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
Examined in this article are the discussions and conflicts that supposedly continued between Shilla and Dang, over the issue of Shilla king Taejo Mu’yeol-wang’s posthumous title(諡號). These discussions and conflicts are respectively documented in both ?Samguk Sagi(三國史記)? and ?Samguk Yusa(三國遺事)?, and attempted in this article is a comparative analysis of these records, in order to determine the original contents of the discussion and how they were actually recorded later on.
In general, it is said that King Taejong’s posthumous title is established based upon the fact that he contributed to the ‘unification of the three dynasties(一統三韓).’ And from this, scholars have been believing that the notion of “Sam-han is united as one”(三韓一統意識) had already been established in the early stage of the Middle period of Shilla.
Records from these two sources show certain differences from each other, in terms of the exact time point of the initiation of the issue, the real nature of the Dang Emperor which was part of the discussion, and also how the discussion proceeded. But both records are ultimately based upon the same original material, and it seems that 『Samguk Yusa』 is the one that reflected the original more perfectly. Then again, the original material is rather focused upon Kim Yu-shin(金庾信) instead of King Mu’yeol-wang, and also contains portions that do not match factual details or even stories with mythical proportions that cannot possibly be trusted. And it also shows a perspective from a period even later than king Shinmu-wang(神文王)’s reign, which was far later than the time point when the discussion actually occurred.
『Samguk Sagi』 eliminated or modified portions from the original either irrational or unverifiable, and acknowledged the alleged meaning behind Taejong’s posthumous title. Yet considering the nature of the original text, it is highly possible that there was never a discussion at all. Therefore the meaning of Taejong’s posthumous title should be evaluated differently from before.
In general, it is said that King Taejong’s posthumous title is established based upon the fact that he contributed to the ‘unification of the three dynasties(一統三韓).’ And from this, scholars have been believing that the notion of “Sam-han is united as one”(三韓一統意識) had already been established in the early stage of the Middle period of Shilla.
Records from these two sources show certain differences from each other, in terms of the exact time point of the initiation of the issue, the real nature of the Dang Emperor which was part of the discussion, and also how the discussion proceeded. But both records are ultimately based upon the same original material, and it seems that 『Samguk Yusa』 is the one that reflected the original more perfectly. Then again, the original material is rather focused upon Kim Yu-shin(金庾信) instead of King Mu’yeol-wang, and also contains portions that do not match factual details or even stories with mythical proportions that cannot possibly be trusted. And it also shows a perspective from a period even later than king Shinmu-wang(神文王)’s reign, which was far later than the time point when the discussion actually occurred.
『Samguk Sagi』 eliminated or modified portions from the original either irrational or unverifiable, and acknowledged the alleged meaning behind Taejong’s posthumous title. Yet considering the nature of the original text, it is highly possible that there was never a discussion at all. Therefore the meaning of Taejong’s posthumous title should be evaluated differently from before.
목차
Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ.『三國史記』태종 시호 기사의 비판
Ⅲ.『三國遺事』 太宗春秋公조와의 비교
Ⅳ. 맺음말
〈참고문헌〉
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (5)
참고문헌 신청
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
新羅 中代 太宗(武烈王) 諡號의 追上과 재해석
윤경진
한국사학보
2013
.11
신라 景文王의 통합 정책과 皇龍寺九層木塔의 改建 : 9세기 三韓一統意識의 확립과 관련하여
윤경진
한국사학보
2015
.11
京畿 남부 지역 소재 高句麗 郡縣의 의미 : 문헌 자료와 고고학 자료의 상호관계를 중심으로
金樂起
고구려발해연구
2005
.09
고대의 영역 · 국경과 ‘戰線’ : 고구려 남부전선을 기준으로
신광철
고구려발해연구
2017
.11
三韓一統意識의 성립 시기에 대한 재론 : 근거 자료에 대한 검토를 중심으로
윤경진
한국사연구
2016
.12
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2015-900-001293503