順治 연간의 漢人 貳臣과 ‘滿漢一家’의 실상
The Role of the Erchen in the Qing Ideology of “Manchus and Hans are one family” during the Shunzhi Period
0
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The Erchen, Han Chinese officials who collaborated with the Qing Dynasty, were viewed as disloyal traitors from the middle period of the Qing Dynasty, even though they actually enabled the Qing to control China. In particular, their activities supported the pro-Han policies of the Qing, carried out under the slogan “Manhan yijia(Manchus and Hans are one family).” They also had a significant impact on the Manchu-Han relationship. This thesis aims to examine the reality of this relationship and the slogan underpinning it, focusing on the Erchen during the early Qing Dynasty, especially during the Shunzhi period, which came about directly after the collapse of the Ming Dynasty. Even before taking over the reins of China, the Qing Dynasty effectively worked to win Ming officials over to its side. Han Chinese officials who submitted to the Qing were able to expand the scope of their activities in the royal court through the organization of the national system. And when Qing’s rule began, the Qing set out to foster the loyalty of former Ming officials. The Erchen capitulated to the Qing and engaged in political activities in various fields to consolidate national power and to stabilize Chinese society. Although the Erchen’s diverse backgrounds brought about internal divisions and rivalries among them, conflicts between the conqueror, the Manchus, and the conquered, the Hans, were even more intense during this period, and the Erchen were caught up in them. The Qing Dynasty advocated the idea that the Manchus and the Hans were part of one family, a tenet which emphasized the equal treatment of both, and they sought to employ this philosophy in order to rule China. The Erchen supported this thinking and tried to make it even more convincing. The activities of the Erchen which were supportive of Qing’s pro-Han policies showed the possibility of unifying China. However, in reality, the Manchus and the Erchen distrusted each other. The Manchus tried to hold the Erchen in check and control them, and this led to continuous conflicts between the two over the course of Shunzhi's rule. Tensions arose mainly in regard to the interests of the Manchus, and as the ruler of the Qing Dynasty continued to control the Erchen, he took the Manchus’s side. This study examines the Manchu-Han relationship in the early Qing Dynasty, focusing on the role of the Erchen. It finds that there were conflicts between the Manchus and the Hans at that time, which suggests that the goal of the Manchus and the Hans being one family was not realized in reality. It cannot be said that the Erchen’s wide range of activities during the Shunzhi period reflected this unifying message. The strict constraints on and control over the Erchen imposed by the Qing demonstrate that its political slogan “Manchus and Hans are one family” was actually used to defend the Manchus’ interests. In other words, it actually contributed to strengthening the Manchu's dominance. Therefore, this strand of thought functioned as a dual logic in relation to the Erchen, simultaneously a useful ideology to promote and a mere rhetorical strategy that was not at all reflective of reality.
Abstract
The Erchen, Han Chinese officials who collaborated with the Qing Dynasty, were viewed as disloyal traitors from the middle period of the Qing Dynasty, even though they actually enabled the Qing to control China. In particular, their activities supported the pro-Han policies of the Qing, carried out under the slogan “Manhan yijia(Manchus and Hans are one family).” They also had a significant impact on the Manchu-Han relationship. This thesis aims to examine the reality of this relationship and the slogan underpinning it, focusing on the Erchen during the early Qing Dynasty, especially during the Shunzhi period, which came about directly after the collapse of the Ming Dynasty. Even before taking over the reins of China, the Qing Dynasty effectively worked to win Ming officials over to its side. Han Chinese officials who submitted to the Qing were able to expand the scope of their activities in the royal court through the organization of the national system. And when Qing’s rule began, the Qing set out to foster the loyalty of former Ming officials. The Erchen capitulated to the Qing and engaged in political activities in various fields to consolidate national power and to stabilize Chinese society. Although the Erchen’s diverse backgrounds brought about internal divisions and rivalries among them, conflicts between the conqueror, the Manchus, and the conquered, the Hans, were even more intense during this period, and the Erchen were caught up in them. The Qing Dynasty advocated the idea that the Manchus and the Hans were part of one family, a tenet which emphasized the equal treatment of both, and they sought to employ this philosophy in order to rule China. The Erchen supported this thinking and tried to make it even more convincing. The activities of the Erchen which were supportive of Qing’s pro-Han policies showed the possibility of unifying China. However, in reality, the Manchus and the Erchen distrusted each other. The Manchus tried to hold the Erchen in check and control them, and this led to continuous conflicts between the two over the course of Shunzhi's rule. Tensions arose mainly in regard to the interests of the Manchus, and as the ruler of the Qing Dynasty continued to control the Erchen, he took the Manchus’s side. This study examines the Manchu-Han relationship in the early Qing Dynasty, focusing on the role of the Erchen. It finds that there were conflicts between the Manchus and the Hans at that time, which suggests that the goal of the Manchus and the Hans being one family was not realized in reality. It cannot be said that the Erchen’s wide range of activities during the Shunzhi period reflected this unifying message. The strict constraints on and control over the Erchen imposed by the Qing demonstrate that its political slogan “Manchus and Hans are one family” was actually used to defend the Manchus’ interests. In other words, it actually contributed to strengthening the Manchu's dominance. Therefore, this strand of thought functioned as a dual logic in relation to the Erchen, simultaneously a useful ideology to promote and a mere rhetorical strategy that was not at all reflective of reality.
참고문헌 (72)
- 河內良弘, "內國史院滿文檔案譯註 (崇德 2･3年分)" (2010), 松香堂書店
- "多爾袞攝政日記", 國立北平故宮博物院, ~ (1935)
- 고려대학교 민족문화연구원 만문노당역주회, "만문노당 역주 전4권" (2017), 소명출판
- 김주원, "만문노당 태조 전2권" (2019), 서울대학교출판부
- "滿漢名臣傳" (1991), 黑龍江人民出版社
- "明實錄" (1962), 中央硏究院歷史語言研究所
- "北游錄" (1960), 中華書局
- "淸經世文編" (1992), 中華書局
- 故宮博物院明淸檔案部, "淸代檔案史料叢編 第1-14輯" (1978), 中華書局
- "淸史稿" (1977), 中華書局
- "淸史列傳" (1987), 中華書局
- "淸實錄" (1986), 中華書局
- "淸初內國史院滿文檔案譯編(上･中･下)" (1989), 光明日報出版社
- 琴川居士, "皇淸奏議" (1967), 文海出版社
- "洪承疇章奏文冊彙輯 (明淸史料彙編 第3集 10冊)" (1968), 文海出版社
- 마크 C. 엘리엇, "만주족의 청제국" (2009), 푸른역사
- 양녠췬, "강남은 어디인가 : 청나라 황제의 강남 지식인 길들이기" (2015), 글항아리
- 이영옥, "견제받는 권력 : 만주인 청나라의 정치구조 1616~1912" (2016), 전남대학교출판부
- 오금성, "국법과 사회관행" (2007), 지식산업사
- 姚念慈, "淸初政治史探微" (2008), 遼寧民族出版社
- 錢實甫, "淸代職官年表" (1980), 中華書局
- 陳寅恪, "柳如是別傳" (2001), 三聯書店
- 楢木野宣, "淸代重要職官の硏究──滿漢倂用の全貌" (1975), 風間書房
- Spence, Jonathan D., "The Cambridge History of China, Vol. 9, Pt. 1. The Ch’ing Empire to 1800" (2002), Cambridge University Press
- Wakeman, Frederic E. Jr, "The Great Enterprise: The Manchu Reconstruction of Imperial Order in Seventeenth-century China" (1985), University of California Press
- Wang, Chengmian, "The Life and Career of Hung Ch’eng-ch’ou(1593-1665):Public Service in a Time of Dynastic Change" (1999), Association for Asian Studies
- 김선민, "청 제국의 지배이념과 지배체제", 史叢(사총), (88), pp.1~41 (2016), 역사연구소[DOI]
- 박민수, "淸의 北京 遷都와 만주의 北京 移住", 명청사연구, (51), pp.313~355 (2019), 명청사학회[DOI]
- 박민수, "淸의 入關과 旗人의 北京 移住 硏究", 박사, pp.2017
- 박혁순, "陳名夏탄핵사건에 대한 一考察 ‒ 順治親政體制의 성격과 관련하여 ‒", 서울大 東洋史學科論集, 12 (1988)
- 오금성, "順治親政期의 淸朝權力과 江南紳士", 歷史學報, 122 (1989)
- 오금성, "入關初 淸朝權力의 浸透와 地域社會 ‒ 廣東 東･北部地方을 中心으로‒", 東洋史學硏究, 54 (1996)
- 이선애, "淸 初期 外藩(tulergi golo) 형성과정과 理藩院", 박사, 사학과, pp.2014
- 이원준, "淸初 旗地 投充人의 성격", 서울大 東洋史學科論集, 30 (2006)
- 李俊甲, "順治初 洪承疇의 江南招撫活動과 그 意義", 석사, 동양사학, pp.1991
- 정병진, "누르하치 시기 貳臣의 출현과 역할", 인문과학연구, (61), pp.219~239 (2019), 인문과학연구소[DOI]
- 조재덕, "순치시기 중앙권력의 성격 ‒ 팔기왕공의 권력투쟁을 중심으로 ‒", 東洋學硏究, 3 (1997)
- 한명기, "17세기 초･중반 朝淸關係와 貳臣", 東北亞歷史論叢, (8) (2005)
- 한승현, "淸朝의 南･北人 관료임용 정책(1644-1795)", 역사학보, (221), pp.387~419 (2014), 역사학회
- 白一瑾, "論淸初貳臣士人“兩截人”的處境心態", 北方論叢, (1) (2010)
- 駱蘭友, "淸初山東貳臣硏究", 碩士, pp.2013
- 楊釗, "乾隆皇帝與《貳臣傳》", 文史知識, (12) (1991)
- 楊銀權, "論降淸知識分子在緩解社會及民族矛盾方面的作用", 北方論叢, (2) (2007)
- 楊珍, "“皇父攝政王”新探", 淸史硏究, (1) (2017)
- 閻立新, "淸代初期歷史上漢官", 滿族硏究, (1) (1998)
- 閻少華, "略論洪承疇降淸後的作用及評價", 河南敎育學院學報(哲學社會科學版), (3) (1997)
- 王宏志, "論“貳臣”", 社會科學硏究, (5) (1988)
- 王於飛, "陳名夏之死與順治改制內幕", 西南民族大學學報(人文社科版), (7) (2004)
- 王廷元, "試論皇太極重用漢官的政策", 遼寧大學學報, (4) (1979)
- 劉麗, "淸初貳臣文人的用世心態", 北方論叢, (3) (2015)
- 陸勇, "從"任珍案"看淸初的"首崇滿洲"與"滿漢一體"政策", 鹽城工學院學報(社會科學版), (1) (2014)
- 李嘉昌, "順治朝南北黨爭探析", 歷史檔案, (4) (2018)
- 李景屏, "試論順治與淸初中國的統一", 史學月刊, (2) (1984)
- 李立民, "淸順治年間"泛濫投充"現象探析", 河北北方學院學報, (2) (2014)
- 李碩, "順治帝與漢官集團之間的關係", 滿族硏究, (3) (2016)
- 李小榮, "龔鼎孳與順康朝之政治風雲", 巢湖學院學報, (5) (2015)
- 張小娟, "從《貳臣傳》 中了解山東貳臣的歸附竝探析其原因", 樂東師範學院學報, (7) (2012)
- 趙令志, "論淸初畿輔的投充旗地", 河北學刊, (1) (2002)
- 趙明, "書史中的"貳臣"書家批評觀念探賾", 中國書法, (22) (2017)
- 刁書仁, "論皇太極對遼東漢人政策的調整──以對遼官, 遼將的爭取爲中心", 社會科學輯刊, (1) (2011)
- 曹秀蘭, "淸初"貳臣"詞人心態探微", 山西師大學報(社會科學版), (2) (2008)
- 陳林, "《淸史列傳･貳臣傳》硏究", 碩士, pp.2015
- 陳曦, ""貳臣"建言與淸初治政硏究", 碩士, pp.2012
- 平志軍, "論"貳臣"作家周亮工的"仕淸"心態", 語文學刊, (11) (2006)
- 岡本さえ, "貳臣論", 東洋文化硏究所紀要, 68 (1976)
- 平志軍, "淸代禁書 : その著者たちの思考 上", 東洋文化硏究所紀要, 73 (1977)
- 渡邊修, "『貳臣傳』と山東の｢貳臣｣", 史苑, 37(1) (1976)
- 小野達哉, "淸初の漢人官僚と人事政策の志向 : 內外互用･內陞外轉の關係から見た", 東方學報, 86 (2011)
- 神田信夫, "東方學會創立二十五周年記念東方學論集" (1972), 東方學會
- Chan, Wing-ming, "Official Historiography and Ideological Indoctrination in High Qing: Emperor Qianlong’s Compilation of the Erchen Zhuan and Nichen Zhuan", Oriens Extremus, 44 (2003)
- Parsons, James B., "The Ming Dynasty Bureaucracy : Aspects of Background Forces", Monumenta Serica, 22 (1963)
- Roth, Gertraude, "From Ming to Chi’ng : Conquest, Region, and Continuity in Seventeenth-Century China" (1979), Yale University Press