新羅 元聖王의 즉위 과정 : 신라 원성왕의 즉위 과정

권영오 부산대학교 사학회 1995 釜大史學 Vol.19 No.-

해안선을 가다

권영오,김기래,김효송,박기수,이순녀,이형교,장덕윤 인천작가회의(작가들) 2014 작가들 Vol.- No.51

신라하대 인물들의 정치 활동과 연령-국왕들과 왕족들의 활동을 중심으로-

권영오 부경역사연구소 2012 지역과 역사 Vol.- No.31

この論文は、新羅下代期の国王たちと王族たちの政治活動が、その人物のどの年齡代に行われたのかを調べたものである。これを通じて下代の政治史研究のいくつかの論争点や史料上の 相異点に対する判断を試みた。宣徳王は王位に欲はなかったが、推戴により年老いた後に即位し、息子もなかったので後継 王位継承の問題を抱いて出発するしかなかった。王位継承の優先権者である金周元を武力で追い出して即位した元聖王も年老いていたのであり、生前に新羅史上で類例のない3次にかけての太子冊封のあげく、王の孫が次の王位を引き継いだ。興徳王10年, 昭聖王以後 王位を独占した仁謙系の唯一な嫡子である金明を侍中に任命したが、この時に金明の年は19歳であった。20代の元聖王の孫たち(金俊邕、金彦昇)も侍中に任命された。年少な年に即位した王の同母弟たちも蘇判や宰相として国政に参与した。哀荘王は13歳に即位し、叔父の金彦昇が攝政をしたが、親政する年になると武力示威まで起るほど葛藤があった。憲康王も叔父金魏弘の補佐を受けており、憲康王6年までの政局の安定は 金魏弘の役割が大きかった。12~13歳に即位した孝恭王代初期の政局も攝政があったはずである。865年以後に出生したと推定される公主金曼が、868年に開仙寺の石燈に施主したと言う記録は誇張されたことであり、887年20歳位に即位し、11年間在位した真聖女王に阿飡良貝とい季子があったという記録も信じがたい。しかし、孝恭王が志学の年に及ばずに即位したという記録は信憑性がある。「新羅敬順王殿碑」の家系も人物年齡を基準に再検討する余地がある。

간섬유화의 비침습적 진단: 혈청 표지자

권영오 대한간학회 2011 Clinical and Molecular Hepatology(대한간학회지) Vol.17 No.1(S)

Liver fibrosis is wound healing process of liver to various kinds of liver injury and results in distortion of liver architecture. The degree of fibrosis is very important prognostic factor in chronic liver disease and is also one of determinant factors for initiating treatment, especially in viral hepatitis. Recently, rapid advances in the treatment of viral hepatitis promoting the clinical needs for diagnosing liver fibrosis simply, safely and in the largest number of candidates for therapy. Although liver biopsy is traditionally the reference standard for staging liver fibrosis, its limitations have stimulated the search for new non-invasive approaches. During last 10 years, multiple studies have been reported on various serologic markers measured in blood or serum samples for fibrosis staging with no need for liver biopsy. However, most data we have so far for liver diseases come from highly selected population and no single noninvasive marker is able to differentiate all fibrosis stage from end stage cirrhosis. As diagnostic markers, more efficient serum fibrosis indices for the diagnosis of hepatic fibrosis need to be explored.

9세기 해인사 비로자나불 묵서명과 해인사 전권-부호부인과의 관계를 중심으로-

권영오 신라사학회 2018 新羅史學報 Vol.0 No.44

The Vairocana Buddha Statue at Beobbozeon of Haeinsa Temple(海印寺 法寶殿 毗盧遮那佛像) was made in 883 by Kim Wi-hong(金魏弘) and Buhobuin(鳧好夫人), and the Daegakgan(大角干) mentioned in the Mukseomyeong(墨書銘, an explanatory legend with black ink) is Kim Wi-hong. The time of the writing of the Mukseomyeong must have been after the demise of Kim Wi-hong as they were called Daegakgan and ‘Bi(妃, queen)’. After Kim Wi-hong died in February of 888, he was posthumously awarded the name of Hyeseongdaewang(惠成大王) and the government post of Daegakgan. Therefore, the Mukseomyeong was recorded additionally after Kim Wi-hong died. Also, Buhobuin, the wife of Hyeseongdaewang, could be called a queen. The Ganghwabuin(康和夫人) written in the Jeon-gwon(田券, a kind of terrier) of Haeinsa Temple is Buhobuin. After looking into the Jeon-gwon meticulously, Jo Wi(曺偉) found a clue in the writing of the document, ‘as mentioned here’, which made it possible to presume that the wife of Hyeseongdaewang was Ganghwabuin though all the details could not be decoded. There is a high possibility that the principal agent that purchased the Vairocana Buddha Statue at Beobbozeon of Haeinsa made in 883 and the land of the Jeon-gwon of Haeinsa Temple between 878 and 895 was the same person or family related to the royal family. Considering such a political background at that time, it is reasonable to infer that Buhobuin, the wife of Kim Wi-hong, is the ‘queen’ mentioned in the Mukseomyeong and the Ganghwabuin written in the Jeon-gwon. 중화 3년(883년, 헌강왕 9년)에 만들어진 해인사 법보전 비로자나불상의 단월은 김위홍과 부호부인으로, 묵서명에 언급한 대각간은 김위홍이다. 그러나 한편으로는 이들이 묵서명에서 대각간과 비를 칭하려면 김위홍의 사후가 되어야 한다. 김위홍은 888년 2월(진성여왕 2년)에 죽어 혜성대왕으로 추시되었으며, 대각간은 김위홍의 추증이므로 이 묵서명은 김위홍의 사후에 추기된 것이다. 또한 혜성대왕의 처인 부호부인도 妃로 칭할 수 있다. 해인사 전권에 이른 강화부인은 부호부인이다. 전권을 꼼꼼히 살핀 조위는 내용을 상세히 해독할 수 없었음에도 불구하고 ‘이에 이른바(此云)’, 곧 문서의 표기에서 혜성대왕의 부인을 강화부인으로 추정할 수 있는 단서를 찾았다. 883년(헌강왕 9년)에 만들어진 해인사 법보전 비로자나불상과 878년(헌강왕 4년)에서 895년(진성여왕 8년) 사이에 해인사 전권의 토지를 매입한 주체는 왕실과 관련이 있는 동일한 인물이나 가문일 가능성이 높다. 이와 같은 당시의 정치적 배경을 고려한다면 묵서명에 언급된 ‘妃’와 전권의 ‘강화부인’은 김위홍의 처인 부호부인으로 해석하는 것이 합리적이다.

고려시대의 신라 말에 대한 인식

권영오 부경역사연구소 2015 지역과 역사 Vol.- No.37

During the period of the Goryo Dynasty(高麗), People grasped that the period after the 2nd ruling of the Queen Jinseong(眞聖女王) of Silla was the closing years, just like the period of the Silla Dynasty(新羅). They knew that the main reason for the fall of the Silla to be the peasant uprising and its consequent social disorder. During the closing period of the Silla Dynasty it’s politics was chaotic. Peasants rose up against the ruling class, temples were destroyed and the domination of Silla was reduced. In China’s history, there was a clear distinction between Wu-Tai Shoh-Kuo(五代十國) and the late Dang dynasty(唐). Following the reorganization of the Later three Kingdoms(後三國) and the late Silla closing years. There were two sorts of succession consciousness of the kingdom in Koryo: one was the consciousness of the Three Kingdom(三國) that were unified by succeeding to Goguryo(高句麗), and the other was the consciousness of Koryo that was succeeded to Silla dynasty. The tombstones set up during the period of the Koryo Dynasty expressed the closing days of Silla as the degenerate age. But it’s difficult for the Buddhist ideological perception of the degenerate age to be directly linked with the historical period of the closing days of Silla. The term, ‘Late Silla Dynasty’ and ‘the early Goryo Dynasty(羅末麗初)’ which is conventionally used by Korean historian circles cannot be an appropriate term for periodization. The reason for this is not only because it has a limited division of dynasties for convenience’s sake but because it also excludes the role of Later Baekje(後百濟) which used to be a mainstay of the Later Three Kingdoms(後三國).

新羅下代 왕위계승분쟁과 閔哀王

權英五 한국고대사학회 2000 韓國古代史硏究 Vol.19 No.-

신라 하대 초기 인겸계의 왕위계승과 분열

권영오 대구사학회 2024 대구사학 Vol.154 No.-

원성왕의 첫째 아들 김인겸은 원성왕 원년(785)에 태자로 책봉되었으나, 원성왕 7년(791)에 사망하여 즉위하지 못하였다. 그러나 김인겸의 4명의 아들 김준옹(소성왕) · 김언승(헌덕왕) · 김수종(흥덕왕) · 김충공(선강태자)은 모두 국왕으로 즉위하였거나 왕위계승자로 공인되었다. 김인겸(혜충대왕)은 소성왕에서 애장왕 · 헌덕왕 · 흥덕왕· 희강왕 · 민애왕대까지 5묘에 부묘되었고, 당시 왕실의 정신적 구심점이었다. 김언승은 형인 김준옹이 원성왕의 세 번째 태자로 책봉된 이후 김준옹이 맡았던 재상과 병부령을 이어받아 태자를 보좌하였을 뿐만 아니라, 김준옹의 유고에 대비하는 역할을 하였다. 김준옹이 왕위를 계승하여 김언승의 왕위계승 가능성은 낮아졌지만, 김언승은 자신의 정치 권력을 내려 놓지 않았다. 애장왕의 나이가 어려 모후 소성왕비가 섭정을 한다면, 이는 곧 외척 세력의 정치적 등장을 의미했다. 그러나 원성왕대부터 이루어진 왕실 가족의 권력 독점, 권력 장악을 유지한 결과 왕의 숙부인 김언승이 섭정을 하게 되었다. 애장왕의 친정은 인겸계 내에서 왕위를 차지한 소성왕 직계와 인겸계 방계 왕족들 간의 분열과 정치적 갈등을 초래하였다. 결국 이 갈등과 대립은 김언승과 제옹이 애장왕을 살해하고 왕위를 찬탈하는 것으로 끝이 났다. 하대 초기 정치에서는 중대와 달리 외척들의 정치 참여가 두드려 보이지 않는다. 이는 원성왕때부터 왕실친족집단원 중심의 정국 운영과 하대 초기 왕위를 독점한 인겸계의 근친혼에 그 이유가 있었다. 그러나 원성왕이나 김인겸이라는 구심점이 사라졌을 때 하대 초기 왕실은 분지화된 가계를 단위로 분열하고 대립하였다. 인겸계의 근친혼도 국왕 직계와 방계 왕족 간의 갈등을 불러오고 다른 진골귀족과 왕실을 고립시켰다. King Wonseong(元聖王)’s first son, Kim In-gyeom(金仁謙), was installed as the crown prince in the first year of King Wonseong(785), but he died in the seventh year of King Wonseong(791) and failed to be a king. However, all four sons of his either ascended the throne or were recognized as successors to the throne. In five shrines from King Soseong(昭聖王) to King Minae, ancestral rites were held for Kim In-gyeom (= Hyechungdaewang). Kim In-gyeom was the spiritual center of the royal family at that time. After his older brother, Kim Joon-ong, was appointed as the crown prince of King Wonseong, Kim Eon-seung(金彦昇) assisted him serving as Jaesang(宰相) and Byeongburyeong(兵部令), too. It also played roles in preparing for Kim Jun-ong’s possible death. Kim Eon-seung’s chances of succeeding the throne decreased as Kim Jun-ong succeeded to the throne, but Kim Eon-seung did not give up his political power. Unlike the middle period, the political participation of maternal relatives was not noticeable in the early period of late Silla dynasty. From the reign of King Wonseong, the political situation of the royal family’s monopoly of power and seizure of power continued. As a result, King Aejang(哀莊王) was crowned at a young age, but the king’s uncle, Kim Eon-seung, ruled as regent instead of the king’s mother, Mrs. Gyehwa. King Aejang’s family home caused division and political conflict between the immediate family of King Soseong who took the throne within the In-gyeom lineage and the collateral royal families of the In-gyeom lineage. Eventually, this conflict and confrontation ended with Kim Eon-seung and Je-ong killing King Aejang and usurping the throne.

신라하대 중기(839~888) 왕위계승과 정국의 안정

권영오 부경역사연구소 2009 지역과 역사 Vol.- No.24

In the year 839 King Shinmu(神武王) ascended to the throne. This was the start of the middle period of Hadea(下代). During this period battles for the throne ended and political stability was regained. This condition continued until the third year of Queen Jinsung(眞聖女王) when she lost control over the country due to rampant peasant uprisings and local aristocracy increasing their sovereignty. After King Shinmu’s accession to power, the throne could be bequeathed to a queen or to a Taeja(太子), who was a person born to a concubine. Sometimes it was bequeathed to a person in the royal family with the first name ‘Park.’ Until the collapse of Silla in 935, there were no military struggles for the throne. In case a king had no son to inherit his throne, he appointed a Taeja or a Bugun(副君), or designated someone in his royal family as his successor by considered many political factors when choosing successor. The kinship to the king was just a prerequisite. The throne was not bequeathed to a person closest to the king, but to a person who was in the royal family and could meet the political considerations that the king considered important. Chingol (眞骨 : bone lineage) group did not challenge this system in the rule of Yeyoung(禮英) lineage. The 155 years of the Hadea period is comprised of three periods: from King Seonduk(宣德王) to King Minae(閔哀王 : period of struggle for the throne), from King Shinmu to the second year of Queen Jinsung(period of political stability), and finally, from the third year of Queen Jinsung to King Kyungsoon(敬順王 : period of decline). In the earlier period, there were some struggles for the throne, but this cannot be an appropriate explanation for understanding the entire Hadea period. The argument that there were struggles for the throne in the Hadea period is only appropriate to its earlier period. Even if struggles existed, they were relatively severe compared to the Middle Period of Silla(新羅中代). In the year 839 King Shinmu(神武王) ascended to the throne. This was the start of the middle period of Hadea(下代). During this period battles for the throne ended and political stability was regained. This condition continued until the third year of Queen Jinsung(眞聖女王) when she lost control over the country due to rampant peasant uprisings and local aristocracy increasing their sovereignty. After King Shinmu’s accession to power, the throne could be bequeathed to a queen or to a Taeja(太子), who was a person born to a concubine. Sometimes it was bequeathed to a person in the royal family with the first name ‘Park.’ Until the collapse of Silla in 935, there were no military struggles for the throne. In case a king had no son to inherit his throne, he appointed a Taeja or a Bugun(副君), or designated someone in his royal family as his successor by considered many political factors when choosing successor. The kinship to the king was just a prerequisite. The throne was not bequeathed to a person closest to the king, but to a person who was in the royal family and could meet the political considerations that the king considered important. Chingol (眞骨 : bone lineage) group did not challenge this system in the rule of Yeyoung(禮英) lineage. The 155 years of the Hadea period is comprised of three periods: from King Seonduk(宣德王) to King Minae(閔哀王 : period of struggle for the throne), from King Shinmu to the second year of Queen Jinsung(period of political stability), and finally, from the third year of Queen Jinsung to King Kyungsoon(敬順王 : period of decline). In the earlier period, there were some struggles for the throne, but this cannot be an appropriate explanation for understanding the entire Hadea period. The argument that there were struggles for the throne in the Hadea period is only appropriate to its earlier period. Even if struggles existed, they were relatively severe compared to the Middle Period of Silla(新羅中代).

알코올성 간질환 환자의 정신사회적 특성

권영오,권중구,최용환,이죽내,정준모 大韓消化器病學會 1998 大韓消化器病學會誌 Vol.32 No.3