『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.

『高麗史節要』와 『高麗史』 「世家」의 여진 관계 기사 기재 방식

이진한 고려사학회 2024 한국사학보 Vol.- No.97

고려사절요 와 동일 연월의 고려사 「세가」의 기사를 비교 대조하면서 글자, 자구, 문장, 분량, 서술 방식 등과 같은 기재 방식의 공통점과 차이점을 구체적으로 살펴보았다. 고려사절요 의 찬자가 어떻게 고려사 와 다른 사서를 만들고자 했는지 설명하고, 「범례」에서 밝히지 않은 ‘숨은’ 기재 원칙을 찾아냈다. 고려사절요 가 가장 많이 사용한 ‘節要’의 방식은 「세가」의 기사를 일부를 빼거나 생략하는 것이었다. 여러 부분을 교묘하게 조금씩 생략하여 대의는 「세가」와 크게 다르지 않게 만들었으며 생략 부분이 많을 때는 문구를 追補하여 뜻이 잘 통하게 해주었다. 절요 에서는 중요한 기사를 수록하면서도 내용을 압축하여 핵심만 담았고, 이 기재의 원칙은 ‘여진 관계’ 뿐 아니라 다양한 분야에 적용되었다. 여진 관계 기사를 절요 와 「세가」를 비교해보건대, 절요 에 수록된 건 수는 「세가」와 비슷하지만, 분량을 고려하여 사실을 빼거나 줄인 것이 많아서 사실의 구체성은 「세가」에 비해 낮았다. 그리고 절요 는 간지를 적지 않고 유사한 기사를 통합하고 줄이는 과정에서 가끔 사건의 순서가 바뀌어 기록되기도 하였다. 그것은 절요 의 찬자가 한정된 분량 안에서 더 많은 사실을 수록하려고 해서 생겨난 일이며, 史書로서 절요 가 가진 한계였다.

『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』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』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)〉.

『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.

『高麗史節要』의 修史方式에 나타난 특징 -『高麗史』 예종 연간 기사와의 교감을 중심으로-

김병인 고려사학회 2024 한국사학보 Vol.- No.97

Starting from the premise that Goryeosajeolyo is not simply a 'summary' of Goryeosa , this study examined the characteristics of historiographic methods of Goryeosajeolyo through textual comparison with Goryeosa records of King Yejong. Considering that revisions were made in a short period of several months after the compilation of Goryeosa , it is interesting that a significant number of differences were found in the records of King Yejong. Whether it was based on the original such as Goryeosa or another original, the fact that there were many parts revised means that Goryeosajeolyo had its own historiographic method and compilation intention. Characteristics in the historiographic method appeared in various forms, such as correction of errors, conversion from shorthand characters to correct form of characters, selection of ‘the same meaning in different characters(同意異字)’ or ‘the same meaning in different expressions(同意異表)’, and mixing omission and supplementation. In addition, while the records of Goryeosa , Sega can be confirmed of its concrete facts by comprehensively examining ‘Yeoljeon’ or ‘Ji’, Goryeosajeolyo can be used to find complete facts only in a single record. This shows that chronological format Goryeojeolyo was considered to allow the records of biographical format Goryeosa scattered in ‘Sega’, ‘Yeoljeon’, and ‘Ji’ to be understood as a single, complete record. Next, all the 17 articles made in the reign of King Yejong in which the Jurchen were referred to as ‘Beon’ in Goryeosa were changed to ‘Northern Jurchen, Eastern Jurchen, and Jurchen’ in Goryeosajeolyo . This can be understood as a process in which the worldview remained in Goryeosa was changed in Goryeosajeolyo . In addition, the reason why both ‘Jega’ and ‘Joga’ in Goryeosa were changed to 'Jongji' in Goryeosajeolyo seems to be an intentional revision to match the status of the vassal states. In other words, like the usage of Beon(藩) and YeoJin(女眞), the attempt to change the title of the emperor is understood as one of the purposes or intentions of compiling Goryeosajeolyo . As mentioned in the introduction, this study has confirmed the differences and repetitions in the historiographic methods of the two historical books, but has not gone to clarify the principles and standards. It is, therefore, necessary to conduct continuous and detailed reviews in the future.

韓國史學報 1∼24號 總目次

고려사학회 고려사학회 2006 한국사학보 Vol.- No.25

『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.