult situation due to the firm stance of the Joseon envoys. Therefore, the Tsushima lord attempted to persuade them by arguing that the information known to the missions was historically unfounded, citing the Japanese historical text 'Nihon Sendaiiki' (日本年代記) which stated that Toyotomi Hideyoshi did not rebuild Daibutsu-ji Temple. Ultimately, after hearing this explanation from Japan, the envoy's party, unable to continue their refusal, visited Daibutsu-ji Temple.

This incident clearly demonstrates that, although the two countries maintained outwardly friendly diplomatic relations after the Imjin War, the underlying conflict between them was deeper than expected. This is because Joseon still remembered the war with Japan as an event that had inflicted a great wound on its national pride.

These anecdotes bring to mind the current state of Korea-Japan relations, which have fallen into a phase of conflict as historical issues concerning the colonial period continue to be raised. It is perhaps in a similar situation that countries invaded by Japan react sensitively to the visits of prominent Japanese politicians to the Yasukuni Shrine and protest strongly.

However, unlike the current prolonged stalemate in Korea-Japan relations, the conflict surrounding Daebulsa took on an aspect of being narrowly resolved, which piqued my interest. To convey the process of conflict resolution more vividly, I will partially use quotations rather than mere summaries of events.

The envoy said, "My refusal to enter the temple gate is

because, in accordance with righteousness, I cannot forget the enemy. This is the same even if the Kampaku hears it.

It is impossible to lead people to an unrighteous path by forcing them into submission,

so what further nonsense can Kyun say? (Omitted) Even if we

cross the waves for ten thousand ri, we consider our lives as mere straw,

so even if we stay here for ten years, our claims cannot be compromised."

5. Korea-Japan Relations in History and Future Directions: Museum of Korea-Japan Exchange

(Omitted) The lord of Tsushima presented the envoy with the book "Nihon Shoki" (Chronicle of Japan), stating to the officials and judges,

"This is a historical text secretly kept in our country. As written herein, the reconstruction of Daebulsa was done in the year that Genji Mitsu (源家光) became Kampaku, and as you know, Toyotomi Hideyoshi and the Genji clan were not on good terms. In the Genji clan's era, not a single descendant of Toyotomi Hideyoshi remained, so who would have built a temple to honor Toyotomi Hideyoshi? If you read this book, you will fully understand that the story of the ancestral shrine is a false one."

The envoy said, "This is a historical text secretly kept in our country. As written herein, the reconstruction of Daebulsa was done in the year that Genji Mitsu (源家光) became Kampaku, and as you know, Toyotomi Hideyoshi and the Genji clan were not on good terms. In the Genji clan's era, not a single descendant of Toyotomi Hideyoshi remained, so who would have built a temple to honor Toyotomi Hideyoshi? If you read this book, you will fully understand that the story of the ancestral shrine is a false one."

The envoy said, "This is a historical text secretly kept in our country. As written herein, the reconstruction of Daebulsa was done in the year that Genji Mitsu (源家光) became Kampaku, and as you know, Toyotomi Hideyoshi and the Genji clan were not on good terms. In the Genji clan's era, not a single descendant of Toyotomi Hideyoshi remained, so who would have built a temple to honor Toyotomi Hideyoshi? If you read this book, you will fully understand that the story of the ancestral shrine is a false one."

The envoy said, "This is a historical text secretly kept in our country. As written herein, the reconstruction of Daebulsa was done in the year that Genji Mitsu (源家光) became Kampaku, and as you know, Toyotomi Hideyoshi and the Genji clan were not on good terms. In the Genji clan's era, not a single descendant of Toyotomi Hideyoshi remained, so who would have built a temple to honor Toyotomi Hideyoshi? If you read this book, you will fully understand that the story of the ancestral shrine is a false one."

There are no descendants of Toyotomi Hideyoshi left in the world, so how can one bow

The envoy said, "This is a historical text secretly kept in our country. As written herein, the reconstruction of Daebulsa was done in the year that Genji Mitsu (源家光) became Kampaku, and as you know, Toyotomi Hideyoshi and the Genji clan were not on good terms. In the Genji clan's era, not a single descendant of Toyotomi Hideyoshi remained, so who would have built a temple to honor Toyotomi Hideyoshi? If you read this book, you will fully understand that the story of the ancestral shrine is a false one."

The envoy said, "This is a historical text secretly kept in our country. As written herein, the reconstruction of Daebulsa was done in the year that Genji Mitsu (源家光) became Kampaku, and as you know, Toyotomi Hideyoshi and the Genji clan were not on good terms. In the Genji clan's era, not a single descendant of Toyotomi Hideyoshi remained, so who would have built a temple to honor Toyotomi Hideyoshi? If you read this book, you will fully understand that the story of the ancestral shrine is a false one."

(Omitted) Thus, the three envoys conferred. The chief envoy said, "Previously, we relied solely on hearsay and insisted that we would not enter the temple because it was Hideyoshi's temple. Now that we have confirmed through this country's documents that the temple was built by the Genji clan, it is not unreasonable to briefly visit and receive hospitality. Furthermore, we have already informed various Japanese people that we would absolutely not enter the temple of our enemy, and that we would only visit after learning that it was built by the Genji clan. By doing so, we clearly convey to Japan that we have not forgotten our enemy (Shin Yu-han 2006, 234-236)."

(Omitted) Thus, the three envoys conferred. The chief envoy said, "Previously, we relied solely on hearsay and insisted that we would not enter the temple because it was Hideyoshi's temple. Now that we have confirmed through this country's documents that the temple was built by the Genji clan, it is not unreasonable to briefly visit and receive hospitality. Furthermore, we have already informed various Japanese people that we would absolutely not enter the temple of our enemy, and that we would only visit after learning that it was built by the Genji clan. By doing so, we clearly convey to Japan that we have not forgotten our enemy (Shin Yu-han 2006, 234-236)."

(Omitted) Thus, the three envoys conferred. The chief envoy said, "Previously, we relied solely on hearsay and insisted that we would not enter the temple because it was Hideyoshi's temple. Now that we have confirmed through this country's documents that the temple was built by the Genji clan, it is not unreasonable to briefly visit and receive hospitality. Furthermore, we have already informed various Japanese people that we would absolutely not enter the temple of our enemy, and that we would only visit after learning that it was built by the Genji clan. By doing so, we clearly convey to Japan that we have not forgotten our enemy (Shin Yu-han 2006, 234-236)."

(Omitted) Thus, the three envoys conferred. The chief envoy said, "Previously, we relied solely on hearsay and insisted that we would not enter the temple because it was Hideyoshi's temple. Now that we have confirmed through this country's documents that the temple was built by the Genji clan, it is not unreasonable to briefly visit and receive hospitality. Furthermore, we have already informed various Japanese people that we would absolutely not enter the temple of our enemy, and that we would only visit after learning that it was built by the Genji clan. By doing so, we clearly convey to Japan that we have not forgotten our enemy (Shin Yu-han 2006, 234-236)."

(Omitted) Thus, the three envoys conferred. The chief envoy said, "Previously, we relied solely on hearsay and insisted that we would not enter the temple because it was Hideyoshi's temple. Now that we have confirmed through this country's documents that the temple was built by the Genji clan, it is not unreasonable to briefly visit and receive hospitality. Furthermore, we have already informed various Japanese people that we would absolutely not enter the temple of our enemy, and that we would only visit after learning that it was built by the Genji clan. By doing so, we clearly convey to Japan that we have not forgotten our enemy (Shin Yu-han 2006, 234-236)."

(Omitted) Thus, the three envoys conferred. The chief envoy said, "Previously, we relied solely on hearsay and insisted that we would not enter the temple because it was Hideyoshi's temple. Now that we have confirmed through this country's documents that the temple was built by the Genji clan, it is not unreasonable to briefly visit and receive hospitality. Furthermore, we have already informed various Japanese people that we would absolutely not enter the temple of our enemy, and that we would only visit after learning that it was built by the Genji clan. By doing so, we clearly convey to Japan that we have not forgotten our enemy (Shin Yu-han 2006, 234-236)."

(Omitted) Thus, the three envoys conferred. The chief envoy said, "Previously, we relied solely on hearsay and insisted that we would not enter the temple because it was Hideyoshi's temple. Now that we have confirmed through this country's documents that the temple was built by the Genji clan, it is not unreasonable to briefly visit and receive hospitality. Furthermore, we have already informed various Japanese people that we would absolutely not enter the temple of our enemy, and that we would only visit after learning that it was built by the Genji clan. By doing so, we clearly convey to Japan that we have not forgotten our enemy (Shin Yu-han 2006, 234-236)."

(Omitted) Thus, the three envoys conferred. The chief envoy said, "Previously, we relied solely on hearsay and insisted that we would not enter the temple because it was Hideyoshi's temple. Now that we have confirmed through this country's documents that the temple was built by the Genji clan, it is not unreasonable to briefly visit and receive hospitality. Furthermore, we have already informed various Japanese people that we would absolutely not enter the temple of our enemy, and that we would only visit after learning that it was built by the Genji clan. By doing so, we clearly convey to Japan that we have not forgotten our enemy (Shin Yu-han 2006, 234-236)."

What is noteworthy in this episode is that the Joseon envoy party distinguishes between Toyotomi Hideyoshi, who initiated the Imjin War, and 'Japan,' and that Japan also treats Joseon by distinguishing between Toyotomi Hideyoshi and 'Japan.' After the Imjin War ended in failure and power shifted from Toyotomi Hideyoshi to Tokugawa Ieyasu, Japan sought to improve relations with Ming and Joseon to consolidate its regime. Joseon attempted diplomatic negotiations through the lord of Tsushima, whose economic base relied on intermediary trade with Joseon, and Japan repatriated Joseon people captured during the war. In response, Joseon demanded that Japan capture and send to Joseon the perpetrators who had desecrated the Joseon king's tomb in 1606, and that Japan must first send a royal letter to the Joseon king to request improved relations. The Edo Shogunate found these conditions difficult to accept, but the lord of Tsushima actively intervened, forging the royal letter to some extent, and eventually, Joseon sent a 'Reply Envoy' (回答使) to signify the restoration of relations and a reply to the Edo Shogun's royal letter (History Textbook Research Group 2007, 162). The restoration of relations between Joseon and Japan was possible because both countries pursued the same goal of normalizing diplomatic relations and, in the process of achieving it, formed a common understanding based on an accurate grasp of what each other valued.

The attitude of Joseon and Japan, despite harboring animosity towards each other, to move towards a constructive relationship by acknowledging each other is also found in other instances. In "Hae-yu-rok" (A Record of Travels Abroad), a Japanese person expresses displeasure that, despite the restoration of diplomatic relations between Joseon and Japan, Joseon continues to insult Japan by referring to it as 'Wa-jeok' (Japanese pirates) or 'barbarians.' Shin Yu-han explains that while Joseon does harbor discomfort towards Japan, it is largely due to strong animosity towards Toyotomi Hideyoshi, and that if the remnants of Toyotomi Hideyoshi's family and influence were properly purged in Japan, Joseon's basic stance would be to seek harmony. In response, the Japanese side clarifies that Toyotomi Hideyoshi was a cruel individual who contributed nothing to Japan and that the Toyotomi clan was annihilated, requesting that Joseon treat Japan more amicably.

The Imjin War was a factor that continuously obstructed relations between Joseon and Japan. However, Joseon and Japan showed flexibility in forging new relations by shifting responsibility for this national tragedy to the misguided policies of Toyotomi Hideyoshi. To understand the Joseon-Japan relationship at the time, it is necessary to examine the Chinese-centric cultural sphere and its peripheral regions that persisted even after the Imjin War, while also noting the independent formation of characteristics within the bilateral relationship between Joseon and Japan.

Korea-Japan Relations After Shin Yu-han

In the period after Shin Yu-han, Japan adapted more quickly to Western cultural spheres, which gained a dominant position in global politics, leading to a reversal of the previous Korea-Japan relationship and the establishment of an opposing dynamic. Shin Yu-han's records reflect the typical mindset of Joseon elites during the late Joseon period, a time before the balance of power shifted, when Joseon adhered to the ideology of 'So-jung-hwa' (Little China) and Japan was forming its own international order. However, there is little indication of the subsequent turbulent East Asian geopolitical landscape. This is fundamentally because East Asia was a region where the discontinuity between the pre-modern and modern eras was significant.

The envoy said, "This is a historical text secretly kept in our country. As written herein, the reconstruction of Daebulsa was done in the year that Genji Mitsu (源家光) became Kampaku, and as you know, Toyotomi Hideyoshi and the Genji clan were not on good terms. In the Genji clan's era, not a single descendant of Toyotomi Hideyoshi remained, so who would have built a temple to honor Toyotomi Hideyoshi? If you read this book, you will fully understand that the story of the ancestral shrine is a false one."

While trying to supplement what I found lacking at the Nagoya Castle Museum, the discussion about Shin Yu-han seems to have become too lengthy. However, I did feel a slight sense of disappointment leaving the Nagoya Castle Museum. Perhaps because it is a place frequented by many Korean tourists, or perhaps because of an effort to reflect Korea's perspective more from a Japanese standpoint, I felt that the exhibition, as I toured it, was not significantly different from museums in Korea that focus on Korea-Japan relations. The explanations did not deviate much from the history I had learned, and I strongly felt that I was seeing familiar artifacts from textbooks in a more immersive setting in Japan. I wished I could have understood what Korea-Japan relations looked like from a Japanese perspective, rather than just confirming the narrative I encountered in Korea. I left the Nagoya Castle Museum contemplating how to better organize similar exhibitions in Korea and what new stories could be constructed about Korea-Japan relations. ■

References: Nakao, Hiroshi. 2005. *Joseon Tongsinsa Iyagi* (Stories of the Joseon Missions to Japan). Translated by Yoo Jong-hyun. Paju: Hanul. Shin Yu-han. 2006. *Hae-yu-rok: Joseon Seonbi Ilboneul Misseuda* (A Record of Travels Abroad: Joseon Scholars Encounter Japan). Translated by Kim Chan-soon. Paju:

Bori. History Textbook Research Group. 2007. *Hanil Gyoryuui Yeoksa Seonsa-buteo Hyeondae-kkaji* (History of Korea-Japan Exchange: From Prehistory to Modern Times). Seoul:

Hyean. Kang, David. 2010. *East Asia before the West*. New York: Columbia

University Press.

University Press.

University Press.