조선시대 衆子奉祀를 둘러싼 인식의 변화― 18세기 후반 정탁 후손의 봉사권 분쟁 자료를 중심으로 ―

Abstract

This study examines the changes in the characteristics of serving ancestors(奉祀) and heir-naming(立後) during the Joseon dynasty based on the records of a dispute over service rights between the descendants of first-born son and those of second-born son of Jeong Tak in the late 18th century. Based on the idea of serving dead parents just like when they were living, any child could be entitled to perform the worship rite for their parents in early Joseon. Therefore, it was common for fathers to designate a son other than the first-born one and his own eldest son to serve, even though they would be serving according to Confucian ritual forms at that time. The act of having another son serve aside from the first-born son and his successor was regulated in the late 15th century, but the practice of having the next-born son serve if the first-born son died without a son of his own and leaving the decision of whether or not the naming heir to the first-born son’s widow continued to occur even afterward. Naming the heir in early Joseon meant establishing the heir for a sonless couple, and even if he was the heir of the first-born son, he was considered the first-born son and his wife’s heir not for the heir of the head family. Therefore Jeong Tak entrusted the service to his second-born son, Jeong Yun-wi when his first-born son died with no son, and the widow of the first-born son, Jeong Yun-jeo, named Jeong Si-young as the heir for the couple 38 years after her husband's death and 19 years after the second-son began the service of Jeong Tak. However, in the late 18th century, the descendants of the first-born son’s heir claimed that Jeong Yun-wi’s service was just a proxy based on the fact that their direct ancestor, Jeong Si-young, was the first-born son's heir, and filed a lawsuit to take over the right to serve Jeong Tak, which had been performed by his second-born son and his descendants for 169 years. Against this claim, the second-born son’s descendants even argued that naming Jeong Si-young as the first son’s heir was obtained through illegal means. Both sides misunderstood and distorted on how the decision was made the one of serving Jeong tak and characteristics of the heir of Jeong Yun-jeo to fit the late 18th-century notion of family succession centered on the first-born son, which was strengthened.