Earticle

Home 검색결과

결과 내 검색

발행연도

-

학문분야

자료유형

간행물

검색결과

검색조건
검색결과 : 176
No
1

콘스탄티누스 기진장의 작성목적

이경구

한국서양중세사학회 서양중세사연구 제11호 2003.03 pp.27-59

※ 기관로그인 시 무료 이용이 가능합니다.

The Donation of Constantine has been regarded as the most famous forgery of the entire MiddJe Ages. The document seemed to be forged according to the thorough program of the papaJ curia in the middJe eighth century. The author fabricated the document for the purposes as follows. First, the Donation purported to confirm that Roman Catholic religion is orthodoxy. The Roman Church suffered a lot of difficulties due to the Arius heresy of Lombards and the iconoclasm of the Constantinople church. The author wanted to secure the dogmas of the Roman Church to be orthodoxy instead of the heresies. Second, the Donation intended to secure the primacy of the Roman Church. The papacy hoped to unification of the Christian faith under the initiative of the Roman Church holding back rival churches such as the Byzantine church. The desire of the papal curia was echoed in the document. Third, the Donation was fabricated as an evidence of the papacy’s temporal right in Italy including the city of Rome. The Byzantine emperors had claimed their rights to rule the Italian peninsula as the legal successors of the ancient Roman emperors. The curia was in dire need of an evidence for the secular rulership in Italy instead of the Byzantine Empire. The evidence was also required against the Franks because they could claim their rights to the Italian territory once they subjugated Lombards in the north Italy. Fourth, the eventual purpose of the document was to endow the papacy with the rights to dominate the whole world. That was why the author let Constantine confer the whole empire on Silverter. Thus, the Donation was produced by the ambitious program of the papal curia. Through the mouth of Constantine, the author filled the document with the intention of the papacy. The document exactly reflected the Roman Church ’s ideology to enhance the papal authority and justify the papal govemment. Consequently, the Donation was boththe collection of the papal theories in the past and the expression of a desíre to acquíre papal rights ín the future.

7,500원

2

콘스탄티누스 기진장의 작성시기

이경구

한국서양중세사학회 서양중세사연구 제14호 2004.09 pp.1-36

※ 기관로그인 시 무료 이용이 가능합니다.

When was written the Donation of Constantine known as a typical spurious document in history? A thousands of scholars have exerted themselves to trace the written date of the document since it was first exposed as a forgery by Lorenzo Valla in 1440. As the result of their efforts, there is gradually emerging a consensus that the famous forgery was fabricated between the pontificates of StephenⅡ and PaulⅠ. The purpose of this essay is a little more to narrow the gap of the date alleged by scholars. The pontificate of Stephen was at a serious crisis in the history of papal curia. Aistulf, Lombard king, put pressure on the surrounding areas of the City of Rome with a design to occupy the whole peninsula of Italy after he had finished conquering the Exarchate of Ravenna. Stephen asked for the Byzantine Emperor's aid but the Emperor could not provide him with military assistance because he had to defend himself against the attack of the Arabs and the Bulgars. Nobody would willingly offer to help the pope except the Franks. For the first time as a pope, in 754 Stephen set out on his difficult journey over the Alps to the palace of Pippin for aids of the Franks. This essay analyzed the events which occurred in Frankish Kingdom during the period of Stephanus's visit and dug out meanings implied in a series of events, for example, Pippin's manner as a bridegroom, Stephen's request for mutual alliance and the restitution of the Exarchate, pope's anointing Pippin and his two sons kings, his giving them the title of patricius, so-called donation of Pippin and so on. As the result, this essay confirmed that the events exactly reflected the contents and ideas of the Donation of Constantine. Therefore it can surely be said that the Donation was forged in papal curia right before Stephen's journey to the Frankish Kingdom in 754.

7,900원

3

5,100원

4

프리드리히 바바롯사의 제국 이념

이경구

전북사학회 전북사학 제21ㆍ22합집 1999.12 pp.507-522

※ 기관로그인 시 무료 이용이 가능합니다.

4,900원

5

조한욱 저 : 문화로 보면 역사가 달라진다

이경구

대동사학회 대동사학 제2집 2003.12 pp.119-136

※ 기관로그인 시 무료 이용이 가능합니다.

5,200원

6

5,100원

8

5,200원

9

4,000원

10

‘학(學)’에서 ‘주의(主義)’로 – 이이와 송시열의 경서 이해

이경구

한림대학교 태동고전연구소 태동고전연구 제40집 2018.06 pp.65-84

※ 원문제공기관과의 협약에 따라 모든 이용자에게 무료로 제공됩니다.

이이와 송시열의 연계는 의식, 학문, 신념 등의 여러 차원에서 따져야 의미가 있다. 이이는 성리 이론을 천착한 학자이자 사회 개혁을 역설한 정치가였다. 유학에서 보편적이었던 개념과 그 개념들의 원천이었던 경전에 대해 이이는 개성이 넘치고 현실에 충실한 해석과 정책을 선 보였다. 그에 비해 송시열은 학문과 현실, 역사와 자연, 과거와 미래가 일관하는 신념 체계를 구축했고, 이를 통해 내부와 외부의 타자에 대한 판단을 정당화하였다. 두 사람은 ‘학문과 정책’ 그리고 ‘주의(主義)와 이념’이란 선에서 다른 방향으로 서 있었다. 이후 두 경향은 엇갈렸다. 호론은 송시열을 따라 춘추대의를 만고불변의 가치로 고수했지만, 낙론은 이이 스타일의 학문 회복을 희망하였다. 그들은 송시열의 업적을 의리 실현에 국한하고 학문의 계승은 이이에서 김창협으로 연결하였다. 주자학에 대한 두 흐름은 현재의 문화다원적 가치론의 정립에 시사하 는 바가 크다.
The link between Yi I and Song Siyeol is meaningful in many dimensions including consciousness, learning, and belief. Yi I was a scholar who searched for the philosophy of Neo-Confucianism and a politician who emphasized social reform. About the universal concepts of Confucianism and the sources of those, Yi I presented a creative interpretation and realistic policies. In contrast, Song Si-yeol established a belief system in which academic and reality, history and nature, and the past and future are consistent, justifying judgment on internal and external opponents. The two stood apart in terms of ‘academic and policy’ and ‘principle and ideology’. Since then, the two trends have changed even more. Horon who stuck to Song Siyeol insisted on Chunchudaeui as absolute value, but Nakron hoped to restore the style of Yi I. They limited Song's achievements to the realization of Daeui and connected the succession of Confucianism Studies from Yi I to Kim Changhyup.

12

레오 3세의 성상파괴 -파괴의 정도와 범위

이경구

한국서양중세사학회 서양중세사연구 제28호 2011.09 pp.79-100

※ 기관로그인 시 무료 이용이 가능합니다.

The acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 787 declared that the cult of images was a part of the Byzantine Orthodox while iconoclasm was condemned as behaviors deviated from the Byzantine religious tradition. Thereafter most of the literatures that had supported the theories of iconoclasts was thoroughly destroyed and only the writings recorded in accordance with viewpoints of champions of iconoclastic controversy survived. Later scholars had no choice but to study the subjects related to iconoclasm on the basis of the literatures that chiefly reflected the position of iconophiles and iconoclasts consequently came to be regarded as very evil and heretic people who denied the tradition of Byzantine Orthodox. Especially LeoⅢ who first took the measures of removing the holy images from the Byzantine churches has been regarded as the forerunner and leader of Byzantine iconoclasm by most of scholars. They criticized unfavorably Emperor Leo as a destroyer who eliminated holy images and a persecutor who inflicted severe punishment on many people hostile to his religious policy throughout his whole reign after he officially issued an imperial edict for the destruction of the holy images in 726. But these understandings of LeoⅢ were wrong because they were based on the distorted views of Byzantine iconodules and on the biased interpretations of later scholars. It was not true that Leo issued an official edict of iconoclasm in 726. Evidences on the imperial edict are never found in any writings of representative iconodules such as Theophanes or Nicephorus. And so-called "the Event of Chalké Gate" which has been known as the starting point of iconoclasm was not true but only an event forged by the icondules to emphasize the destructive behavior of Leo. It may be accepted that Leo took some significant measures to prohibit the use of the sacred images in the churches of Constantinople, but it did not mean that he destroyed holy images in whole Empire extensively and thoroughly. The measures of prohibiting images was partial and the extent of iconoclasm was also limited to the city of Constantinople. Therefore Leo was at least not such a cruel destroyer as iconodules had blamed. It was natural that rebellions against iconoclasm of Leo did not break out throughout the empire because iconoclasm did not take place in the whole empire. Of course there were various disputes on the dogmas of images between clergy but the extent of confusion was not so much serious as it split people of the empire into several factions. The interpretations that regional soldiers of Hellas and Italy made rebellions against Emperor Leo on account of their discontents with iconoclasm were far from the truth. The substantial cause of the rebellions was not because of religious reasons but because of the problems of heavy taxes which were imposed on people of the regions by the emperor. Persecution to the opposers to the imperial religious policy was naturally not severe because extent of opposition was not so much serious as it brought down political disorder on the whole empire.

5,800원

13

교황 그레고리우스 2세: 충성스런 신하인가, 치밀한 혁명가인가

이경구

한국서양중세사학회 서양중세사연구 제25호 2010.03 pp.1-32

※ 기관로그인 시 무료 이용이 가능합니다.

Pope GregoryⅡ: Loyal Subject or Drastic Revolutionary? Kyung-Koo Lee Pope GregoryⅡ was a typical revolutionary when we define a revolution as a daring attempt to explore ways toward epochal changes. In order to achieve his final object, Gregory extremely made a struggle against Byzantine Emperor LeoⅢ who tried to deprive him of his papal position and then at last to kill him. In this attitude, we can see his appearance as a bold revolutionary. When a serious conflict between the Pope and the Emperor broke owing to the problems of heavy taxes and iconoclasm, Gregory instigated Italians to make a overall resistance to the Byzantine Empire. The Pope was a prominent politician who could transmute the economic problem of taxation and the religious problem of iconoclasm into political issues. He made Italians realize that Italy is not a province of Byzantine Empire but an independent, autonomous community. His political leadership, that is, awoke Italians to their national consciousness. We can also see his attitude as a able revolutionary in that he concentrated on the energy of Italian people and used it to accomplish the ultimate aim of establishment of papal power in Italy. Based on the active support of Italians, GregoryⅡ made the Roman Church independent from the oppression of Byzantine Emperor. He became a true head of the Western Church because the Roman Church got out of the restraint of the Byzantine Church. As a natural consequence it follows that Caesaro-Papism of Byzantine Emperor began to lose its significance in reality. Thus, acting as a defender of the interest of Italians, Gregory gained their enthusiastic support and achieved his aim eventually. On that point, we can see an appearance of a revolutionary from him. GregoryⅡ also took an active hand in the political affair of Italy. He not only excluded the political intervention of Byzantines in Italy but also prevented Lombards from establishing a united kingdom in Italian peninsula. He proved himself an able politician using the papal power at one time and using the negotiation with his rivals at other times. By various means, he prevented one powerful force from grasping whole Italy, and then tried to hold himself the political scene of the peninsula eventually. He layed a firm foundation for turning the world order of the past centered on Byzantine Emperors into the new order centered on the Papacy. In short, he was an drastic revolutionary who opened a new chapter of the church history. (Chonbuk National University / kklee@jbnu.ac.kr)

7,300원

15

신성로마제국의 출발점에 관하여

이경구

한국서양중세사학회 서양중세사연구 제13호 2004.03 pp.69-98

※ 기관로그인 시 무료 이용이 가능합니다.

Many scholars have researched on the Holy Roman Empire, the typical medieval political community. The researchers have examined various subjects such as the policies and thoughts of the Emperors who ruled the Empire, the political and religious conflicts between Emperors and Popes, and the characters and significance of the Empire as an institute. In spite of their ardent studies on the Empire, researchers have overlooked the very important subject related to the starting point of the Empire. Most of historians in this country have regarded the coronation of Otto the Great in 962 as the beginning of the Holy Roman Empire. But in case of foreign historians, about half of them saw the coronation of Charlemagne in 800 as the starting point of the Empire, while the rest tended to see the year 962 as the beginning. I found that these two views could not be compatible and should be unified. This is the main reason that I selected this subject in this paper. This paper compared the characters of the Empire of Chralemagne with that of the Empire of Otto the Great in order to present an answer on this issue. This study first revealed the Empire of Charlemagne to be the first unique medieval empire which held universal characters, Roman and Christian. This paper subsequently examined the nature of the Empire of Otto the Great on the ground of the theories of the scholars who insisted that the history of the Holy Roman Empire had started from the coronation of Otto in 962. The true nature of the Empire of Otto was also both a Roman and a Christian Empire with universal characters. In short, as a consequence of the comparison of two Empires, this paper concluded that the Empire of Otto was ideologically and theoretically an extension of that of Charlemagne. Therefore it seems to be reasonable that the starting point of the Holy Roman Empire should be fixed as the coronation of Charlemagne in 800.

7,000원

16

5,800원

17

5,500원

18

프리드리히 바바롯사의 황제권 이론

이경구

한국서양중세사학회 서양중세사연구 제2호 1997.12 pp.53-75

※ 기관로그인 시 무료 이용이 가능합니다.

6,000원

20

중세 서유럽인들의 비잔티움 타자화: 800년 샤를마뉴의 황제 대관식 사건을 중심으로

이경구

한국서양중세사학회 서양중세사연구 제23호 2009.03 pp.1-30

※ 기관로그인 시 무료 이용이 가능합니다.

Pope LeoⅢ crowned Charlemagne Emperor of the Romans at the church of St Peter on 25 December 800. Charlemagne's imperial coronation was initiated by the pope who hoped to acquire a powerful advocate for the Roman Church by promoting the strong king to Emperor of the Romans. Under the guardianship of Charlemagne the pope intended to emancipate the Roman Church from the Byzantine one and finally exclude the interference of the Byzantine Emperors in affairs of the Church. The event of 800 caused Westerners to create a new Empire which was different from not only the Byzantine but also the old Roman. The new Empire of Charlemagne seemed to be the Roman Empire because he outwardly acceded to the throne as a Roman Emperor. But his crown was holy as he became an Emperor through the mediation of a pope according to the will of God. With the coronation of Charlemagne, therefore, the Holy Roman Empire was born in the West. The event of 800 was the turning point in the European history. Historically the Byzantine Empire had been the only one that has legitimately succeeded to the ancient Roman Empire and Byzantine Emperor had been the only legal head of the Church as well as the Empire based on Caesaro-Papism. The coronation of 800, however, resulted in critical changes in relationship between the East and the West: politically, the one Empire was divided two because a new Empire appeared in the West; economically, the Roman Church was able to possess the territories in the Italian peninsula, freeing itself from byzantine bondage; religiously, the papacy at last achieved the final purpose of emancipation of the Roman Church from the Byzantine Church, resulting in the separation the Roman Catholic Church from the Greek Orthodox Church. Both the papacy and the Holy Roman Emperors successfully tried to degrade all kinds of Byzantine values after the event of 800. They asserted that the Western Empire instead of the Byzantine one was the legal one. They also regarded Greek Orthodox as heresy and raised Roman Catholic to the position of Orthodox religion. They went further to admire highly Western civilization to be brilliant whereas Eastern one barbarous. These ideas of medieval traditions were succeeded to the modern western world in which Western Europeans have discriminated against Eastern Europe to be undeveloped, barbarous, and disordered world, while considered Western Europe developed, civilized, and stable world. Thus Westerners described Easterners in a negative view under the base of their superiority and imagination. In short, such bias of Westerners against Easterners started from the event of the imperial coronation of Charlemagne in 800.

7,000원

 
1 2 3 4 5
페이지 저장