http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : 구범진 ( Bum Jin Koo ) (검색결과 11 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
-
구범진 ( Bum Jin Koo ) 서울대학교 인문학연구원 2013 인문논총 Vol.70 No.-
In 1780 a Choson embassy led by Pak Myongwon was invited to visit Chengde, or Yorha, and honor Qianlong`s seventy-sui birthday. A detailed record of this embassy is provided in Pak Chiwon`s Yorha ilgi, where Pak describes the encounter between the Choson emissaries and the Panchen Lama in great detail. To date, Pak`s Yorha ilgi has been read as a faithful historical record and a disinterested account of the Choson emissaries` experiences in Chengde. However, when we compare Pak`s account with various other historical records of his time, it becomes clear that Yorha ilgi is far from an objective account. The famous account of the statues of Buddha is a case in point. Pak Myongwon and his fellow emissaries received the statues from the Panchen Lama as gifts. They interpreted the statues as gifts given upon Qianlong`s orders. Consequently, they decided to carry them all the way back to Choson where they were severely criticized for violating the strict Neo-Confucian injunctions against Buddhism. Pak`s Yorha ilgi was written in defense of Pak Myongwon`s actions in the face of this political criticism. In Yorha ilgi, Pak argues that the encounter with the Panchen Lama took place under circumstances far beyond Pak Myongwon`s control. A close reading of Yorha ilgi alongside other historical documents reveals that Pak Chiwon deliberately blurs the line between eyewitness account and second-hand report by leading his readers to confuse the date of a significant event in which Qianlong met the Panchen Lama in public. As a minor figure who was not endowed with diplomatic powers, Pak Chiwon was absent from many of the events he reported on. Yorha ilgi should not be read at face value, as if it were an objective historical record, but in historical context alongside other historical documents.
-
-
-
구범진 ( Bum Jin Koo ) 한국중국학회 2002 중국학보 Vol.45 No.-
本文考察晩淸宣統年間中央與地方機構對于直??口北地區的監利的權力競爭及其對該地區??務變化的影響. 淸廷于康熙6年新說宣引, 試圖擴大在口北的蘆監行鎖, 但在康熙29-30年不得不行使停引包課和改食????的政策. 此後, 無課之籃的蒙籃在口北地區的自由行鎖取得完全的合理性. 但是, 察哈爾和直隸的地方政府因新政而劇增的財政需要, 試圖控制中央政府已放棄210餘年的口北??利. 分別于光緖27年和29年設立察蘆和直課, 委託口北督鎖局包辦口北地區的蒙籃行鎖, 致使口北地區的蒙??自由行鎖狀態終決. 察哈爾和直隸的地方政府逐年??增由口北督鎖局的包商(王內節和李錫麟)包交的??利, 至光緖34年察蘆和直課的當年合計數已達白銀116,000兩. 光緖34年以後, 口北地區的??務發生劇變. 該年, 淸廷實行通行加價. 察哈爾都統??門爲了使通行加價所穫??利最大化, 決定設立加價局, 自辦加價??利的徵收. 同年, 因蒙??進口量的劇減, 口北督鎖局的包商李錫麟無法維持經營而棄業. 察哈爾都統??門乘機回收察??的徵收權利, 設立????局自辦察??徵收. 此外, 因蒙旗王公憂??京張鐵路開通可能帶來的蘆??侵??, 以及已出現的客民參與蒙??運送所引發的治安問題, 蒙旗王公要求察哈爾都統采取相應對策. 而察哈爾都統??門以??款爲由, 設立蒙??公司而??斷??利. 蒙??公司的設立途致察哈爾與直隸在??利問題上産生糾葛. 察哈爾要求直隸禁止鐵路運送蘆??進入口北地區, 但直隸認爲口北地區的延慶州??堡本屬蘆??鎖地, 因此鐵路輸送蘆??至此地是應該的. 不勤于此, 而且直隸反過來要求察哈爾禁止蒙??在該地的行鎖. 口北督鎖局意識途蒙??公司嚴重威脅到他門的??利, ??請直隸??督阻止蒙??公司的設立. 爲此, 察哈爾蒙??公司與口北督鎖局就口北督鎖局的旣得??利??定協議, 與直隸在??利上達成妥協. 但是, 在蒙??公司設立之後, ??價??昇. 因此口北地區的??民請求順直諮議局通過取消蒙??公司的決議. 宣統元年10越, 數月前才批准蒙??公司成立的度支部鑒于直隸對蒙??公司的反對, 出人意料地決定停辦蒙??公司. 至此, 察哈爾通過蒙??公司??斷??利的企圖夭折. 通過??斷蒙??約2,500萬斤的年鎖??量, 蒙??公司每年獲利可預達約白銀數十萬兩. 蒙??公司停辦不久, 淸廷爲强化中央對??政的控制, 擴大中央財政收入而新說的督辦籃政處注意, 到原蒙??公司控制監利的辦法. 于是, 督辦??政處于宣統2年3月在口北地區設立蒙??官??. 從而直接于預康熙以來已放棄的口北??利, 介入察哈爾與直隸在口北??利上的糾紛. 蒙??官??的設立直接引發了口北民衆的창??暴動. 因此, 督辦??政處撤鎖了蒙??官??, 병與直隸省及其所屬的長蘆運司商議, 決定在口北地區導入蒙??引岸制度, 由長蘆運司管理. 與此同時, 督辦??政處責令察哈爾撤鎖加價局化??蘆局, 將加價, 察??直接徵收權移交長蘆運司. 至此, 原由察哈爾控制的口北??利轉由直隸控制, 而前者是以蒙旗爲背景, 後者則以中央爲後盾. 引岸制度的法定??價比口北地區過去的??價有所下降. 但據筆者計算, 蒙??每斤所承擔的??稅却有所增加. 如果口北引商遵守法定??價, 同時??納規定的各項稅款, 那마, 蒙??的進價理應壓低, 蒙??的供給就可能成爲問題. 事實上, 蒙旗王公拒??關于蒙??供給的合同. 口北引商何福咸破産以後, 口北引岸改爲官辦引岸, 但繼續承受蒙??拒絶供給的困難. 運司希望借運蘆??來渡過危機. 但是, 蒙旗對此進行了堅決的抵止. 宣統3年11月, 淸政恢復察哈爾蒙??公司, 終止引岸制度. 這一決定使口北??務的主導權再次有蒙旗, 察哈爾掌握. 淸廷對蒙旗的這一讓步也許與南方各省爆發的革命有所關聯.
-
-
-
丘凡眞(Koo Bum-jin) 역사교육연구회 2005 역사교육 Vol.94 No.-
This article is written to call public attention to the existence of confusion and errors in dating historical events, which we can easily find among the various kinds of historical works, especially school text books. and to urge Korean historians to start to discuss how to fix these confusion and errors. It seems that many scholars of Korean history, when writing their books and papers, do not pay enough attention to the difference between the Gregorian calendar, which is a solar calendar and the calendaric scheme now hegemonic in the world and the lunar calendars, which were hegemonic in the East Asia, including Korea, until the time when the East Asian countries put into effect calendar reforms one after another in the modem era. Owing to this lack of attention, many Korean historians tend to simply quote the number of the month and that of the date of a historical events just as the primary sources indicate, without converting the lunar calendaric date to the Gregorian calendaric one. And this in turn misleads the readers of Korean histories to accept them as if they were the month and the date of the Gregorian system. To make matters worse, the school text books, currently used for the education of high school students, employs the two different dating systems without any explanation. In the worst cases, some of them. when it is necessary to quote the month and/or the date of a event, use the lunar calendaric date for one event here and use the Gregorian calendaric date for another event there. This kind of confusion and some chronological errors, found in some of the school text books but not mentioned here, could cause our young students to fail to locate historical events in the right chronological order. I think that now we should start to discuss how to fix these problems before it is too late.
-
-
KCI연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
