지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Unlike the earlier millitary classics, the textual history of Question and Replies has not benefited from any startling discoveries or recently recovered renditions. Consequently, although analytical studies have become more incisive, the fundamental question of authorship and the period of composition remain essentially unresolved.
In the Ming and Ch'ing dynasties, orthodox scholars reviled the text as forgery Characterized by uncouth language, limited concepts, and erroneous interpretations of historical events. In the last century a few voices have begun to cautiously criticize these strident expression of personal opinion, but no one has yet ventured to attribute the book to Li Ching or assert that constitutes an actual record of conversations
Briefly summarized, there are two main views: One holds that the book is a forgery of the Northern Sung, the other that it was compiled by unknown scholars late in the T'ang or early Sung. These views are based mainly on the absence of any reference to a book by this title in the bibliographical section in either History of the T'ang or History of the Northern Sung and on claims of Northern Sung military scholars to have seen a draft of the Yuan I, who purportedly forged it. The concurrence of several contemporaries regarding these claims prompted later generations of orthodox thinkers, who were already predisposed to view the text as an inferior work, to readily accept the forgery story as fact. Finally, the Tong-dian(通典). which was compiled by Tu yu(杜佑) at the end of eighth century A.D., contain numerous excerpts from a work entitled Li Ching ping-fa and quotes Li Ching extensively but without ever mentioning the Question and Replies.
Evidence discrediting the Yuan I forgery theory is based on Emperor Shen-tsung's(神宗1067-1084) edict mandating the study and exegesis of "Li Ching's ping-fa" because the text had become unreadable in the Northern Sung. Thereafter, the emperor also ordered the compilation and editing of the ancient military work, resulting in the present Seven Military Classics. Latter's initial circulation is believed to have predated the forgery story by about ten years; therefore, the Question and Replies must have been in existence prior to its supposed creation by Yuan I. Furthermore, analysts question how the best military scholars--in a period when they are fervently investigating military theory for the urgent purpose defending the state--could all have been deceived. Accordingly, they conclude that the forgery story must be false.
Generally speaking, military historians perceive advances over previous texts in theory and conceptualization in the Question and Replies and believe the book must come from the hands of an experienced strategist, even if it dose not record the actual discussion between Li Ching and T'ang T'ai-tsung. However, such concepts as "infantry dominating cavalry" -which are expressive of Sung thougth-inevitably consign it to the Northern Sung.
Then, what shall we think about battle formation were recorded in Samguksagi(Records on the History of the Three Kingdoms) Vol. 7 which dose contain the name of Six Flowers formation associated with Li Ching ? I would think of it as an important clue to reflect the existence of Li Ching's Six Flowers formation with contemporary.
In the Ming and Ch'ing dynasties, orthodox scholars reviled the text as forgery Characterized by uncouth language, limited concepts, and erroneous interpretations of historical events. In the last century a few voices have begun to cautiously criticize these strident expression of personal opinion, but no one has yet ventured to attribute the book to Li Ching or assert that constitutes an actual record of conversations
Briefly summarized, there are two main views: One holds that the book is a forgery of the Northern Sung, the other that it was compiled by unknown scholars late in the T'ang or early Sung. These views are based mainly on the absence of any reference to a book by this title in the bibliographical section in either History of the T'ang or History of the Northern Sung and on claims of Northern Sung military scholars to have seen a draft of the Yuan I, who purportedly forged it. The concurrence of several contemporaries regarding these claims prompted later generations of orthodox thinkers, who were already predisposed to view the text as an inferior work, to readily accept the forgery story as fact. Finally, the Tong-dian(通典). which was compiled by Tu yu(杜佑) at the end of eighth century A.D., contain numerous excerpts from a work entitled Li Ching ping-fa and quotes Li Ching extensively but without ever mentioning the Question and Replies.
Evidence discrediting the Yuan I forgery theory is based on Emperor Shen-tsung's(神宗1067-1084) edict mandating the study and exegesis of "Li Ching's ping-fa" because the text had become unreadable in the Northern Sung. Thereafter, the emperor also ordered the compilation and editing of the ancient military work, resulting in the present Seven Military Classics. Latter's initial circulation is believed to have predated the forgery story by about ten years; therefore, the Question and Replies must have been in existence prior to its supposed creation by Yuan I. Furthermore, analysts question how the best military scholars--in a period when they are fervently investigating military theory for the urgent purpose defending the state--could all have been deceived. Accordingly, they conclude that the forgery story must be false.
Generally speaking, military historians perceive advances over previous texts in theory and conceptualization in the Question and Replies and believe the book must come from the hands of an experienced strategist, even if it dose not record the actual discussion between Li Ching and T'ang T'ai-tsung. However, such concepts as "infantry dominating cavalry" -which are expressive of Sung thougth-inevitably consign it to the Northern Sung.
Then, what shall we think about battle formation were recorded in Samguksagi(Records on the History of the Three Kingdoms) Vol. 7 which dose contain the name of Six Flowers formation associated with Li Ching ? I would think of it as an important clue to reflect the existence of Li Ching's Six Flowers formation with contemporary.
목차
Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. 李靖의 六花陳法과 薛秀眞의 六陣兵法
Ⅲ. 集團規律과 步法
Ⅳ. 六花陳法 導入과 新羅兵制의 革新
Ⅴ. 맺음말
〈ABSTRACT〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
北宋의 財政改革論에 관하여
역사교육
1971 .08
-
竹泉 趙最壽의 燕行錄과 對淸意識
어문연구
2009 .01
-
주술과 『주역』 : 점서역(占筮易)과 의리역(義理易)의 통합적 이해의 역사
서강인문논총
2008 .06
-
邵南 尹東奎의 『시경』 이해의 양상
동방한문학
2018 .01
-
I-Ching and the Ways of Solving the Problems of Korean Multi-cultural Society
한국학논집
2012 .06
-
사계의 주역 철학
한국사상과 문화
2019 .01
-
『周易』의 ‘時’에 대한 고찰
인문학연구
2016 .06
-
당력고
동아문화
1989 .12
-
퇴계 이황의 리(理)에 대한 해석의 갈래 －“리동(理動)·리발(理發)·리도(理到)” 이해를 중심으로－
태동고전연구
2017 .01
-
퇴계철학을 통해 본 『活人心方』의 질병과 양생의 의미
동양철학연구
2005 .01
-
邵康節易學과 王夫之易學의 비교분석-卦 生成構造 비교와 同異點 모색을 중심으로
대동문화연구
2018 .01
-
朱熹 “理氣論”과 성경속의 “靈”·“肉” 談論
한중언어문화연구
2020 .01
-
여헌 장현광의 정치운영론과 성리설
한국인물사연구
2014 .03
-
17세기 중반 윤선거 역학의 성립 배경
한국인물사연구
2012 .03
-
이번원고(하)
동아문화
1983 .11
-
이번원고(상)
동아문화
1982 .12
-
여헌 장현광 성리설 연구의 쟁점과 과제
한국인물사연구
2010 .03
-
楚亭 朴齊家의 ｢燕京雜絶｣ 一考
한문학논집(漢文學論集)
2008 .01
-
朱子의 理와 그에 대한 몇 가지 해석 : 비판적 고찰
온지논총
2008 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0100-2009-911-018285575