초록 열기/닫기 버튼
이 논문에서는 숙종대 5촌 이상 자기비첩(自己婢妾) 자손의 사환 문제를 둘러싼 지방 관원들의 인식과 문제 제기가 판결과 법 제정으로 이어진 일련의 과정을 조명했다. 이를 통해 조선 후기 사대부들이 그들의 윤리의식을 정치에 반영하던 한 방식을 밝히고자 했다. 조선의 위정자들은 적자손이 자기비첩 소생 및 그 자손을 사환하는 것이 골육을 해치는 비윤리적 행위라는 인식을 가지고 있었다. 이들은 국초부터 이러한 인식을 자기비첩 소생 종량법에 반영했다. 이후 이 법은 천처첩자녀 종량법으로 개편되어 『경국대전』에 수록되었다. 이 법에 의하면 자기비첩 소생은 속신(贖身)할 필요는 없었지만 타인비첩(他人婢妾) 소생과 마찬가지로 보충대에 입역하는 과정을 거쳐야 양인이 될 수 있었다. 그런데 이들은 아버지나 적족(嫡族) 등이 장예원에 고해야 보충대에 입속할 수 있었기 때문에 아버지나 적족의 배려가 없다면 종량할 수 없었다. 이후 1554년(명종 9)의 수교에서는 보충대에 입역하지 못하여 양인 신분을 획득하지 못한 자기비첩 소생과 그 자손 중 4촌까지는 사환하지 못하게 했으나 5촌 이상이 되면 다시 부릴 수 있도록 했다. 그런데 숙종대 초반에 5촌 이상 자기비첩 자손 사환의 비윤리성이 제기되어 여러차례 법 개정이 논의되었다. 논의 결과 결국 1687년(숙종 13) 보충대에 누락된 자기비첩 자손을 공천(公賤)으로 삼도록 하는 수교가 반포되었다. 친족을 부리는 ‘비윤리적’ 행위를 막기 위해 재산권을 제한한 것이다. 그런데 이 과정에서 의미있는 현상이 발견된다. 첫째, 자기비첩 자손들이 소송을 제기하고 격쟁(擊錚)까지 하는 등 천인 신분을 벗어나기 위해 적극적으로 노력했다는 사실이 파악된다. 둘째, 많은 지방관들이 자기비첩 자손을 사환하는 것은 조상의 혈속을 해치는 비윤리적 행위라는 당위적인 윤리의식을 가지고 법을 해석하고 적용하여 5촌 이상의 자기비첩 소생을 양인화하는 판결을 내리기까지 했으며, 일부 관찰사들은 이 판결에 동의하거나 조정에 판단을 청하는 장계를 올리기도 했다. 이러한 지방관들의 적극적인 법 해석과 문제 제기는 조정에서의 논의를 촉발시켜 1687년의 수교 반포를 이끌어내었다. 또한 당시 지배층들은 이에 그치지 않고 이러한 윤리의식과 법 해석 방식을 공유하고 확산해가며, 이를 정치에 반영하고자 하는 모습을 보였다.
This study examines how local office-holders during Sukong’s reign (r. 1674-1720) perceived the issue of taking the offspring removed by five or more degrees of kinship of one's patrilineal ancestor's own slave concubine as domestic servants. It then sheds light on the process by which these elites’ critiques came to influence the administration of justice and the establishment of law. In so doing, it reveals one way in which late Joseon elites sought to translate their ethical thinking into political reality. Joseon’s political elite considered the act of a legitimate family member’s taking as domestic servants the children or direct offspring born of their own slave concubines or those of their patrilineal ancestors to be unethical-an act of “abusing one’s own flesh and blood.” These elites had since the start of the dynasty ensured that this thinking was reflected in the law releasing from lowborn status the children produced through relations with one's own slave concubines. This law was later revised to become the “Release from Lowborn Status of Children of Lowborn Wives and Concubines Law”, and recorded within the Great Code of Administration (『經國大典』). According to this law, purchasing the right (贖身) to the child born of one’s own slave concubine was not required; but just as in the case of a child born of another person’s slave concubine, the child in question would need be subject to corvée labor through the Auxiliary Unit (補充隊) in order to obtain commoner status. However, under this regime, these children of lowborn wives and concubines were dependent on their fathers or legitimate patrilineal family members to first file a report with the Slave Agency (掌隷院); only then could they report to the Auxiliary Unit for corvée labor. Thus, if their fathers or legitimate patrilineal family members lacked interest in reporting, these children could not be released from lowborn status. A 1554 (Myeongjong 9) royal proclamation forbade the taking as domestic servants of those children or direct offspring within four degrees of kinship born of one’s slave concubine who were not sent to the Auxiliary Unit and thus not permitted to obtain commoner status. However, it allowed taking these offspring as domestic servants once five or more degrees of kinship had been reached. Early in Sukjong’s reign, however, the ethics of taking as domestic servants direct offspring five or more degrees of kinship removed and born of one’s own slave concubine again became an issue, and the question of reforming the laws that governed it underwent successive rounds of debate. Ultimately, a 1687 (Sukjong 13) royal proclamation ordered that the children born of one's own slave concubines but left unreported to the Auxiliary Unit be registered publicly-held lowborns (公賤). In other words, the right to property was restricted in order to prevent the “unethical” acts of taking close relatives as domestic servants. Out of this process came a number of meaningful developments. First, the children in question began initiating lawsuits and even gyeokjaeng (擊錚), taking matters into their own hands in actively attempting to shirk their lowborn status. Second, even when the offspring in question were more than five degrees of kinship removed, many local officials continued to apply a normative ethical framework in which taking as domestic servants the children or direct offspring born of one’s slave concubine amounted to the unethical act of harming those within the bloodline of one’s ancestors. They continued to interpret and apply the law in this manner, and even issued judgments making these lowborn children commoners. Provincial governors either agreed with these judgments, or submitted them to the court for higher-level consideration. This activist legal interpretation and issue-raising on the part of local officials sparked a debate within the court, ultimately producing the 1687 royal proclamation on the matter. Yet the elites of the time did not stop here; they spread and expanded this view of ethics and manner of interpreting the law.
키워드열기/닫기 버튼
offspring of one’s own slave concubine (自己婢妾 자손), Auxiliary Unit (補充隊), release from lowborn status and elevation to commoner status (從良), judicial ruling, royal proclamations (受敎), ethics
