본문 바로가기
  • Home

A Study on the Successor Naming Procedure in the Late of Joseon Dynasty - Focusing on the bereavement of birth parents and raising parents -

  • The Review of Korean History
  • 2015, (117), pp.299-330
  • Publisher : The Historical Society Of Korea
  • Research Area : Humanities > History

Ko, Min-Jung 1

1강원대학교

Accredited

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this paper is to examine the change process of the successor naming procedure in the late of Joseon Dynasty. And to this end, the cases that successor naming has been established after birth parents and raising parents passed away were analyzed. According to 『Gyeonggukdaejeon』 「Iphu (successor naming)」 Article, both parents were defined as the parties of successor naming and the consent of both parents was required for the formation of successor naming. This premises the survival of both parents at the time of successor naming. After the 16th century, however, the cases were shown that successor naming was allowed despite the failure to prove the successor naming consent of both parents because one or both parents died. Such trend has constantly led to the first half of 17th~18th century so the legislative system to typically name a successor even if one parent died was established in the mid-18th century. There are three types that successor naming was established after birth parents and raising parents passed away. The first is the case that birth parents died but raising parents were alive and second is the case that birth parents were alive but raising parents died and the third is the case that both birth parents and raising parents died. Their frequency is shown in the order of the first, second, third and the proportion of the first and second is high in the 17th century and the proportion of the 18th century is relatively high. But it is found out that a successor to be named was raised before successor naming was established in some cases. This fact shows that there is a temporal gap between institutional successor naming and actual successor naming. And this fact premises that both parents have already agreed to successor naming. Therefore, it was adequate to demonstrate the fact that both parents agreed even after birth parents and raising parents died. That is, by using this fact actively, the family could obtain permission for successor naming from the government.

Citation status

* References for papers published after 2022 are currently being built.