淸 乾隆年間 八旗漢軍 出旗 정책의 樣相과 그 영향 ― 出旗 허용 정책과 出旗 강제 정책의 분석을 중심으로 ―

황해윤 명청사학회 2017 명청사연구 Vol.0 No.47

본 논문은 乾隆 年間에 실시된 八旗漢軍 出旗 정책을 출기 허용 정책과 출기 강제 정책으로 나눈 뒤 그 영향을 분석한 글이다. 이와 관련된 기존 연구는 크게 세 가지 문제점이 있다. 첫째, 출기한 한군 기인의 수를 부정확하게 산출한 채 그 영향을 논하였다. 둘째, 출기 정책의 목표ㆍ시행 대상ㆍ실시 방법이 상이했던 출기 허용 정책과 출기 강제 정책 간의 차이에 주목하지 않았다. 셋째, 출기 정책의 실시를 전후하여 팔기한군에 발생한 변화를 살펴보는 데 주의를 기울이지 않았다. 이에 본 논문은 팔기한군 출기 정책과 관련된 정확한 통계를 바탕으로 각각의 출기 정책을 세분하여 그 영향을 밝히는 데 주안점을 두었다. 논의의 범주는 八旗 내 漢人 출신 기인 중 八旗漢軍 旗籍에 속한 자로 국한하였다. 순치~옹정 연간, 漢軍 旗人의 수가 지나치게 증가하여 官兵으로 복무하지 못하는 閑散 旗人의 수가 늘어났다. 기인의 경우 문무 관원이나 팔기 관병으로 근무하는 것 외에 다른 직업을 가질 수 없었다. 이로 인해 팔기한군 내 閑散 기인의 증가는 한군 기인의 생계 문제로 직결되었다. 건륭제는 이 문제를 해결하기위한 방안으로 한군 기인의 수 자체를 줄이는 방식을 택했다. 이후 건륭 말까지 京師와 駐防에서 팔기한군을 대상으로 출기 허용 혹은 출기 강제 정책이 시행되었다. 일반적으로 청이 중국 통일 전쟁을 수행한 기간에는 팔기한군이 비교적 높은 대우를 받은 것으로 알려져 왔다. 그러나 淸初부터 팔기한군의 지위는 팔기만주ㆍ팔기몽고ㆍ팔기한군 중 가장 낮았다. 이는 팔기한군의 몫으로 할당된 문무관원ㆍ팔기관병 직의 수가 그 규모에 비해 현격히 적었던 것을 통해 확인된다. 이러한 상황 속에서 인구 과잉 문제가 가장 심각했던 팔기한군을 대상으로 출기 정책이 시행된 것은 一見 자연스럽다. 단 청이 入關하기 이전부터 팔기에 속했던 한군 기인은 일반 한군 기인에 비해 우대를 받았다는 사실에 주목해야한다. 入關 한군 중에서도 엘리트 계층에 속한 자는 팔기만주나 팔기몽고 소속 엘리트 기인과 유사한 대우를 받았다. 팔기한군 내부의 이러한 계층 차이는 출기 허용 대상을 선정하는 데 영향을 미쳤다. 건륭 7년(1742)부터는 출기 허용 정책이 실시되었다. 이 정책은 팔기한군 내부의 인구 과잉 문제를 해결하기위해 기획되었으며 실시 초기에는 京師에서만 시행되었으나 후에 內地 駐防까지 확대되었다. 옹정 8년(1730과 건륭 3년(1738) 팔기한군의 兵額을 일부 늘려 일자리를 추가로 마련하기도 하였다. 하지만 한군 기인의 인구 증가 속도를 따라잡는 데는 역부족이었다. 출기 허용 정책은 자발적 출기를 허용하는 방식으로 진행되었으며 강제성은 없었다. 또 각 단계별로 출기를 허용하는 자와 불허하는 자를 별도로 규정하였다. 출기 허용 대상을 규정하는 조항이 건륭 55년(1790)까지 개정되는 것으로 보았을 때 중단되지 않고 지속적으로 실시된 것을 알 수 있다. 정책의 주된 대상은 팔기한군 내 하급 관병이나 閑散 기인이었다. 入關 漢軍의 후손은 정책이 최초로 실시된 이후 20년 간 출기가 불허되었다. 입관 한군 내에서도 팔기한군 내 니루를 세습해온 집안 출신은 본인이 원하는 경우에도 출기할 수 없었다. 이 정책으로 출기된 한군 기인의 수를 정확히 파악할 수는 없다. 다만 건륭 연간의 팔기한군 출기 정책을 통틀어 한군 기인의 규모가 약 60% 감소하였을 것으로 추산되고,... The present study divides the Chinese-martial bannermen expulsion policies implemented during the reign of the Qianlong Emperor(1735-96) into the withdrawal permission policy and the forced expulsion policy and analyzes their effects. Based on accurate statistics related to the Chinese-martial bannermen expulsion policies, it focuses on breaking down and elucidating the effects of each expulsion policy. The scope of discussions is limited to those on Chinese-martial bannermen household registers from among Chinese-martial Bannermen in the Eight Banners. In general, the Chinese-martial bannermen are known to have received a comparatively favorable treatment during the Qing Dynasty’s engagement in wars to unify China. From the early years of the dynasty, however, the Chinese-martial bannermen were far lower in status than the Manchu Eight Bannermen and the Mongol Eight Bannermen. This is confirmed by the fact that the numbers of both civil and military officials and posts of Eight Banner officers and soldiers allocated to the Chinese-martial bannermen were disproportionately small. Amidst such a situation, it is seemingly natural for expulsion policies to have been implemented on the Chinese-martial bannermen, for whom the problem of overpopulation was the gravest. However, it must be noted that Chinese-martial bannermen belonging to the Eight Banners even before the Qing Dynasty’s entry through Shanhai Pass to conquer Beijing were treated better than other, ordinary Chinese-martial bannermen. Even out of Chinese-martial bannermen who had thus passed Shanhai Pass, those from the elite class received treatment similar to elite Bannermen belonging to the Manchu Eight Bannermen and the Mongol Eight Bannermen. Such class differences among the Chinese-martial bannermen affected the selection of those who would be allowed to leave the Eight Banners. Starting in the 7th year of the Qianlong Emperor’s reign (1742), the withdrawal permission policy was implemented. Planned to resolve the problem of overpopulation among the Chinese-martial bannermen, this policy was implemented only in the capital at first but subsequently expanded to Garrisons in China proper also. In the 8th year of the Yongzheng Emperor’s reign(1722-35) and the 3rd year of the Qianlong Emperor’s reign (1738), the number of troops assigned to the Chinese-martial bannermen was partly increased in order to create additional jobs as well. However, such measures were inadequate for accommodating the rate of population increase among Chinese-martial bannermen. The withdrawal permission policy was implemented by allowing voluntary withdrawal and did not involve coercion. In addition, those to whom withdrawal would be allowed and those to whom it would be prohibited were separately regulated at each stage. Judging from the fact that clauses regulating the objects of permission to withdraw were revised up to the 55th year of the Qianlong Emperor’s reign (1790), it is clear that this policy was implemented continuously without interruption. The main objects of the policy were low-ranking officers and soldiers and idle Bannermen from among the Chinese-martial bannermen. Descendents of Chinese-martial bannermen who had entered through Shanhai Pass were barred from withdrawal for 20 years following the initial implementation of this policy. Out of Chinese-martial bannermen who had entered through Shanhai Pass, those from families who had successively inherited niru in the Chinese-martial bannermen could not withdraw even if they wished to. It is impossible to grasp the exact number of Chinese-martial bannermen who were expulsed because of this policy. However, the number of Chinese-martial bannermen is estimated to have decreased by approximately 60% throughout the period in which the Chinese-martial bannermen expulsion policies were implemented under the Qianlong Emperor, half of whom would have left as an effect of the forced expulsion policy. Consequently, appr...

18세기 전반 八旗 소속 太監의 추방형 처결 방식과 그 의미 ― 旗人 안건 처결 구조와의 비교를 중심으로 ―

황해윤 명청사학회 2026 명청사연구 Vol.- No.65

This article examines the sentencing practices applied to eunuchs belonging to the Eight Banners in the early eighteenth century and analyzes their implications for understanding the penal order of Qing banner society. Existing scholarship on Qing eunuchs has mainly focused on their political influence, institutional organization, recruitment, and everyday activities within the palace. Relatively little attention, however, has been paid to the legal status of eunuchs within the banner system or to the way their criminal cases were handled in relation to the principle of Avoiding Banishment after Committing Offences granted to bannermen. This study therefore asks whether eunuchs affiliated with the Eight Banners were punished according to the same legal principles applied to bannermen when they committed crimes punishable by banishment. To address this question, the article first examines the principle of Avoiding Banishment after Committing Offences in Qing law and reviews how this principle operated in judicial practice during the early eighteenth century. Under Qing law, bannermen were in principle exempt from punishments involving banishment, such as penal servitude, exile, or military banishment, and these penalties were commonly commuted to cangue and whipping. Nevertheless, depending on the gravity of the crime, actual banishment could still be imposed. The article then examines the institutional position of eunuchs within the Qing palace and the banner system. Drawing on previous studies of the Qing eunuch institution together with banner household-registration materials, this study demonstrates that eunuchs were incorporated into the banner system rather than existing solely as palace servants. Their affiliation with the banners, however, does not automatically mean that their criminal cases were treated identically to those of other bannermen. This issue can only be clarified through the analysis of concrete judicial cases. The core of the article therefore analyzes a series of eunuch criminal cases from the Kangxi and Yongzheng reigns preserved in Manchu palace memorials. These cases show that eunuchs were frequently punished according to a sentencing logic similar to that applied to bannermen. In many instances, punishments that would ordinarily involve banishment were commuted to cangue and whipping, reflecting the operation of the principle of Avoiding Banishment after Committing Offences. At the same time, the cases also reveal that this commutation was not absolute. Depending on the nature and severity of the offense, actual banishment could still be imposed. The sentencing of eunuchs therefore operated within a framework shaped simultaneously by palace discipline, banner status, and imperial judicial authority. This article argues that eunuch criminal cases reveal that the principle of Avoiding Banishment after Committing Offences was not merely a privilege designed to preserve banner military manpower. Because eunuchs, although affiliated with the banner system, were not military personnel, their cases demonstrate that the logic behind this principle also involved the Qing state's effort to manage and retain human resources embedded within the banner order while maintaining legal discipline through selective enforcement of banishment. In this sense, eunuch cases provide important evidence not only for understanding the punishment of a special palace group but also for reconstructing the broader principles governing banner punishment in the early eighteenth century. Because bannermen’s criminal cases from this period are relatively scarce, the study of eunuch cases offers a valuable perspective for understanding how the principle of Avoiding Banishment after Committing Offences actually operated in practice. Finally, this study focuses on the early eighteenth century and does not claim that the same sentencing structure remained unchanged throughout the Qing dynasty. Rather, it provides a historicall...

淸代 旗人의 추방형 면제 특권과 그 변천 - 범죄유형에 따른 추방형 면제와 집행의 竝存 -

黃海潤(Hwang, Hae yun) 동양사학회 2021 東洋史學硏究 Vol.154 No.-

명·청 시대사 교육의 위기와 기회 ― 『2022 개정 역사과 교육과정 시안 개발 연구 공개토론회 자료집』의 분석을 중심으로 ―

朴敏洙 ( Park Min-su ),黃海潤 ( Hwang Hae-yun ) 명청사학회 2022 명청사연구 Vol.- No.58

In 2021, the high school elective subject < East Asian History > was dropped from the CSAT (College Scholastic Ability Test). This study examines the present and future of Ming-Qing history education within the context of Chinese History and World History. Starting from providing a comprehensive overview on the decision to exclude < East Asian History >, we will analyze the current 2015 Revised National Curriculum and the proposed 2022 Revised National Curriculum which will likely to be confirmed soon. Another important purpose of this study is to share the key contents of the Proposal for 2022 Revised National Curriculum with our fellow members of the Society For Ming-Qing Historical Studies (Myeong Cheong Sahakhoe, 明清史學會). Specifically, we have analyzed the contents and key characteristics behind the reorganization of elective middle school < History Ⅰ(World History) >, high school < World History >, and high school < East Asian History Travel > by examining the Achievement Standards (Seongchwi gijun). As a researcher and teacher in Ming-Qing history, we strive to maintain an objective position and also avoid making selfish claims that the inclusion of Ming-Qing history into the middle and high school curriculum. As an alternative, we present an analysis and prediction on what context the contents of the Ming and Qing dynasties can be presented and utilized in the new National Curriculum. Through this, we hope that every researcher of the Society For Ming-Qing Historical Studies will scrutinize and focus on the reorganization of the curriculum and write new textbooks in the near future, recognizing the “crisis” and “opportunities” facing World History and East Asian History education.