‘제국적 제도’로서의 차가타이 울루스 명령문제도 연구 (A Study on the Chancery System of Chagatai Ulus as an ‘Imperial Institution’)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국몽골학회
· 수록지 정보 : 몽골학 / 69호 / 97 ~ 125페이지
· 저자명 : 김석환

초록

현재까지 차가타이 울루스의 명령문제도 연구는 주로 출토된 명령문들에 대한 개별적인 역주 위주로 진행되었다. 상대적으로 활용 가능한 자료가 많이 남아 있는 카안 및 훌레구 울루스에 비해 차가타이 울루스의 명령문제도 연구는 아직 많은 부분이 미지의 영역이라고 할 수 있다. 본 연구에서는 현존하는 실물 명령문을 종합적으로 분석하여 차가타이 울루스 명령문제도를 초보적으로 탐구하고자 하였다. 본고에서는 크게 네 부분으로 구분하여 살펴보았다. 먼저 명령문의 구조상 몽골 제국 초기 명령문과 거의 동일한 구조로 이루어졌음을 확인할 수 있다. 일부 요소들이 누락된 경우도 있지만 핵심적인 요소는 동일한 순서대로 유지되었고, 다른 명령문에서는 해당 누락 요소가 포함되기도 하였다. 또 이 구조는 왕자 및 아미르 등의 명령문에도 용어만 달리한 채 그대로 유지되었다. ‘命令文 유형’에서도 몽골 제국의 전통을 확인할 수 있다. 즉 몽골은 ‘자를릭’(jarliɣ)과 ‘우게’(üge)를 구분하여 전자는 카안의 전용어로 하였고, 후자는 왕자나 카툰 등 그 외 인물들의 말을 가리킬 때 사용되었다. 차가타이 울루스의 칸은 대내적으로 카안과 같은 존재였기 때문에 '자를릭'이라는 표현을 사용할 수 있었지만 '명령문 유형'에 있어서만큼은 전통에 따라 '우게'를 고집하였다. 또 문서의 외형이라는 측면에서도 공통점을 발견할 수 있다. 각 명령문은 반드시 들여쓰기를 하였는데, 표본의 수가 적어서 그 규칙을 명확하게 규명할 수는 없지만, 적어도 들여쓰기를 하였다는 공통점은 존재한다. 대체로 '발령자 및 명령문 유형' 이후 네 개의 항을 들여쓰기 하였다. 아울러 印章의 사용과 구분이라는 측면에서도 유사점이 있다. 차가타이 울루스 명령문에는 “nisan-tu”와 “ništu” 등 “니샨(nishan)”이라는 표현이 존재하는데, 이것은 곧 印章을 지칭한다. 인장은 다시 그냥 “니샨”, “알 니샨”, “카라 니샨” 등의 표현으로 등장하는데, 신분에 따라 알 니샨과 카라 니샨을 구분했을 가능성이 있다. 요컨대 현존하는 차가타이 울루스의 명령문을 종합적으로 살펴보면 그 구조, 표현, 형식 등의 측면에서 몽골 제국 초기 및 다른 울루스와 상당한 유사성을 발견할 수 있다. 이는 몽골 제국의 명령문제도가 단순히 정주 문화로부터 그대로 수용된 것이 아니라, 자신들의 전통으로 발전시켜 나갔음을 보여준다. 이러한 의미에서 몽골 제국의 명령문제도는 차가타이 울루스를 포함한 제국 전역에서 공통적으로 작동된 ‘제국적 제도’의 하나로 규정할 수 있을 것이다.

영어초록

Until now, studies on the chancery system of the Chagatai Ulus have not been conducted thoroughly. Most studies were focused on the annotation and translation of existing orders issued in Chagatai Ulus. Therefore, it is no exaggeration to say that the chancery system of Chagatai Ulus is still unknown when compared to that of Qa’an Ulus and Hülegü Ulus, which have considerable historical sources. Therefore, this study explores the chancery system of Chagatai Ulus at a preliminary level by analyzing the existing orders and compares them with other cases of the Mongol Empire.
Chagatai, the second son of Chinggis Khan, was quite stubborn and adhered to the Mongol tradition. His father told his commanders that “any who had a desire to know the yasa and yosun of the kingdom should follow Chagatai.” Also, there was few sedentary cultures in Central Asia at that time, where his ulus was located, and most of rulers and subjects were more accustomed to the Turk-Mongol nomadic world. Thus, it is highly probable that the chancery system of Chagatai Ulus was quite like that of the early Mongol Empire, and even appeared to contain some of its original form.
First, we could find that the structure of orders issued in Chagatai Ulus was almost identical with that of the early Mongol Empire. For example, Tughlugh Temür’s edict in 1348 or 1360 was comprised of ‘Addresser and Order Type’, ‘Addressee’, ‘Text’, ‘Intimidation’, and ‘Date.’ Although ‘Authorization’ and ‘Background’, commonly found in royal orders in the Mongol Empire, were omitted in this edict, most key parts were maintained in the same order, and it is not hard to find those two components contained in other cases of Chagatai Ulus. This structure was applied not only to khan’s edicts, but also to princes and amirs’ orders with some different terms.
Second, a strong tradition was kept in ‘Order Type.’ The Mongols made a sharp distinction between jarligh, a sovereign ruler’s word, and üge, the other’s word. In principle, Chagatai and later khans of Chagatai Ulus had to refer to their edicts as üge, because they were not qa’an, the supreme ruler of the whole Mongol Empire, but köbe’ün, a prince, who possessed his own ulus. On the other hand, they exercised absolute power in their own ulus. They could claim that they had the legal right of using jarligh, and we could easily find those cases in sources. However, khans of Chagatai Ulus used üge as ‘Order Type’ in their edicts thoroughly. This shows that the tradition in the chancery system of the early Mongol Empire had continued in effect in Chagatai Ulus.
Third, the orders of Chagatai Ulus have in common with those of the early Mongol Empire and Hülegü ulus in documents’ layout. Güyük, the third great khan of the Mongol Empire, sent a letter to Pope Innocent Ⅳ. Four lines after ‘Addresser and Order Type’ were indented in the letter as well as in the letter of Arghun, the fourth khan of Hülegü Ulus, to Phillip Ⅳ. In the cases of Chagatai Ulus, from 2 to 5 lines after ‘Addresser and Order Type’ were indented in nine documents. Although there are three exceptional cases and few unidentifiable documents because of their original damage, overall, we could claim that orders of Chagatai Ulus were followed by the Mongol Empire’s custom in the aspect of layout.
Fourth, there is some similarity in the use and division of seals. Seals were expressed as nishan in orders of Chagatai Ulus, and they were divided into nishan, al nishan, and qara nishan. Al nishan, red seal in its sense, appeared in Tughlugh Temür Khan’s two edicts, and qara nishan, black seal, was referred to in others’ documents except khan. This distinction of seal’s color and its usage reminds us of the exact same cases in Hülegü Ulus, where tamgha was used instead of nishan. However, contrary to Hülegü Ulus, it appears that in Chagatai Ulus seals inscribed in Chinese had not been used, and both round and square seals were used at the same time.
In general, if we examine the existing orders of Chagatai Ulus, we could find common features with those of the early Mongol Empire and Hülegü Ulus in their structure, expression, and format. This means that the Mongols did not simply accept their chancery system from the sedentary world, but they continued to develop and maintain it as their own tradition. In this sense, we could define the chancery system as one of the “imperial institutions” which was operated all over the empire including Chagatai Ulus.

참고자료

· 없음