지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
In classifying Korean private nobi into resident nobi and outside-resident nobi, the criterion should be place of registry rather than place of actual residence. Those nobi registered in masters household registers were resident nobi, no matter where they lived. Then, those nobi left outside masters household registers were outside-resident nobi.
The Chosun government classified private nobi into resident nobi and outside-resident nobi in order to distinguish those nobi subject to household tax from those exempted from that tax. Resident nobi were exempted from household tax, because they did not make up independent households. Meanwhile, those outside-resident nobi making up independent households were subject to household tax, in principle. Thus, the distinction between resident nobi and outside-resident nobi was created by the state for the purpose of household taxation on one segment of private nobi.
With respect to outside-resident nobi, they were private persons belonged to their masters, but, at the same time they were public persons paying tax to the state. Therefore, in defining the socio-economic nature of Korean private nobi, it is necessary to consider their relation to the state as well, besides their relation to the masters. It should be kept in mind that nobi could perform public obligation, when illustrating the socio-economic nature of Korean private nobi. The public functions of Korean private nobi in late Chosun challenges the definition of their being either slaves or serfs, as known in the Western history. Slaves and serfs in the Western history were confined to doing private duties imposed by nobles or feudal lords, whereas Korean outside-resident nobi did perform public functions imposed by the state.
The Chosun government classified private nobi into resident nobi and outside-resident nobi in order to distinguish those nobi subject to household tax from those exempted from that tax. Resident nobi were exempted from household tax, because they did not make up independent households. Meanwhile, those outside-resident nobi making up independent households were subject to household tax, in principle. Thus, the distinction between resident nobi and outside-resident nobi was created by the state for the purpose of household taxation on one segment of private nobi.
With respect to outside-resident nobi, they were private persons belonged to their masters, but, at the same time they were public persons paying tax to the state. Therefore, in defining the socio-economic nature of Korean private nobi, it is necessary to consider their relation to the state as well, besides their relation to the masters. It should be kept in mind that nobi could perform public obligation, when illustrating the socio-economic nature of Korean private nobi. The public functions of Korean private nobi in late Chosun challenges the definition of their being either slaves or serfs, as known in the Western history. Slaves and serfs in the Western history were confined to doing private duties imposed by nobles or feudal lords, whereas Korean outside-resident nobi did perform public functions imposed by the state.
목차
Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. 丹城戶籍의 奴婢謄載 實狀
Ⅲ. 丹城戶籍에 등장하는 奴婢類型
Ⅳ. 率居ㆍ外居奴婢의 性格
Ⅴ. 맺음말
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
18세기 중엽 私奴婢의 사회․경제적 성격 ―慶尙道安東金溪里義城金氏家사례
대동문화연구
2011 .01
-
17세기 奴婢戶의 호적등재 ― 조선왕조 재정의 관점에서
대동문화연구
2020 .01
-
17세기 소송 현장과 노비의 소송 전략 -1635년 의령현(宜寧縣) 결급입안(決給立案)을 중심으로-
한국사연구
2019 .12
-
高麗時代 승려의 血族間 師承과 그 意味
한국사연구
2008 .09
-
한국 고대사회에서 노비와 노비노동의 역할
한국고대사연구
2003 .03
-
고려말 四件奴婢의 유형화와 노비정책
한국사연구
2009 .06
-
고려 후기 전민변정과 조선 초기 노비 정책의 의의와 한계
역사비평
2018 .02
-
왜란과 호란기 매매와 분재, 그리고 家計운영 : 평산신씨 申磼 宗家 고문서 사례
역사와실학
2018 .08
-
조선 후기 호적대장 호구차정 원리 ― 언양현 가좌책을 중심으로
대동문화연구
2020 .01
-
17·18세기 호적대장의 私奴婢 기재 실태 -경상도 단성현 권대유家 노비를 중심으로 -
古文書硏究
2004 .01
-
18세기의 노비 시인 정초부
역사비평
2011 .02
-
朝鮮 後期의 私奴婢 政策
성곡논총
1987 .06
-
조선 후기 호적, 호구의 성격과 새로운 쟁점
한국사연구
2006 .12
-
남북한 ‘수복지구’·‘신해방지구’ 주민 편입 비교 : 국민/인민 전환을 중심으로
역사비평
2018 .05
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-911-002854438