노비의 삶에 접근하는 몇 가지 방법

이혜정(Lee, Hey-Joung) 역사학연구소 2013 역사연구 Vol.- No.24

《黙齋日記》를 통해서 본 16세기 婢夫ㆍ奴妻의 삶

李蕙汀(Lee hey joung) 한국사연구회 2009 한국사연구 Vol.147 No.-

Mook Jae(?齋), Lee Moon Gun(李文楗, 1492~1567) was a bureaucrat of the 16th century. He was posterity of a powerful family but sufferring collapsed his family from Gimyo(己卯), Eulsa(乙巳) massacre and ended his life in the place of exile. In 1545, Lee Hui, his nephew, was condemned to death as the principal of Eulsa massacre, Lee Moon Gun was also condemned to exile for involvement guilt. By analyzing The Diary of Mook Jae(?齋日記) which Lee Moon Gun wrote, this paper explores ordinary people's trusting their livelihoods to a higher man and living as the husbands or wives of slaves by marrying with slaves. Lee Moon Gun and his family was politically and socially fell dawn from long exile and was econmically not rich. After exile, he was increasing his property by harvesting public and private field and interests from the body charge from the slaves(身貢). But the body charge collected from the slaves was comparatively low in its ratio of collection. Lee Moon Gun and his family not only had slaves but also the husbands and wives of slaves by inter-marriages between a free man (or woman) and a slave(良賤交婚). husbands of female slave(婢夫) bear the responsibility for the wife's body charge, and their children become slaves. To support their livelihoods and avoid compulsory labour(國役), the ordinary people who had being ruined in the 16th century temporarily trusted their livelihoods to a higher man(投託). But these were their suvival strategies. Although they lived as the husbands or wives of slaves, the status of them were different from slaves. They were free to destroy their marriage with slaves. They temporarily trusted their livelihoods to a Yangban(兩班), but when things gradually improved, they tried to establish free and indepent lives for themselves.

17세기 노비 진고(奴婢陳告)를 통한 투속(投屬) 행위와 압공위사(壓公爲私) -1685년 노비결송입안을 중심으로-

이혜정 ( Lee Hey-joung ) 경희대학교 인문학연구원 2019 인문학연구 Vol.0 No.40

본 결송 입안(決訟立案)은 1685년(숙종11) 예천군 노비 소송에 관한 내용이다. 소송은 1684년(숙종10)에 시작하여 이듬해에 마무리 되었는데, 원고 유후안 측이 승소(勝訴)했다. 소송은 영천에 사는 피고 만생이 노 어둔 등 10구를 누락 노비(漏落奴婢)로 종친부(宗親府)에 진고(陳告)하면서 시작되었다. 종친부는 영천군에 관문(關文)을 보내이들 누락 노비를 종친부 속안(續案)에 기재하고, 신공(身貢)을 거두어 바치도록 했다. 그러자 원고 유후안 등은 이들 노비가 자신의 죽은 노태선의 양처 평개 소생이라 주장하며 관찰사에게 의송(議送)을 올렸다. 처음 소송의 쟁점은 누락 노비로 진고된 평개의 양천(良賤) 여부였으나, 이후 원고 유후안과 피고 만생의 노주 전만영의 압공위사(壓公爲私) 행위 여부로 쟁점이 전환되었다. 이 과정에서 노비들은 다양한 소송 전략을 구사한 것으로 보인다. 이들은 소송에서 보다 유리한 입장에 서기 위해 일부러 소송을 지연시키기도 했고, 문서 위조나 거짓 진술, 진술 내용의 번복 등 기망과 조작의 소송 전략을 구사했는데, 이 같은 행위는 주변 이웃이나 친인척 등의 암묵적 묵인과 동조를 바탕으로 이루어졌다. 한편, 노 만생의 진고 행위는 노 가둔 가족의 종친부 투속을 위한 전략의 하나로, 이들은 투속처의 소송 간섭을 통해 보다 확실한 공노비로의 투속을 시도한 것으로 보인다. 이후 종친부는 관찰사에게 관문을 보내 송관(訟官)의 소송 과정에 대한 불만을 표현하기도 했고, 진행 중인 소송을 타관(他官)으로 옮기려고 노력하는 등 소송 과정에 관여하고자 했다. 이는 당시 투속처가 노비의 투속 행위에 적극 협조하는 과정으로 이해된다. This Gyeolsongyiban (決訟立案) concerns a lawsuit involving nobis (slaves) in Yecheon-gun in 1685 (the eleventh year of King Sukjong). The lawsuit was initiated in 1684 (the tenth year of King Sukjong) and finished in the next year. Plaintiffs Yuhak Yuhuan (幼學 柳後安) et al. living in Andong won the lawsuit and recovered ten sons and daughters of Pyeonggae (平介) who had been held as Noyangcheososeng (奴良妻所生). The lawsuit was triggered due to the report to Jongchinbu (宗親府) by No Man-seong et al. that ten second cousins with different first names had been omitted. Jongchinbu demanded that control on the nobis be transferred to Yeongcheon, the nobis' Sojaegwan (所在官), and Nobiwhamyeong (奴婢花名) be recorded on the Jongchinbu. Accordingly, the Governor of Yeongchen reported the nobis' names to the Jongchinbu and the Jongchinbu recorded them as missing nobis on its Jingosokan (陳告續案) and had them dedicate tributes. In response, Plaintiffs Yu Hu-an et al asserted that the nobis were the sons and daughters of Pyeonggae, the good wife of Jeonraeno (傳來奴) Taeseon, and presented Uisong (議送) to the Governor of Gyeongsang-do and he initiated the lawsuit by appointing Yecheongunsu (醴川郡守) as Songgwhan (訟官). Plaintiff Yu Hu-an asserted that his nobi Taeseon wrote Hojeok (戶籍) every Siknyeon (式年). He argued that he recorded Pyeonggae as his wife continuously and submitted the family register of Andongbu where Taeson and Eojun, his son, were recorded during Siknyeon. In the meantime, Defendant Manseong argued as follows: Igeum among the sons and daughters of Osipdeok who belonged to Jangyewon was left out and Pyeonggae is the son of Kim Pyeong-su, the nobi of Lee Man-seong, and Igeum. According to the defendant, as Pyeonggae gave birth to many children through Gyoga (交嫁) with Taesan, Yu Hu-an's nobi, Yu Hu-an managed these nobis as if they were Norhangcheobyeongsan (奴良妻幷産). He asserted that Man-su was a second cousin of Pyeonggae's children and felt unfair to remain the private nobi of Yu Hu-an and therefore he reported to Jangyewon in order to return them to the original position of the public nobis. The Governor of Yecheon, the official in charge of litigations, ruled in favor of Plaintiff Yu Hu-an and had him recover the nobis judging that because there was no document that said the daughter of private nobi Osipdeok was Ygeum (or Leebun) and the daughter of Lee Geum was Pyeonggae, and therefore they were not omitted private nobis.

『默齋日記』를 통해서 본 16세기 奴婢의 죽음과 喪葬禮

李蕙汀(Lee, Hey-Joung) 한국역사민속학회 2016 역사민속학 Vol.0 No.50

조선시대 사람들은 疾病의 원인을 厄이나 鬼神의 작용이라고 인식하였고, 이를 피하거나 달래고 쫓아내는 방식을 통해 병을 극복하고자 했다. 이는 특정 장소에 대한 터부를 통해 액을 피하고자 하는 避接 행위로 표현되기도 했다. 이처럼 질병을 피하고자 하는 관념은, 죽음의 경우에도 유사하게 적용되었던 것으로 보인다. 당시 사람들은 가족 안에서 맞이하는 죽음을 가장 이상적으로 인식하였고, 심지어 親姻戚 집에서의 맞이한 죽음도 客死로 받아들였다. 하지만 奴主들은 때로 죽음을 앞둔 노비를 病幕으로 내보내 집 밖에서 죽음을 맞이하도록 하기도 했고, 이는 죽음으로부터 일정한 거리를 유지하고자 하는 인식의 표현으로 생각된다. 한편, 당시 사람들은 삶의 마지막 절차가 가족 내부에서 이루어지기를 바랐고, 이후 고향에 安葬되기를 희망한 것으로 보인다. 이러한 이들의 바램은 草葬의 장례 형식으로 표현되기도 했다. 하지만 노주들은 소유노비의 장례를 초장보다 매장 방식으로 치르기를 선호하였다. 노비의 장례는 대부분 노주가 棺과 葬地를 마련해 주었고, 매우 짧은 기간에 치러졌다. 장례의 구체적 형식은 확인되지 않지만, 이들의 장례 역시 일정 정도의 격식을 갖추었을 것으로 추정된다. People in the Joseon era perceived that the cause of a disease was action of aek (misfortune) or ghosts and attempted to overcome the illness by evading, soothing, or driving it out. This was expressed by pijeop (an ill person adjourns to another place and convalesces) intending to evade misfortune through taboo about a certain place. Like this, the concept of attempting to avoid an illness was similarly applied to death as well. At the time, people recognized that death within one"s family was most ideal and even death in a relative"s home was considered as dying away from home. However, the owners of servants sent their servant to byeongmak (a house isolating a person contracting a contagious disease) and had the servant face death outside of their house and this is considered an expression of perception intending to maintain a certain distance from death. Meanwhile, servants as well wished their last procedure of life to be made within their family and anjang (comfortably holding a funeral) in their homeland thereafter. Such wish of theirs was expressed as a funeral form of chojang (covering the body with straw and burying it temporarily). Nonetheless, the owners of servants preferred burial to chojang as a funeral method. Mostly the owner of a servant provided a coffin and jangji (a land for funeral and burial of the body) for his or her funeral and it was done within a very short time. The specific form of the funeral was not verified but it is estimated that their funeral as well had a certain form.

16세기 양반가 婢 乭今의 일상과 乳母 使喚 : 『默齋日記』를 중심으로

李蕙汀(Lee, Hey-Joung) 역사교육연구회 2015 역사교육 Vol.136 No.-

Servant Dolgeum who lived in Seongju Mok(星州牧) in the 16<SUP>th</SUP> century made efforts to lead a better life under the condition given to her, which can be confirmed in the diverse choices that she made with in the process of her life. A nanny of gentry household at the time enjoyed a special status even to be named as one of the five lucks(緦麻服). This also applied to the spouse and offsprings of the nanny. In case of property division by the owner, the nanny family often received benefits of receiving property by family unit. Moreover, the children of nannies were sometimes given with an opportunity for education or shedding off the lowest class level(免賤). Meanwhile, nanny in the noble household was required to have appropriate behavioral patterns and ethical standards as they had to be the model example for other servants. However, it was not that the nannies accepted the living standard of the noblemen and followed it themselves. Choosing a life as a nanny did not only mean a risk of losing children, but also meant giving a pledge of a part of free life. However, it was a risky but attractive choice that could possibly provide an opportunity of enabling the children to overcome the status as a servant in the future. Facing a number of choices in life, Dolgeum actively responded to them with a strong will by sometimes obeying and sometimes resisting.

노비(奴婢)의 기상(記上)행위와 쟁송(爭訟) ― 『묵재일기(默齋日記)』 를 중심으로 ―

이혜정 ( Lee Hey-joung ) 한국사상문화학회 2017 韓國思想과 文化 Vol.87 No.-

조선시대 노비들은 비록 그 스스로가 賣買·贈與·相續의 대상인 존재였지만, 이들 역시 자신의 재산을 지닐 권리가 보장되었다. 노비들은 토지나 노비 등을 소유할 수 있었고, 이를 자신의 자녀에게 상속하는 데 있어 법적 차별을 받지 않았다. 이에 노비들 역시 自己經理의 확보를 위해 적극 노력하였다. 노비들은 노주를 눈을 속이며 中間橫領을 하였고, 때로 노주를 冒稱한 사기행각으로 재산을 모았다. 이밖에 長利행위나 商行爲, 場市의 활용 등을 통해 재산을 모으기도 했다. 그러나 실제 노비의 소유재산에 관한 권리는 제한적으로 침해당하기도 했는데, 이는 노주의 記上强要로 나타났다. 記上은 `기록하여 상납한다`는 뜻으로, 노비가 자신의 재산을 소속된 官이나 上典에게 바치는 경우에 사용되었다. 『經國大典』 刑典 公賤條에는 “公賤으로서 子女가 없이 죽은 자의 奴婢·田宅은 그가 소속된 本司·本邑에 귀속된다. 私賤은 그 財産과 함께 本主가 처분하는 것을 허용한다.”라고 규정되어 있어, 자식 없이 죽은 노비의 재산은 노주가 차지하는 법적 근거로 사용되었다. 그러나 노주들은 자식이 있는 노비에게도 다양한 명목으로 생전에 기상을 요구하였다. 노주들은 소유노가 타인 소유의 비와의 사이에서 자식을 낳아 길렀다는 등 다양한 이유를 들어, 소유재산의 기상을 요구하기도 했다. 한편, 노주에게 기상을 강요당한 노비들은 소유재산을 보호하기 위해 다양한 방법으로 이에 대응하였다. 이는 첫째 소유토지의 방매, 둘째, 노주에 대한 눈속임, 셋째 도망 등으로 나누어 볼 수 있다. 기상을 강요받은 노비들은 일단 노주에게 記上明文을 작상해 주고, 이후 노주 몰래 팔고 도망치기도 했고, 기상토지의 卜數를 부풀리는 방식으로 노주를 속이기도 했다. 이처럼 노비들은 다양한 방식으로 노주의 기상요구에 저항하였고, 노비의 기상저항은 때로 訴訟이라는 적극적 방식으로 행해지기도 했다. During the Joseon Dynasty, slaves were an object of sales, gift and inheritance, and yet they had a right to have private property. They could own land or their own slaves, and were not subject to legal discrimination in passing them on to their children. However, in practice, slaves` right to private property were often infringed in form of gisanggangyo (記上强要), the masters` coercion for offering. `Gisang (記上)` means to keep records and pay offering, and indicated that slaves without children had to surrender their private properties to public office of their jurisdiction or their masters. However, masters demanded such offering from even slaves with children, citing various reasons. Slaves who were forced to make such offering sought to protect their property. In some cases, they wrote down a statement of offering to their masters, and then surreptitiously sold the properties and fled. Or they cheated their masters by overestimating the amount of offered land. Slaves took diversified measures to resist masters` demand for offering, and sometimes they were done in a more aggressive form of litigation.