Interpretation of 輿地考 of 東国文献備考 in 1770 and 彊界考 of 旅菴全書by申景濬.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-usando.html
In the second link frogmouth provides:

1) The 1808 Korean Handbook of State Affairs (萬機要覧)
This book cites a book named Yojiji (興地志) completed in 1656, and writes, “興地志云鬱稜島于山皆于山國地于山則倭謂松島也 (In the Yojiji it says that Ulleungdo and Usando are all Usan-guk’s territory and thus what the Japanese call Matsushima.).”
Almost the exact phrases are found in東国文献備考 (1707) and輿地考 (1908).

However, in春官志 completed by李孟休 in 1745, it is written that “This island [Ullengdo] is called Takeshima because is produces bamboo. There are three peaks on it, and so it is called Sambo-to (三峯島). The terms于山, 羽陵, 蔚陵, 武陵, 磯竹島 are all phonetic transformations of the name.” Thus, it seems that Koreans know that the names all refer to one island.

Then, another book, 旅菴全書 edited by申景濬 in 1756 claims that “According to the Yojiji (興地志), some records say Usan and Ulleungdo are the same island. However, looking at the maps, it must be concluded that they are two islands. One must be the island called Matsushima and it follows that these two islands comprises Usan-guk (按 輿地志云 一説于山鬱陵本一島 而考諸圖志二島也 一則其所謂松島 而蓋二島 倶是于山國也).”

So what can be concluded from the above? One is that it was not Yojiji that concluded that Ulleungdo and Usando are comprised Usan-guk and corresponds to Matsushima, but books in the 18th century. The Yojiji did not give the final word on the single or double island theory, which is followed by the 1745 book. However, the 1756 book claims that Ulleng and Usan islands must be two because they are presented as so on (very inaccurate) maps, and that it (unnaturally) follows that the other is Matsushima. This all took place after the Ahn Yong-bok incident, and so the preposterous claim “Usan is Matsushima” is affecting the logic. Note also that the author does not seem to care about where or what Matsushima is. Because the Koreans had no knowledge of where Matsushima was, an inspection in 1882 carried out by Lee Gyu-won (李奎遠) under orders of the king simply searched the vicinity of Ulleungdo and concludes that Usando is an island just off the shores of Ulleungdo. This proves that even in 1882, when western maps showed the Liancourt Rocks, Koreans did not realize that those far-away rocks were what the Japanese had referred to as Matsushima during the Ahn Yong-bok incident.two cents at occidentalism

interpretation of 輿地考 of 東国文献備考 in 1770 and 彊界考 of 旅菴全書by申景濬.
It seems the book seems very confusing.
http://toron.pepper.jp/jp/take/tizu/kaizan.html

I hope Korean people cool down by reading your blog,by looking at history objectively.
At 9:58 PM KST, pongta said...

By the way the link above(toron) is analyzing "輿地考of東国文献備考 in 1770"
Here is a summary as I understand it.

１）輿地志 in 1656 by 柳馨遠 ”？”
The book was lost.

２）鬱陵島争界of 春官志　in 1745 by 李孟休
倭、今に至るまで、復た鬱陵を指して日本の地と為さず。皆龍福の功なり
Japanese until today do not claim Ulleungdo as Japanese territory.The credit should go to An
.この島、その竹を産するを以ての故に竹島と謂い。
三峰ありてか三峯島と謂う。
于山、羽陵、蔚陵、磯竹島に至りては皆音号の転訛して然るなり
This island is call bamboo island because it produces bamboo.
Probably because it has three peaks, it is called three peaks island.
Usan(干山）羽陵、蔚陵、磯竹島　are so called because of (the transformation from) the pronouciation.

３）彊界考 of 旅菴全書 in 1756 by申景濬

申景濬『旅菴全書』巻之七、「疆界考」十二、鬱陵島

按 輿地志云 一説于山鬱陵本一島 而考諸圖志二島也 一則其所謂松島 而蓋二島 倶是于山國也
按ずるに、輿地志に云う、「一説に于山、鬱陵本一島。」
而るに諸図志を考えるに、二島なり。
一つは則ちその所謂松島にして、蓋し二島は倶に是れ于山国なり
Come to ponder it, (1)輿地志 wrote,,"according to one theory, Usando and Ulleungdo is only one land.,but considering several maps?(諸図志） they are two islands.That is, one is so called Matsushima and another is Usando.

４)輿地考of東国文献備考 in 1770
輿地志云 鬱陵 于山 皆于山國地 于山則倭所謂松島也
輿地志に謂う、鬱陵、于山皆于山国の地。于山は即ち倭の所謂松島なり
輿地志 wrote Ulleungo and Usando are in the country of Usan. Usando is what Japanese call Matsushima.
.....................................
The Korean idea that Usan is what Japanese call Matsushima came into being with (3)(4)

4) was based on 3)(according to英祖実録/英祖四十六年（in１７７０）閏五月十六日条
and 3) was based on 1) and 2)

There is no record that the name "Matshima" was known to Korean people before Ahn Yong‐bok's testimony in 1696.And Ahn's testimony first appears in the 粛宗実録 in 1728.

(3)彊界考 reads: (1)輿地志 wrote......but......

Hence it is safe to assume that (1)輿地志 in 1656 does not mention Matushima

Another reference book on which(3)彊界考based, (2)鬱陵島争界of 春官志　in 1745 by 李孟休does not mention "Matushima" and identifis Ulleungdo as Usando,etc.
Therefore, it is author申景濬(3)'s opinion that they are two islands: one is so called Matsushima (pine island) and another is Usando and that it is not in (1)輿地志.that Usando is what Japanese call Matsushima.

In conclusion, (4)輿地考of東国文献備考 in 1770 misquotes 輿地志 in 1656 by way of (3)彊界考 of 旅菴全書 in 1756 by申景濬
....................................
In your theory,
Ahn meant Usando of
http://groups.msn.com/LiancourtRocksDokdoorTakeshima/usandomaps.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=22
by matushima
http://www.occidentalism.org/?p=234#comment-5470
"1710 Korean Map

Notice that the 1710 map labels Usando at Jasando (子山島), which is what Ahn Yong-bok considered to be Matsushima (松島) in 1696 "

So probably (3) and (4) are influenced by Ahn's testimony.
ponta/Korean language note