Official Appointments at the Border

Two types of sources offer a wealth of information on the officials appointed to

177 _{For a discussion of the creation of this border line and the Chosŏn conceptualization, see Kang}

Sŏkhwa, Chosŏn hugi Hamgyŏng-do, 48–58; and Seonmin Kim, “Ginseng and Border

Trespassing between Qing China and Chosŏn Korea,” Late Imperial China 28, no. 1 (2007), 50– 52. Kim approaches the subject mostly from the Qing perspective, but notes the Chosŏn court’s desire for ambiguity in its demarcation.

posts in the provinces: the registers of officials generally found in local gazetteers, and the notices of appointment in the Records. The registers are invaluable for understanding the continuity of border service, but this strength is also their main limitation. The picture that emerges from an examination of the registers is one of generally continuous, uncontested governance. For instance, the Kanggye register includes the first and last months of every official’s tenure from 1623 to 1905, and it rarely has a gap between these officials. In examining the appointments in the Records, however, one finds that nearly a third (82 out of 269) of the appointees to the position had their appointment rescinded before attending a leave-taking ceremony.178

The Records offer a more detailed view of what happened in the process of appointing officials. If the transition were ordinary, that is, an official was not removed for dereliction, excused for personal reasons, or died in office, the Ministry of Personnel (Ijo) or Ministry of War (Pyŏngjo) would nominate up to three candidates, usually in the sixth or twelfth month of the year by the lunar calendar. The timing of regular

appointments followed the biannual performance evaluations (p’op’yŏm). The king would then select from the names put forward by the Board. If the king was not satisfied with the recommendations, he could send the list back for new recommendations, or, more rarely,

178 _{To say “rescinded” is not entirely accurate, as often the position was entered into the official’s}

record of appointments (iryŏk) if the appointee requested relief due to illness or an aged parent. Thus arguably, the appointee “held” the post, no matter how briefly. Even for contested

appointments, it is not always clear in the Records whether the appointment is entered into the officials’ records of appointments. For instance, Hŏ Chŏng, a military official in Yŏngjo’s early years, was appointed to at least five border posts but only took up two. In reciting his career of appointments to the king, Hŏ lists two of the posts where he did not serve but not the third. SJW 729:125a [1731/8/28, 34th entry]. The process of appointments is explored more deeply in the following section.

suggest his own appointment.179 Challenges to appointments were not standardized, nor

were the responses to such challenges. Not uncommonly a post would have two appointees listed within a few weeks or months, but the reasons a king rescinded the original appointment would not always be forthcoming. To discover the full extent of appointments made and rescinded required searches based on the name of the county and the position in question, and frequently, additional searches on the names of officials.

Lengthy registers for most of the magistracies exist, the exceptions being Sakchu, Ch’angsŏng, Pyŏktong, Ch’osan, and Wiwŏn. Still, these registers only recorded officials before 1860 for counties in Hamgyŏng and 1855 for Ŭiju. The Kanggye register is

impressively complete and contains fairly detailed information for post-Imjin War (1592– 1598) appointees.180 The registers show the magistrates who took up the position by

participating in a leave-taking ceremony. They do not, however, record those officials who had the position entered into their official record (iryŏk) but did not leave the capital.

From these sources, I recorded a total of 2,706 individual magistrates appointed 3,279 times. Four hundred seventy-eight magistrates were appointed to multiple posts, while the number who served in more than one post was 302, approximately eleven percent of the total. On their face, these numbers suggest that specialization in border

179 _{More often than not, a king’s referral for appointment would be as a reward for an official’s}

service to the king or the government. While the king may not have personally advocated for their appointment, such positions were granted outside regular processes of the Ministries of War and Personnel. For example, an illiterate military commander Yi Manyu, received several

appointments early in Yŏngjo’s reign because of his support for the king in the Yi Injwa Rebellion of 1728, despite ministerial resistance. Sunjoo Kim also notes that Ch’oe Sinyŏp was appointed magistrate of Ch’osan as a result of service during the Hong Kyŏngnae Rebellion of 1812. Sunjoo Kim, Marginality and Subversion in Korea: The Hongkyŏngnae Rebellion of 1812 (Seattle: University of Washington, 2007), 144.

180 _{Registers can be found in CSSU. These include the Kanggye-bu ŭpchi,vol. 54: 1–251; Kim}

posts and service was not a key consideration in appointing magistrates. However, the number of border posts that were held by magistrates who were appointed to the border more than once was about thirty percent (table 2.1).

Provincial Breakdown P’yŏngan Hamgyŏng

Total postings 1,517 1,762

Total postings where official served 1,216 1,350

Rate of rescinding 20% 23%

Average time in office (only served) 1.51 yrs 1.56 yrs

Appointments to multiple posts 485 575

Appointments served by multi-post officials 381 399

Percent of reappointment posts 31% 30%

Totals

Number of appointments 3,279

Number of individuals 2,706

Individuals appointed to multiple magistracies 480 (18%) Individuals who served in multiple

magistracies

303 (11%)

Table 2.1. Late Chosŏn magistrates, 1623–1894.

I have not put together a picture of the border magistrates by year, but with these numbers and the reappointment rate for individual counties, at any given time at least three magistrates along the border likely had served there before. Even more likely, the magistrates of Kanggye or Ch’angsŏng in P’yŏngan and Hoeryŏng in Hamgyŏng were serving their second post. Not only were these magistracies located at strategic points on the border, having a magistrate serving a second post in those three counties would mean that no other magistrate was too far from someone who had experience with service on the border.

According to the king and his ministers, service on the border was qualitatively different than in other counties and cities. On the border, not only were people and their

customs rougher and less civilized, but there was also always the possibility that the magistrate would encounter foreigners who had crossed the border illegally or would need to collect Chosŏn subjects who had crossed into Qing territory. Concern over the

importance of border posts and ensuring that the magistrates who were appointed there were of the proper quality appears consistently throughout the Records. The necessity of capable and experienced military appointees is frequently referenced such as in Yi

Sehwa’s argument above. What exactly defined an experienced magistrate was vague, but regional expertise was a key component. The time between appointment and departure for the post afforded ministers ample time to bring their concerns to the king.181

Within a few days after a candidate was selected, if he was in the capital, he came before the king to express his gratitude (saŭn). If he was serving in the provinces, he had thirty to forty days to express gratitude. Sometime later he attended a ceremony to receive his orders and take leave of the king. The amount of time between these two ceremonies varied greatly throughout the dynasty. It may have been a function of how far the post was from the capital and the difficulty of travel, bureaucratic scheduling, or the personal requirements of the officials. At times when an official was dismissed for egregious conduct, his replacement’s leave-taking ceremony could occur within a day or two, other times it could take two months. The Great Code states that officials should receive their orders investing them with the post (sin’go) within fifty days of selection. The Amended

181 _{For example, Yŏngjo’s appointment of Yi Hyŏngwŏn (1705–n.d.) as magistrate of Pyŏktong}

occasioned debate from his ministers about the appropriateness of Yi’s appointment since only a few years before he was sent into exile in Nagan in Chŏlla province because of serious crimes committed as magistrate of Sukch’ŏn, a county on the western coast of P’yŏngan province. Some called for removing him from office and expunging him from the record of officials (sakkŏ sap’an), but the king did not take their recommendation. SJW 954:122b–123a [1743/2/22, 19th entry].

Great Code further states that those magistrates who were arrested in a border county should be replaced within fifteen days, and ten if the arrest occurred near a regular exchange of magistrates.182 _{Based on my research, the selections certainly happened}

within that time frame, but the officials’ leave taking ceremonies were not often within that window. On average ministers had about ten to twenty days to bring their concerns to the king.

The appointee himself could also request not to serve at the post. The most common reasons for requesting a transfer or relief from duty were sickness or having an elderly parent. According to the records, a magistrate requesting relief on the grounds of illness was to be inspected and their inability certified in some way, similarly for an illness of close family members.183 I saw few requests denied in my research, but perhaps some used it as an excuse to avoid service. The appointments to Pyŏktong in the tenth month of 1892 are a case in point: eight appointees requested not to serve because of illness before King Kojong was able to find someone to take the position.184 The hardship

of the northern border postings probably played some role, but also political considerations cannot be ruled out. For instance, Yŏngjo had particular difficulty appointing magistrates to Ch’angsŏng, Kanggye, Kyŏnghŭng, Samsu, Kyŏngwŏn, and Chongsŏng just before and after the Yi Injwa rebellion in 1728.

182Kyŏngguk taejŏn _{1:66b, “Ijo: Sin’go;” and Sok taejŏn 1:19a, “Ijo: Oegwanjik.”}

183 _{The Amended Great Code does specify that currently serving officials requesting relief due to}

illness in the family should have their inability to serve certified by the governor of the province, but requirements for those not yet in receipt of orders are not as clear. Sok taejŏn 1:35a, “Ijo: Kŭpka.”

184 _{There may have been a particularly debilitating flu at the time as this was at the end of}

November by the Western calendar, but none of the other magistracies at the border had a similar issue at the time.

When officials were conducting an orderly transition of magistrates, groups such as border commanders participated in the leave-taking ceremony together. This allowed Chosŏn kings the opportunity to address the group as a whole and reinforce what the king saw as the most important responsibilities of a border commander. Kings Yŏngjo and Chŏngjo frequently took advantage of these opportunities to ask questions of appointed officials and exhort them to better manage the border.