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.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 저널정보
- 한국역사연구회 역사와현실 역사와 현실 제128호
- 발행연도
- 2023.6
- 수록면
- 61 - 97 (37page)
- DOI
- 10.35865/YWH.2023.06.128.61
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The Joseon government sent Secret Royal Inspectors to local regions across the Korean peninsula, in order to regularly monitor the areas and strengthen the government’s control over them. Such dispatching of personnel were also meant to inspect the local prefects, the Su’ryeong(守令) figures. After completing their tours in the regions, inspectors would file their evaluation of the local prefects they just inspected and submit them in the form of Seo’gye(書啓) documents. Then the King would bestow commendations to prefects who displayed sound local governing(Seonchi, 善治).
Total number of figures who were recognized for their efforts and received commendations from the King between the reign of Kings Sunjo(純祖, r.1800-1834) and Cheoljong(哲宗, r.1849-1863) can be counted around 200. Among all the commended prefects, picked by the Ijo(吏曹) office(Ministry of Administration) were usually from the Three Southern provinces(Samnam/三南: Chungcheong-do/忠淸道, Gyeongsang-do/慶尙道 and Jeolla-do/全羅道), while prefects picked by the Byeongjo(兵曹) office(Ministry of Military) were from the Northwest region of the peninsula as well as the Hamgyeong-do(咸境道) province. This may have had something to do with the number of inspectors dispatched to respective regions, the importance of those regions, and their performance in general.
Reasons for commendations documented in the Seo‘gye materials are as follow: Most prominently, a governance based upon the prefect’s own personal efforts to build a sound character for himself, or helping others with resources that came from the prefect’s own frugal lifestyle. Also recorded in these materials were positive evaluations of the prefects’ performance in three key policies(Samjeong, 三政[田政·軍政·還政]: taxation & mobilization of resources and workforce in land, military and grain administrations), and other miscellaneous duties. These reasons for commendation show us that ‘moral leaders,’ who cared for the people with their own character-building efforts and frugality, were the ones to be commended by the government, as they were indeed merits that were valued for the entirety of the Joseon period.
Then in the 19th century, problems that could not be resolved with the local prefects’ personal morality were indeed cropping up here and there. The government, however, would rather prioritize moral actions and personal dedication of the prefects over necessary enhancements of institutions and systems. Joseon leaders just continued to argue that the character of the leaders is the most important value and merit when it comes to governing the public. Such stance was definitely not a solution to the problems of the time, and in fact could never be. But the fact that the government continued to dispatch Secret Royal Inspectors, and monitored the local prefects through them, at least shows us that the government was never completely indifferent to the situation, and tried to come up with some solutions it could.
Total number of figures who were recognized for their efforts and received commendations from the King between the reign of Kings Sunjo(純祖, r.1800-1834) and Cheoljong(哲宗, r.1849-1863) can be counted around 200. Among all the commended prefects, picked by the Ijo(吏曹) office(Ministry of Administration) were usually from the Three Southern provinces(Samnam/三南: Chungcheong-do/忠淸道, Gyeongsang-do/慶尙道 and Jeolla-do/全羅道), while prefects picked by the Byeongjo(兵曹) office(Ministry of Military) were from the Northwest region of the peninsula as well as the Hamgyeong-do(咸境道) province. This may have had something to do with the number of inspectors dispatched to respective regions, the importance of those regions, and their performance in general.
Reasons for commendations documented in the Seo‘gye materials are as follow: Most prominently, a governance based upon the prefect’s own personal efforts to build a sound character for himself, or helping others with resources that came from the prefect’s own frugal lifestyle. Also recorded in these materials were positive evaluations of the prefects’ performance in three key policies(Samjeong, 三政[田政·軍政·還政]: taxation & mobilization of resources and workforce in land, military and grain administrations), and other miscellaneous duties. These reasons for commendation show us that ‘moral leaders,’ who cared for the people with their own character-building efforts and frugality, were the ones to be commended by the government, as they were indeed merits that were valued for the entirety of the Joseon period.
Then in the 19th century, problems that could not be resolved with the local prefects’ personal morality were indeed cropping up here and there. The government, however, would rather prioritize moral actions and personal dedication of the prefects over necessary enhancements of institutions and systems. Joseon leaders just continued to argue that the character of the leaders is the most important value and merit when it comes to governing the public. Such stance was definitely not a solution to the problems of the time, and in fact could never be. But the fact that the government continued to dispatch Secret Royal Inspectors, and monitored the local prefects through them, at least shows us that the government was never completely indifferent to the situation, and tried to come up with some solutions it could.
목차
머리말
1. 19세기 수령 은상의 종류와 실제
2. 19세기 수령에 대한 은상 수여의 조건
3. 19세기 수령 은상의 특징과 의미
맺음말
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
조선 세종대 수령 파견 양상의 변화와 인견 확대
한국사연구
2023 .12
-
眞興王代 신라의 赤城 經營 -다케다 유키오(武田幸男), 「眞興王代における新羅の赤城經營」 『朝鮮學報』 93, 1979-
인문학연구
2017 .01
-
조선시대 암행어사의 수령 평가와 재임 실태의 상관성? 암행어사 書啓와 수령선생안을 중심으로 ?
동양고전연구
2020 .01
-
조선후기 암행어사의 수령 평가 : 경기 암행어사 서계(書啓)를 중심으로
역사와 담론
2018 .07
-
『나미야 잡화점의 기적(ナミヤ雑貨店の奇蹟)』에 나타난 ‘온가에시(恩返し)’
일본문화학보
2019 .05
-
은(恩)의 연원과 실천원리
원불교사상과종교문화
2018 .09
-
생명체에 대한 도덕적 의무와 세대 간 정의에 대한 성리학적 탐구
동양철학연구
2024 .02
-
판본의 異文을 통해 본 〈佛說大報父母恩重經〉의 문헌학적 특징?龍珠寺 판본을 중심으로?
한문학논집(漢文學論集)
2021 .01
-
『나미야 잡화점의 기적(ナミヤ雑貨店の奇蹟)』에 나타난 ‘온가에시(恩返し)’
대한일어일문학회 학술대회 발표논문 요지집
2019 .04
-
한 · 일 영화의 감성 비교 : 『용의자X의 헌신』의 영화적 재현을 중심으로
일본문화학보
2017 .08
-
노봉 민정중의 암행어사 활동과 안민책 - 영남 암행어사 서계·별단을 중심으로 -
古文書硏究
2022 .08
-
고려 목종·현종대 실시된 사면과 은전의 내용 분석과 그 특징
사학연구
2021 .03
-
조선후기 충청도 수령과 도내 행정기관의 운영체계와 조정방식
동양고전연구
2020 .01
-
연암 박지원의 수령관과 지방정치운영
동방학지
2024 .03
-
청대 전기 ‘北京 수도권’ 행정 장관 人選의 특징
동양사학연구
2025 .03
-
박문수의 어사 이력과 別遣御史 활동
지방사와 지방문화
2021 .11
-
『청구야담(靑丘野談)』에 나타난 암행어사(暗行御史)에 관한 성찰 연구 - 유의(柳誼)의 일화를 중심으로 -
한국민족문화
2022 .07
-
19세기 전반 암행어사 감찰을 통한 수령 처벌과 조선 조정의 인식
역사와현실
2023 .06
-
1874년 함경도 암행어사 조병세의 활동과 환곡 대책
역사와현실
2023 .06
-
조선 영조대 別遣御史의 성격
역사와 담론
2021 .04
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0102-2023-911-001722241