淸代道光期のアヘン問題について : 「失察處分」問題を中心に

DOI HANDLE Web Site オープンアクセス

書誌事項

タイトル別名
  • The Problem of Opium during the Daoguang 道光 Period of the Qing Dynasty : with Reference to the Question of 'Punishing Neglect 失察處分'
  • シンダイ ドウ コウ キ ノ アヘン モンダイ ニ ツイテ シツサツショブン
  • 清代道光期のアヘン問題について : 「失察処分」問題を中心に

この論文をさがす

説明

In connection with the prohibition on opium in the Qing dynasty, the policy of "Punishing Neglect" was prescribed, so that local officials might seriously enforce the opium prohibition. "Punishing Neglect" meant "Punishing the Neglect of officials." In other words it meant that mismanagement and oversight was to be treated as a "Public Offense" (gong-zui 公罪). Except for a respite between Jiaqing 20 (1815) and Daoguang 3 (1823), the policy of "Punishing Neglect" gradually took shape and was strengthened. The "Regulation for Punishing Neglect of the Opium Prohibition" was promulgated in Daoguang 3, and in Daoguang 19 (1839), just before the Opium War, the "Regulation Strictly to Prohibit All Opium Made by Imperial Order" was enacted, thus bringing the policy to completion. However, the local officials in fact feared this "Punishment of Neglect" with the result that they tried to evade it. Thus it was inevitable that the prohibition on opium came to exist in name only and not in fact. It is perhaps appropriate to consider the evasion of this policy to be "Passive Corruption" of the local officials. When this conduct had spread throughout the entire bureaucracy, the influence it exerted on the Qing court's opium policies was enormous. This matter is one more reason why it was especially difficult to solve the problem of opium under the Qing.

収録刊行物

  • 東洋史研究

    東洋史研究 46 (4), 738-762, 1988-03-31

    東洋史研究會

キーワード

詳細情報 詳細情報について

問題の指摘

ページトップへ