『고려사절요』卒記의 기재방식과 성격

김난옥 고려사학회 2012 한국사학보 Vol.- No.48

The description methods used in obituaries (jalgi) during the Goryeo era generally consisted of a mention of government office and peerage followed by praise or censure of tbe deceased. However. while 30% of obituaries consisted of simple descriptions of the office and peerage of the deceased 20% involved lengthy obituaries that included the office and peerage. praise and censure. family pedigree, background, related episodes, and follow up measures. The individuals found in the obituaries (jolgi) were mainly high ranking ministers. 85% of the obituaries involved officials of 2 pum or higher. Over 50% were officials from the Jungseo Munhaseong (Chancellery for State Affairs). By the time late Goryeo rolled around, the number of cases that included descriptions of the status of the deceased based on investitures rather than official titles had increased. 93% of obituaries appeared in both the <Goryeosa (高麗史, History of Goryeo)> and <Goryeosa Jeolyo (高麗史節要, Essentials of Goryeo History)>. Moreover, there were only a few cases in which, although an obituary was prepared, such information was not also reproduced in the sega (世家, noble family history) of the deceased. The majority of the sega included only the offices and peerage of the deceased. However, the obituaries found in the <Goryeosa Jeolyo (高麗史節要, Essentials of Goryeo History)> included biographical information and episodes pertaining to the person, such as the family pedigree and background, and therefore exhibited a wider range of information about the deceased than the sega. This can be attributed to the fact that the role played by biographies (yeoljeon) in the <Goryeosa (高麗史, History of Goryeo)> was in many ways replicated by the obituaries (jolgi) in the <Goryeosa Jeolyo (高麗史節要, Essentials of Goryeo History)>. A look at the compilation process of the <Goryeo Guksa (高麗國史, History of the Garyeo State)> leads to the conclusion that the obituaries (joigi) found in the <Goryeosa Jeolyo (高麗史節要, Essentials of Garyeo History)> were more in keeping with the original form of the <Goryeo Sillok (高麗實錄, Annals of Garyeo Dynasty)> than the biographies (yeoljeon) fOood in the <Goryeosa (高麗史, History of Garyeo)>. While access to various materials from not only the <Goryeo Sillok (高麗實錄, Annals of Garyeo Dynasty)> but also the epitaphs and works of the deceased ensured a quantitative increase in biographies (yeoljeon), there remained some leeway to include contradictory contents from the original records or to embellish the original contents. Furthermore, the omission of the biographies of Confucian scholarship (yurimjeon) from the biographies (yeoljeon) found in the <Goryeosa (高麗史, History of Garyeo)> can be explained by the fact that the obituaries (jolgi) found in the (Goryeo Sillok (高麗實錄, Annals of Goryeo Dynasty)> mostly involved high ranking officials. To this end, it was difficult to include Confucian scholars, which maintained a certain dislance from the government bureaucracy, in the biographies (yeolieon) found in the (Goryeosa (高麗史, History of Goryeo)>.

공민왕대 기사의 수록양식과 원전자료의 記事 전환방식

김난옥(KIM NANOK) 고려사학회 2013 한국사학보 Vol.- No.52

The annual average numbers of articles in the era of King Gongmin were 61 in the 「Sega(世家)」 in 〈Goryeosa (高麗史, History of Goryeo)〉 and 39 in the 〈Goryeosa Jeolyo (高麗史節要, Essentials of Goryeo History)〉 and thus the former was approximately 1.5 times of the latter. However, the increase and decrease in the number of articles over time of the former and the latter were generally proportional. The numbers of articles between the end of the 12th year and the 13th year of King Gongmin and between the end of the 14th year and the beginning of the 13th year of King Gongmin are much smaller compared to other periods because some of materials in original books were omitted or deleted in the complicated relationship with Yuan. The most notable thing in the recording systems of the 「Sega(世家)」 and the 〈Goryeosa Jeolyo (高麗史節要, Essentials of Goryeo History)〉 is that whereas the daily sexagenary cycles were indicated in approximately 85% of articles in the former, the daily sexagenary cycles were indicated in only approximately 9% of articles in the latter. In the case of the 〈Goryeosa Jeolyo (高麗史節要, Essentials of Goryeo History)〉, the daily sexagenary cycles were mostly omitted because many articles gathered were synthesized and summarized because of the principle of ’‘summarization’. Articles beginning with ‘this month’ or ‘this year’ were those for events that clearly occurred in the month or year but could not be dated to certain days. However, among the entire articles for the era of King Gongmin, the number of those beginning with ‘this month’ was only 8 and the number of those beginning with ‘this year’ was only 3. The reason why articles related to Hwanjo(桓祖) were included in the extremely small numbers of ‘this month(是月)’ and ‘this year(是年)’ articles was that the articles related to Hwanjo(桓祖) were added when ‘Goryeo History’ was complied in the Joseon Dynasty period. The Lee Seong-Gye related articles contained in the 「Sega(世家)」 and the 〈Goryeosa Jeolyo (高麗史節要, Essentials of Goryeo History)〉 are almost the same as those in the 「Taejo Series(太祖總序)」 and excessively decorated the achievements of Lee Seong-Gye compared to the activities of persons in the era of King Gongmin recorded in the 「Biographies(列傳)」. As with the case of Hwanjo(桓祖) related articles, this was because the achievements of Lee Seong-Gye were unnaturally included in the 「Sega(世家)」 and the 〈Goryeosa Jeolyo (高麗史節要, Essentials of Goryeo History)〉. The preface and messages in 〈Mokeunmungo(牧隱文藁)〉 were recorded in detail in 「Sega(世家)」 and briefly in the 〈Goryeosa Jeolyo (高麗史節要, Essentials of Goryeo History)〉. Cases where terms such as proclamation(宣旨) and royal messages(勅書) were irregularly changed in the process of converting the content of the anthology into articles in the 「Sega(世家)」 and the 〈Goryeosa Jeolyo (高麗史節要, Essentials of Goryeo History)〉 could be found. The reason for this is considered to be the confusion resulted from frequent changes in the principle of compilation of the ‘Goryeo History’ or the carelessness of compilers.

『高麗史』형법지 禁令 편목의 내용과 성격

김난옥(Kim Nan-ok) 고려사학회 2011 한국사학보 Vol.- No.44

Although contents concerning chronological articles related to prohibitory decrees are evident in both the〈Goryeosa(高麗史, History of Goryeo)〉, 〈Goryeosajeolyo(高麗史節要, Essentials of Goryeo History)〉, there are also many cases in which some chronological articles that appeared in one of these works were omitted from the other. Such omissions included not only simple articles but also long prohibitory decrees boasting many articles. The chronological articles pertaining to prohibitory decrees consisted of various types of documents. Examples included not only edicts (詔), regulations (制), decrees (旨), instructions (敎) and verdicts (判). but also memorials (奏), requests (請), and petitions (上書) to government offices and individuals as well as announcements (榜) and certificates (牒). However, half of these documents were non-prohibitory decrees whose contents did not include any indication of being a particular type of document. The majority of the non-chronological articles were in keeping with Tang Law. Unlike the chronological articles, it is difficult to find similar articles in other historical materials. There were also only a few cases in which these provisions were closely related to the contents of the chronological articles. For the most part, these particular prohibitory decrees tended to focus on such matters as the outbreak of a fire, arson and the slaughtering of horses and cattle. While the non-chronological articles found in the prohibitory decrees of the Criminal Code of 〈Goryeosa(高麗史, History of Goryeo)〉 only featured one provision that started with the term, ‘all (諸),’ every prohibitory decree located in the 〈History of Yuan (元史)〉 began with the term, ‘all (諸)’. While the majority of the prohibitory decrees in the former recorded the penalties to be meted out for criminal actions, only one-third of such entries in the latter included the penalties. It proved difficult to find provisions of the non-chronological articles in the Criminal Code of 〈Goryeosa(高麗史, History of Goryeo)〉 that were directly influenced by Yuan Law. However, there were some instances in which actual prohibitory degrees were conveyed to Goryeo via the imperial edicts of Yuan, the (an Advisory Board to the king), or the Jungseoseong(Chancellery for Internal Affairs) during the period of Yuan Intervention. The prohibitory decrees found in the Criminal Code of 〈Goryeosa(高麗史)〉 should be perceived as highly valuable basic materials with which to analyze the criminal code and policies of Goryeo. However, the wide range of contents included in these decrees meant that they were also dispersed across other articles of the Criminal Code. This can be regarded as the result of the arbitrary division of such entities into various items and articles based on such factors as compilation principles or the whims of the compilers. In this sense, it can be regarded that the Criminal Code of 〈Goryeosa (高麗史)〉 was not compiled based on organized principles of compilation, but rather in an unorganized and flexible manner. However, viewed in another manner, the organic connection that exists with other provisions and articles can be regarded as an important characteristic of the Criminal Code of 〈Goryeosa(高麗史)〉.

『高麗史』형법지 禁令 편목의 내용과 성격

고려사학회 2011 한국사학보 Vol.- No.44

<P>Although contents concerning chronological articles related to prohibitory decrees are evident in both the〈Goryeosa(高麗史, History of Goryeo)〉, 〈Goryeosajeolyo(高麗史節要, Essentials of Goryeo History)〉, there are also many cases in which some chronological articles that appeared in one of these works were omitted from the other. Such omissions included not only simple articles but also long prohibitory decrees boasting many articles.</P><P> The chronological articles pertaining to prohibitory decrees consisted of various types of documents. Examples included not only edicts (詔), regulations (制), decrees (旨), instructions (敎) and verdicts (判). but also memorials (奏), requests (請), and petitions (上書) to government offices and individuals as well as announcements (榜) and certificates (牒). However, half of these documents were non-prohibitory decrees whose contents did not include any indication of being a particular type of document.</P><P> The majority of the non-chronological articles were in keeping with Tang Law. Unlike the chronological articles, it is difficult to find similar articles in other historical materials. There were also only a few cases in which these provisions were closely related to the contents of the chronological articles. For the most part, these particular prohibitory decrees tended to focus on such matters as the outbreak of a fire, arson and the slaughtering of horses and cattle.</P><P> While the non-chronological articles found in the prohibitory decrees of the Criminal Code of 〈Goryeosa(高麗史, History of Goryeo)〉 only featured one provision that started with the term, ‘all (諸),’ every prohibitory decree located in the 〈History of Yuan (元史)〉 began with the term, ‘all (諸)’. While the majority of the prohibitory decrees in the former recorded the penalties to be meted out for criminal actions, only one-third of such entries in the latter included the penalties. It proved difficult to find provisions of the non-chronological articles in the Criminal Code of 〈Goryeosa(高麗史, History of Goryeo)〉 that were directly influenced by Yuan Law. However, there were some instances in which actual prohibitory degrees were conveyed to Goryeo via the imperial edicts of Yuan, the (an Advisory Board to the king), or the Jungseoseong(Chancellery for Internal Affairs) during the period of Yuan Intervention.</P><P> The prohibitory decrees found in the Criminal Code of 〈Goryeosa(高麗史)〉 should be perceived as highly valuable basic materials with which to analyze the criminal code and policies of Goryeo. However, the wide range of contents included in these decrees meant that they were also dispersed across other articles of the Criminal Code. This can be regarded as the result of the arbitrary division of such entities into various items and articles based on such factors as compilation principles or the whims of the compilers. In this sense, it can be regarded that the Criminal Code of 〈Goryeosa (高麗史)〉 was not compiled based on organized principles of compilation, but rather in an unorganized and flexible manner. However, viewed in another manner, the organic connection that exists with other provisions and articles can be regarded as an important characteristic of the Criminal Code of 〈Goryeosa(高麗史)〉.</P>

『高麗史』兵志의 체제와 그 특징

朴胤珍(PARK YUN JIN) 고려사학회 2011 한국사학보 Vol.- No.44

As far as 『Goryeosa(高麗史, history of Korean dynasty)』 says in the introductory remarks, about its documentation system being based on 『Yuanshi (元史, history of Yuan Dynasty)』, the cataloging of Byeongji(military section, 兵志) in 『Goryeosa(高麗史)』 is no exception: Byeongji 1 of the 81th volume(Military System(兵制)) as well as Byeongji 2 of the 82th volume(Suk-wi(宿衛), Jinsu(鎭戍), Cham-yeok(站驛), Majeong(馬政), Dunjeon(屯田)). However, the part of Seongbo(Castles and Fortresses,城堡) which catalogues Goryeo’s distinctive strategy to defend against foreign forces in Byeongji 2, is not found in 『Yuanshi』. The system of Byeongji in 『Goryeosa』 and 『Yuanshi』 is differed. The troops which belong to Suk-wi(宿衛) in Byeongji 2, 『Yuanshi』 are described as rather independent troops in Byeongji 3 『Goryeosa』. And Gansugun(看守軍), Wisukgun(圍宿軍), two of independent troops in Byeongji 3 『Goryeosa』, played the same role as Suk-wi(宿衛) in Byeongji, 『Yuanshi』. They were deployed at Jinjeon(Royal portrait archive, 眞殿) and Neung(Royal tombs, 陵) to protect the places. Originated from 『Yuanshi』, the Wisukgun troop defended the Imperial city when the there was no castle around the city. For example. Wisukgun emblematically surrounded the capital, both inside and outside of castle gates as well as at Jinjeon and Neung. Consequently, Gansu-gun and Wisuk-gun in 『Goryeosa』 came from the low-ranked militaries of Suk-wi in 『Yuanshi』. While the low-ranked militaries of Suk-wi in Yuanshi were temporarily organized, Gansugun and Wisukgun in 『Goryeosa』 were regular troops and hence. organized as the separated troops to Suk-wi. In the meantime, 『Goryeosa』 recorded that Gansugun and Wisukgun were the troops during Injong era, in order to fulfill the principle of cataloging based on the record from Injong and Euijong era as well as referring to Sangjeonggogeumrae(詳定古今禮), Sikmoksupyeonrok (式目編修錄) and miscellanea, since the introductory remarks of 『Goryeosa』 had insufficient reference data. The narrative principle of 『Goryeosa』, according to its editor. was supposed to follow the system of 『Yuanshi』 and refer to Sangjeonggogeumrae. In this study, the analysis of system and contents of 『Yuanshi』 demonstrated their effort to follow the principle of the introductory remarks. 『Goryeosa』 is differentiated with 『Yuanshi』 in terms of reflecting the distinctiveness of Goyro Dynasty.

『高麗史』 五行志의 체재와 내용 : 自然災害의 발생추세를 중심으로

이정호(Lee Jung-ho) 고려사학회 2011 한국사학보 Vol.- No.44

Basically Goryeosa(高麗史) Ohaengji(五行志) make it a rule to accept the format of Wonsa(元史) Ohaengji. But the former didn’t follow the latter unilaterally. On the one hand two texts have a lot in common such as format and articles, on the other hand they have some differences. For example reflecting the reality of the Occurrences of Natural Disasters, Goryeosa Ohaengji has different contents and articles comparing the Wonsa Ohaengji. Besides some articles of Goryeosa Ohaengji follow the other chines history texts such as Songsa(宋史), Sindangseo(新唐書) etc. Goryeosa Ohaengji has several values as historical material. because there are some contents that is not found in other texts. But sometimes it has some problems such as omission and repeating of records. It is assumed that the reason of omission and repeating of records have caused by several correcting process during compiling the Goryeosa. Sometimes such problems have occurred when deciding whether or not to record the Occurrences of Natural Disasters. Because of the belief of the interaction between heaven and man(天人感應), occasionally the records of the Occurrences of Natural Disasters have omitted or exaggerated by the political explanation. This study analyzed long-term trends of the Occurrences of Natural Disasters in Coryeo Dynasty through Goryeosa Ohaengji. Analysis shows that especially the records of Natural Disasters increased in the early 12th century and late 14th century. However it was also found that the records of extraordinary phenomena(災異) was increased in some periods. For example the records of extraordinary phenomena was increased in the periods such as military coup d’etate(武臣政變), seizure of political power by Choi Chung-heon(崔忠獻), the war with Mongol, the beginning of Mongol Intervention(元干涉), middle and late period of King Chungryeol(忠烈王). These are the typical periods of the social changes in Goryeo Dynasty, so the increase of the extraordinary phenomena are regarded as the addition of the records by the political explanation.

『高麗史』와 『高麗史節要』의 修史方式 비교

이정란(Lee Jung-Ran) 고려사학회 2013 한국사학보 Vol.- No.52

This paper examined historiographic methods of Goryeosa and Goryeosageolyo based on records on King Yejong(睿宗)’s Decrees. Compared to Goryeosa in which terms that may be used only by the emperor were maintained based on King Sejong(世宗)’s principle of not distorting history, Goryeosageolyo changed terms like Jega(制可), Joga(詔可), and Chingbun(稱蕃). However, such changes were not merely confined to partial and minor changes of terms. In fact, such changes were crucial so as to prescribe the overall characteristics of Goryeosageolyo. Like Goryeosa, Goryeosageolyo retained terms related to the emperor so as that the existence of a world view centered on China based on justification of Neo-Confucianism may be denied. In fact, the reason why terms like Jo (詔), Je(制), Taeja(太子), and Taehu(太后 ; Empress Dowager) were kept in Goryeosageolyo was just a product made to lower the possibility of misreading or to adhere to the King’s orders in descriptive or political terms. Therefore, with only the fact that Goryeosageolyo maintained the terms it cannot be evaluated as a history book which attained the same level of principle of not distorting history as that of Goryeosa. Rather, the fact that Jega and Joga were changed into Jongji(從之) displays that Goryeosageolyo was a history book which intended to achieve a world view centered on China based on Sung confucian justification.

『高麗史』「辛禑傳」의 편찬방식과 자료적 성격

이정란 고려사학회 2012 한국사학보 Vol.- No.48

People of the Joseon dynasty recorded King Woo(禑王) not in the Benji(Basic Annals. 本紀) of Goryeosa(History of Goryeo, 高麗史), but in the biographies(列傳), suggesting that he was not a son of King Gongmin(恭愍王), but a son of Shindon (辛旽) the traitor, so he took the throne illegally. In other words, they made it clear that they downgraded the reign of King Woo(禑王) through recording it not in the Benji(本紀), but in the biographies under the cause of defeating the traitor. Therefore, the very existence of ‘Shinwoojeon[辛禑傳]’ was an example of how the people of the Joseon dynasty interpreted the history of the Goryeo dynasty by their own interests. However, no one has ever tried to take an analysis of the contents and structure of ‘Shinwoojeon[辛禑傳]’. Therefore. this study aimed at learning the characteristics and values of ‘Shinwoojeon[辛禑傳]’ as the historical material and reviewing the historical values of Goryeosa(高麗史), as a chronicle by studying the printing methods in-depth and comparing the styles of the Benji(本紀) and the biographies. The results of our study are as follows. The producers of ‘Shinwoojeon’ made every endeavor to maximize the visual and immediate effects of the biography by using various techniques like using the name of King Woo directly in the biography, not using the name of King Woo directly in the biography, not using any classification method on the record of King Woo, and not using the date of the record as much as possible. On the other hand, they devised various and detailed ways of making the biographies like not using the obituary(卒記), using compressed sentences, selecting and placing words, and which made ‘shinwoojeon’ more perfect as a biography than its model, ‘Wangmang-jeon’(the biography of Wangmang, 王莽傳). However, with its the structure of the biography, ‘shinwoojeon[辛禑傳]’ still has elements of the Benji(本紀) such the records of natural disasters and obituary(卒記), using succinct style of writing, arrangement of articles by time, and detailed information, making it an usual kind of record.

『英烈琴相國集』을 중심으로 본 조선후기 가계기록류의 『高麗史』 이해와 해명 방식

박윤진 고려사학회 2019 한국사학보 Vol.- No.74

Geum Ui, who played an active part in the age of the Goryeo military regime, was a problematic person in terms of the virtue ‘Chastity and Righteousness’ of the Joseon Dynasty. However, the descendants, who tried to bring honor to their families and confirm the time-honouredness of their families through family records, could not conceal Geum Ui who served as a high ranking official in the Goryeo Dynasty. Thus, they needed an excuse for him. The disgrace of Geum Ui had to be removed in order to bring honor to Bonghwa Geum clan. The descendants asked Ahn Jeongbok, a writer of 『Dongsagangmok』, to write the preface of 『Yeongryeol-geum- sangguk-jip』 and made an excuse for them through Ahn Jeongbok’s writing. Ahn Jeongbok had a critical view on the existing 『Goryeo-sa (“the History of Goryeo”)』, lacking in personal criticism. Therefore, he was the right person to deny the acts of Geum Ui recorded in 『Goryeo- sa』. In the preface, Ahn Jeongbok evaluated 『Goryeo-sa』 as filthy history and criticized the existing writing of history by mentioning Yi Hwang to support his view. Based on the writing of Jinhwa, the contents of 『Bohanjip』, and the poem of Kim In-kyung, Ahn Jeongbok, who emphasized historical investigation, revealed that the public estimation of Geum Ui having been a greedy person and a flatterer to Choi Chung-heon was wrong. However, the writing of Jin Hwa, which contained his poems and act records, lacked in credibility because they were made to excuse the acts of Jin Hwa. Geum Ui’s couplets with Hwang Bo-gwan, his disciple who was sent into exile with Geum Ui’s accusation, showed quite a time gap between the exile and banquet. In the process where Hwangbo Gwan returned to office and served as a governmental official, he needed to reconcile with Geum Ui and have his support. Thus, Hwangbo Gwan exchanged poems with Geum Ui in banquets notwithstanding his exile. Kim In-gyeong, who was the uncle of Hwangbo Gwan, served as a high ranking official in the reign of King Gojong and wrote a poem that mourned the death of Geum Ui. This shows that the relationship between Kim In-gyeong・Hwangbo Gwan and Geum Ui improved. 조선후기의 가계기록류는 종법의식의 강화 속에서 가문의 世系를 정리하고 그들의 자료를 수집하여 해당 가문의 현창을 목적으로 만들어졌다. 이때 『高麗史』와 같은 역사서에서 확인되는 고위직의 조상은 가문의 역사와 영광을 드러낼 수 있는 좋은 존재였다. 그러나 諸臣傳이 아니라 嬖幸・姦臣・叛逆傳에 立傳되어 있다거나 조선시대의 관점에서 부정적인 활동이 기록되어 있다면 이는 자랑이 아니라 흠결이 될 수 있었다. 가계기록류는 가문의 유구함을 보여주기 위해 이러한 하자가 있는 조상을 포기하지 못했고 그들의 활동에 대한 변명이나 미화를 시도했다. 『高麗史』의 공정성을 부정하는 시각, 『高麗史』 찬자인 정인지나 정도전에 대한 비난, 구체적인 세평에 대한 변명 등이 있었으며 자신들의 주장을 安鼎福・李滉・李廷龜・金宗直 등과 같은 명망있는 인물의 언급으로 뒷받침하면서 자신들의 주장에 근거로 삼기도 했다. 『英烈琴相國集』의 방식도 다른 가계기록의 서술 방향과 유사했다. 『東史綱目』의 저자인 안정복에게 서문을 부탁하고 그의 글을 통해 금의에 대한 ‘伸寃’을 시도했다. 안정복은 기존의 『高麗史』에 대해 褒貶 등이 부족하다는 비판적인 시각을 가지고 있었던 인물이었던 만큼 『高麗史』에 기록된 금의의 행적을 부정해줄 수 있는 합당한 사람이었다. 안정복은 『英烈琴相國集』의 서문을 통해, 『高麗史』를 穢史라고 평가하고 이황의 언급을 인용해서 기존의 역사 서술을 비난하며 자신의 견해를 뒷받침했다. 또한 고증을 중요시했던 안정복은 陳澕의 筆記, 『補閑集』의 내용, 김인경의 시를 근거로 금의가 탐욕스러웠으며 최충헌에게 아부한 자라는 세평이 잘못된 것임을 드러내었다. 그러나 진화의 필기는 實紀類로 역시 진화의 행적에 대한 변명을 위해 만들어진 자료였기 때문에 신빙성이 떨어진다. 금의의 고발로 유배를 갔던 그의 문생 皇甫瓘과의 聯句는 유배와 연회가 시간적인 간격이 꽤 있었다는 점을 들어 두 가지 일이 모두 있었을 것이라고 지적했다. 또 황보관이 복직하고 관료생활을 계속하는 과정에서 금의와의 화해와 지지가 필요했으므로 유배에도 불구하고 연회에서 금의와 시를 주고받을 수 있었다고 설명해 보았다. 황보관의 숙부인 김인경이 고종 때 고위직의 관료였을 뿐 아니라 그가 금의의 죽음을 슬퍼하는 시를 지었던 것에서도 김인경・황보관과 금의의 관계가 봉합되었다고 이해되었다.

고려 현종대 羅城 축조 과정에 관한 연구

김회윤(Kim Hoe-Yun) 고려사학회 2014 한국사학보 Vol.- No.55

고려시대 개경의 나성은 군사적?행정적인 측면에서 중요한 건축물이었다. 이러한 의미에도 불구하고 지금까지 나성의 축조 과정은 명확하게 밝혀지지 않았다. 나성의 시축시점을, 『고려사』현종세가?지리지는 현종 즉위년으로『고려사』강감찬전?『고려사절요』는 현종 11년 이후로 언급하고 있지만 이 문제를 구체적으로 해명한 연구가 없었기 때문이다. 이 글은 이러한 점을 유념하며 나성의 축조 과정을 분명하게 밝혀보고자 한다. 『고려사』는 原典선정을 엄격히 하였고 史料集의 성격을 가지고 있다. 여기에서 이 책에 기록된 사료들의 신뢰성을 확인할 수 있다. 한편, 『고려사절요』는 『고려사』를 편년으로 줄이는 데 목적이 있던 책이었다. 따라서 두 책에 기록된 나성의 축조 과정과 관련한 기록들은 우선 사실로서 수용되어야 한다. 그런 다음, 당대의 여러 정황과 함께 검토될 필요성이 있다. 검토 결과 나성의 축조 과정은 현종 즉위년의 시축, 거란의 침입 등으로 인한 축성 중단, 현종 11년 강감찬의 재축조 건의, 현종 20년 완공으로 정리된다. 현종 즉위년에 나성이 시축된 까닭은, 목종 12년의 정변으로 인한 거란의 침입을 예상한 강조가 전쟁과정 중에서 개경이 위험해 질 수 있음을 예측하였기 때문이었다. 한편, 현종 11년에 강감찬이 나성의 재축조를 건의한 배경은 다음과 같다. 강감찬은 현종 11년에 조성된 고려-거란 간의 평화적 관계를 안정적으로 인식하지 않았다. 그는 거란의 재차침입을 우려하였고, 그것을 대비하기 위한 방안으로 나성의 재축조를 건의하였다. 하지만 당시 고려는 전쟁에 지친 民을 안정시키고자 하였기에 축성을 곧바로 시작할 수 없었다. 이에 따라 현종은 직접적인 축성을 후일로 미루고 우선 왕가도에게 축성계획을 명하였다. 왕가도는 현종 15년 이전 어느 시점에 나성의 재축조를 시작하였다.