가경연간(嘉慶年間)(1796~1820)의 천주교(天主敎) 전파(傳播)와 청조(淸朝)의 대응(對應)

李俊甲 ( Lee Jungab ) 명청사학회 2016 명청사연구 Vol.0 No.45

In this study I have investigated what are the characteristics of Jiaqing reign in the history of Catholic missionary work during Qing China. The important changes with relation to the Catholic missionary work in Jiaqing reign are as follows. First, the participation in Catholic missionary work by Eight Banners men including Manchu banner men began to appear in Jiaqing reign. Second, long distance trade roads between Sichuan and Guizhou were begun to use as the roads of inner mission from Qianlong-Jiaqing reign by Sichuan Catholic-merchants. Third, the method of Catholic missionary work by Catholic and their consciousness were influenced by Jiaqing White Lotus Rebellion. Emperor Jiaqing and his ministers gave themselves trouble about preventing Catholic missionary work by issuing new regulations, for example, management regulation of the churches in Beijing(xiyangtangguanlizhangcheng), special punishment regulation of Catholic(tianzhujiaozhizuizhuantiao), punishment regulation of officials missing to control Catholic missionary work(shichaguanyuanchufatiaoli). Qing officials could handle Catholic incidents consistently through these new regulations. They did not need to refer old prohibition regulations of Catholicism which had made from Kangxi to Qianlong reign in case of judging Catholic. They had no choice but to refer old regulations which had made from Kangxi reign to Qianlong one by one till the first half of the Jiaqing reign. As the new regulations were made at the second half of the Jiaqing reign, the old ones were useless. The new regulations were referred as the only one standard in judging Catholic by officials. So we can say that the Jiaqing reign different from former times is an epoch making time in Catholic history of Qing dynasty.

도니당안으로 본 청-러 국경분쟁 초기 전황과 청 조정의 결정

홍은 만주학회 2023 만주연구 Vol.- No.35

This essay examines the war situation in the Northeastern China in the early days of Sino-Russian border conflicts and the measures taken by the Qing Dynasty to support the war efforts. It uses the archives of Aisin Gioro Doni (愛新覺 羅 多尼, 1636-1661) reported to the Emperor Shunzhi (順治帝) in 1655. These archives shed light on the internal discussions within the Qing Dynasty. They also include details on the war situation of northeastern Jakűn Gűsa (八旗) in the early days of Sino-Russian border conflict, the discussions between Ministry of Military Management and Hebei Amban (議政大臣), and entries of Emperor Shunzhi’s edicts. A thorough exploration of these archives found that after the defeat of the Qing army at the Battle of Kumarsk in 1655, the situation in northeastern Jakűn Gűsa was unfavorable, with several clan villages surrendering to the tsardom of Russia. The commanders of the troops requested military supplies, the dispatch of troops, and assistance of naval forces belonging to the Ujen Cooha (漢軍八旗), The Ministry of Military Affairs agreed to most of the requests but reduced the number of dispatched troops and obtained materials for military supplies from nearby areas. Hebei Amban eventually agreed with most military officials’ discussions, but refused Chosun‘s dispatch of naval forces to avoid costs. While Emperor Shunzhi accepted the proposal between Hebei Amban and the Ministry of Military Affairs, further research is needed to determine whether the proposed plan was implemented. The essay emphasizes the importance of using archives such as the Archives of Doni to better understand literature such as 『北 征錄』 and sheds light on the efforts made by the Qing Dynasty during the early days of the Sino-Russian border conflicts. 본 연구는 1655년 信郡王 도니(1636-1661)가 順治帝에게 상주한 당안을 활용하여 청-러 국경분쟁 초기의 동북 전황과 이에 대한 청나라 정부의 지원안에 대해 분석하였다. 이 당안은 분쟁 초기 동북 八旗의 전황을보고하고 병력과 군수물자를 요청하는 사르후다의 문서, 이에 대한 청나라 兵部와 議政大臣의 논의 및 순치제의 윤허 세 부분으로 나뉜다. 청-러국경분쟁 관련 문헌 중 초기의 기록은 청나라 내부의 논의 과정과 관련된기록이 거의 없다. 도니당안은 이러한 기존 문헌의 한계점을 보완할 수있다. 도니당안에 따르면, 쿠마르스크 전투에서 동북 자쿤구사가 패퇴한 후청나라의 전황은 불리하였다. 이 해에 루스차르국이 수군을 활용하여 남하하자 이 지역의 여러 씨족 마을이 항복하였지만 청나라는 여기에 대처하지 못하였다. 이에 동북 지휘관들은 漢軍八旗 소속의 육군과 수군의 파병 및 이 부대가 활용할 군수물자를 요청하였다. 이때, 이들은 조선의 조총수와 수군 파병도 요청하였다. 병부의 관리들은 이를 접수한 뒤 대부분 승낙하였지만 파병 인원을 줄이고 군수물자를 인근 지역에서 조달받도록 의견을 모았다. 이것은 당시한군팔기부대가 대부분 南明征伐에 파견되었기 때문에 동북에 파견될 수없었던 상황과 관련이 있다. 의정대신들은 병부 관리들의 의견을 대부분수용하였으나 조선의 수군 파병에는 동의하지 않았다. 이는 조선의 수군이 파병될 경우 청나라가 부담해야 할 보상액이 늘어나기 때문이다. 순치제는 이러한 의정대신과 병부의 최종안을 윤허하였다. 한편, 이 당안에서 언급한 지원안은 이를 뒷받침할 조선이나 청나라의문헌이 발굴되지 않아 시행여부를 확인하기 어렵다. 그러므로 이후에 청나라 6부에서 이를 처리하는 과정에서 작성한 당안이나 『北征錄』 같은 조선의 관련 문집류 문헌이 발굴되어야 파병여부에 대한 추가 연구가 가능하다.

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 繙譯考試와 經書 滿譯本 제작 연구

최다정 고려대학교 민족문화연구원 2025 민족문화연구 Vol.106 No.-

This paper examines the pattern of questions in the imperial translation examination (繙譯考試) administered to the Manchurian and Mongolian bannermen (旗人) of the Eight Banners (八旗) during the Qing Dynasty, and examines the production and evolution of the Confucian classics (經書) translated into Manchu-language that were the scope of the imperial translation examination. First, the tendency of questions in the imperial translation examination was analyzed by analyzing the Heumjeong-guajangjorye (欽定科場條例), Beonyeok-gosije (繙譯考試題) and the Qing Dynasty's petitions (上奏文). The Qing emperors were directly involved in the imperial translation examination by creating essays on Manchu writing. At that time, translation questions was presented by linking the contents of the Confucian classics to government affairs, and the content of the questions tended to vary depending on the job characteristics of the official being selected. The translation questions and essay topics of the imperial translation examination were all from the Confucian classics translated into Manchu by order of the emperor. it was characteristic that the Manchu version of Four Books and Five Classics (四書五經) as well as Beonyeok-hyogyeong (繙譯孝經) were included in the scope of the imperial translation examination throughout the Qing Dynasty. Accordingly, along with the implementation of the imperial translation examination, the Qing Dynasty’s Manchu policy was directly linked to the production of translated Confucian classics. During the Qianlong (乾隆) period, the New Qing Language (新淸語) was established, which involved translating Chinese characters into Manchu by paraphrasing (意譯) them instead of transliterating (音譯). This was clearly reflected in the production of Manchu translations of the Confucian classics and the imperial translation examination. After the imperial translation examination qualifications were expanded to the Eight Banners' Garrison (駐防八旗) during the Daoguang (道光) era, Eight Banners' Garrison published their own selections of translated Four Books (四書), which also proves the connection between the imperial translation examination and the translated Confucian classics into manchu. Through the above research, the significance of this paper lies in the way it has revealed how the three elements of ‘improving Manchu language skills of the Eight Banners (八旗), implementing imperial translation examinations to cultivate translation talents, and producing Manchu-language Confucian classics (經書) were closely interrelated and operated throughout the Qing Dynasty.

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...

청조(淸朝)의 제국 통치와 신해혁명, 그리고 중국의 통일적 다민족국가론

최진백 한국정치외교사학회 2023 한국정치외교사논총 Vol.45 No.1

For all an era of domination under the Manchu immigrants Qing history is recognized as a part of Chinese history with a scheme of “unitary multi-national state.” Beyond the traditional Hanhwa idea, which refers to Sinicization of non-Han groups, this involves a new idea of historical formation of the ‘Chinese Nation’ out of historical unifying process of Han and non- Han ethnic groups including Manchus. The Qing fashioned its national identity as a ruling group through a unique organization called the Palgi (Eight Flags) system, and assumed the leadership of broad nomad area from Manchuria to Central Asia. The Qing also constructed a governance system in China where majority of population was Han Chinese based on the traditional Chinese culture. However, the problem of the Palgi system became salient through the Opium War and the Taiping rebellion, and the Qing Dynasty formed a virtual Manch-Han coalition government for its modernization push through the Yangwu and the Bianfa movements. Yet, the coalition regime collapsed by the revolution of 1911. The new republic promoted the “Five Nation Republic” scheme, which included various non- Chinese groups within the Qing Empire as its citizens. This was not because the Han and non-Han ethnic groups had a common identity as the “Chinese people,” but because they wanted to form the territory of the new Republic following the broad areas of Qing Empire. The problem is that the scheme accepts those non-Han ethnic groups on the Sinicization premise which supposes full cultural enlightenment of Chinese authenticity, and denies the political recognition that they got under the Qing Empire. This means that the framework of China’s “unitary multi-national state” needs close review process. 오늘날 중국은 한족만이 아닌 여러 소수민족을 포괄하는 ‘통일적 다민족국가’임을 주장하면서 이를 바탕으로 중국사를 구성하고 있다. 그래서 만주족에 의해 지배받았던 청의 역사를 중국사의 일부로 수용하고 있다. 그리고 이를 위해 전통적인 한화(漢化)의 입장을 넘어 만주족을 포함한 여러 비한족 집단이 한족과 역사적 융합의 과정을 통해 ‘중화민족’을 구성했다고 한다. 문제는 이러한 논의의 역사적 사실 부합성이다. 청조는 팔기(八旗)라는 독특한 조직을 통해서 지배집단으로서 만주족의 정체성을 구성하여 이를 바탕으로 만주에서 중앙아시아에 이르는 드넓은 유목지역의 통합자이면서, 동시에 한족이 다수인 중원지방을 전통적 중화질서에 기반으로 하는 지배체제를 마련하였다. 그러나 아편전쟁과 태평천국의 난을 거치며 팔기 제도의 문제가 노정되면서 청조는 “만한(滿漢) 연합정권”을 구성하여 양무운동과 변법운동을 통해 나름의 근대화를 추진하였지만 만한 사이의 갈등이 접점을 못 찾고 결국 신해혁명으로 붕괴되었다. 새로운 중화민국은 ‘오족공화(五族共和)’를 내세우면서 청 제국 내부의 여러 비한 종족을 그 구성원으로 포함하고자 하였으나 이는 당시 한족과 비한족들이 ‘중화민족’으로 하나의 정체성을 갖추었기 때문이 아니라 신생 중화민국의 영토를 드넓은 청 제국의 판도에 걸쳐 구성하고자 이들 지역을 자신의 영토로 포괄하고자 했기 때문이었다. 이 과정에서 비한족 집단들은 이전 청조 아래 주어졌던 정치적 승인이 철회되고 한화의 대상으로서 그들의 문화적 정체성이 부정되었다. 따라서 한화를 넘어 융합을 전제로 한 오늘날 중국의 ‘통일적 다민족국가’ 논의에 대한 진지한 역사적 검토가 필요하다

청대 건륭기 만주족의 根本之地 만들기 -京師 旗人의 이주와 만주의 封禁을 중심으로-

이훈 고려대학교 역사연구소 2011 사총 Vol.72 No.-

In the early Qianlong reign, the Eight Banners were bedeviled by economic dislocation and martial declension. To solve these problems, the Qing government decided to relocate the bannermen in Beijing to Manchuria and simultaneously to enforce the policy of closing Manchuria, i.e. fengjing (封禁). Qing specialists have long believed that these two decisions made by the Qianlong emperor were not related each other: the former has been mainly discussed as one of the many economic policies to improve life of the bannermen in the capital, while the latter mostly examined from the perspective of agriculture and land reclamation in Manchuria. In fact, however, these two policies were taken to achieve a same goal, that is, making “Place of Manchu Origins (genben zhi di 根本之地, genben zhong di 根本重地),” by which the Qing government expected to resolve both the serious economic crisis of the bannermen and the steady acculturation of Manchus to Han customs. This policy came to transform the meaning of “Place of Manchu Origins” from a common noun indicating a “very important place” to a proper noun specifying “a fundamentally crucial place for the Manchus.” After the Qianlong reign, Manchuria as the "fundamentally crucial place for the Manchus" became a place for all the bannermen living in both Beijing and Manchuria. It was a place where privileges for bannermen in Manchuria should be protected, population pressure in Beijing (the home for half the entire banner populations in the Qing empire) be resolved, and finally, the Manchu culture and language be preserved.

被保留的旗人記憶

蔡名哲(Tsai Mingche) 경북대학교 아시아연구소 2010 아시아연구 Vol.- No.9

百二老人語錄'(Emu Tangγô Orin Saqda-i Gisun Sarkiyan)은 淸代의 名臣인 松筠(Sungyun, 1752~1835)의 著作이다. 松筠에 의하면 이 책은 그가 기록한 120명의 노인들에 관한 舊言이라고 하였는데, 이런 舊言에는 旗人들이 응당 알아야 할 일들이 포함되었다. 이 책은 滿洲語로 썼다. 이 책은 국외의 滿洲學학자들의 중시를 받고 있지만 대만과 중국대 륙학계에서의 보편적인 관심을 끌지는 못했다. '百二老人語錄' 중의 “120명의 老人”은 모두 실존 인물이었다고 보기 어렵고, 서술한 이야기도 허구일 가능성이 있다. 그러나 이 故事는 松筠이 기억, 보존, 전파되어야 할 필요성이 있는 것으로 인정하고 있다고 볼 수 있다. 이 책은 현재 10여 권의 필사본이 있으며, 다른 旗人들이 漢文으로 번역한 책도 있다. 따라서 松筠본인만이 이 책의 내용들이 보존되어야 한다고 생각한것은 아니었다. 따라서 이와 같은 記憶을 통하여 우리는 松筠등이 旗人들이 어떤 형식으로 과거를 기억하고 인지할 것을 희망하는지를 알 수 있다. 본문은 '百二老人語錄'을 바탕으로 하여 旗人들이 어떻게 “旗人과 皇帝의 관계”를 기억하고 있는지를 연구하고자 한다. 사료의 고증을 통하여 淸代에 “旗人과 皇帝의 관계”에 대해서 두 가지 논술이 있었음을 알 수 있다. 첫 번째 논술은 “旗人은 奴才(奴隸)로 칭해졌고, 奴才의 성격을 가지고 있었다”는 것이고, 두 번째 논술은 “奴才와 臣은 모두 호칭에 불과하다”는 것이다. '百二老人語錄'은 세 번째 논술이라고 볼 수 있다. 그는 旗人들이 어떻게 생각하고 있는지를 표시했다. 이 논술은“旗人은 곧 황제의 말을 가장 잘 듣는 奴才”로의 인식이었다. 첫 번째 논술과 세 번째 논술은 서로 경쟁적인 것으로서 각자 기억되어지고, 두번째 논술은 乾隆帝가 제출한 것으로서 양자의 조화를 희망했다. 그러나 이 논술은 점차 기억 속에서 사라졌다. 辛亥革命이 일어나면서 첫 번째 논술은 계속 전해지면서 주요한 논술이 되었지만 나머지 두 논술은 점차 기억 속에서 사라졌다. Emu Tangγô Orin Saqda-i Gisun Sarkiyan was written by Sungyun, who was a famous minister of Oing Dynasty. According to Sungyun’s preface, this book was his remembering one hundred twenty stories discoursed by an old man. Sungyun recorded these stories which he thought bannermen should know in Manchu. This book attracts the attentions of overseas scholars, but it doesn’t receive the same in China and Taiwan. Although there is a great chance that the One-Hundred and Twenty Stories could be fictitious, we could regard One-Hundred and Twenty Stories that Sungyun think it should be passed on. Emu Tangγô Orin Saqda-i Gisun Sarkiyan was translated by another bannerman Fugiyôn, and was copied by a lot of people. Maybe these people have the same thoughts as Sungyun. This article tries to discuss the relations between Emperor and Bannermen in the book which bannermen are supposed to remember in the book. The rudimentary conclusion of this article is that we can discover two discourses about the relations between emperor and bannermen from the records in Qing Dynasty, and Emu Tangγô Orin Saqda-i Gisun Sarkiyan can represent the third discourse. The first discourse is that bannermen are slaves(axa) and that they are full of servility. The second discourse is that axa is just an appellation, and it doesn’t have any meaning. The third discourse is that bannermen are the most faithful slaves, compared with the Green Standard Army, and they helped the emperor be successful. The first discourse conflicts with the third discourse, and the second discourse tried to be a balance between the two. With time passing by, the first discourse was remembered, and the others were forgotten.

청대 건륭기 만주족의 근본지지(根本之地) 만들기 -경사(京師) 기인(旗人)의 이주와 만주의 봉금(封禁)을 중심으로-

이훈 ( Hun Lee ) 고려대학교 역사연구소 2011 사총 Vol.72 No.-

In the early Qianlong reign, the Eight Banners were bedeviled by economic dislocation and martial declension. To solve these problems, the Qing government decided to relocate the bannermen in Beijing to Manchuria and simultaneously to enforce the policy of closing Manchuria, i.e. fengjin (封禁). Qing specialists have long believed that these two decisions made by the Qianlong emperor were not related each other: the former has been mainly discussed as one of the many economic policies to improve life of the bannermen in the capital, while the latter mostly examined from the perspective of agriculture and land reclamation in Manchuria. In fact, however, these two policies were taken to achieve a same goal, that is, making Place of Manchu Origins (genben zhi di 根本之地, genben zhong di 根本重地), by which the Qing government expected to resolve both the serious economic crisis of the bannermen and the steady acculturation of Manchus to Han customs. This policy came to transform the meaning of Place of Manchu Origins from a common noun indicating a very important place to a proper noun specifying a fundamentally crucial place for the Manchus. After the Qianlong reign, Manchuria as the fundamentally crucial place for the Manchus became a place for all the bannermen living in both Beijing and Manchuria. It was a place where privileges for bannermen in Manchuria should be protected, population pressure in Beijing (the home for half the entire banner populations in the Qing empire) be resolved, and finally, the Manchu culture and language be preserved.

사학부(史學部) : 17-18세기 청대 인삼정책의 변화

김선민 한국중국학회 2015 중국학보 Vol.74 No.-

淸代人參業開始于滿族皇室和八旗王公貴族的特權,逐漸擴大爲國家的財政收入來源,皇室和王公貴族會派遣指定數量的人員前往指定的人參山場進行人參采摘。然而隨着人參日益珍貴,人參的八旗分山制逐漸變得有名无實,最終被廢止。18世紀初期財政府曾雇傭商人管理人參業,從18世紀中葉開始設置了全面負責人參業的官參局,征收專供皇室的貢參和國家財政收入的官參。爲了確保國家所需定額的人參,淸政府發行了參票,擁有資本的商人們領取參票,幷以雇傭采參人爲代价販賣多余的人參以獲取利益。淸代的人參業雖然是國家壟斷行業,但是商人也從흔早就開始介入從采參到販賣的所有過程。和鹽業相同,商人的協助在人參業中也必不可少。淸代人參業根本的局限是,以確保皇室和國家收入爲目標而對人參采取的壟斷經營,是以无止境的使有限的自然資源枯竭爲前提的。淸朝爲了保護枯竭的人參資源,除了從入關前就開放的盛京以外,在吉林或黑龍江一帶也開發了新的人參山場,同時試圖臨時封鎖基本的山場以留出人參生長的時間。但是由于許多人爲求獲得利益而避開管制采參,這種控制出入的方法實際幷不可行。人參持續枯竭,想要領取國家發行參票的人也因此減少,參票發行數量一減少,人參稅收也立卽減少。爲了補充不足的收入,淸朝開始從法律上允許燒酒양造造業者領取參票,同時將在港口征收的船舶稅也用來補充參票。但是所有的這些措施都是暫時性的。19世紀中葉人參枯竭情況愈加嚴重,淸朝甚至喪失了控制山場的能力,最終不得不放棄對人參葉的壟斷。