『내전기의 사색』에서 예이츠는 고귀한 과거를 현재에 되살리기 위해 희 생이 불가피하다고 주장하는 아일랜드 민족주의 담론에 대해 깊은 우려를 표시한다. 문화의 통합을 이룬 과거와 폭력의 순환을 낳는 현재 간의 단절을 제시한 후 시인은 탑을 예술화하여 통합의 상징으로 재건하려한다. 그는 『나의 테이블』에서 예술의 대상 이자 전쟁의 도구인 사토의 검을 통해 역사적 연속성을 찾으려하지만 공허한 메아리 만 되돌아온다. 『대문 앞 도로』로 시작되는 3편의 시에서 예이츠는 내전을 직접적으 로 다루면서 폭력을 영웅시하고 죽음을 고귀한 희생으로 삼는 민족주의 기획의 허구 를 본격적으로 드러낸다. 이 연작시의 마지막 시인 『증오와 가슴의 충만과 다가오는 공허의 환영을 나는 보노라』는 자크 모레이를 위한 복수의 환상을 중심으로 혼돈과 폭력의 이미지로 채워져 있다. 이 환상은 이념적 복수와 순교의 영웅적 역사기술에 사 로잡혀 있는 민족주의 담론의 독단과 폭력성을 상징적으로 보여준다.

The purpose of this paper is to review and analyse the influence of Hegel on architectural historiography. With the point of view that Hegel is the origin of architectural history, this study try to find out how Hegel’s philosophy and aesthetics deeply influenced the principle and method of architectural historiography. As a kind of meta-history Hegel’s idealism played a important role in the interpretation of architecture and its historiography. We can call it Hegelian legacy and it gave a determinant idea in the discours of architecture, especially Modernism. With a critical view point this study tries to reveal the mythical character of the premise and hypothesis of Hegel’s historicism and also reviews its positive aspects in the history of writing architectural history. Today Hegelian thinking in architectural historiography is seriously criticized and considered as a old way of writing history. But this study tries to find a possibility to recognize the contemporary architectural situation with Hegel’s concept of universal history. The return of Hegel necessarily does not mean the idea of totality and universality in practice as like in Modernism, but to widen the recognition in contemporary practice and historiography.

The tasks of writing history is to reconstruct the past in order to understand the present condition and to envision the future. Modern architectural histories in the west have assumed this role, from Winckelmann to Giedion. Likewise, history of Korean modern architecture has to serve this purpose. However, existing histories of Korean modern architecture simply list up stylistic changes from western eclectic architecture to modernism without any historical narratives explaining the transition from Korean traditional architecture to modern architecture. History of Korean modern architecture has simply been understood as a unilateral process of transplantation of western architecture into Korea. This paper points out two major problems underlying this kind of historiography of Korean modern architecture. The one is formalistic approach which sees history of modern architecture mainly as a process of formal and stylistic changes. The other is humanistic approach which sees modern architects as agents of history. This paper argues that this kind of history writings has limitations since modernity of Korean architecture is fundamentally different from that of the west. and that specific tasks that Korean modern architectural history has to address are then two folds;(re)connecting the past architectural tradition to the present and forming self-identity of Korean architecture.

This study aims to examine the brief statement about the historiography of architecture by the French philosopher Michel Foucault and the possibility of a historical description according to his method. His historiographic proposition, “the history of architecture back in (the) general history of techne,” is a novel idea not only for his contemporaries but also for us. To grasp the meaning of Foucault’s proposition, we begin by considering his position with regard to architecture or architectural space in certain discussions till then. We then compare his standpoint on historical recognition with other viewpoints about historical narratives that can be found in books written since 1930. Finally, we interpret the concept of “techne” in the sense of “relation,” whose objectivation is for him his concern on architecture and examine possible aspects and their limits.

This study is on historiography of Modern Architecture since its beginning to present. As a critical review of the history of the writing history of Modern Architecture, this study tends to be a meta-history and criticism of historical text. This study try to analyse historiographical project of Modern architecture at specific phase since the beginning of modern architecture. The historiography of Modern architecture shows that writing a history is making a discourse of Modern architecture as a imaginative representation to define and justify Modernism in architecture. The analysis of canonic text since early 20th century proves that the history of writing history of Modern architecture played a critical role not only to shape of our ideal but the practice of architecture with a ideology construction in retrospect. With a name of truth or morality they made myths about the modernity in architecture. So we can find deep 'Hagelean Unconscious' in writing history of Modern architecture not even the first generation of historians but the second generation who were influenced by earlier writer in spite of their intention of revision and overcoming, which is in itself the key concept of Hegel's philosophy of History. Under this kind of 'operative' discourse our view point of Modern architecture were confined and the historiography of Modern architecture itself was narrowly defined as a kind of melodrama that a few architect and work of art matters. The rise of critical history fundamentally has changed the way of seeing and writing the history of Modern architecture. but it has also a new kind of dilemma as regard to writing history and involving practice. This review of historiography traces the texts of historians as like Pevsner, Giedion, Banham, Rowe, Tafuri, Frampton, and Curtis relating to different discours making. When we consider Benjamin's famous concept of constellation, writing history necessarily is a kind of montage making in time and we always need to recognize the historicity of historiography.

If you want to write a mission history, academic dilemmas hinder you to sustain objective perspectives due to your confessional orientation. We mission historians believe that God has a grand plan of salvation for humankind and we are witnessing His story in the history of mission. Secular historians, however, do not believe in this kind of confession orientation. Rather they despise this kind of approach as the lack of academic objectivity. We mission historian must find the third way for writing mission history which could be shared not only with our fellow Christian scholar but also secular historians who believe in the objectivity as the primal condition for writing history. This paper suggests the method of Jacob Burckhardt(18181897) who proposed a flexible approaches in historiography. He criticizes that history is neither logic nor philosophy which is logical framework is firm and decisive. History writing should, according to Burckhardt, flexible because the interpretation of history should be open. The present author shows that this kind of flexible historiography could be accommodated in a new way of mission historiography. To show an example the author interprets the early Jesuit Missionary Matteo Ricci from the flexible mission historiography: Push factor and Pull factor. The author claims that writing mission history in more flexible historiography could be achieved by comparing push factor of missionary sending and pull factor of missionary receiving. Early Jesuit mission history will be more flexible if we approach the Jesuit mission from politics(of missionary sending from 16thcentury Europe and missionary receiving from the late Ming China's political situation), culture, and religion.

All technical and stylistic changes of music through the ages, reflect the changing outlook of man and the changing human society. Therefore, writing about music and its study reveals the changing attitudes to music. The word, history denotes that past events, considered in their chronological order or a record of past events. Music history has distinguishing characteristics of this as defined above with the limitation that its subject matter is confined to musical events and other events, as far as they affect musical ones or are affected by them. A historian's chief concern lies mainly on reconstruction of an accurate record of human activities and on achievement of a more profound understanding of them. For this purpose, a historian has to subject his sources to a whole series of preliminary investigations. First, he has to determine whether the sources are appropriate and adequate for the particular task in hand. Secondly, he must make sure that he fully understands what he has selected. Finally, he must try to synthesize his materials. The scientific approach to the historiography began only from the late 18th century. Before that period, the historiography was more appropriately the function of religion, of philosophy, and of literature. Historiography of the 18th century was largely inspired by the progress in the natural sciences and based on formulating the general rules governing the development of human societies. The chief features of the new historiography were a sense of the unity of all human history including non-European countries; a capacity for research about the salient features of particular periods; and preference for topics connected with the progress of human civilization. But the historiography of this period was rarely connected with universities. The continuous study of history could be developed only from the 19th century and the historical writing could be done by professional historians. Historiography eventually became a continually cooperative venture where the achievements of the previous historians could be used systematically by their successors.