『삼국유사』 ‘선덕왕 지기삼사’조의 형성 과정과 의미의 재고찰

박현숙 고려사학회 2022 한국사학보 Vol.- No.86

King Seondeok recorded in the Shillabongi of 『Samguk sagi』, was crowned the first queen of Shilla in 632 as a king with foresight and insight. In relation to this, there are three stories predicted by Queen Seondeok in 『Samguk yusa』. In this paper, through the comparison and review of the two books of 『Samguk sagi』 and 『Samguk yusa』, the process in which the contents of the Seondeok dynasty in the Silla bongi of the 『Samguk sagi』 were embellished with the fable of ‘three affairs already known by Queen Seondeok’ in the Kii edition of the 『Samguk yusa』 was traced. In 『Samguk yusa』, the fable of ‘three affairs already known by Queen Seondeok’ in the Kii edition is summarized as one story, but in 『Samguk sagi』, it is recorded in the enthronement of Queen Seondeok, the 5th year of the enthronement, and the 16th year of Queen Seondeok, respectively. The first anecdote of 『Samguk yusa』 is about the reign of King Jinpyeong, and the second anecdote is based on the historical event related to the battle against Baekje in the 5th year of Queen Seondeok's reign, and the third anecdote is understood as a tale formed when Sacheonwangsa Temple was created during the reign of King Munmu after Queen Seondeok’s death. These three stories related to Queen Seondeok are combined into one narrative in 『Samguk yusa』. And the fable of ‘three affairs already known by Queen Seondeok’ in 『Samguk yusa』 section, reflect the perception of the queen formed through 『Suijeon』, a collection of tales from the late Unified Shilla period, and Kim Bu-sik’s commentary on the Seondeok dynasty in 『Samguk sagi』. Therefore, the contents were embellished with expressions symbolizing femininity, or stories related to women who were not in the Queen Seondeok's Dynasty of the 『Samguk sagi』 were added. In this way, through reconsideration of the formation process and meaning of the fable of ‘three affairs already known by Queen Seondeok’ in 『Samguk yusa』, the meaning of Queen Seondeok and her reign, and the gap between Shilla’s memories of Queen Seondeok and the records of the Goryeo period could be confirmed. 『삼국사기』 신라본기에 기록된 선덕왕은 예지력과 식견을 가진 신라 최초의 여왕으로 632년에 즉위하였다. 이와 관련하여, 『삼국유사』에는 선덕여왕이 예견한 세 가지의 이야기가 전하고 있다. 본고에서는 『삼국사기』와 『삼국유사』 두 史書의 비교・검토를 통하여, 『삼국사기』 신라본기 선덕왕조의 내용이 『삼국유사』 기이편 ‘선덕왕 지기삼사’조의 내용으로 윤색되고 說話化한 과정을 추적하였다. 『삼국유사」 기이편 ‘선덕왕 지기삼사’조에서는 한 편의 설화로 정리되어 있지만, 『삼국사기』에는 각각 선덕여왕 즉위조와 즉위 5년, 그리고 선덕여왕 16년조에 기록되어 있다. 『삼국유사』 첫 번째 일화는 진평왕대, 두 번째 일화는 선덕여왕 5년 백제와의 전투와 관련된 역사적인 사건을 모티브로 하였고, 세 번째 일화는 선덕여왕 사후인 문무왕 시기에 사천왕사가 만들어지면서 형성된 설화로 파악된다. 이러한 선덕여왕과 관련된 세 가지 이야기가 『삼국유사』에 하나의 설화로 종합된 것이다. 그리고 『삼국유사』 ‘선덕왕 지기삼사’조는 통일신라 후기의 설화집인 『수이전』과 『삼국사기』 선덕왕조의 김부식 사론 등을 통해 형성된 여왕에 대한 인식을 반영하고 있다. 그래서 여성성을 상징하는 표현들로 내용이 윤색되거나, 『삼국사기』 선덕여왕조에 없는 여성과 관련된 이야기들이 추가되었다. 이와 같이 『삼국유사』 ‘선덕왕 지기삼사’조의 형성과정과 의미의 재검토를 통해, 선덕여왕과 그 통치 시기가 가지는 의미와 선덕여왕에 대한 신라인들의 기억과 고려시대 기록들 사이의 간극을 확인할 수 있었다.

『삼국유사』의 후고구려 인식

홍창우 ( Chang Woo Hong ) 호남사학회(구 전남사학회) 2016 역사학연구 Vol.62 No.-

이 글은 13세기의 사서인 『삼국유사』가 후고구려를 어떻게 인식하고 있었는지 고찰한 것이다. 논의는 크게 세 단계로 나누어 진행하였다. 먼저 왕력의 후고려궁예조 기록을 다른 사서와 비교하여, 이 조목의 작성에 어떠한 자료계통이 쓰였는지를 탐색하였다. 다음으로 천사옥대조(기이)와 황룡사구층탑조(탑상)의 신라 삼보 관련 이야기 가운데 ‘후고려왕’의 용례가 확인되는 바, 그실체를 밝히고 이 대목이 어느 시대에 해당하는지 점검하였다. 이러한 검토결과를 바탕으로 『삼국유사』 편찬자들의 후고구려 인식을 가늠하였다. 후고려궁예조의 검토를 통해 이 조목의 작성에 『삼국사기』가 전거로서 기여한 바가 적었음을 확인하였다. 특히, 궁예가 辛亥년(901)에 ‘고려’를 일컬었다고 기술한 점, 후고구려의 도읍 변천을 철원 → 송악 → 철원으로 설정한점, 궁예정권의 국호와 연호가 매우 불충분하게 작성된 점 등을 주목하였다. 이는 『삼국유사』 찬자들이 『삼국사기』에서 보이는 후고구려나 궁예에 대한 인식을 따르지 않았을 가능성이 높음을 시사한다. 한편, 『삼국유사』 내에는‘고려’가 전ㆍ후의 관계로 설정되어 있다. 따라서 이를 토대로 천사옥대조와 황룡사구층탑조에서 보이는 ‘후고려왕’은 궁예로 보는 것이 옳음을 언급하였다. 불교적 기물인 삼보의 존재만으로 궁예가 침략 모의를 중단했다는 것은, 그러므로 지극히 신라 중심적인 관점이 내포되어 있다고 할 수 있다. 『삼국사기』의 궁예 관련 기록들은 김부식의 이른바 ‘태조정통론’에 대한 배려가 근간을 이루고 있다. 그런 점에서 왕력의 후고려궁예조 작성에 이 기록들이 선택되지 않았다는 것은 『삼국유사』 편수자들이 정통론과는 무관했음을 보여준다. 다만, 국호 태봉은 의도적으로 기록하지 않았다고 생각되는데, 이는 그들이 궁예의 태봉시기를 부정적으로 판단했기 때문이다. 그것은 천사옥대조와 황룡사구층탑조에 삼보 관련 이야기를 통해서 파악할 수 있다. 특히 황룡사구층탑조의 작성자는 신라의 삼보를 중국의 구정에 견주었다. 구정의 설화에 의하면 초 장왕은 주를 침범하려 했다가 주에 구정이 존재한다는 사실을 알고서 본국으로 돌아갔다고 한다. 이는 후고려왕 궁예가 신라를 침략하려다가 신라에 삼보가 있다는 것을 듣고 그 모의를 중단했다고 하는 『삼국유사』의 삼보 관련 기사와 흡사하다. 물론 이 일화들은 구정이나 삼보의 호국적인 면모를 강조하는 것에 그 본의가 있겠지만, 한편으로는 주와 신라를 정복하려 했던 장왕과 궁예의 야욕을 폭로하는 역할도 한다. 이를 통해 『삼국유사』서술자들이 후고구려와 궁예를 우호적으로 인식하지 않았음을 확인할 수 있다. 주지하듯이 일연은 일생의 대부분을 경상도 지역에서 보냈다. 이는 『삼국유사』가 신라 중심의 기록을 수록할 수밖에 없는 이유이며, 전반적으로 신라에 편향적인 기술이 이루어질 수밖에 없는 이유이기도 하다. 특히 탑상편이 신라의 불교사가 지극히 오랜 옛날부터 시작되었음을 강조하기 위해 작성되었다는점을 고려한다면, 결국 『삼국유사』 찬자들은 신라로부터 시작된 오래된 불교가 고려를 통해 계승되었음을 말하고자 했던 것이다. 그런데 『삼국유사』가 편찬된 13세기의 고려 사회는 이민족의 침략으로 시련을 겪고 있었다. 당시 일연은 여러 지역을 돌아다니며 외압으로 인한 참상을 직접 목도했거니와, 그에 대해 『삼국유사』 곳곳에 기록하였다. 아마도 일연은 신라의 오랜 불교 전통이 몽고군의 침략으로 인해 끊기는 것에 강한 거부감을 지녔던 듯하다. 그런 점에서 『삼국유사』 찬자들은 신라의 영험함이 깃든 불교적 기물을 파괴하는 궁예와 신라의 오랜 불교 전통을 파괴하는 몽고를 동일시하였을 가능성이 크다. 이는 『삼국유사』 찬자들이 궁예를 부정적으로 인식하는 토대로서 작용하였을 것이다. 요컨대, 『삼국유사』 편찬자들은 후고구려를 매우 부정적으로 인식하였다. 다만, 그것은 소위 ‘태조정통론’에서 비롯된 것이 아니라, 신라의 역사적 위상에 대한 인식과 그들의 현실적인 상황에서 비롯된 것이었다. This essay studied how the historiography, Samguk-yusa of the 13th century perceived the Later Goguryeo. The discussion proceeded with three major stages. First, the study compared records of the Later Goguryeo in the article of ‘Hugoryeo-gungye’, Wangryok with those in other history books, and then explored what kind of materials had been used for the article. Next, as the use of the term ‘Hugoryeo Wang’ can be found in stories related to Silla’s Sambo in ‘Cheonsaokdae’ from Kiyi and ‘Hwangryongsa-gucheungtop’ from Topsang records, it was able to check which period of history was reflected in those chapters. Based on the result, it was possible to understand how the compilers of Samgukyusa perceived the Later Goguryeo. Through the review on the Article of ‘Hugoryeo-gungye’, it was proved that Samguk-sagi was little contributed to drawing up the article as a source, which means that the compilers of Samguk-yusa were not likely to follow the perception of the Later Goguryeo or Gung-ye shown in Samguk-sagi. Especially, the study paid attention to a few descriptions such as Gung-ye established ‘Goryeo’ in 901, the capital change of the Later Goguryeo was set from Cheol-won to Song-ak and Cheol-won again, and few descriptions of the name of Gung-ye reign and its era name. While, Samguk-yusa described ‘Goryeo’ as Former-Later Goryeo. Based on the reference, it would be right to see ‘Hugoryeowang’ shown in the Article of ‘Cheonsaokdae’ and ‘Hwangryongsa-gucheungtop’ as Gungye. Thus, the passage that Gung-ye suspended his invasion plot just because of the existence of Sambo which is Buddhistic objects implied an extremely Silla-centered view. The records related to Gung-ye in Samguk-sagi were mainly based on Kim Bu-sik’s consideration of, so called, ‘Taejo Legitimacy’. Thus, the reason that the records were not selected for the Article of ‘Hugoryeogungye’ in Wangryok means that the compilers of Samguk-yusa had nothing to do with the ‘Taejo Legitimacy’. But, it would be intentional not to record the country name, Taebong because they judged Taebong as the period of Gung-ye’s government negative. That can be understood through the fact they contained the story related to Sambo in the Article of ‘Cheonsaokdae’ and ‘Hwangryongsa-gucheungtop’. Especially, the compiler who drew up the Article of ‘Hwangryongsagucheungtop’ compared Silla’s Sambo(Three Treasure) to Chinese Gujeong. According to the tale of Gujeong, King Zhuang of Cho tried to invade Ju Dynasty, but returned back home to see that Ju Dynasty had Gujeong. The tale is quite similar to the story that Gung-ye, King of the Later Goguryeo tried to invade Silla, but finally gave it up to see there was Sambo in Silla as described in Samguk-yusa. Of course, the original purpose of these tales is to emphasize the patriotic aspect of Gujeong of Sambo, but on the other hand, it reveals King Zhuang and Gung-ye’s ambition to conquer Ju and Silla respectively. Through this, it can be demonstrated that the authors of Samguk-yusa did not see the Later Goguryeo and Gung-ye in an amicable way. As is known, Il-yeon spent most of his life in Gyeonsang-do region. This is the reason why Samguk-yusa has Silla-centered records, and generally Silla-biased descriptions were made. Especially, if the fact that Topsang chapter was written with the purpose of emphasizing the rich history of Buddhism in Silla is taken into consideration, it tells us that the authors of Samguk-yusa wanted to say Buddhism from Silla was succeeded by Goryeo. Goryeo in the 13th century when Samguk-yusa was drawn up was suffered from invasions from foreign dynasties. Il-yeon looked around a lot of districts and witnessed devastation caused by foreign invasions, and often left the fact in Samguk-yusa. Il-yeon might feel a strong hostility toward the fact that the long Buddhist tradition of Silla which he tried to emphasize was disconnected by the Mongolian army’s invasion. Thus, the compilers of Samguk-yusa were in with a shout of identifying Mongolia that tried invading Goryeo with the Later Goguryeo that tried invading Silla. That is, they perceived Gung-ye as a hostile force that tried destroying the miraculous Buddhist objects. In short, the authors of Samguk-yusa identified the Later Goguryeo as strongly negative. That was originated from their perception of historical status of Silla and their realistic situation, not from, so called, ‘Taejo legitimacy’.

『삼국사기』 고구려본기의 분주 재론

이강래(Lee, Kang-Lae) 백산학회 2003 白山學報 Vol.- No.67

This article, based on the sidenotes of the annals of Koguryo Dynasty in the Samguk-sagi, examined the formative process of the sidenotes related 51 items and the editor’s attitude toward the compiling of the Samguk-sagi. For this, I made the achievements of the examination on the sidenotes of the annals of Silla Dynasty done by myself before as the logical basis. The previous achievements were digested like the following: 1) each edition has different authors; 2) the authors give more trust to our traditional viewpoint than to Chinese materials; 3) most important, the editing of the Samguk-sagi did not rely upon a particular book. Eventually, it should be pay attention to the facts that the essential conclusions of two researches are strikingly similar each other. However, in this subject I tried to place emphasis on the two different spheres. One was to speculate the existence of the original source of royal annals compiled prior to the Samguk-sagi. It must be considered the broadest source for the composing the sidenotes of Samguk-sagi. The other was to have comprehensive understanding of the author’s attitude exposed in the middle of writings the sidenotes of annals of Koguryo Dynasty. It will offer a profitable criterion to make a distinction among the original copies composed before the mid-Koryo dynasty. At the same time, the criterion could be regarded as a standard to presume the characters of editors. Needless to say, broadly but crudely existing materials of Koryo dynasty were assembled to edit the Samguk-sagi. The editors neither have quantitative room to rule out important materials intentionally, nor any motive to distort them, nor necessity to hide such a motive. In addition, although domestic materials and Chinese information were recorded together, if contradicted each other, unique domestic materials were credited almost without exception. It means that the editors gave great dependence on the domestic materials composed by the writers of Koryo dynasty or the Three Kingdoms. Based on these results, one must continue to analyze the sources or process of compilation of the Samguk-sagi within the context of the material circumstances in and out of Koryo Dynasty. Of course those subjects should be treated as a foundation to ascertain the relation with so-called Old Samguksa or Kogi, the general name of the previous historical documents in Koryo dynasty. But, now that the history of the Three Kingdoms rearranged by the people of Silla and the national history of Silla Dynasty written by its people served as the base for historical knowledge, there was no great difference in the nature of the history books compiled during the Koryo Period, either in the Old Samguksa or the Samkug-sagi.

《삼국사기》 일식기록의 한중 사료 대조와 일식상황 비교

김일권(Kim, Il-gwon) 신라사학회 2016 新羅史學報 Vol.0 No.37

본 연구는 《삼국사기》 수록 65차 67건의 일식기록이 지닌 사료적 가치와 자료 특성을 알아보기 위해, 고대 중국사의 일식사료와 일일이 대조하는 사료비판작업을 진행하였고, 더불어 실제 발생한 것으로서의 역사일식도로써 대비를 수행하여, 삼국시대 일식상황을 일식기록의 상황과 일식발생의 상황으로 분리하여 접근하는 새로운 연구방법론을 개진하였다. 한중 사료 비교를 진행한 결과, 67건 중 63건 기록이 《한서》, 《후한서》 등 고대 중국사의 일식기록과 동일성을 보여 중국사료 의존성이 94%나 되었다. 중국사에 대응되지 않는 나머지 4건은 공교롭게도 모두 일식이 불가능 해의 기록이어서 기록 착란으로 간주되었다. 이에 따라 《삼국사기》가 중국사와 무관하게 일식사건을 독립적으로 기록한 사례가 하나도 없는 상황을 야기하였다. 《삼국사기》 일식기록 중에서 사료 오류 내지 한반도 일식 불가 기록이 전체 34%(총 22차 23건)로 추출되었으며, 이는 《삼국사기》 기록의 일식실현율이 최대 66%임을 보여주는 결과였다. 그 오류유형과 자료형태가 여러가지로 분석되었는데, T1 유형(4건)은 중국사에 대응기록이 없으면서 일식 불가능한 해의 기록착란 유형이고, T2 유형(19건)은 중국사가 지닌 일식기록 오류와 동일한 상태의 기록이며, T3 유형(5건)은 중국사 기록과 선택적 동일성을 지니면서 한중 일식이 가능한 경우이며, T4 유형(39건)은 한중 양자 기록이 동일하면서 한반도에서 일식 가능한 경우이다. 다시 하위 세분을 시도하여, T2A 유형은 양자 오류가 동일하면서 한중 모두 일식이 불가능한 경우(4건), T2B 유형은 중국사 여러 기록 중 오류기록을 선택하여 결과적으로 한중 일식이 불가능하게 된 경우(3건), T2C 유형은 전사과정에 오탈자가 발생하여 역시 일식이 불가능한 경우(2건), T2D 유형은 한중 둘다 일식불가한 기록을 답습한 경우(6건), T2E는 동일한 기록이나 중국은 가능하고 한반도는 관측불가능한 경우(4건)로 나눠졌다. T3A 유형(1건)은 외견상 오류가 아니나 건축(建丑) 개력의 상황을 반영하지 않은 역법상 오류로 보았고, T3B 유형(4건)은 오류가 아닌 기록을 선택한 경우이다. T4A 유형(11)은 한반도에 개기식과 금환식이 발생한 경우, T4B 유형(18건)은 개금식보다 낮은 강한 부분식 경우, T4C 유형(11건)은 0.5식분 이하 약한 부분식 상황인데, 여기에 속한 0.5이하 저식분(5건)과 0.3이하 미식분(5건)는 해석에 따라서 직접 육안으로 관측하기 힘든 문제가 있을 수 있음을 논의하였다. 이때 애장왕 2년(801) 5월 기록은 이날 경주에서 0.43식분을 보인 발생 일식임에도 불식(不食)으로 기록함으로써, 신라 자신의 직접 관측 결과 기록이라는 사료적 가치를 지님과 동시에, 0.5이하 저미식분인 경우 육안관측이 어려운 문제 곧 관측 한계식분의 문제를 제기하고 있었다. 다음으로 3종의 역사일식도로써 삼국시대 일식발생상황을 개금식 중심으로 검출한 결과, 신라 992년 동안 총 76회가 추출되었다. 이는 개금식 빈도가 삼국시대에 매 13년마다 1회 발생하고, 개기식은 평균 27년에 1회꼴로 발생하는 비율임을 시사하였다. 이 새로운 분석은 당시 실제 개금식 발생에 따라 정치사회적 변화를 재해석하는 새로운 역사해석의 기준과 방법을 제시한 의의가 있을 것이라 전망되었다. As to know, there are 67 records of solar eclipse in the ancient Korean history text, Samguk-sagi. As two records are overlapped for the same year of eclipses, there are really 65 cases of solar eclipse events. In order to know the historical material value of solar eclipse records written in the ancient Samguk-sagi, in this paper I made a comparative study between the eclipse records of the Samguk-sagi and those of many ancient Chinese history texts, for Shiji, Hanshu, Later Hanshu, Jinshu, Weishu, Old and New Tangshu, etc. As the result of my analysis in this paper, I checked total 63 cases among 67 records were same or similar records with those of the ancient Chinese history texts. I classified each error type of record eclipse or the recording similarity. The other 4 records are written only in the Samguk-sagi, but they are not dates of real eclipse occurring, because all of them have each certain recording error. This means most of the eclipse records of Samguk-sagi reproduced from those of the ancient Chinese history texts. I also verified these matters by another method of several historical charts of East Asian solar eclipse. It brings up a new issue to our academic circles that someone sometime in the past would have inserted all those eclipse records to the Samguk-sagi by accident, however it is hard to know a reason of the record inserting. Therefore, for the first time, I argued newly that the existence of same Chinese eclipse records in the Samguk-sagi were irrelevant to the recording authenticity itself.

『三國史記』地理志의 기준 시점과 연혁 오류

윤경진(Yoon, Kyeong Jin) 한국사연구회 2012 한국사연구 Vol.156 No.-

In this article, the exact time point employed in the references of the Geography section(地理志) of 『Samguk Sagi/三國史記』 is explored, and the errors and possible discrepancies are examined as well. Primary basis of material for the documentation of 『Samguk Sagi』’s Geography section seems to have been the outcome of the local administrative reforms that had been performed during Shilla dynasty’s King Gyeongdeok-wang’s reign. Additional recording(追錄) and documentations (追記), concerning certain areal and regional changes that occurred in local Gun and Hyeon units as a result of the reforms that took place during Gyeongdeok-wang’s days, were reflected in 『Samguk Sagi』’s Geography section. Yet, on the other hand, mistakes were made as well. Several entries (for individual areas) were entirely dropped from being compiled into 『Samguk Sagi』, such as the case of Naengjeong-hyeon/冷井縣 and other areas, and in some cases only partial records of certain areas and regions managed to be included in 『Samguk Sagi』, Some of the titles of the local units were mis-recorded, as we can see from the case of Ban’nam-hyeon/潘南郡 and other areas, and in some cases inter-relationships among individual areas and regions were dictated ‘differently’ among various texts. This was because the people in charge of compiling 『Samguk Sagi』 misunderstood the meaning of the text due to the texts’ physical condition, or simply made mistakes in compiling all the pertinent records. All these mis-recordings, errors and discrepancies should be corrected and rectified. in order to render the original text material and 『Samguk Sagi』 more accessible and reliable.

삼국 왕조명의 축약어 사용 문제

한규철 동국대학교 WISE(와이즈)캠퍼스 신라문화연구소 2015 新羅文化 Vol.45 No.-

Thinking over reason for and meaning of using singular term of one-word and multi term of more than two words for names of dynasties, this study reviews the meaning and problem why 『Samguk Sagi(三國史記)』 and 『Samguk Yusa(三國遺事)』 used La·Ryeo·Je(羅·麗·濟) by abbreviating Goguryeo, Baekje, and Silla; and, the study is to emphasize adequacy of the opinion of Tang's 『Xueji(穴記)』 and Sin, Chae Ho both of who used the initial of Go·Baek·Sin(高·百·新) if it is a principle to use name of a dynasty as it is and if abbreviation has to be used. The reason why names of dynasties in Xia·Yin·Zhou(夏殷周) and Han·Tang(漢·唐) period became one-word was originated from the place name but its tradition was made since Sin(新) dynasty of Wangmang(王莽) when the China-oriented world view was applied to the name of a dynasty and a country. In the meantime, there were many dynasties with country names of more than two words, and those were dynasties created according to native dialects, place names or formation process. This was not made from the fact that a surrounding dynasty in the Han·Tang-oriented international order determined its country name of more than two words in order not to 'commit' any one word. However, being conscious of Han(漢), the intellects of the Koryeo(高麗) age which edited 『Samguk Sagi』 used La·Je·Ryeo with lowered grade when they abbreviated names of three countries. In addition, LaTang generally used by present Korea·China·Japan does not reflect historical view of Silla or Koryeo. 『Samguk Sagi』 expressed Silla and Tang during war time of Samguk Unification as 'TangLa(唐羅)', which made us recognize Tang was the hero of the war. The first record which used names of three countries as Go·Baek·Sin was 『Xueji』 written by Tang dynasty in the 9th century. Records of Tang and Japan used names of three countries as they were and did not use abbreviations. However, 『Samguk Sagi』 and 『Samguk Yusa』 rather made the error of using the last words instead of continuing the tradition. It was due to historical limit of the Koryeo intellects. Abbreviations of names of three countries were still used in Sinhak era even when nationalism consciousness existed, and it has been down to this day passing through the colonial era when colonial identity and heteronomy emerged. Nevertheless, Sin, Chae Ho, anti-Japan intellectual, exceptionally disregarded tradition and used abbreviations of Go·Baek·Sin, the initials of dynasties but he did not go beyond the limit of 『Samguk Sagi』. It is a general practice in Korea·China·Japan to use abbreviations of dynasties and countries. But abbreviations of dynasty names often used by us mean just following of historical limit of the Koryeo intellects. We have to remind "IlSeon(日鮮)" or "ManSeon(滿鮮)" which was used with the last word of Joseon despising Joseon in independence movement period. The most correct way is to use full name of dynasty. If abbreviation of dynasty names is still necessary for use, it should be Sin·Tang(新唐), Sin·Baek(新百), Baek·Sin(百新), Sin·Il(新日), Ko·Sui(高隋), and Ko·Tang(高唐) with emphasis on Ko·Baek·Sin from modern viewpoint of history.

Some Problems with Early Koguryǒ-Silla Relations Described in the Samguk sagi

( Mark E Byington ) 서울대학교 규장각한국학연구원 2016 Seoul journal of Korean studies Vol.29 No.1

According to the Samguk sagi (History of the Three Kingdoms), exchanges between the kingdoms of Koguryǒ and Silla commenced with military engagements in the middle of the third century. The broader interregional circumstances of the time, evidenced by both historical and archaeological data, make such an early encounter between these two polities highly unlikely. In this paper I examine data from historical and archaeological contexts to identify contradictions in accounts of the mid-third-century circumstances of the Korean peninsula, demonstrating the anomalous nature of the early depictions of Koguryǒ-Silla relations found in the Samguk sagi. Further, I will discuss how the issue at hand points to a much more pervasive problem with the early chronology of the Silla records in the Samguk sagi, demanding a considerable degree of caution for scholars who use that resource for the study of the history of the Korean peninsula. Lastly, I will discuss briefly how current trends in Korean academia (involving forces that are not limited to the academic realm) pose a challenge for an open and critical evaluation of the chronology of the Samguk sagi.

논문 : 경험 주체의 설명 방식에 대한 탐색 -『삼국사기』백제 관련 사료의 층위를 단서로-

이강래 ( Kang Lae Lee ) 전남대학교 호남학연구원 2010 감성연구 Vol.1 No.1

이 글은 백제에 대한 사유의 주요 토대를 이루는 『삼국사기』의 자질과 관련한 몇 가지 각성을 공유하려 하는 것이다. 우선 『삼국사기』의 막중한 자료 위상이란 명백히 우연적 환경에서 비롯한 것에 불과하다. 『삼국사기』의 사유는 서술 "대상의 진실"이 아니라 오직 인식 주체의"당대적 진실"일 뿐이기 때문이다. 어떤 정보이든 그것을 선택한 개별 주체들의 현실, 혹은 그들의 사유를 규정하는 당대 현실이 작동하고 있다. 따라서 『삼국사기』정보에 잠복되어 있는 기록 과정의 층위들에 대한 숙고가 긴요하다. 특히 백제인들은 경험 주체로서의 자기 설명 기회를 잃었고, 표상된 역사에 자기 기억을 남기지 못하였다. 전백제의 역사는 신라에 의해 조정되었고, 후백제의 역사 역시 고려에 의해 정돈되었다. 또한 백제사 주체의 자기 설명과 인식이 담긴 정보라 해도, 그것은 필연적으로 지배자의 관점에 충실한 경우가 대부분이다. 이제 비록 비경험적 단서들일지라도 경험 주체의 목소리에 귀기울여야 한다. 『삼국사기』에 표상된 역사는 ``타자를 향한 설명``이다. 그것은 본래 타자와의 인식 공유를 기대한다. 따라서 설명들은 의연히 객관을 표방하나, 그것은 특정 사건이나 인물의 행적 사이 혹은 주변 왕조를 포함한 역사의 제반 환경 조건 사이의 정합성에 먼저 주안한 것들이다. 당연히 합리적 인과 관계를 중시하고 보편적 논리를 겨냥한다. 반면에 경험 주체의 기억이란 ``자신을 향한 설명``이다. 그 동안 간과되어 온 것은 그 표상화의 연쇄 과정을 심층에서 규정하고 있는, 그러면서도 정작 그 자체는 하나의 온전한 표상으로 드러나 본 적이 없는, 경험주체의 기억과 설명일 것이다. 이것을 이른바 ``사의 감성 영역``으로 이해하고 부르려 한다. 그것은 표상된 역사의 직접 배면이거나 저층의 토대일 수 있는 까닭에 역사의 사유에서 심중하게 취급될 필요가 있다. 요컨대 삼국사기의 백제 관련 사료란 그 안에 잠복되어 있는 정보의 층위와 경험 주체의 설명 방식에 다가서기 위한 하나의 管見 혹은 통로라고 생각한다. This essay is to share the reflections upon some potentials which Samguk-sagi have that constructs the bases upon whichto understand Baekje. To begin with, the great significance of the book as a historical material was and is just a product of historical contingencies surrounding the material. The historiography showed what its writers conceived of their contemporary world, not only the world itself they met. In any item of the book did the contemporary realities constructing, and/or constructed by, the authors collective or individual, and their conceptions work. Given this, we need to take into account the levels where any item was inscribed, to appreciate the multiple meanings of each item. Baekje people, losing the opportunity for their own explanation, failed to bequeath their subjective memories in the historical representations. Their history was represented by their competing counterpart, Shilla, and also the history of Late Baekje was so by its rival, Goryo. This suggests that almost all the items carrying Baekje people`s subjective conceptions and explanations were geared to the authorial views. This urges us to hark to Baekje people` own voices even if they were muted, or pay full heed even to the apparently ungrounded accounts to recover Baekje people`s erased subjective views. Samguk-sagi represented the history of Three Kingdoms to explain its own history to others, and ultimately to share its own historical views with others. Accordingly, despite its dignifiedly argued objectivity, the historiography was oriented toward the plausibility in explaining the mutual relationship between the examined issue of personal career or collective affair and its circumstances, including dynasty, which, therefore, attached a significance upon casual-effect reasonability and appealed to the universal logic, dismissing the subjective memories of those involved but defeated and oppressed, which were called up to explain mainly them, not others, things concerned. We have tended to disregard the subjective memories and ex plana ons of those on the venue of history, which determined not only the historical progress but only its representation beneath their surfaces but did not emerge fully represented on the historical horizon. These oppressed and dispersed memories can belong to the sensitive/emotional components of history, as which I call those memories. In other words, the sensitive/emotional constituted historiography and also Samguk-sagi, which suggests that Samguk-sagi and other historical books carried and carry with themselves multiple layers and channels into themselves. Given this, I think the materials concerned with Baekje in Samguk-sagi worked as an channel through which to know the multiplicity of the materials and at the same time to access the subjective explanation in it.

삼국사기의 궁예 가계 및 출생 관련 정보에 대한 후대의 수용 방식 문제

홍창우 한국사연구회 2022 한국사연구 Vol.- No.199

As far as Later-Goguryeo and Gungye are concerned, there is no literature data beyond the scope of information in Samguk-sagi. The biography of Gungye goes beyond a personal biography and is also the history of the Later-Goguryeo dynasty. Therefore, anyone interested in the history of Gungye and Later-Goguryeo analyzes the records of Gungye’s Biography and restores their history by giving meaning to them. If so, the family and birth-related records at the beginning of Gungye’s Biography are also a kind of gateway to the restoration of Later-Goguryeo history. First, previous studies that have accessed this information were checked. As a result, it was confirmed that there were two trends. One view was to solve a problem within the range of information conveyed by the historical material, and the other was to find a solution outside the scope of the historical material. Under the great premise that Gungye is son of the Silla king, the former is view of choosing the father of Gung-ye among King Heonan or King Gyeongmun. The latter does not agree with the fact that Gungye is from the royal family of Silla, in connection with the integrity and artificiality of the subsequent birth-related records. Leaving aside the controversial part, we first focused on the issue of ‘information itself’. It would have been difficult for the compilers of Samguk-sagi to identify either King Heonan or King Gyeongmun through the data they obtained. In the end, the conflicting family information of Gungye should be viewed as continuing to the Samguk-sagi without any confusion that occurred before the Samguk-sagi. In particular, the main focus of the evaluation of Gungye was on criticizing Gungye for betraying ‘own country’[宗 國], Silla. Accordingly, I think the editors noted that Gungye was from the Silla’s royal family. Goryeo was founded after overthrowing Later-Goguryeo and Wanggeon was a servant of Gungye, so there were some flaws in the legitimacy of establishing the government. Therefore, rather than clarifying the historical facts of the previous dynasty, Therefore, rather than clarifying the historical facts of the previous dynasty, the focus was on emphasizing the reason why Gungye should be expelled, so it was considered that the information that was involved in the Samguk-Sagi continued without any inspection. In other words, there was no special opportunity to resolve Gungye’s family problem. Next, attention was paid to ‘White Rainbow’[白虹] as a natural phenomenon contained in the birth-related information. As a result, we found out that the old notion that the appearance of a ‘白虹’ symbolized an ‘ominous sign’[咎徵] was also widely known to Silla, who enjoyed the 9th and 10th centuries. It is currently not possible to determine whether that natural phenomenon on the day Gungye was born is fiction. However, I would like to suggest that it is necessary to pay attention to the way of thinking at the time, the process of forming information, and the internal logic, which has been calling for the need to eliminate Gungye by mobilizing the ‘white rainbow’ as an ‘ominous sign’ since ancient times. In this context, it is regarded as a historical fact that Gungye was the prince of Silla.

『삼국유사』를 통해본 일연의 역사 인식

주보돈 경북대학교 영남문화연구원 2017 嶺南學 Vol.0 No.63

This essay is based on trying to trace the purpose, background, and historical perceptions of Ilyeon as a monk through the appreciation of the system, structure, and contents of 『Samguk Yusa』. It is regarded to project personal life etc, this essay aims to divide it into chapters and argue with the awareness of the problem of the existing librarian that has already been compiled. As a result, among the total of 9 books, Wangryeok and Giie compiled 『Samguk Sagi』, and Heungbeop compiled articles related to Buddhism in 『Haedonggoseungjeon』 and he speculated that the trajectory of his life permeated deeply in the last two books called Pieun and Hyosun. In that respect, it can be diagnosed as a unique cataloging. With that, the most eye-catching piece of the top part of 『Samguk Yusa』 is the book Tabsang. The pagoda and the statue of the Buddha, which are two central axes of Buddhist faith, are scattered widely and it shows the imagination as it is. Especially Gyeongju, which was the capital of Silla, showed lots of examples of these. Ilyeon spotted a large portion of the Silla object several times in the book Tabsang. Among them, Ilyeon's direct and significant influence on the perception of history was Hwangryongsa, the center of Buddhism for country(護國佛敎), which was burned by Mongols. This was the main background that caused 「Gojoseon」 to be put in the beginning of 『Samguk Yusa』. Soon after, the name of the Joseon Dynasty and the name of the reformed state are also closely related to this. In the early Joseon Dynasty, it is closely linked with the municipal government that『Samguk Yusa』 was reissued with 『Samguk Sagi』. 이 글은 『삼국유사』의 체제, 구조 및 내용의 음미를 통하여 일연이 승려로서 이를 편찬하려고 시도한 목적과 배경 및 역사 인식을 더듬어보려는 데서 출발한 것이다. 거기에는 이미 편찬된 기존의 사서에 대한 문제 인식과 함께 개인적인 삶 등이 깊숙이 투영되어 있으리라 여기고서 이를 편목 별로 가려서 논증해보려고 하였다. 그 결과 전체 9개 편목 가운데 왕력과 기이편은 『삼국사기』를, 흥법편 이하 불교 관련 편목은 『해동고승전』을 겨냥해서 편찬하였으며, 마지막에 설정된 피은과 효선의 두 편에는 특별히 자신의 삶의 궤적이 깊숙이 스며들어 있는 것으로 풀이하였다. 그런 점에서 특이한 편목이라 진단할 수가 있다. 그와 함께 『삼국유사』 전편을 통해 각별히 눈길을 끄는 편목은 탑상편이다. 불교 신앙의 두 중심축인 불탑과 불상은 널리 산재하여 실물로서 실상을 그대로 보여주고 있다. 특히 신라 왕도였던 경주는 발길이 닿는 곳마다 그런 모습을 보여주었다. 일연은 탑상편에 실린 대상의 상당 부분을 몇 차례에 걸쳐 실견하였다. 그 가운데 일연의 역사 인식에 직접적이며 크게 영향을 미쳤던 것은 몽골의 병란으로 처참하게 불타버린 護國佛敎의 중심 도량 皇龍寺였다. 그것이 『삼국유사』의 첫머리에 「古朝鮮」를 싣게 한 주된 배경이었다. 곧이어 개창된 조선왕조의 국명이나 통사체체의 출현도 이와 관련이 깊다. 조선 초에 『삼국유사』가 『삼국사기』와 함께 再刊되는 것도 그런 사정과 밀접한 연관이 있는 일이라 하겠다.