1696 - Ahn's so-called Matsushima/Usando was Jukdo, afterall.

-In May 2005, Mr.Murakami Sukekurou (66), the 48th master of an old family of Oki, Shimane revealed their old documents which was lying undiscovered for almost 300 years. 「One-volume Memorandum concerning the Korean boat that came alongside the pier in the 9th year of Genroku (1696)」(「元禄九丙子年朝鮮舟着岸一巻之覚書」) is the title written on the cover, and it consists of 16 pages. It was a record of the inquiry of Ahn Young Bok(安龍福), a Korean who came by Oki on the way to Tottori. - ( extract from the article by San-in Chuo Shinpo )

When the “San-in Chuo Sinpo” reported that Gerry found the evidence that Usando was not Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo, but Jukdo on the 22nd Feb, 2007, Dokdo Museum head admitted “It’s just Jukdo” . However, he continued , "In our country, Dokdo has been called “Usando” (于山島, 1432) - “Sambongdo” (三峰島, 1476) - “Jasando” (子山島, 1696) - “Seokdo” (石島, Korean Imperial Edict 41), and Dokdo (獨島, 1904)."

Korean claim Ahn Yong-bok who smuggled himself into Japan landed on Jasando (子山島) in 1696 and made Japanese recognize "Japanese Matsushima" as "Usando", or Matsushima is in Korea's 江原道 in this document. Korean automatically replace "Usando" with "Dokdo" every time they saw the word "Usando" in old documents, but all the documents and maps after 1696 available suggest Usando was most likely, Jukdo, not Takeshima/Dokdo.

This document does record Ahn's words "On the way to Gangwon Province, there are Takshima(Ulleungdo) and Matsuhima.(江原道 此道ノ中ニ 竹嶋松嶋 有之 竹島松嶋有)" However, it is just a record of the investigation and naturally, there is no trace Japanese had approved his appeal at all. In fact, Japanese sent him away to Choson directly, not through Tsushima, which was in charge of diplomacy with Choson at the time. Moreover, the more we read Ahn's testimony, the less his word become credible. What is Usando which Ahn referred afterall? Where it is?

The incident of the Ahn's travel which was recorded in this document and a incident of famous testimony in the annals of King Sukjong actually describes the same event, but the latter was recorded in Choson 4 month later. By analyzing those two documents, we could know one very important fact. - Jasando cannot be Takeshima/Dokdo. -

"One-volume Memorandum concerning the Korean boat that came alongside the pier in the 9th year of Genroku (1696)" (元禄九丙子年朝鮮舟着岸一巻之覚書 translation (part))
"They left Takeshima on 15th May, reached Matsushima on the same day. (五月十五日竹嶋出船同日松嶋江着)"

"The Annals of King Sukjong, vol.30 " (肅宗実録 30卷, 22年 戊寅 translation)
"At last on the next morning(15th May) in dawn, (we) pulled a boat and went into Jasando. (遂以翌曉, 拕舟入子山島)"

In the Japanese document, Ahn said he left Takeshima (Ulleundo) and reached to Jasando (Matsushima) on the same day(15th May). He didn't clearly say when he left, or when he arrived, not to speak of how many hours it took. The only thing we could tell for sure is he moved from Ulleundo to Jasando within a same day. But, in second Korean document, he actually testified that he pulled the boat on Jasando at the dawn of the same day. The point is, Ulleundo was surrounded by dangerous rocky shore, so it is not reasonable to depart on the boat before dawn in the dark. So Ahn should have left Ulleundo very early morning and soon reached to Jasando while dawn.

As we have seen, by analyzing two documents, we could definitely tell that it took less than few hours for Ahn to move from Ulleundo to Jasando, at dawn on 15th of May. Namely, the only possible island for this description is Jukdo(Korean name 竹島, Japanese name 竹嶼) which locates on approx. 2.2 km east shore of Ulleundo. Besides, Ahn said he "pulled the boat into Usando(拕舟入子山島)". There is no shore around Takeshima/Dokdo we can pull the boat. Chinese letter "拕" means "pull or drag the boat" with some kind of rope. Using "拕" verifies Ahn didn't go to today's Takeshima/Dokdo at all.

Ahn's testimony was full of inconsistency, thus Japanese researchers tend to ignore his statement. For example, he said the distance between Choson and Ulleundo 30-ri (120 km) and Ulleundo to Matsushima 50-ri (200 km). It makes Jasando near Oki island. The distance between Ulleundo and Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo is 92km.

竹嶋と朝鮮之間三十里竹嶋と松嶋之間五十里在之由申候

Importantly, the second documents were a testimony for the Choson officials of the border guard when he was subject to the life sentence for the serious offence of stowaway and subject to perjury. Naturally, his testimony was full of exaggeration, misrepresentation and untruth, which don’t match to the Japanese record. In fact, Choson government denied him in her official reply to Japanese government as "As for a vitreous and stupid person(= Ahn), even if he is telling a lie, it is an unknown thing of the Chosun government. ( 肅宗 31卷, 23年( 1697 丁丑 / 청 강희(康熙) 36年) 2月 14日 乙未 3번째기사 "至於漂風愚民, 設有所作爲") " before.

However, it is also true that Ahn actually traveled from Ulleundo to Oki in 1696. Ahn’s recognition of date may be accurate, since the arrival date was confirmed and consistent with Japanese documents. Then we compared the information of dates from testimony in two documents above to have found Ahn's Matsushima/Jasando was definitely Jukdo, not Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo.

In fact, this is easily confirmed by other documents and maps as well. Usando which used to be depicted on the west side of Ulleundo in same size started to be replaced to the exact location of today's Jukdo with almost identical shape after Choson officials started to investigate Ulleundo followed by Ahn's stowaway to Japan. Addition to that, there are some documents which record Choson people actually called Ulleundo (plus Jukdo) as Matsushima, as a whole. Following are those examples.

1793 「Ilseong-rok（日省録） 」
臣按本曹謄錄蔚陵外島其名松島卽古于山國也
The attendant said that according to the Yejo record, "Songdo" was another name for Ulleungdo and its surrounding islands," which was the old kingdom of Usan.

1882 「the Annals of King Kojong vol.30(高宗実録 19年4月 初 7日(壬戌)條 )」
敎曰 或稱芋山島 或稱松竹島 皆輿地勝覽所載也. 而又稱松島竹島與芋山島爲三島統稱鬱陵島矣.
The king said, “It is called either Usando or Songjukdo (松竹島), which are both written in the Yeojiseungram (輿地勝覽). It is also called Songdo
(松島) and Jukdo (竹島). Together with Usando, there are three islands that make up what is called Ulleungdo. Inspect the situation on all of them. (Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 8)

Because of Ahn's inconsistancy, it is considered to be almost impossible to tell if he really went to the so-called Matsushima/Jasando which perfectly coincide with location, distance and description (size). But if we analyze his travel itinerary from 15-18 th of May in both documents recorded by Japanese and Choson officials in 1696, we can conclude that Jukdo is the only possible island for Ahn's Matsushima/Jasando. It is considered that Ahn was confused with other islands like legendary Usando which he thought locates in North of Ulleundo and the inhabitable "huge island" which he saw in 1693 and is bigger than Ulleundo (= Oki). Actually, he was in need of appealing his triumphant of making Japanese admit his territorial claim of the huge inhabitable island, which is not true, so that he could dodge the life sentence.

Besides, Ahn, who was a private slave(私奴) misrepresented himself as "tax general of Choson(朝鬱両島監税将 臣 安同知騎) " to deceive the Japanese government (Shogunate). Moreover, Japanese didn't take Ahn seriously and expeled him from Tottori directly, not via Tsushima so that it won't become a diplomatic problem. No matter what he did or did not in Japan, it should not be subject to sovereignty dispuite in the first place.

In conclusion, Ahn’s "Jasando" and so-called "Japanese's Matsushima" which appears in Choson documents later is nothing but just a neiboughring island of Ulleundo, Jukdo.

Strangely, votes are being subtracted from our survey.

I have noticed that votes are being subtracting from the total on our survey question: "Do Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima) belong to Korea or Japan?" Total votes were once over 100,000 votes, but now they are down to 96,870. Were the numbers too high for someone?

It seems Blogger may have a bug.

1470 - "Sambongdo(三峯島)" was just an another name of Ulleundo, not Takeshima/Dokdo

When the “San-in Chuo Sinpo” reported that Gerry found the evidence that Usando was not Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo, but Jukdo on the 22nd Feb, 2007, Dokdo Museum head admitted “It’s just Jukdo” . However, he continued , "In our country, Dokdo has been called “Usando” (于山島, 1432) - “Sambongdo” (三峰島, 1476) - “Jasando” (子山島, 1696) - “Seokdo” (石島, Korean Imperial Edict 41), and Dokdo (獨島, 1904)." But was Sambongdo really Takeshima/Dokdo as he claims? Actually, as I studied below, it is extremely doubtful. On the contrary, most Korean official documents prove that Sambongdo was an just another name for Ulleundo, again.

What is 三峯(峰)島?

In 1470, a first year of King Sejon(成宗), 永安道（咸鏡道）観察使 from northeast part of the country reported that many squatters who evade taxes or dodge labor taxes smuggle themselves into “Sambongdo” or "three peaks island" , which can be seen from mainland, to Choson government. It looks like people in 永安道 then called Ulleundo as "三峯島". Choson government dispatched commander 朴宗元 and army to clear the island and bring those illegal squatters back. 3 of the 4 ships succeeded to reach Ulleundo and investigated the island, but all they had found was the remains of the residents, failed to find squatters. The Choson government started to doubt that this 三峯島 is not Ulleundo, thus they ordered 永安道観察使 to investigate it. In 1475, he investigated 金漢京 who claims that he had been near the 三峯島 and saw 7-8 people (!!) ("遙望島中有七八人") on the island but never landed because of the strong wind previous year. Choson government again required 永安道観察使 to investigate, so he dispatched 金自周 with 金漢京 in 1476. Commander (兵曹) reported to the King that 金自周 didn't even land on the island out of fear, but he saw 30 "human shape" standing on the island. ("人形別立者三十" : 成宗 72卷, 1476年 10月 27日)

三峯島 in Korean old documents

Professor Shin Sok-ho(申奭鎬) wrote that the 三峰島 mentioned in this sentence should be Dokdo("獨島之來歴" 思想界, 1960). He considered that the expression 三石列立 (three stones stands in a line) reminded him of 三峰島 (three peak island) and that the expression “人形別立者三十” by 金自周 reminded him of flock of "sea lions". However, that is just a conjecture. Korean scholars cite his article in order to argue the sovereignty of the island without criticizing it's credibility(李漢基(Lee Han-key), 1969). Let's see the original sentence and other sentences that described this incident from 成宗実録.

成宗 72卷, 7年( 1476 丙申 / 명 성화(成化) 12年) 10月 27日 丁酉 2번째기사
○兵曹啓: “永興人金自周供云: ‘本道觀察使, 以三峯島尋覓事, 遣自周及宋永老與前日往還金興、金漢京、李吾乙亡等十二人, 給麻尙船五隻入送, 去九月十六日於鏡城地瓮仇未發船向島, 同日到宿富寧地靑巖, 十七日到宿會寧地加隣串, 十八日到宿慶源地末應大, 二十五日西距島七八里許, 到泊望見, 則於島北有三石列立, 次小島, 次巖石列立, 次中島, 中島之西又有小島, 皆海水通流。 亦於海島之間, 有如人形別立者三十, 因疑懼不得直到, 畫島形而來。’ 臣等謂往年朴宗元由江原道發船, 遭風不至而還, 今漢京等發船於鏡城瓮仇未, 再由此路出入, 至畫島形而來, 今若更往, 可以尋覓。 請於明年四月風和時, 選有文武才者一人入送。” 從之。

Unfortunately, he seems to have picked only one record which contains ambiguous descriptions of the island among all the enormous documents. Actually, if you read the other record which tells exactly same incident from 成宗実録 just 5 days ago as below, 永安道觀察使 李克均 report that same incident and said that 金自周 told those 30 people dressed in white were probabley Choson people(有人三十餘...其人衣白...然其大槪乃朝鮮人也). They are definitely not sea lions, but human being (Choson people). The sentence even says there were smokes of fire(有烟氣). It is apparent that Prof. Shin simply picked up the only one diary which suite his conjecture, while ignoring others which contradict his conjecture. Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo is not inhabitable island. Besides, we know there were many sea lions on Ulleundo even in late 1700s. So even it was sea lions as he claims, it doesn't mean the island was Takeshima/Dokdo at all. Do sealions wear white clothes and make fire to cook? I doubt it.

成宗 72卷, 7年( 1476 丙申 / 명 성화(成化) 12年) 10月 22日 壬辰 3번째기사

○永安道觀察使李克均馳啓: “永興人金自周言: ‘往見三峯島, 且圖其形。’ 送自周以進。” 命問之, 自周對曰: “於鏡城海濱乘舟, 行四晝三夜, 見島屹然, 而有人三十餘, 列立島口, 有烟氣。 其人衣白, 形貌遠不能詳, 然其大槪乃朝鮮人也, 懼見執, 不能進也。” 賜襦衣二領。

Prof. Shin also claims that the sentence "二十五日西距島七八里許, 到泊望見, 則於島北有三石列立, 次小島, 次巖石列立, 次中島, 中島之西又有小島, 皆海水通流 " from the record describes Takeshima/Dokdo. But Takeshima consists of two huge barren rocks and many other surrounding tiny rocks. There is no "three standing rocks(三石列立)" near Takeshima, but there is, around Ulleundo. This expression perfectly matches with the northwestern part of Ulleundo rather than Takeshima/Dokdo. It is more reasonable to consider it to be the description of Ulleundo, not Takeshima/Dokdo .

The name "三峯" means "three peaks" and this name itself describe and grasp the exact feature of Ulleundo. It is well-known that Ulleundo does actually have three main peaks, and there are so many documents that describes Ulleundo has three main peaks(三峯). Below are only some examples.

東国輿地勝覧(1481) 巻45 蔚珍縣
"一云武陵　一云羽陵　二島在県正東海中　三峯及業掌空　南峯梢卑　風日清明則峯頭樹木　及山根沙渚　歴々可見 風便則二日可到　一説干山　鬱陵　本一島"

It says that Ulleundo has three peaks.

新増東国興地勝覧(1531)　卷之四十五
"于山島　鬱陵島 一云武陵、 一云羽陵、 二島在県正東海中、三峯及業、掌空 南峯梢卑、風日清明、則峯頭樹木、及山根沙渚、歴歴可見、風便則二日可到、 一説干山・ 鬱陵本一島 地方百里"

It says that Ulleundo has three peaks.

肅宗実録 25卷 (肅宗19年1693 年11月 18日)
"蓋蔚山漁人, 自海邊漂至鬱陵島, 島上三峰接天, 中有數十戶人家遺址。 "

It says that Ulleundo has three peaks that almost reaches to the heaven.

肅宗実録 30卷 (肅宗22年, 1696 9月 25日)
"備邊司推問安龍福等。 龍福以爲: “渠本居東萊, 爲省母至蔚山, 適逢僧雷憲等, 備說頃年往來鬱陵島事, 且言本島海物之豐富, 雷憲等心利之。 遂同乘船, 與寧海篙工劉日夫等, 俱發到本島, 主山三峰, 高於三角, 自南至北, 爲二日程, 自東至西亦然。"

It says Ulleundo has three main peaks.

「春官志」 completed by 李孟休 in 1745
"盖 是島 以其産竹也 故 謂 竹島 以有三峯也 故謂 三峯島 至於 于山 羽陵 蔚陵 武陵礒竹 皆音 轉 訛而然 也

It says that “This island [Ullengdo] is called Takeshima because is produces bamboo. There are three peaks on it, and so it is called Sambodo(三峯島). The terms于山, 羽陵, 蔚陵, 武陵, 磯竹島 are all phonetic transformations of the name. "

「欝陵島始末」 in 「文献撮録」 by 元鄭容（retired high rank officials of Choson
Dynasty : 1783－1873）

it says exactly the same thing with 「春官志」. (金学俊「独島/竹島韓国の論理」)

The article of 皇城新聞 in 23th September, 1899

It also says that Ulleundo has three peaks.

Though none of the Chosun officials like 朴宗元 succeeded in even landing on the island "三峯島", non-officials like 金漢京 and 金自周 claimed that they actually went close to the island and met or saw many people on the island. If you read the documents, you will notice that the reason Choson dynasty sent officials to "三峯島" which were believed not to be Ulleundo were to clear the squatters who were evading taxes. It is apparent that they were looking for the inhabitable island, not two rocks in the middle of the ocean which doesn't support human life.

In 成宗實録 16卷, (成宗3年, 1472 3月 6日 ), it says...
三峯島在我江原之境, 土地沃饒, 民多往居之故, 自世宗朝, 遣人尋之, 而未得。

"三峯島" is a fertile land and there were many people lives on Sambongdo.

In 成宗實録 卷17 (成宗3年, 1472 April) the following sentences were included:
三峰島在海中， 爾之行甚苦， 但我民逃賦潛投者， 不可不刷還……」及 「……三峰島在我封域之內， 海路險惡， 逃賦避稅者， 潛往居之

Tax ivaders and draft dodgers were living on Sambongdo.

In 成宗實録72卷 (成宗7年 1476 10月 22日)
"永安道觀察使李克均馳啓: “永興人金自周言: ‘往見三峯島, 且圖其形。’ 送自周以進。” 命問之, 自周對曰: “於鏡城海濱乘舟, 行四晝三夜, 見島屹然, 而有人三十餘, 列立島口, 有烟氣。 其人衣白, 形貌遠不能詳, 然其大槪乃朝鮮人也, 懼見執, 不能進也。” 賜襦衣二領。"

Finally, 金自周 went near the island, but didn't land on Sambongdo. But he saw 30 people on the island. He said they were Korean.

Also in 成宗實録卷107 (成宗10年, 1479 August),
"本道人民逃避差役， 潛往三峰島， 其數無慮千餘……"

A thousand of “labor dodgers” were hiding in the island. Although this may have been exaggerated, it should be right if one can say many people were living (hiding) in the island.

In the same book,
"……三峰島旁有小島, 全君子等二戶逃居其中…"

that here was a small island beside 三峰島 and 2 families were hiding in the small island.

In 成宗実録 卷110 (成宗10年, 1479 October),
"三峰島之好， 則人皆欲往居之。……三峰島土地沃饒……"

三峰島 is fertile and people wanted to live there.

Moreover, 金漢京 himself clearly stated that 三峯島 is seen from Choson peninsula on a fine day. It is impossible to see Takeshima/Dokdo from Choson peninsula.

In 成宗實録 26卷, (成宗4年, 1473 1月 9日)
“金漢京言: ‘在慶興, 遇淸明日, 可望見三峯島, 自會寧向東舟行, 七晝夜而到, 向北行四晝夜而還"

金漢京 says "三峯島" can be seen from 慶興(North Korea) on a fine day. Takeshima/Dokdo cannot be seen from Choson peninsula at all.

In 英祖実録 18卷 ( 英祖4年, 1728年 6月 9日)
"更推黃溥。 刑一次, 溥供: “慶源人南龜錫持巡營軍官傳令, 來慶興, 言于臣曰: ‘巡使道謫慶源時, 聞三峰島之說, 使渠訪問, 以爲推得之地。’ 臣問其探知與否, 則龜錫曰: ‘有一人言: 「若登頭里山烽臺, 値日晴, 則僅見其島形, 如臥牛。」云。"

Even in 1728, Choson official claims that it can be seen from mainland of Choson on a fine day.

To summarise it, "三峰(峯)島" is considred to be fertile island with three main peaks and on which many people hiding and living, and it can be seen from mainland of Choson. This island can’t be Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo, because Takeshima/Dokdo consists of two barren rocks and nobody couldn’t live nor cannot be seen from Choson peninsula. On the other hand, many documents confirms that Choson people apparantly mistook this Sambongdo as non-existant island and fussing about bringing back squatters on the island.

Why 金自周 and 金漢京 reported to the Choson officials that they reached 三峯島, instead of Ulleundo? There are some hints in the Annals of Choson dynasty. 金漢京's testimony that he had actually been to 三峯島 made Choson dynasty sent commanders to the island many times. And after Kim himself went to near the island again finally, Choson Dynasty discussed if they should send troops to clear the island and bring squatters from there. When 李郭, the high-ranked official investigated 金漢京 after returning from 三峯島, he had doubt Kim's testimony and still nobody was sure if this 三峯島 actually exist or not. The officials argued if they should send troops or not (成宗実録 115卷, 1480年 3月 11日). 永安道観察使 李郭 even thought about executing 金漢京 since his original testimony deceived King and government so that the fact that 三峯島 doesn't exist make widely known. After all, Choson dynasty decided to dispatch about 30 people, instead of troops, to investigate the island again （成宗実録 125卷　( 1481 年1月 9日) , but it looks like this idea was not put into practice forever and so-called "三峯島" has gone out of history.

Choson dynasty wrongfully considered that there was an fertile island called "三峯島" addition to Ulleundo after the failure of 朴宗元's clearing Ulleundo in 1470. And they asked 金漢京 who testified to have been to "Samgando(三峯島)". The island which 金漢京 had to go to was 三峯島, not Ulleundo, or he could face the serious penalty of perjury or deception of King and government. It is natural for Kim to insist he could have gone near "三峯島", not Ulleundo.

Korean old maps depicted Ulleundo as an island with 3 main peaks

There is no single Korean maps which describes Takeshima/Dokdo precisely and accurately before 1950s. But there are some Korean old maps which describes Ulleundo with three main peaks(三峯).

"海東八道烽火山岳地図"　高麗大学図書館 (late 17C)　

"Map of Ulleungdo(鬱陵島圖形)" by Bak Chang-seok(朴昌錫) (1711)

"海東輿地圖 江原道図" (Early 19C)

Conclusion

Though Korean claim that "三峯島" was today's 竹島/Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo, absolutely no Korean documents give us any concrete evidnce to support it. Apparently, "三峯島" was just an another name for Ulleundo. This "三峯島" issue happned to be the concrete evidence that Choson dynasty in 15th century had no ability to determine if there was another island near Ulleundo or not and Korean academics even today still cannot read historical documents properly.

Supplement

Below are the all the sentences I could search which include "三峯島" from the official site of The Annals of the Choson Dynasty. As we can see, there is absolutely no documents which support 三峯島 was definitely Takeshima/Dokdo.

成宗 8卷, 1年( 1470 庚寅 / 명 성화(成化) 6年) 12月 11日 甲寅 4번째기사
○下書永安道觀察使李繼孫曰: “今悉所啓。 其投往三峯島者, 逃賦背國, 情犯甚惡。 卿宜探問以啓。 但今風高海惡, 不可以本道小舫輕赴, 卿其詳審施行。”

成宗 15卷, 3年( 1472 壬辰 / 명 성화(成化) 8年) 2月 3日 庚午 3번째기사
○兵曹啓: “頃承傳敎: ‘江原道海中有三峯島, 來壬辰年春, 當遣人求之, 其節目商議以啓。’ 今將合行事件, 條錄以聞。 一, 用哨馬船四隻, 各定軍人四十名, 擇本道軍士有武才者及自募人十七名充定。 一, 篙工, 擇本道水軍行船慣熟者, 量數分定。 一, 朝臣中擇才兼文武者一員, 差敬差官。 一, 形名及軍器、火炮, 以本道三陟、蔚珍、平海等官所儲, 擇給。 一, 船上軍糧, 令本道觀察使, 計人數幷往返日月, 以蔚珍倉穀, 給之。 一, 軍士能搜得有功勞者, 令敬差官, 等第以啓。 一, 待風和, 四月晦時, 發船。 一, 富寧人金漢京知三峯島所在, 幷令入送。” 從之。

成宗 16卷, 3年( 1472 壬辰 / 명 성화(成化) 8年) 3月 6日 壬寅 1번째기사
○壬寅/御仁政殿策士, 以左議政崔恒、左贊成盧思愼、禮曹參判魚世謙爲讀券官。 其策曰: 予以寡昧, 嗣守丕基。 仰惟前代時若, 圖臻至理, 敬天勤民, 夙夜兢惕。 乃何比年以來, 凶歉相仍, 今又東事方興, 亢陽踰時歟? 豈予之刑政失宜, 誠未上格, 澤未下究, 致怨傷和, 有以感召耶? 若之何, 則己德不爽, 朝政無闕, 以收中和、位育之極功乎? 守令, 民之父母也, 故任用之時, 疇咨愼簡, 務得賢能, 以委字牧。 乃何廉平者寡, 而貪汚者屢聞歟? 若之何, 則列邑皆得其良吏, 而三異之政復見於今歟? 兵者, 國之干城也, 故予嘗軫念, 均其番休, 優其帖丁, 簡閱以時, 訓鍊不怠, 減其額, 而刷其冗。 乃何軍士精力者少而羸弱者多乎? 儻有緩急, 將焉用之? 若之何, 則士皆精强, 而競迪果毅乎? 廣土衆民, 王政之所先也, 三峯島在我江原之境, 土地沃饒, 民多往居之故, 自世宗朝, 遣人尋之, 而未得。 若之何, 則得其地, 使居民衆乎? 或言: “海道險阻, 雖得無益, 不如置之。” 此說何如? 凡此數事, 莫非經濟之策, 子大夫亦嘗講究, 而欲陳者也, 其各悉心以對。 予將觀有用之才。

成宗 16卷, 3年( 1472 壬辰 / 명 성화(成化) 8年) 3月 20日 丙辰 2번째기사
○命賜三峯島敬差官朴宗元, 苧布帖裏ㆍ綿紬裌帖裏ㆍ綿布帖裏各一領、馬皮靴一部。

成宗 16卷, 3年( 1472 壬辰 / 명 성화(成化) 8年) 3月 20日 丙辰 3번째기사
○傳于禮曹曰: “三峯島敬差官之行差, 遣倭、女眞通事各一人。”

成宗 17卷, 3年( 1472 壬辰 / 명 성화(成化) 8年) 4月 1日 丁卯 1번째기사
○丁卯朔/三峯島敬差官朴宗元辭, 上引見謂曰: “三峯島在海中, 爾之行甚苦。 但我民逃賦潛投者, 不可不刷還, 不獲已遣之。 爾往何以爲之?” 宗元對曰: “彼見臣至, 必皆逃竄, 臣當先奪其船, 如其逆命, 以軍法從事, 然當臨機處置, 難可預料。” 上曰: “爾言正合予意, 其往懋哉。”

成宗 17卷, 3年( 1472 壬辰 / 명 성화(成化) 8年) 4月 1日 丁卯 2번째기사
敎朴宗元曰: “三峯島在我封域之內, 海路險惡, 逃賦避稅者, 潛往居之。 今命爾往捕, 發船以後, 所領軍士, 如有違令者, 以軍法從事。”

成宗 19卷, 3年( 1472 壬辰 / 명 성화(成化) 8年) 6月 12日 丁丑 5번째기사
○江原道觀察使李克墩馳啓曰: “三峯島敬差官朴宗元與所領軍士, 分乘四船, 去五月二十八日, 自蔚珍浦發去, 卽遇大風四散。 朴宗元之船, 東北去, 二十九日平明, 向東南, 望見武陵島, 可十五里, 復遇大風, 船纜絶, 漂流大洋中, 不知東西者七晝夜。 本月初六日午時, 到杆城郡淸簡津。 司直郭永江等三船, 去五月二十九日, 至武陵島, 留三日, 搜索島中, 不見居人, 只有舊家址而已。 島中有竹, 其大異常, 永江等取數竿載船, 發回, 本月初六日, 至江陵羽溪縣梧耳津。 今風氣漸高, 海波險惡, 更遣爲難。 放遣本道軍士, 京軍士分運上送, 何如?”

成宗 21卷, 3年( 1472 壬辰 / 명 성화(成化) 8年) 8月 12日 丙子 3번째기사
○前此, 院相鄭麟趾等議三峯島搜覓事目云: “令永安道觀察使, 預擇閑散有職品官可使者, 諸事備辦, 待明年春和, 以金漢京爲指路尋覓。” 至是, 兵曹據此啓: “一。 依今年三峯島搜覓時例, 哨麻船四隻每船軍人四十名, 抄本道吉城以北諸邑軍士有武才者, 充差。 一。 令本道觀察使, 無問公私船, 擇不腐朽牢實者, 修補以待。 一。 四船蒿工, 擇本道諸浦船軍慣水者, 量數分差。 一。 道內有職、有才略人, 預先揀擇領率, 如有自募人幷許送。 一。 往還一朔糧, 令本道觀察使, 計口題給。 一。 搜探後論賞節次, 臨時議定。” 從之。

成宗 26卷, 4年( 1473 癸巳 / 명 성화(成化) 9年) 1月 9日 庚子 2번째기사
○諭永安道觀察使鄭蘭宗曰: “金漢京言: ‘在慶興, 遇淸明日, 可望見三峯島, 自會寧向東舟行, 七晝夜而到, 向北行四晝夜而還。 前年, 遣人往尋茂陵島, 自蔚珍向東舟行, 一晝夜而到, 西行三晝夜而還,’ 其所言地勢, 有可疑者。 世傳: ‘茂陵島之北, 有蓼島, 無一人往還者,’ 是亦可疑。 卿更訪問沿海古老舟人, 詳究以啓。 海路險惡, 今若遣人尋求, 宜募願行者。 人言: ‘邊民逃賦往投’ 不可置而不問, 亦不可以難信之言, 涉險冒危, 或致傾敗。 卿其審情度勢以啓。”

成宗 64卷, 7年( 1476 丙申 / 명 성화(成化) 12年) 2月 8日 壬午 3번째기사
下書永安道觀察使李克均曰:今鍾城居親軍衛盧義順上言云: “前年五月, 與鏡城人金漢京、會寧人林都致、慶源人任有才ㆍ金玉山ㆍ李吾乙亡ㆍ金德生, 就慶源地面末應大津, 發船行三日, 得見三蓬島, 遙望島中有七八人, 然吾輩單弱, 不得下陸而還。” 卿其詳問義順等各人以啓。

成宗 68卷, 7年( 1476 丙申 / 명 성화(成化) 12年) 6月 22日 癸巳 2번째기사
○下書永安道觀察使李克均曰:今見卿啓, 知鏡城金漢京等二人, 辛卯五月漂泊三峯島, 與島人相接, 又於乙未五月, 漢京等六人向此島, 距七八里許, 望見阻風, 竟不得達。 此言雖不可信, 亦或非妄, 今宜別遣壯健可信人三人同漢京等, 入送搜覓。

成宗 72卷, 7年( 1476 丙申 / 명 성화(成化) 12年) 10月 22日 壬辰 3번째기사
○永安道觀察使李克均馳啓: “永興人金自周言: ‘往見三峯島, 且圖其形。’ 送自周以進。” 命問之, 自周對曰: “於鏡城海濱乘舟, 行四晝三夜, 見島屹然, 而有人三十餘, 列立島口, 有烟氣。 其人衣白, 形貌遠不能詳, 然其大槪乃朝鮮人也, 懼見執, 不能進也。” 賜襦衣二領。

成宗 72卷, 7年( 1476 丙申 / 명 성화(成化) 12年) 10月 27日 丁酉 2번째기사
兵曹啓: “永興人金自周供云: ‘本道觀察使, 以三峯島尋覓事, 遣自周及宋永老與前日往還金興、金漢京、李吾乙亡等十二人, 給麻尙船五隻入送, 去九月十六日於鏡城地瓮仇未發船向島, 同日到宿富寧地靑巖, 十七日到宿會寧地加隣串, 十八日到宿慶源地末應大, 二十五日西距島七八里許, 到泊望見, 則於島北有三石列立, 次小島, 次巖石列立, 次中島, 中島之西又有小島, 皆海水通流。 亦於海島之間, 有如人形別立者三十, 因疑懼不得直到, 畫島形而來。’ 臣等謂往年朴宗元由江原道發船, 遭風不至而還, 今漢京等發船於鏡城瓮仇未, 再由此路出入, 至畫島形而來, 今若更往, 可以尋覓。 請於明年四月風和時, 選有文武才者一人入送。” 從之。

成宗 78卷, 8年( 1477 丁酉 / 명 성화(成化) 13年) 3月 4日 辛未 3번째기사
○吏曹正郞柳文通等五人輪對。 佐郞安良生啓曰: “吏曹用人, 本欲辨賢愚以輔治道, 而僧職如大禪、中德、禪師、住持, 亦令吏曹下批, 臺諫署經, 此甚不可。” 上曰: “果非矣。 肇自何時?” 右承旨任士洪啓曰: “太宗朝猶有此弊。 如大選之試, 亦可罷也。” 佐郞李昌臣啓曰: “臣伏聞遣使求三峰島, 爲逃賦入海之民也。 然驅士衆, 擠之大海之中, 臣恐所得不能償其所失。 得其地, 不可耕也, 得其人, 不可使也, 棄之不爲損, 得之不爲益。 昔漢武滅南越, 置珠崖郡, 一轉輸之間, 死者數萬, 至元帝時, 賈捐之極言不可, 詔罷之。 臣意以爲永安道自丁亥後, 人心洶洶, 今尙不靖, 願專以存撫此道爲憂, 三峰島棄之無妨。” 上曰: “此島, 今有明言其處者, 今若不求, 必爲逋逃淵藪, 不可棄也。” 又啓曰: “卽位以來, 慮僧徒日繁軍額日耗, 累下私剃之禁。 然違上所命, 從厥攸好, 人之常情, 禁(綱)〔網〕之密, 不若謹好尙之爲愈。 臣聞近日寫金字經於奉先寺, 是自上導之, 臣之惑滋甚。 況金銀之貢, 請免上國, 我祖宗爲後世慮至矣, 以此而寫經可乎?” 上曰: “仁粹王大妃爲先王爲之, 予豈止之?” 昌臣曰: “寫經之擧, 雖非殿下本意, 然事父母, 當幾諫。 有爭子, 則親不陷於不義, 後世謂殿下何如? 伏惟三思焉。” 上曰: “然。” 昌臣等出, 上謂左右曰: “此李昌臣乎? 言事固當如是, 此人不易得也。”

成宗 104卷, 10年( 1479 己亥 / 명 성화(成化) 15年) 5月 12日 丁卯 4번째기사
○兵曹據永安道觀察使啓本啓: “三峯島投居人物, 請遣朝官刷還。” 命議諸政丞。 鄭昌孫、韓明澮、沈澮、尹士昕、金國光、尹弼商議: “臣等曾聞, 三峯島水路險惡, 且不知所向, 不可輕易遣人。 更加詳問, 若人物往來明白, 更議遣人何如?”

成宗 106卷, 10年( 1479 己亥 / 명 성화(成化) 15年) 7月 13日 丁卯 1번째기사
丁卯/御經筵。 講訖, 執義尹慜啓曰: “戎政, 國之重事, 不可不講。 然於十月閱武, 則必於八九月徵兵, 臣恐禾稼未收, 必有踏損之弊, 退定何如。” 上曰: “凡秋務, 有至于十月, 而未畢者。 況今年十月有閏, 則雖退定, 似爲未晩, 更以十月望後擇定。” 同知事李承召啓曰: “今倭人所獻, 雖以木蘭皮, 冒稱爲桂皮, 然臣意以謂 ‘彼人, 自以爲慕義獻琛, 則不可不受。’ 受之而不答賜何如?” 上曰: “不受則已, 受之, 則不可不答賜。” 承召曰: “若不受, 則彼必缺望, 不如姑受之。” 上曰: “此則已却之矣, 今後如卿言。” 上又曰: “頃者朴宗元, 求三峯島不得, 今觀永安道敬差官啓本, 其爲有島無疑。 敬差官上來後, 將欲遣人求之。” 領事金國光啓曰: “求之史籍, 雖未有所謂三峯島者, 然其民, 必往來海上, 見島之有三峯者, 因以爲號耳。 但居此島者, 已有叛心者也, 若遣人求之, 則不可不齎兵器以往。” 上曰: “然。” 右副承旨蔡壽啓: “柳陽春上言, 幷啓當初坐罪時招辭。” 上曰: “觀此則其罪不如是之甚也。” 左副承旨金季昌啓曰: “陽春外祖母, 以田民請之, 而不聽, 玄得利, 亦以田民請之曰: ‘爾則年富才優, 可不失高科, 我則不可必矣。 余與汝猶父子, 幸毋發告。’ 陽春又不聽焉, 非徒訟庭, 與得利交口爭詰, 他官則可, 臺省政曹, 不可除也。” 上曰: “敍用。”

成宗 107卷, 10年( 1479 己亥 / 명 성화(成化) 15年) 8月 30日 癸丑 3번째기사
○命召曾經政丞及府院君等, 御宣政殿, 引見, 又召永安道敬差官辛仲琚以入。 上曰: 三峯島人, 有拒敵官軍之勢, 欲與卿等議處置。” 左承旨金升卿啓曰: “三峯島旁有小島, 全君子等二戶, 逃居其中。 若募本道之人, 出其不意而往, 則可及三峯島人未覺之時, 取小島兩家矣。 然後審其形勢, 遣人討之何如? 鄭昌孫曰: “三峯島人, 無乃覺而來襲乎?” 上曰: “若然則官軍恐受辱矣。” 都承旨洪貴達啓曰: “五鎭人性, 本貪功, 賊若犯境, 欲使他境不知, 而自專其功, 若募以重賞, 必有取之者。” 辛仲琚言: “三峯水路, 五月九月風便海淸, 獨於此時可往。 若然則永安道, 道路遙隔, 今年九月, 似未及往也。” 昌孫曰: “若必入討, 則不可緩也。 若使彼人, 知我將討, 而有備, 則大不可也。” 上曰: “當大擧速討, 用戰卒一千五百若何?” 右副承旨蔡壽啓曰: “不須此數。 雖三四百可矣。 然北人皆用麻尙船, 蒼茫大海, 安可以麻尙船濟師哉? 且不識彼島地勢險夷, 居人多寡, 輕擧大軍, 以冒不測之險, 似未便。” 辛仲琚啓曰: “聞魚命山逃入時, 竊人哨麻船騎去矣。” 上曰: “水路幾日程, 其島泊船處有幾?” 仲琚對曰: “人言可二日程, 泊船處, 亦多有之。” 右承旨李瓊仝啓曰: “彼亦我國人, 安有拒敵官兵之理乎? 遣人招撫何如?” 上曰: “其人不事官役, 安業而居, 其肯來乎?” 洪貴達曰: “若招撫, 則非一端, 必開陳利害, 多方以誘之矣。 但今九月已迫, 戰艦諸事, 必不及辦, 待明年二三月遣之何如?” 上曰: “都承旨所言當矣。 此事終不可密, 今諭監司及節度使, 使備戰艦, 聲言大擧, 則彼或有歸服之理。” 僉曰: “上敎允當。”

成宗 107卷, 10年( 1479 己亥 / 명 성화(成化) 15年) 8月 30日 癸丑 4번째기사
○諭永安道觀察使李德良、南道節度使李欽石、北道節度使辛鑄曰: “今敬差官辛仲琚來言: ‘本道人民, 逃避差役, 潛往三峯島, 其數無慮千餘。’ 此無他, 所在守令, 不能撫恤所致。 然謀背國家, 往投絶島, 罪在不赦。 今欲擧大兵往討, 卿等知悉此意, 造哨麻船五十艘, 以待。 彼若自知罪過, 悔悟出來, 則當悉貰其罪, 加以重賞。 如或執迷不悟, 則殄殲無遺, 悔無及矣。 卿等幷將此意, 遍行知會。

成宗 108卷, 10年( 1479 己亥 / 명 성화(成化) 15年) 9月 4日 丁巳 7번째기사
○都承旨洪貴達、左承旨金升卿啓曰: “前日欲大擧討三峯島, 下諭永安道, 令造戰艦, 今宜遣朝官董正, 使島人, 知我往伐之意, 雖不別遣他員, 令推刷敬差官, 兼之可矣。 但金錫元, 優於推刷, 不閑轅門之事, 擇多智術、善應變者遣之爲便。” 傳曰: “雖不往諭, 自知之矣。 昔舜征有苗, 不卽(工)〔攻〕, 退而修德, 卒格于干羽之舞, 不須往諭。”

成宗 108卷, 10年( 1479 己亥 / 명 성화(成化) 15年) 9月 5日 戊午 2번째기사
○都承旨洪貴達啓曰: “前日, 下諭永安道, 將欲大擧討三峯島, 令造戰艦, 若自來者, 赦罪重賞, 然絶島愚氓, 恐不知廟謀, 須遣多智略、善料事者造船, 招撫諸事, 與監司、節度使同議, 臨機善處可矣。 今以金錫元, 爲本道敬差官, 於推刷則優矣, 恐未能於此事。” 上曰: “可者誰?” 貴達啓曰: “臣意以謂 ‘成健、丘致崐, 可矣。’” 上曰: “其多擇可者以啓。” 承政院, 以成健、朴崇質、丘致崐抄啓, 傳曰: “經筵官非一, 若歷試, 則可知賢否。 姑欲以曺偉、曺淑沂差遣, 二人誰可耶? 平日, 予以爲 ‘賢而至於臨事, 亦又善處, 則予亦知人矣。’” 承政院啓曰: “曺淑沂, 則奉命出使, 曺偉則雖不更事, 氣質非常, 年雖少, 而老成, 上敎允當。” 金季昌啓曰: “曺偉雖賢, 嘗不諳練, 其於推刷, 恐未能也。” 御書, 以曺偉爲敬差官, 仍傳于季昌曰: “安可不試, 而知其賢否哉?”

成宗 108卷, 10年( 1479 己亥 / 명 성화(成化) 15年) 9月 12日 乙丑 5번째기사
○諭三峯島投接人民等, “今聞爾等, 挈妻子往投海島, 將有久居之志, 予惟爾等, 本無罪犯, 若乃棄祖父田里, 陵不測之險, 寄生於孤島之中, 夫豈所樂? 是必所在守令, 不體予撫字之意, 多般侵虐, 將不勝其苦, 苟爲姑息之計耳。 豈不可憐哉? 原爾等之情, 不過如此耳。 然天生斯民, 立之君長, 民非元后, 亦何所戴? 使爾流離至此, 司牧者, 固不能逃其罪。 爾之背君長、離親戚, 偸生於不可生之地, 亦豈人類乎? 安有無君之民, 而尙得一日容身於天地間哉? 今特遣使, 往諭予意, 用開爾自新之路, 若悔悟前非, 相率來還, 則唱義爲首者, 賞職超二資, 自願綿布, 則三十匹, 從者賞職加一資,自願綿布, 則十五匹。 竝赦前罪, 同爲太平之民, 以壽終於樂土, 不亦善乎? 如或終迷不悟, 罪至貫盈, 則將擧兵往討, 必殲乃已, 爾時雖欲悔過自新, 何及? 爾來則利及子孫, 否則身首且不能保矣。 爾之利害如此, 爾等盍亦熟擇趨避之途? 傳相告語, 其速來歸。 予不食言。”

成宗 108卷, 10年( 1479 己亥 / 명 성화(成化) 15年) 9月 12日 乙丑 6번째기사
○永安道敬差官曺偉齎去事目: 一, 三峯島諭書齎去人, 在前往來人及投接人族屬, 今被囚中, 從自募, 量數定送。 一, 諭書齎去人, 投撫率來, 則逃避根因, 推鞫, 情迹明白, 而隱諱不服者, 功臣議親堂上外, 刑問見推。

成宗 108卷, 10年( 1479 己亥 / 명 성화(成化) 15年) 9月 14日 丁卯 2번째기사
御經筵。 講訖, 掌令成健啓曰: “慶由亨, 無家舍, 以奴婢準計給之, 此法一開, 後必援引, 爲長子者, 旣得主祭奴婢, 又準家舍加給, 則衆子無一口得之者, 有矣。” 上曰: “奉祀以嫡, 理之常也。 慶餘次子有家, 而長子獨無家, 於義當乎? 然次子之家, 父母所傳, 不可奪與, 故以奴婢準給, 亦不妨。 然卿等, 豈不知而言乎? 予將廣議。” 健又啓曰: “作成人才, 必須預養。 成均館, 卽作成之地, 他日列于朝著者, 皆出於此。 今者勸學之條, 久任之法, 靡不備具, 然堂上, 無久任之法, 請擇德行素著, 而兼有學術者, 以任敎養之責。” 上曰: “雖有學問, 苟無德行, 則何以表 (卒)〔率〕? 向者, 已令有德行者, 兼任成均矣。” 左副承旨金季昌啓曰: “魚世謙、金紐, 居是任矣, 金紐, 病不能仕。” 健啓曰: “此輩雖四五日一仕, 何益? 必使有德行者, 常仕敎養, 然後可以作成。” 上曰: “當更議之。” 健又啓曰: “武士, 徒學武藝, 不習文字, 何以有用? 臣願擇有學術者, 爲之師, 令兼司僕之類, 或聚訓鍊院敎, 以聖賢之書, 磨以歲月,以待成就, 雖得一二宏大之才, 其有補於國, 豈小哉?” 上曰: “予嘗擇解文者, 敎導軍卒, 逐日以講。” 同知事李崇允〔李崇元〕啓曰: “習讀官二十人, 受祿讀書爲是也。” 健啓曰: “雖或講書, 非如《小學》、四書, 乃兵家一卷之書。” 上曰: “然。 予亦見所讀者, 類皆《吳子》, 其中有講黃石公者, 然豈得解其意乎?” 侍讀官李昌臣啓曰: “健所啓甚是。 臣等族親, 多有武士, 罕識經書, 專事射御, 雖有志於學, 《將鑑》兵書, 患不得見。 曩者, 令平壤, 印《將鑑博議》, 然板頑字訛, 不可讀。” 上曰: “其書, 何本歟?” 昌臣啓曰: “只有論而無傳。” 上曰: “不識本傳, 何以知其行迹? 可印《將鑑博議》, 頒之。” 昌臣又啓曰: “諭三峯島人民, 別遣近侍之臣, 重其事也, 而兼帶推刷賤口, 踏驗災傷之事, 若專以一事往, 則彼且聞之, 或知感激。 願別遣推刷敬差官。” 上曰: “別遣朝官, 豈得無弊? 且曺偉, 初往遣人於三峯島, 待回報之時, 常間無事, 可能推刷矣。” 仍敎季昌曰: “敎訓武士程規, 磨鍊以啓。”

成宗 109卷, 10年( 1479 己亥 / 명 성화(成化) 15年) 10月 30日 壬子 5번째기사
○永安道敬差官曺偉馳啓曰: “三峯島自願入去人, 於諸邑宣布事目, 廣諭召募, 吉城六名、明川四名、鏡城十四名、富寧八名, 合三十二名, 麻尙船, 則亦於諸邑擇取體大。 且前此逃去嚴永山族親, 則時未聞見, 故更移會寧府, 窮極訪問, 嚴永山一時逃去金貴實之兄, 會寧居良人金長命, 李奉生族親富寧居甲士李仲善二名, 將以入送, 竝令治裝。 前此逃去現捉被囚人等, 皆願入歸, 而劉六生、李枝, 則本船上慣熟, 故亦令治裝。 餘自願人內, 金漢京, 則三度往還, 自稱熟知, 鏡城居護軍崔興、司直金自周亦言: ‘李克均觀察時, 以看審事, 再度入歸, 遙望還來。’ 金自周, 則非唯解文, 身彩言語可取, 故今欲作頭入送。 將於本月二十七日, 富寧南面靑巖海邊發船, 其入送數, 自願人內揀擇送麻尙船, 亦與節度使同議, 量數入送。

成宗 110卷, 10年( 1479 己亥 / 명 성화(成化) 15年) 閏10月 6日 戊午 1번째기사
○戊午/永安道敬差官曺偉馳啓曰: “臣依齎來事目, 三峯島自願入去人金漢京等二十一名及前投三峯島人嚴永山異姓四寸兄, 會寧居李仁右、金貴實同生兄金長命、李奉生族親富寧居李仲善, 幷船上慣熟。 慶源居李卵同等十一人, 麻尙船合結, 三隻分騎, 具糧物軍器, 以其中解文有職人嚴謹、金自周、金麗强, 爲各船牌頭, 授諭書, 今十月二十七日巳時, 於富寧南面靑嚴里海邊, 發船入送, 令沿海諸邑候望。”

成宗 110卷, 10年( 1479 己亥 / 명 성화(成化) 15年) 閏10月 26日 戊寅 2번째기사 ○永安道觀察使李克墩, 辭, 上引見謂曰: “今年中朝, 入攻建州, 我兵從征, 西北聲息, 二三年間, 必不絶矣。 卿知此意, 備禦諸事, 盡心爲之。 且三峯島事, 則今朝, 承旨已知之矣。” 左承旨李瓊仝啓曰: “前月二十八日, 曺偉合結麻尙船入送, 風逆還來。 三十日更送, 今幾一月, 而不還, 不知其故。” 克墩啓曰: “臣爲江原道監司, 有金漢京者, 始發此言, 臣疑之, 反覆詰問, 其言多變詐, 臣不信聽。 永安道人, 愚惑太甚, 多信飛語, 一人有言三峯島之好, 則人皆欲往居之。 今乃命遣招撫, 如未得還, 國家未知其由, 又從而遣之, 如此恐傷人物。” 上曰: “三峯島, 土地沃饒, 民安其業, 不事官役, 背國忘君, 必不自來。 今欲遣人, 審其形勢, 然後大擧征伐, 故如此耳。 其或敗船溺死, 特一時之變, 安可以此, 而不爲乎?” 瓊仝曰: “前日講武時, 安仁厚所言, 三水、甲山間, 閒曠之地, 令監司更審何如?” 上曰: “可。” 瓊仝又啓曰: “兩界萬戶, 則皆兼軍職, 獨於釜山、薺浦則國家重其任, 擇堂上官, 而差之, 不兼軍職, 似乎不可。 大抵人心, 不樂於補外, 今以堂上官, 降授外官, 而又無妻子之俸, 依兩界例, 兼差軍職何如?” 上曰: “除軍職, 以養其心可矣。 且文臣, 則常任治事之地, 故雖不得細知, 亦可識賢否。 武臣如內禁衛、兼司僕之類, 不任治事之地, 故未識賢否。” 瓊仝曰: “武人, 置之治事之地, 則弓馬之業踈矣。” 上曰: “學文製述廢弛, 則果踈矣, 弓馬之事不然。 古云: ‘文武幷用, 長久之道。’ 今後武臣, 非徒用於南行, 如六寺七監正、副正、僉正之類, 亦以武臣除之。”

成宗 112卷, 10年( 1479 己亥 / 명 성화(成化) 15年) 12月 19日 庚午 1번째기사
○庚午/受常參。 兵曹判書李克增啓曰: “臣見三峯島來歸金漢京等, 略問其事, 對甚詳悉, 似非虛僞, 三峯島之有必矣。 明春造船入送事, 商議何如?” 上曰: “三峯島逃竄之人, 不可置之也, 必須搜捕。 若有橫逆, 遣師入攻可也。 漢京等前則來歸, 而及今官使之時, 則托以風逆, 甚不可。 令兵曹鞫之。”

成宗 112卷, 10年( 1479 己亥 / 명 성화(成化) 15年) 12月 25日 丙子 1번째기사
○丙子/下書永安道觀察使李克墩曰: “今還送金漢京、金自周、嚴謹、金呂强, 可令保授, 待來春, 三峯島以指路入送。”

成宗 114卷, 11年( 1480 庚子 / 명 성화(成化) 16年) 2月 12日 壬戌 2번째기사
○兵曹啓: “今三峯島入去人員, 以招撫使、副使稱號軍官各十人, 以京軍士擇定, 篙工, 擇京畿水軍及漁夫、鹽夫中, 操舟慣熟者, 幷預差三十人抄定。” 從之。

成宗 114卷, 11年( 1480 庚子 / 명 성화(成化) 16年) 2月 20日 庚午 1번째기사 ○庚午/上護軍鄭錫禧來啓曰: “臣以招撫使, 往三峯島, 凡有見聞, 必須記錄。 臣與朴宗元, 皆武人, 請帶文臣而行。” 命擇文臣一人, 稱從事官遣之。

成宗 114卷, 11年( 1480 庚子 / 명 성화(成化) 16年) 2月 24日 甲戌 3번째기사
○義禁府啓: “上護軍鄭錫禧, 以三峯島招撫使, 憚於水路, 謀欲改差, 使妻上言規免罪, 律該杖一百罷職。” 命贖杖、奪告身, 付處于昌原。

成宗 114卷, 11年( 1480 庚子 / 명 성화(成化) 16年) 2月 28日 戊寅 4번째기사
○義禁府啓: “訓鍊院副正朴宗元, 以三峯島招撫副使, 憚於水路, 托病上言罪, 律該杖一百, 告身盡行追奪。” 命只收職牒, 付處于金海。

成宗 115卷, 11年( 1480 庚子 / 명 성화(成化) 16年) 3月 8日 戊子 4번째기사
三峯島招撫使沈安仁等書啓曰: 三峯島居人若多, 則只率魁首而來, 其餘幷留之。 仍語曰: “汝等不卽出來, 當大擧入勦。 從之。

成宗 115卷, 11年( 1480 庚子 / 명 성화(成化) 16年) 3月 11日 辛卯 2번째기사
○御經筵。 講訖, 侍讀官金訢啓曰: “三峯島招撫使, 今將發行。 昔茂陵人黃眞, 因捕魚, 偶到桃源, 見先世避秦者, 而其後漁人迷路者非一, 無見所謂桃源者。 三峯島有無, 渺不可知, 而信一金漢京之言, 以二百餘人, 犯風濤不測之險, 臣甚危之。 請先遣慣水路者二三人, 的知後, 可遣招撫使。” 上曰: “是則與桃源之說有異。 予聞永安北道之民, 逃散者頗多, 意必潛投此島, 自作一區, 若不招來, 萬無自還之理。” 仍(聞)〔問〕左右, 領事盧思愼、知事徐居正對曰: “的知有此島後, 遣之可矣。” 不聽。

成宗 115卷, 11年( 1480 庚子 / 명 성화(成化) 16年) 3月 15日 乙未 2번째기사
○御經筵。 講訖, 持平卜承貞啓曰: “三峯島有無, 不可的知。 若實有居人, 則必相往來, 通有無, 以資生業, 何無一人見所謂三峯居人耶? 請先遣一二人, 探知後, 遣招撫使。” 上曰: “永安道之民, 逃散者非一, 而不知所向, 其潛往三峯島無疑矣。 彼居人多少, 不可臆料, 萬有拒敵, 則遣一二人探之可乎?”

成宗 115卷, 11年( 1480 庚子 / 명 성화(成化) 16年) 3月 17日 丁酉 1번째기사
○丁酉/三峯島招撫使沈安仁辭, 賜敎書曰: 四境之遠, 兆民之衆, 以予一人之視聽, 不能獨治。 故委諸監司、守令, 以責其成, 而間有失於撫字, 致令吾民流亡失業, 散而之四方。 是雖予不德, 而長民者, 亦豈能辭其責哉? 今聞永安道人民, 逃避差役, 潛往三峯者, 前後相繼, 逋亡甚多。 予念彼島, 邈在大洋, 愚民昧於大義, 苟爲姑息之計, 相率逃接, 以爲窟穴。 謀背本國, 以干邦憲, 所宜興兵致討, 以正王法, 而第以牧民者, 旣不能使之安居樂業, 以致流離, 又不能遣人諭告, 俾之返業, 而遽加鋒刃, 使無遺類, 亦豈君父好生之仁哉? 肆以爾爲招撫使, 以成健副之, 粧船九艘, 幷載軍裝, 浮海而往, 俾曉予意。 若彼人民, 自知其咎, 悔禍歸順, 則悉貰其罪, 其首先投順者, 優加褒賞, 以開自新, 如或執迷不悟, 則是自速其辜, 將擧兵討罪。 爾其開陳利害, 多方招誘, 許之復業, 使之脫於危亡之禍, 以副予父母斯民之意。

成宗 115卷, 11年( 1480 庚子 / 명 성화(成化) 16年) 3月 17日 丁酉 2번째기사
諭諸種兀狄哈曰: “汝等自祖宗以來, 世沐王化, 或投誠報變, 或刷還流民, 予嘉乃功, 益勤撫綏。 不意永安頑民, 逃避差役, 潛往三峯島者頗多, 故今遣沈安仁等二百餘人, 裝船九艘, 幷載軍器, 以備不虞, 浮海而往, 多般招誘, 使之返業安居。 第念彼島, 邀在海中, 若遇狂風, 必漂至汝境。 汝等須盡心護送, 其深遠沿海諸野人處, 亦宜預先通諭, 使知此意。 汝等當受重賞。” 仍下書諭永安北道節度使辛鑄曰: “今招撫使發船處, 與沿海兀狄哈所居相近, 慮恐漂至其界。 今送諸種兀狄哈處, 諭書五道, 其付朝貢, 回還野人及城底野人, 使之傳送知會。”

成宗 117卷, 11年( 1480 庚子 / 명 성화(成化) 16年) 5月 30日 己酉 7번째기사
○下書于招撫使沈安仁曰: “今霾雨方作, 風水不順, 其停三峯島之行, 斯速上來。”

成宗 125卷, 12年( 1481 辛丑 / 명 성화(成化) 17年) 1月 9日 甲申 5번째기사
○永安道觀察使李克墩, 上三峯島搜得之策: “一, 東北之海, 風浪險惡, 非他海之比, 且不知三峯島, 的在何處, 差人入送爲難。 但本道人民, 皆是遷徙之徒, 撤擧家産, 不以爲難, 性又愚惑, 信聽誑語。 若不於此時, 搜得此島, 明其背國之罪, 則愚民必曰: ‘國家大擧欲討, 而終不得, 他日我雖往投, 國家終無乃我何。’ 則非細故也。 倘有水旱之災, 兵戈之役, 則必有逃往背國之人。 臣意, 妄謂如今年招撫使之擧, 則倘有蹉跌, 其悔甚大。 宜如敬差官曺偉時例, 令本道自望人三十餘名, 齎諭書入送, 探知島之所在, 勢可招撫, 則招之, 如不可敵, 則更遣師往討, 亦爲未晩。 且往返之間, 縱有所失, 不至大悔。 一, 前者往來者, 或云遙見, 或云不得見, 莫辨眞僞。 今也遣人搜覓, 如終無此島, 則將初發言金漢京輩, 明其誑語惑衆之罪, 置之極刑, 傳屍一道, 以示衆目, 則愚民亦知三峯島之必無, 而其胥動之惑, 自解。 一, 如明年春節入送, 則須於正月晦時, 諸事畢辦。 二月初到浦, 待風爲便。 待風只數十日之事, 如遷延數旬, 値霖雨, 則無風海暗, 終無發船之理。” 命議于領敦寧以上。 鄭昌孫、沈澮、尹士昕、尹弼商、洪應、盧思愼、李克培、尹壕議: “三峯島搜覓事, 從第一條, 令本道自望人三十餘名, 齎諭書入送, 探覓島之所在, 的知在某處, 則更遣使招之, 如或不從, 遣師往討爲便。” 從之。

成宗 126卷, 12年( 1481 辛丑 / 명 성화(成化) 17年) 2月 24日 戊辰 4번째기사
○下書永安道觀察使李克墩曰: “今送三峯島諭書一道, 其授應募人送之。”

英祖 18卷, 4年( 1728 戊申 / 청 옹정(雍正) 6年) 6月 9日 戊子 2번째기사 ○更推黃溥。 刑一次, 溥供: “慶源人南龜錫持巡營軍官傳令, 來慶興, 言于臣曰: ‘巡使道謫慶源時, 聞三峰島之說, 使渠訪問, 以爲推得之地。’ 臣問其探知與否, 則龜錫曰: ‘有一人言: 「若登頭里山烽臺, 値日晴, 則僅見其島形, 如臥牛。」云。’ 臣書報巡使曰: ‘若欲得此島, 則必得二十人, 除其一年身役, 令自願勇往, 此道漁船如馬槽, 不可越海, 必有板船, 然後可以入島。’ 巡使答以此島之漏版圖, 誠可惜, 宜速造板船。’ 臣有奴稍知造船, 自二月, 先造本板, 未及完役, 聞變亂置之。 所謂投海避亂之說, 元非臣之發於口者。 金世俊及時昌等捉來面質, 則可知虛實。 黃鏻, 臣之孽七寸叔, 李參判明彦之外四寸, 素有心病, 而率置衙中。 鏻之生死, 就拿後事不能知。” 先是, 北道安撫使啓言: “三峰島, 自古無相通之事, 溥以罪人之父, 造船入往之計, 極爲凶狡。 國有緩急, 則乘此新船, 往投海中, 以避其亂之說, 溥與座首金世俊酬酢時, 及唱奴時昌、萬昌等, 得聞甚詳。” 咸鏡監司權益寬啓言: “溥孽叔黃鏻, 以衙客, 隨溥妾行到咸興地, 公然乘夜赴水死。”

Note : Korean documents are mainly copied & pasted from the official site of the Annals of Choson Dynasty.

Roh Moo-hyun's Angry Dokdo Speech

President Lee Myung-bak has been trying to mend fences with Japan by focusing less on the past and more on the future. (See HERE) For example, President Lee recently made the following comment:

"We of course cannot forget the past history but should not make it an obstacle for our future," Lee said. "We need not react irritably every time to Japanese lawmakers' remarks. Any politician in any country can express their personal ideas."

I was glad to hear President Lee say that, but there are many in Korea who do not want to mend fences with Japan, but, instead, want to continue the fruitless bickering on Korea-Japan historical issues, even if such bickering continues to damage Korea's international prestige and continues to keep the wheels of Korea's economy spinning in the mud. Many of these people admire former Korean President Roh Moo-hyun because President Roh seemed to love to bicker. In fact, some of his admirers have created a video featuring President Roh's angry Dokdo speech, which was delievered as a special Presidential Message on Korean national TV on April 25, 2006, which was two years ago, today.

Below is the video and a translation of the speech:



The following is a translation of President Roh's April 25, 2006 Dokdo speech:

My fellow Koreans,

Dokdo is our land. It is not only part of our territory but also our own soil of historic significance where forty years of painful history is engraved vividly.

Dokdo is our territory that was first to be annexed to Japan in the course of its usurpation of the Korean Peninsula.

The Russo-Japanese War was a war of aggression that Imperial Japan initiated to secure control over the Korean Peninsula.

Under the pretext of carrying out the Russo-Japanese War, Japan sent its troops to Korea and occupied the Korean Peninsula. The Japanese forces staged a siege around Korean royal palaces, terrorized the royal office and the Government of Korea to force them into signing the Korea-Japan Protocol, expropriated the land and people of Korea as it pleased, and established military facilities. Japan unilaterally proclaimed military rule over part of the Korean territory and eventually trampled on Korea’s sovereignty by taking away our fiscal and diplomatic rights.

As part of this process, Japan forcefully merged Dokdo into its territory, installed an observation tower and electric cables, and utilized them in their war efforts. While continuing the military occupation of the Korean Peninsula, Japan deprived Korea of sovereignty and secured colonial control over the Peninsula.

Japan’s present claim to Dokdo is claiming a right to what it had once occupied during an imperialist war of aggression, and what is worse, it is claiming a right to a former colonial territory of bygone years. This is an act of negating the complete liberation and independence of Korea. Moreover, this is an act of contending the legitimacy of Japan’s criminal history of waging wars of aggression and annihilation as well as forty years of exploitation, torture, imprisonment, forced labor, and even military sexual slavery. We cannot tolerate this for anything.

For Koreans, Dokdo is a symbol of the complete recovery of sovereignty. Along with homage by the Japanese leaders to the Yaskuni Shrine and Japanese history textbooks, Dokdo is a touchstone of Japan’s recognition of its past history as well as its determination for Korea-Japan relations of future and peace in East Asia.

As long as Japan continues to glorify its past wrongs and claim rights based on such history, friendly relations between Korea and Japan cannot be established properly.

As long as Japan is clinging on to these issues, we will be unable to trust any of Japan’s rhetoric concerning the future of Korea-Japan relations and peace in East Asia. No economic stake or cultural exchange will help break down this barrier.

Between Korea and Japan, the border to distinguish each nation’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is yet to be firmly established. This is due to Japan’s territorial claim to Dokto and Japan even insists upon drawing the EEZ line based on such a claim.

The issue of naming the underwater geological formations of the East Sea is related to that of EEZ. While the two nations are unable to form a consensus on the EEZ border, Japan has unjustly and preemptively designated a name for underwater geological formations within our own maritime zone and it is only our proper right to rectify this matter.

Thus, so long as Japan does not give up its unjust claims regarding the underwater geological formations of the East Sea, addressing the EEZ matter can brook no further delay. Consequently, the matter of Dokdo can no longer be dealt with quiet responses.

While there are, to be sure, certain concerns about playing into Japan's intent to turn Dokodo into a disputed area, Dokdo for us is not merely a matter pertaining to territorial rights over tiny islets but is emblematic of bringing closure to an unjust history in our relationship with Japan and of the full consolidation of Korea's sovereignty. It is a matter that calls for a public and dignified response.

My fellow Koreans,

The government will revisit the entirety of our response with regard to the matter of Dokdo. Together with the distortion of Japanese history textbooks and visits to the Yasukuni shrine, the matter of Dokdo will be dealt with head on. It will be reviewed in the context of rectifying the historical record between Korea and Japan and historical awareness building, our history of self-reliance and independence, and the safeguarding of our sovereignty.

Physical provocations will be met with strong and firm response. We will be incessant in our efforts to debunk the unjust actions of the Japanese Government before the world community and the Japanese people. We will continue to muster every measure of our national strength and diplomatic resources until the day when the Japanese Government remedies these wrongdoings.

We will also undertake all other necessary measures. For this is a matter where no compromise or surrender is possible, whatever the costs and sacrifices may be.

It is my hope that a series of actions assumed by the Japanese Government, which offend Korea's history and detract from the dignity of the Korean people, are not grounded in the general perception of the Japanese people. For I believe the Japanese people are well aware of the truth that actions, which jeopardize friendly relations between Korea and Japan as well as peace in East Asia, are by no means righteous or in Japan's own interests. This is why we must refrain from emotional responses and keep our calm.

I would like to request earnestly the following of the people and leaders of Japan.

We are no longer demanding renewed apologies. We are simply calling for actions that would do justice to the apologies which have repeatedly been made. We are asking for the cessation of actions of seeking to glorify or legitimize its unjust history, which offend Korea's sovereignty and the dignity of its people. We are not demanding any special treatment for Korea but actions keeping with the universal values and standards of the international community. We are asking for honesty and humility in the face of historical truth and the conscience of humanity.

It is when Japan comports itself in conformity with these standards towards its neighbors and the international community as well that it will finally stand as a nation of maturity that befits its economic size and as a nation that can assume a leading role in the international community.

My fellow Koreans,

Despite the painful history wrought by colonial rule, we have been continuously seeking to write a new history of good neighborly relations and amity with Japan. Under the shared aspirations of democracy and market economy, both countries have made strides towards the goals of mutual benefit, equality, peace and prosperity and have achieved vast developments in our relationship.

Both countries must now redouble our efforts to ensure a lasting commitment to these shared aspirations and goals. We must move forward beyond bilateral relations and contribute jointly to the peace and prosperity not only in Northeast Asia but also throughout the world. An honest recognition and settlement of history as well as having trust in reciprocal respect for each other's sovereignty are essential to this task.

Japan should stand tall by boldly divesting the dark chapter in its history of past imperialist aggressions. We are awaiting Japan’s determination for peace and prosperity in Northeast Asia of the 21st century and, furthermore, peace in the world.

Thank you.

After reading the above speech, I hope people can agree that Korea's new president is much more rational and mature. Hopefully, President Lee's policy will triumph over the attempts of Korea's anti-Japanese bickerers to sour relations between Korea and Japan. Historians should bicker over history, not governments.

President Lee's policy on Korean-Japanese history is the right policy.

An April 22 article in the Chosun Ilbo reported that a survey conducted by a Japanese TV network on 500 citizens from both Japan and Korea found that 90 percent of the Koreans surveyed believed that long-disputed issues between the two countries have yet to be resolved while 44 percent of the Japanese felt the same way. The article said, "The figures point to vastly differing perceptions on issues like Japan's wartime atrocities and its claims to Korea's easternmost islets of Dokdo. "

Yes, Japan and Korea disagree on several historical issues, including the history of Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima), but there are many other, more important things, that the two countries do agree on, which are the things that should be focused on.

Focusing on the positive aspects of Korean-Japanese relations was a concept that former Korean President Roh Mu-hyun seemed unable to understand, but Korea's new president, Lee Myung-bak, does seem to understand it. (See HERE.)

President Lee has said, "“We must not ignore the historical truth, but we cannot indefinitely postpone going forward into the future because we are bound to the past." Then he added, "Korea and Japan both need to form a future-oriented relationship with a pragmatic attitude.”

I agree completely, except that "historical truth" often depends on one's perspective, and Koreans and Japanese have to accept the fact that they have different perspectives on much of their history; otherwise, it will not be long before they are fighting again.

Besides former President Roh, many other Koreans also do not seem to understand the concept of "Agree to Disagree." Though Koreans see nothing wrong with their historians and politicians standing up and shouting "Dokdo is our land," they get extremely upset when the Japanese do the same thing by standing up and shouting, "Takeshima is our land."

Disagreeing with someone does not mean you hate them or that you are trying to ruin the relationship you have with them. It only means that you disagree with them on certain issues. It should not be used as an excuse to upset diplomatic relations, hurt economic cooperation, or stop cultural exchanges. History is something that will always be debated.

I think the Japanese government understands the concept of "agree to disagree," but I wonder if the Korean government really understands it? For example, I doubt the Japanese government expects the Korean government to stop claiming Dokdo as their territory, yet the Korean government still seems to expect Japan to stop claiming it as theirs. (See HERE). Such unrealistic expectations will only lead to disappointment and bad feelings. Both countries need to accept the fact that they disagree on history and stop making a big deal about it. I hope President Lee will continue to focus on the positive aspects of a good Korea-Japan relationship instead of later reneging on this statements to score political points, as past Korean presidents have done.

The following is an excerpt from an editorial in the Korean newspaper, The Hankyoreh. The editorial is not only an example of the writer's not seeming to understand the concept of "agree to disagree," but is also an example of what many Koreans believe.

Lee’s call to stop being “tied to the past and move forward to the future” is in fact not something entirely new. Presidents Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun both said something similar when they were still fresh in office....

It is Japan of course that ruined these Korean efforts each time. For Kim, it was the repeated “reckless remarks” (mangeon) from members of the Japanese Cabinet that forced issues of history to make a comeback with another leading role in the relationship. For Roh, it was ultra-right-wing school history textbooks that distorted the past, territorial claims on Dokdo, and Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi’s visits to worship at Yasukuni Shrine.

LINK

It was not Japan that "ruined" the relationship by focusing on historical disagreements; it was Korea. Koreans had also made "reckless remarks," distorted history books, claimed Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks), and honored people and events that many Japanese do not agree with, yet the Japanese government, unlike the Korean government, did not make those issues the focus of the Japan-Korea relationship. Both Koreans and Japanese need to realize that people and countries can disagree on history but still be friends.

The 6th column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)"

Below is a translation of The 6th column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)” by Prof. Shimojo Masao

"Records on Observations in Oki Province (Onshu-shicho-goki : 隠州視聴合記)" and the "Complete Map of Japanese Lands and Roads(Nihon Yochi Totei Zenzu : 日本輿地路程全図)" by Nagakubo Sekisui(長久保赤水).

The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs published a booklet called “Ten Points for Understanding the Takeshima Issue ” in February. It could be the first step toward enabling a dialogue with South Korea based on universal values, which former Korean President Roh Moo-hyun continually sought from Japan. I heartily welcome this action. I suspect that South Korea would also understand my reaction. Some in South Korea are calling for a change in course from President Roh’s political manipulation of this historical problem.

President Roh’s negative legacy for the Japan-Korean relationship still remains, however. The traveling exhibition of old maps of Ulleungdo and Dokdo, now in Suwon, is a case in point. This exhibition conducted by the Dokdo Museum contains not a single old map on which Dokdo is shown—it consists entirely of photographs. Nor do any exhibits in the Dokdo Museum have items showing that Takeshima was Korean territory. That is the reality of the Dokdo Museum, which focuses exclusively on the Takeshima (Dokdo) issue.

Another example of the negative legacy from Roh era is shown clearly on the Japanese-language website of the Dokdo Protection Squad, which distributed pamphlets during the Takeshima Day ceremony on February 22^nd.

.

Here is their explanation of the Complete Map of Japanese Lands and Roads compiled by Nagakubo Sekisui:

“In particular, the notation, 'Viewing Koryo (Korea) is the same as viewing Onshu (Oki island) from Unshu,' also appears in the Onshu-shicho-goki (1667). This reconfirms that Dokdo is Korean territory”.

The Dokdo Protection Squad believes that the Onshu-shicho-goki and the Complete Map of Japanese Lands and Roads, both of which Japan used as the basis to prove that Takeshima (Dokdo) was Japanese territory, instead are the basis to prove that Dokdo is Korean territory. The interpretation of the sentence “Viewing Koryo is just the same as viewing Onshu (Oki island) from Unshu (Izumo) [見高麗猶雲州望隠州]” makes it clear, however, to which of Japan or Korea the place where one could view Koryo belonged.

Nagakubo Sekisui made that notation next to Ulleungdo when quoting from the Onshu-shicho-goki because he believed that Ulleungdo was Japanese territory--he wasn’t reconfirming that Dokdo was Korean territory.

.

Indeed, Saito Hosen, the author of Onshu-shicho-goki, also wrote in the book the fact that the Oya family from Yonago of the Tottori domain frequently visited Ulleungdo. He had no doubt that Ulleungdo was Japanese territory. And when one of the Oya family’s ships drifted ashore in Korea in 1666, one year before the publication of Onshu-shicho-gouki, the Korean government graciously returned it. The Edo Shogunate grasped the meaning of that event and also recognized that Ulleungdo was Japanese territory.

.

The Dokdo Protection Squad interpreted another sentence from the Onshu-shichou-goki to mean that Oki Island was the northwest limit of Japanese territory, and that Ulleungdo and Takeshima were Korean territory. But their interpretation is wrong. This sentence should be read, “After a voyage of two days and one night northwest of Oki Island is Matsushima (now called Takeshima), and after a voyage of one more day is Takeshima (Ulleungdo). These two islands are uninhabited, and viewing Koryo from there is the same as viewing Oki Island from Izumo. Therefore, this island is the northwest boundary of Japan.”

.

The Dokdo Protection Squad’s misinterpreted the document because they swallowed whole the mistakes of Shing Yong-ha and others from the Dokdo Society. Building a practical Japanese-Korean relationship requires that we wipe the slate clean of such preposterous statements. To achieve this, both Japan and Korea should begin a dialogue for creating a future-oriented zone of shared empathy.

“実事求是　〜日韓のトゲ、竹島問題を考える〜 第６回　『隠州視聴合記』と長久保赤水の『日本輿地路程全図』 下條正男 ”
Translated by Pacifist
Edited by William Sakovich Courtesy of Web Takeshima Research Center

Other Column of the Series:

No.16 "'Dokdo Month without any historical grounds'"
No.15 " South Korea's Groundless Claim of "Inherent Part of (Korean) Territory" ”
No.14 " A Reckless Courage of the professor Kimishima Kazuhiko(君島和彦) of Tokyo Gakugei University（東京学芸大学）. ”
No.13 "Sins of Asahi Shimbun and Mr. Wakamiya Yoshibumi(若宮啓文)”
No.12 " Northeast Asian History Foundation and Dokdo Research Center's Misunderstanding”
No.11 “South Korea's Misunderstanding of 'A Map of Three
Adjoining Countries (Sangoku Setsujozu 三国接壌図)' by Hayashi Shihei(林子平)”
No.10 " A Blunder of Sokdo(石島) = Dokto(独島) Theory”

No.9 "Criticism on Dokdo Research Center”
No.8 "The Historical Facts"

No.5 "South Korea’s erroneous interpretation of the document 'Takeshima and Another Island are Unrelated to Japan'"

No.4 "Errors in Educational Video Produced by the Northeast Asian History Foundation (東北アジア歴史財団)."

Reference : "Onshu Shicho Goki" - The different translations