본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

英祖代 朝鮮人 범월사건 처리방침을 통해 본 朝鮮의 對淸 태도

Chosŏn’s Stance Towards Qing: Studied Through Korean Border-Trespassing Cases in 1724∼1776

0

조회

0

다운로드

10

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류역사학

초록

The word beomwol indicates that trespassing borders was considered a crime, and that Chosŏn and Qing both took it as a sensitive matter. Many argue that in the eighteenth century, border-trespassing issues were resolved smoothly and reasonably between Chosŏn and Qing. This argument is based on considering that Baekdusan National Boundary Monument indicates a modern concept of national boundary line, and that border-trespassing was a territory dispute between modern states of equal level. However, a border-trespass is a diplomatic issue which occurs after territories and borders are all discussed and set. This paper aims to focus on Chosŏn’s diplomatic attitude towards Qing in King Yongjo’s reigm(1724~1766), through discussing sentences for the Korean border-trespassers. Emperor Yongzheng, enforced stricter rules for Chosŏn’s border trespassing cases. Although he seemed to give chances, eventually he did not give Chosŏn any option to determine. King Yongjo had no choice but to follow this rule: Emperor Yongzheng deeply intervened with Chosŏn’s judgments, and King Yongjo could not find any way to become free from his authority. On 1735, with the newly throned Emperor Qianlong declaring amnesty in a large scale, King Yongjo also started to lower penalties for Chosŏn’s border-trespassers. However, Chosŏn kept enforcing overly harsh punishments every time when the Emperor’s intervention deepened threateningly. Plus, Chosŏn also tried to concealed these cases. Because she was afraid of Qing, Chosŏn had to try these actions when she think she was cornered. This paper focuses mainly on border-trespassing cases and how Chosŏn and Qing’s position in punishing the issue kept changing for half a century. The sentences for punishment changed over time, but the essence of how Chosŏn perceived Qing did not; Chosŏn had to be aware of Qing’s intentions, whether they wanted to or not. Chosŏn could not implement its own decisions even when Qing was not involved. In cases which both states were involved, such as border-trespassing, Chosŏn could not take the leadership in settling the case. Rather, Chosŏn was always anxious about Qing’s perspective, and had no choice but to read Qing’s intentions well. Constant vigilance was needed to Chosŏn even King Yongjo’s reign in eighteenth century.

Abstract

The word beomwol indicates that trespassing borders was considered a crime, and that Chosŏn and Qing both took it as a sensitive matter. Many argue that in the eighteenth century, border-trespassing issues were resolved smoothly and reasonably between Chosŏn and Qing. This argument is based on considering that Baekdusan National Boundary Monument indicates a modern concept of national boundary line, and that border-trespassing was a territory dispute between modern states of equal level. However, a border-trespass is a diplomatic issue which occurs after territories and borders are all discussed and set. This paper aims to focus on Chosŏn’s diplomatic attitude towards Qing in King Yongjo’s reigm(1724~1766), through discussing sentences for the Korean border-trespassers. Emperor Yongzheng, enforced stricter rules for Chosŏn’s border trespassing cases. Although he seemed to give chances, eventually he did not give Chosŏn any option to determine. King Yongjo had no choice but to follow this rule: Emperor Yongzheng deeply intervened with Chosŏn’s judgments, and King Yongjo could not find any way to become free from his authority. On 1735, with the newly throned Emperor Qianlong declaring amnesty in a large scale, King Yongjo also started to lower penalties for Chosŏn’s border-trespassers. However, Chosŏn kept enforcing overly harsh punishments every time when the Emperor’s intervention deepened threateningly. Plus, Chosŏn also tried to concealed these cases. Because she was afraid of Qing, Chosŏn had to try these actions when she think she was cornered. This paper focuses mainly on border-trespassing cases and how Chosŏn and Qing’s position in punishing the issue kept changing for half a century. The sentences for punishment changed over time, but the essence of how Chosŏn perceived Qing did not; Chosŏn had to be aware of Qing’s intentions, whether they wanted to or not. Chosŏn could not implement its own decisions even when Qing was not involved. In cases which both states were involved, such as border-trespassing, Chosŏn could not take the leadership in settling the case. Rather, Chosŏn was always anxious about Qing’s perspective, and had no choice but to read Qing’s intentions well. Constant vigilance was needed to Chosŏn even King Yongjo’s reign in eighteenth century.

참고문헌 (42)

  1. "備邊司謄錄", ~
  2. "承政院日記", ~
  3. "朝鮮王朝實錄", ~
  4. "淸實錄", ~
  5. "欽定盛京通志", ~
  6. "同文彙考, 疆界 史料", 동북아역사재단, ~ (2008)
  7. "同文彙考, 犯越 史料 1~", 동북아역사재단, ~ (2012)
  8. "同文彙考, 勅諭ㆍ犯禁ㆍ刷還 史料", 동북아역사재단, ~ (2013)
  9. "雍正朝滿文硃批奏摺全譯 上ㆍ下冊" (1998), 黃山書社
  10. "淸會典事例, 第八冊 兵部ㆍ盛京兵部" (1999), 中華書局
  11. "續大典", 서울대학교규장각, ~ (1998)
  12. "通文館志 1~4", 세종대왕기념사업회, ~ (1998)
  13. 강석화, "조선후기 함경도와 북방영토의식" (2000), 경세원
  14. 계승범, "조선후기 중화론의 이면과 그 유산 —명・청 관련 호칭의 변화를 중심으로—", 韓國史學史學報, (19), pp.39~81 (2009), 한국사학사학회
  15. 國史編纂委員會, "韓中關係史 硏究의 成果와 課題" (2003), 동방문화
  16. 김경록, "『同文彙考』를 통한 조선후기 외교사안 연구 ― 原編 ‘封典’ 事案을 중심으로 ―", 명청사연구, (32), pp.69~103 (2009), 명청사학회
  17. 金炅春, "朝ㆍ淸國境問題의 一視點 : 犯越을 中心으로", 慶州史學, 6 (1987)
  18. 김백철, "두 얼굴의 영조 : 18세기 탕평군주상의 재검토" (2014), 태학사
  19. 김선민, "雍正帝의 盛京지역 통치", 명청사연구, (34), pp.143~177 (2010), 명청사학회
  20. 김선민, "18세기 후반 청-조선의 범월문제와 경계관리: 金順丁·朴厚贊 사건을 중심으로", 민족문화연구, (72), pp.91~127 (2016), 민족문화연구원[DOI]
  21. 김선민, "동아시아의 근대, 그 중심과 주변" (2013), 고려대학교 민족문화연구원
  22. 金春善, "조선후기 한인의 만주로의 ‘犯越’과 정착과정", 白山學報, 51 (1998)
  23. 金慧子, "朝鮮後期 北邊越境問題 硏究", 梨大史苑, 18ㆍ19 (1982)
  24. 남이슬, "康熙年間 淸國人의 海洋犯越과 朝ㆍ淸 양국의 대응", 명청사연구, (44), pp.191~239 (2015), 명청사학회
  25. 마크 C. 엘리엇, "건륭제: 하늘의 아들, 현세의 인간" (2011), 천지인
  26. 미야자키 이치사다, "옹정제" (2001), 이산
  27. 민덕기, "동아시아 해금정책의 변화와 해양 경계에서의 분쟁", 한일관계사연구, (42), pp.189~228 (2012), 한일관계사학회
  28. 변주승, "조선후기 유민의 북방 변경 유입과 그 실태", 국학연구, (13), pp.195~224 (2008), 한국국학진흥원
  29. 배우성, "조선 후기 국토관과 천하관의 변화" (1998), 일지사
  30. 배우성, "조선과 중화 : 조선이 꿈꾸고 상상한 세계와 문명" (2014), 돌베개
  31. 유지원, "淸朝의 東北정책에 따른 吉林烏拉의 위상변화", 열린정신 인문학 연구, 16(1), pp.203~235 (2015), 인문학연구소
  32. 이욱, "17∼18세기 犯越사건을 통해 본 함경도 주민의 경제생활", 韓國史學報, (20), pp.139~164 (2005), 고려사학회
  33. 李洪烈, "三道溝事件과 그 先後策 : 施策面에서 본 事件의 時代性", 白山學報, 5 (1968)
  34. 이화자, "17~18세기 월경문제를 둘러싼 조·청 교섭", 박사, 국사학, pp.2003
  35. 李花子, "朝淸國境問題硏究" (2008), 집문당
  36. 인하대학교 한국학연구소, "犯越과 離散 : 만주로 건너간 조선인들" (2010), 인하대학교출판부
  37. 全海宗, "淸代 韓ㆍ中關係의 一考察: 朝貢制度를 통하여 본 淸의 態度의 變遷에 대하여", 東洋學, 1 (1971)
  38. 정혜중, "청대 조선인과 청국인 범월의 특징: 양국 범월사례의 분석을 중심으로", 명청사연구, (26), pp.69~88 (2006), 명청사학회
  39. 최소자, "淸과 朝鮮 : 근세 동아시아의 상호인식" (2005), 혜안
  40. 山本進, "大清帝国と朝鮮経済 : 開発ㆍ貨幣ㆍ信用" (2014), 九州大学出版会
  41. 王燕杰, "清朝前期与朝鲜边务交涉与合作研究: 以朝鮮人越境犯罪案件的审理为中心", 博士, pp.2012
  42. 김선민, "Hunchun, the Qing-Chosŏn Borderland in theEighteenth Century", International Journal of Korean History, 21(1), pp.157~191 (2016), 한국사연구소[DOI]

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (13건)