조선시대 공물변통론에서 蒲渚趙翼의 위치와 역할

Abstract

Since the late sixteenth century, the reform of the tribute tax system had been placed on the top of the state list of priority in Chosŏn Korea. The whole picture of the reform proposals, initiated by Yi I (1536-1584) in the late-1500s, was 'completed' by Yu Hyŏngwŏn (1622-1673) in the late 1600s. Serving for the state in the middle of the long-term debates, Cho Ik(1579-1655) played a major role in bridging the gaps between Yi and Yu and negotiating the differences between the two. Cho was distinguished from other debaters in that he not only had good experience in statecraft as a high-ranking government official but also fully understood the reality of the provinces as a retired local scholar. Indeed, he took a stance midway between Yi, a distinguished high official in the central government, and Yu, a local scholar who had never served for the state, in terms of the methodology and the extent of the reform. Such experience as a scholar and official must have facilitated his contribution to the Taedong Reform, or the conversion of the tribute tax on a household basis to a land surtax on a land-holding basis. Yi I, Cho Ik, and Yu Hyŏngwŏn agreed with each other on the appropriateness of the reform in principle, but they differed from each other in how to realize it. In a sense, the differences between Yi and Yu may be simply regarded as the differences in the contents of their proposals per se. But if we understand Cho's reform ideas in the larger context of the debates, it would provide the real differences: their differences resulted from the phased changes in the process of the long-term debates. The Taedong Law, also known as the Uniform Land Tax Law, was the final outcome of the long debates in which a number of officials and scholars had joined since the late 1500s. Out of them, Cho was the very person who first proposed the outline of the reform, which would eventually develop into the Taedong Law. In this sense, Cho played an important role more than any others in the course of the court debates on the tribute tax system in for the eventual institutionalization of the Taedong Law.