罷繼 행정을 통해 본 18세기 입후법 운용-장서각 소장『繼後謄錄』을 중심으로
The Successor-Designation Law of the 18th Century, Examined through the “Successor-Releasement(罷繼) Order” -Analysis of Gyehu-deungnok (繼後謄錄), in the Jangseogak Archives
박경(이화여자대학교)
25호, 78~79쪽
초록
이 논문에서는 장서각 소장 『繼後謄錄』에 수록된 18세기의 罷繼 청원 사례를 통해 이 시기 繼後 관련 법의 운용 실태를 살펴보았다. 그 결과 다음과 같은 결론을 도출하였다. 첫째 18세기까지도 『경국대전』 입후조가 계후 청원시 예조에서 계후 허락 여부를 결정하는 지침으로 준수되고 있었다. 둘째 16, 17세기에 제정된 파계 관련 수교들 역시 준수되고 있었다. 셋째 파계를 하기 위해서는 예외없이 예조에 파계를 청원하여 허락받는 절차를 거쳐야 했다. 이는 『경국대전』 입후조에 어긋나는 위법한 계후라는 이유로 파계하는 경우에도 마찬가지였다. 넷째 계후시 형식적으로는 『경국대전』 입후조가 준수되었지만 실제로는 관에서 법의 준수 여부를 제대로 감독하지 않았다. 그 원인으로는 다음 두 가지 가능성을 제기할 수 있다. 그 하나는 계후가 증가함에 따라 행정 수요의 증가로 계후의 적법성 여부를 검증하는 체제가 제대로 작동하지 않았을 가능성이 있다. 그리고 또 다른 하나는 사대부들의 종법에 대한 이해가 심화되고 문중이 발달하면서 이전에 공적인 영역에서 담당하던 부분을 상당부분 사적인 영역으로 전환시켰을 가능성이 있다. 다섯째 파계 허가 여부는 기본적으로 법에 의거하였지만 주무부서로서 파계 여부에 대한 입장을 정하던 예조와 최종 판결을 하였던 왕은 항상 윤리적인 부분을 의식하고 있었다. 18세기의 위정자들은 법이 예를 구현하는 수단이라는 점을 인식하고 파계에 관한 행정을 하였다. 또한 이 시기 왕들은 자신에게만 부여된 법 적용에 융통성을 발휘할 수 있는 권한을 사회의 윤리의식을 보호하는데 이용하였다.
Abstract
In this article, examples of the 18th century Joseon people asking for the annulment of previously established official successors of households,recorded in Gyehu-deungnok which is currently in custody of the Jangseogak archives at the Academy of Korean Studies, are examined. How exactly the legal codes that were relevant to the process of naming household successors were applied, will be examined as well. First, in the 18th century, the ‘Successor-designation’ code(立後條) inside Gyeongguk Daejeon (經國大典) was still being considered as the ultimate dictation over the Yejo office(禮曺: Ministry of Protocols), which would either grant an individual to be named as a successor or not. Second, the legal regulations which had already been established in the 16th and 17th centuries, regarding specific occasions of ‘releasing’ an individual from the commitment and ‘removing’ that person from the status of a household successor, were also being duly observed as well. Third, in order to release and remove someone, a request had to be made and submitted to the Ministry of Protocols and then subsequently granted. Attempts to remove a person named successor illegally had to go through the same process as well. Fourth, although the ‘Successor-designation’ code was being formally observed, the authorities seem to have not really bothered to meticulously monitor that. There might have been a couple of reasons behind such negligence. Because of the increasing demands of designating a household successor, the governmental authorities might not have been able to screen all such requests adequately, and monitor them for their either legal or illegal nature. Also, as the Scholar-officials’ understanding of the Clan law was being significantly refined, with the nobility households hugely prospering, the action of ‘screening and monitoring’, which had previously remained in the realm of officiality, might have actually moved over to the private sector. Fifth, although the ultimate decision to grant someone’s dismissal from the position was made under the existing law, not only the Ministry of Protocols but also the King who issued the final order himself, were all deeply concerned of staying true to the spirit of the law and taking the moral implications generated by it into consideration. The governing authorities of the 18th century considered law as a device that facilitated the realization of ethics, and dealt with the issue of ‘releasement/removal’ issues, with that conviction firmly in mind. The Kings also used their own authority to be flexible in law enforcements, to protect the moral consciousness of the society.
- 발행기관:
- 한국학중앙연구원
- 분류:
- 역사학