대중화 시대의 프랑스 고등교육 변화와 교육정책(개혁)

김성룡,Kim, Seong-Ryong 한국대학교육협의회 2000 大學敎育 Vol.103 No.-

박제가 기행문의 문예 미학 연구-기행문 교육의 심화를 위하여-

김성룡 ( Kim Seong-ryong ) 한국고전문학교육학회 2009 고전문학과 교육 Vol.17 No.-

중세의 여행은 16세기 후반부터 도학적인 기행으로부터 심미적인 기행으로 전환하기 시작한다. 여행이 이렇게 전환함에 따라 여행의 체험을 적은 기행문도 심미적인 것으로 크게 전환한다. 박제가의 묘향산소기는 20살 무렵 글쓴이가 묘향산을 여행하고 그 느낌을 적은 글인데, 청년기의 감상적인 필치와 함께 미학적인 탐구가 잘 드러난 작품이다. 이 작품은 18세기 기행문의 미학을 매우 잘 드러낸 글이어서 이를 통해 미적 체험으로서의 기행 체험을 살펴볼 수 있는 중요한 자료가 된다. 묘향산은 종교적인 의의, 민족적 의의를 가진 산이지만 박제가는 특히 그 심미적 가치를 중시했다. 박제가는 묘향산의 기이한 물상을 대상으로 하여 쾌감을 느끼는 한편 고독감과 같은 청년기의 감상(感傷)도 느낀다. 기이함과 장쾌함은 18세기 기행문의 일반적인 미적 체험으로서 16세기 도학적인 기행이 엽기(獵奇)를 경계했던 것과 크게 대조된다. 이 기이함은 개개의 경물이 갖고 있는 고유한 독자성을 심미 체험하는 것으로서, 개개의 경물은 넘어 보편적인 가치를 체험하려는 것과는 다르다. 이는 개성을 가진 특수한 것에 대한 미적 체험이 보편적인 가치에 대한 미적 체험보다 더 가치 있다는 발견이어서 그 의의가 크다. In my opinion in Medieval Age it might have not been encouraged to travel either in East Asia or in Western Europe. There were at least three kind of difficulties. First there was an uncivilized area between town and town, city and city. Second, the map couldn't be trustworthy. Third, the equipment incidental to a journey was almost lack. If there were a traveler then we must investigate the reason why he traveled in the wild world in spite of the dangers. In 1769 Park Je Ga(朴齊家) traveled Mt. Myohyang and he sketched his travel. The travel note named Myo-hyang-san-so-gi(妙香山小記) is not bound in his collections. But I consider this version of small prose as his own work. We can infer there might be some variations of aesthetics from this small prose. And also there might be a boom of sightseeing trip through famous place in the late 18th Century. Mt. Myohyang is very important place in three point. At first, temple Pohyon(普賢寺) which locates in this mountain is very important in Korean Buddhism. Second there is a cave which is named Tan Gun Gul(檀君窟). It is also important in the history of Korean nationalism. But fundamentally the mountain is as beautiful as it was counted as one of the Four Great Beautiful Mountains. The beauty of Mt. Myohyang was important for him. In my opinion the sight seeing means the appreciation of famous place in spite of those three dangers or at least those three inconveniences. So the question is that what was the beauty that Park had found. As he wrote that whenever a traveller met a beautiful sight then he should taste it heartily notwithstanding his circumstances or the schedule for his travel. I consider it as an aesthetic experience in sight seeing. Scholars indicate that the aesthetic experience in sight seeing begun in late 17th century. But in 18th century the aesthetic experience in sight seeing was popular and very aesthetic in its literal meaning. Park discovered two kind of aesthetics one was strangeness and the other was exciting. Strangeness in sightseeing was bound to the life circumstances of literacies in Yi Dynasty. Pleasure was occurred through stirring feeling. These two were not recommended as usual. However, whenever they travel somewhere strange and magnificent they feel so. Park thought that taste was the very kernel of aesthetics and also the very identity of things. Taste is different from contentment. Intellectuals were brought up to be content with their circumstances, then the nature, the mountains and the rivers representatively, were a mere circumstances. But to Park and sympathizers, they were the main objects of aesthetic experience. Park thought that when we taste a thing we will realize that the taste is the peculiarities of that things. Peculiarities of a thing we feel as its tastes. Every thing has the peculiarities and at the same time we feel every taste from each thing. Aesthetic experience was the main theme of cultured life. They flocked together to taste the aesthetic objects. They even insisted that articles deluxe would develop the economic life in Yi Dynasty. Aesthetic good would be the economic and practical good. It's a strangeness in the trend of history of Korean thoughts and philosophy, but that is the reason of Park and sympathizers's thoughts.

‘삼봉(三峯) 이야기’를 중심으로 한 가능 세계의 이야기론

김성룡(Kim, Seong Ryong) 우리말글학회 2021 우리말 글 Vol.88 No.-

통칙분야 개정방안

김성룡(Kim, Seong-Ryong),박광민(Park, Kwang.-Min) 한국형사법학회 2009 刑事法硏究 Vol.21 No.1

Der hier vorgelegte Änderungsvorschlag zur Reform im Ranmen des Geltungsbereichs des Allgemeinen Teils korStGB will als der Versuch verstanden werden, einen Alternativ-Entwurf eines Strafgesetzbuches gegenüber den Entwurf von der Regierung vorzuschlagen, den 18 Strafrechtslehrer in der verhältnismäßig kurzen Zeit von etwa nicht mehr als 6 Monaten im Jahr 2008 gearbeitet haben. Im Geltungsbereich hat diese Arbeit vorgeschlagen, dass der Grundsatz für Strafrecht, -sog. nullum cimen sine lege, nulla poena sine lege- ausdrücklich in korStGB eingeführt werden soll. Die Vorschrift dafür soll lauten: „Ohne Gesetze wird niemand unter Strafe oder strafrechtlicher Sanktionen gestanden.“; Danach soll § 2. Abs. 1 lauten: „Die Strafe und die strafrechtliche Sanktionen bestimmen sich nach dem Gesetz, das zur Zeit der Tat gilt.“ Im Bezug auf die Vorschriften über die Zweckbestimmung der Strafe oder der strafrechtlichen Sanktionen, den Geltunsbereich der Zeitgesetze, die Rückwirkung der Massregeln und die Auslandstaten gegen international geschützte Rechtsgüter hat diese Arbeit eine Änderung oder Einführung einer neuen Regelung nicht als notwendig gehalten.

감동천지귀신의 기능과 의미

김성룡 ( Kim Seong-ryong ) 한국고전문학교육학회 2004 고전문학과 교육 Vol.7 No.-

As Shilla Dynasty succeeded in union war, so the Korean Peninsula could be united. Shilla Dynasty imported advanced culture from Tang Dynasty. Shilla Dynasty refined. But the traditional culture also held out especially the magical ritual. Literature was a branch of the magical ritual or at least it was an important part of that ritual. We can find many of those examples from the old records in Chinese characters. These records recorded that literature had the magical power and literary works could influence ghosts and gods. However these literary works seldom lyrical ballads or written works. They were often oral tradition. As we know oral signs are different from written signs from the points of the scenic, the instancy, the facial, the situational, the oral literature is more suitable than the written literature. The oral literature makes a deep impression instantly and collectively. There were three kind of traditional literary groups in United Shilla Dynasty, first a border group, second Hwarang group and the last transitional literacy. Pihyong, Cheyong, Jigui are belong to the first group. They can't be seperated from the ritual. The songs about them might be created and handed down from generation to generation among the natives. At last the songs or literary were transformed into an amulet to avert evils. When the Queens reigned the Dynasty, Wharang, for example Yungcheonsa, Chungdamsa, and Wolmyongsa invited to conduct rites of maintain peace and order in Shilla society. They created Hyangga and contributed themselves to these rites. Hyangga was thought to contain the idea of these social tranquility and to have the magical power of desire of social stability, however, later these were restricted to individual ideas and desires. Wanggeoin is the typical model of intellectual in transitional periods. He was grouped to be a member of Kukin and also to be an writer. He wrote an incantation on the one hand, and wrote a literary work on the other hand. So we could reason that literary work did not differ from the incantation.

기획주제: 고전 글쓰기의 현대적 의의 ; 글의 구성에 나타난 고전 글쓰기의 미학적 사유

김성룡 ( Seong Ryong Kim ) 한국작문학회 2015 작문연구 Vol.0 No.25

이 연구는 동아시아의 글쓰기 구성 방식인 4단 구성과 서유럽의 글쓰기 방식인 3단 구성의 특징을 비교하는 연구이다. 관습과 문화가 사유를 지배하는 데 대해서는 많은 시사나 아이디어가 있었다. 이러한 양상은 글쓰기의 구성 방법을 통해서도 나타난다. 글의 구성은 사태가 취하는 존재적 과정, 나의 사유가 취하는 인식적 과정, 나와 독자가 취하는 의사소통적 과정에 의해서 영향을 받는다. 3단 구성은 그리스의 이야기 세계가 취하는 시작과 중간과 끝이라는 형식에서 출현했다. 이것은 2 개의 필수 요소를 기반으로 하는 논리적 형식과 다르다. 3단 구성은 창세-종말론의 기독교적 세계관과 결합해 서유럽 중세를 규율하는 기본 원리가 되었다. 4단 구성은 기, 승, 전, 합이라는 동아시아의 시 구성의 원칙이다. 기, 승, 전, 결이라고 할 때의 결이나 기, 승, 전, 합이라고 할 때의 합은 모두 맺음, 묶음이라는 의미이다. 여기에는 마침, 끝이라는 의미는 없다. 이것은 모든 존재를 4 단계의 과정적 존재로 파악하려는 것이다. 제일 나중에 놓이는 것은 전체의 한 부분일 뿐 그것이 마치거나 끝났다거나 하는 것은 아니다. 이러한 사고는 세계를 네 부분으로 구성된 각각의 체계가 중첩된 것으로 이해하려고 한다. 각각의 체계는 서로 동일하기 때문에 같은 위치에 오는 것은 모두 상동하게 된다. 4단 구성은 과거 제도를 통해 지식인의 사유 체계로 고정되었다. 이들 지식인이 동아시아 사회를 오랫동안 지배해 왔으므로 4단 구성은 지금까지도 동아시아 글쓰기의 기본 구성 원리로 작동하고 있다. 이처럼 글의 구성은 인 식의 태도와 깊은 관련이 있다. 이는 논리적 사유로부터 기인하기 보다는 미학적 사유로부터 기인하는 바가 크다. In this article I compare the characteristics of the east asian four-parts-composition and the western three-parts-composition. There have been many of insights and ideas that the convention and the culture govern the thoughts. The way of composition reveals the phases of those governs. The way of composition is affected by three factors. One is the ontic which the process of the situation takes. The second is the cognitive which human cognitive process takes. And the third is communicative which the sender and the receiver takes. The three-parts-composition has appeared in the Greek mythos which is constructed by the three parts, the beginning, the middle and the end. This is different from the logical composition that is constructed by two parts, the subject and the proof. After combined with the hebraic thoughts of genesis-eschatology, that three-part-composition have the main principle that govern the Medieval european thoughs and culture. The four-parts-composition is the constitution principle of the a Chinese quatrain. This is constituted with the four elements, arise, succeed, conversion and tie up. In this composition way there is not end but tie up. It is important that the last element of the four-parts-composition is tie up not the end. The thought of this four-parts-composition views the every situation as it processed four steps. The last one is one of the part but it is not the end. This thought regard the world as the repetitions of four-parts systems. Every system of the repetitions are as the same one so the elements that lies in the same location should be alike each other. This four-parts-composition has been strengthened by the civil service examinations through the middle age in east asia. These civil servant system that has formed by the civil service examinations has strengthened the four-parts-compositional thoughts. The compositional thoughts should have been affected by the way of cognition but it is not based on the logical thoughts but the aesthetic thoughts.

백합식물에서 하나의 Calmodulin cDNA 클론 연구

김성룡(Seong Ryong Kim),인진흥(Gyn Heung An) 한국식물학회 1996 Journal of Plant Biology Vol.39 No.1

N/A

고전 비평과 문학 능력

김성룡 ( Seong Ryong Kim ) 한국문학교육학회 2009 문학교육학 Vol.28 No.-

I think that the criticism in Western Europe is different from the East Asian 비평(批評: /Bipyeong/)." There must be differences between the Modern criticism and the Middle Age criticism, there also be differences between the Western Europian criticism and East Asian criticism. In the East Asia the criticism was developed in the 4~5th century in China when there were in a state of disorder. Too many intellectuals were set fee from the tie of their native province and they were invited by many of the ambitious persons. Jong Yong[鍾嶸 469?~518?]`s important book titled Si Pum[詩品] was brought out under the circumstances of these necessity. Pum[品] means evaluation and ordering by criterion. Pum[品] became the same thing as Pyeong[評], the criticism. A few centuries later there brought out Bi[批] as a kind of literal activity. But like Pyeong[評] it was an ordinary cultural activity at first. In Song Dynasty, Bi[批] meant choosing good literary works and indicating the reason why these were good. It followed mark with dots on the side of good phrases or characters. And after a long time, in a certain period, these two different literary activities, Bi[批] and Pyeong[評], merged into one literary activity the same as we know Bi-Pyeong[批評], the criticism. During the Middle age Korean literacies and aristocrats used the two things in three way. One is the grading literary works in Kwageo[科擧], the highest level state examination to recruit ranking officials. The official examiner evaluated the examination papers which were always in the form of literary works. Then give marks and grade the candidates. They did Bi[批] and Pyeong[評], evaluating and ordering. And the second is in the field of literary education. In the middle age the official school were not so efficient method to pass the state examination. So the candidates must study in private school and learning was more important than the education in the case of literary education. Good books were very important to study by themselve. These books contained selected prose and poems with the marks and evaluations that worked a good indication how literary works were written. Third, on the way of creating literary works the criticism did a critical role in its literal sense. Creators of literary works sent his literary works to his friends or masters to seek the criticism. Then the critics used to commented good advises, but in some cases the critics mended or changed the literary works. As the critics were plural so the comments sometimes collided. At that case the worker must decided but what is more important is that the critics and the criticism also was not the kind of consumer, a distributor and a guide. These were the case in the Modern Western Europe not in the Middle Age of East Asia. Nowadays the culture and education became democratic. I expect that the culture and the education will be immanent in every person`s personalities so the critics will be. So the critic systems of Modern Western Europe will be collapsed into an every person`s culture which is similar to that of the Middle Age of East Asia.

고전문학교육으로서의 고전작가론 - 서거정(徐居正)을 중심으로 하여

김성룡 ( Kim Seong Ryong ) 한국고전문학교육학회 2012 고전문학과 교육 Vol.24 No.-

이 글은 조선 전기 관각 문인인 서거정을 국어 교과에서 가르치는 문제를 다뤘다. 현재의 문학 교육은 작가에 대하여 제대로 교육하지 않는다. 이는 텍스트 중심, 독자 중심의 문학 이론의 영향 때문이고, 허구 중심의 갈래 이론의 영향 때문인 것 같다. 그동안 고전문학사와 현대문학사의 단절을 극복하기 위해 노력을 기울여 왔는데 문학 교육에서도 고전 문학 교육과 현대문학 교육의 일관성을 찾는 노력이 필요하다. 서거정은 통유(通儒)의 전형으로 상승기의 상승 계급의 이념을 실천했다. 서거정은 사적 욕망의 세계를 감시하고, 공적 의식을 갖추어 천하태평을 이룩하는 것을 임무로 여겼다. 서거정은 결정론적 사고를 갖고 있으며 관료로서 문학적 실천을 하는 것이 가장 의미 있는 것이라고 여겼다. 또한 그는 ‘도(道)는 시대의 운수로서 구현되어 나타난다.’고 생각했다. 그리고 문인의 역할은 이 아름다운 세상을 표현해내는 일이라고 여겼다. 서거정을 이해하는 국면은 다음과 같다. 첫 번째 국면은 텍스트 생산자로서의 개성을 아는 일이다. 두 번째 국면은 역사적 특이점으로서 작가를 이해하는 것이다. 이것은 두 가지 층위를 갖는 것으로 생각한다. 첫째는 작가의 생애 속에서 그 작품의 특수한 성격을 이해하는 것, 즉 개인사적 맥락속에서 특수성을 이해하는 것이고, 둘째는 작가가 살던 시기 속에서 그 작품을 포함한 작가의 특수한 성격을 이해하는 것, 즉 역사적 맥락 속에서 작가의 특수성을 이해하는 것이다. 이 중에서 이 글은 두 번째 국면의 두 번째 층위에 집중했다. 서거정을 비롯한 고전작가의 문학에 대한 태도는 현대작가의 것과는 다르다. 문학은 전문기능도 아니고 문인이 직업군의 일종도 아니던 시대의 상황을 담고 있다. 문학은 작가의 삶과 분리되지 않고 문학 창작의 목적은 작가의 내적 동기와 일치한다. 문학이 삶과 일치하던 때의 진정성이 담겨 있는 것이다. 작품은 창작의 맥락으로부터 떼어내기 불편할 정도로 밀착되어 있다. 그게 고전작품을 이해하기 어렵게 만드는 하나의 원인이 되고 그래서 당대의 문화를 이해해야 한다고 할 때에 작가적 국면을 강조하는 이유가 된다. Everyone recognized that the writers should be taught to the middle school or high school students. But all of them do not agree the way and degree of the knowledge to be taught. What is the reason why the literary educators or the literary education scholars do not agree? There might be two reasons. One is that we have taught literary works under the influence of New Criticisms and Late Structural theories about literature. Second, we adopted the Western way of thinking especially the literary classification. As the literary historians have sought the way to link Korean classic literature and modern literature, so the literary educators also should make every effort to link between classic literary work education and modern literary work education. Seo Geo Jeong was one of the classic writers and academic scholars and dynasty statesman. We may understand him as a creator of some texts, one of special person of a special era. Then we may understand and estimate his literary works along these two categories. First, we investigate the characteristics of the author through the way of weaving texts and the motivations of the weaving. Second, we consider the author as the singular point in the flow of history. We should know that the classic writers were quite different from the modern writers. The latter are one of the division of labor in modern world. But the first did not separate the private life of an individual from the social life of him. They thought that the literary world did not different from the world of the author. So the literature was about real world or at most an allegories of the real world. That is the reason why we should also teach the context of the authors.

시학과 글쓰기:표절(剽竊)과 환골탈태(換骨奪胎)사이

김성룡 ( Seong Ryong Kim ) 한국작문학회 2008 작문연구 Vol.0 No.6

현대에는 시문(詩文)의 표절은 재화(財貨)의 약탈과 같은 것으로 간주된다. 중세 시대에는 표절에 관해서는 이중적인 태도가 나타난다. 중세의 사대부들은 표절을 파렴치한 범죄 행위라고까지는 생각하지 않았지만 표절에 의해서 만들어진 시문이 어떤 한 인격의 능력과 덕망을 측정할 수 있는 시료로서의 구실을 하는 데에는 역부족이라고 생각했다. 첫째 표절은 시문 제작 수법의 하나로서 인정했다. ‘용사(用事)’란 시문 제작에 있어서 옛날 일을 사용하는 것을 말한다. 용사를 allusion이라고 번역하는 이도 있으나 남의 글을 인용하는 것이 아니라, 옛날의 것, 역사적인 것을 인용하는 것이므로 차이가 있다. 보한집(補閑集) 에는 실제의 작품을 들어 고사를 사용하는 방법, 곧 용사의 방법을 분류했다. 이렇게 다양한 용사 분류는 용사가 시문 제작의 수법으로 널리 활용되었기 때문이다. 용사는 더 나아가서는 시문을 아름답게 꾸미는 기능을 갖는다. 용사가 없는 시는 시라고 보아줄 만하기는 해도 좋은 시라고는 할 수 없다고 생각했다. 어떤 시는 시적 내용이나 그 형식의 면에서 시라고 판단하는, 시라고 분류하는 기준에 합할 수는 있어도, 용사가 없으면 좋은 시라고 평가하는, 시의 미적인 규범에는 합할 수 없다고 여겼다. 용사는 시적 평가, 시의 미적 규범을 판단하는 가치적, 평가적 표지가 된다. 용사는 고려부터 조선말에 이르기까지, 한시가 한시인 한, 평가적이고 규범적 기준을 정하는 아주 중요하고도 주요한 변별적 표지로서 기능해 왔다. 시학으로서 용사는 낡은 시편이 갖고 있는 언어 자산, 언어의 우주로부터 어구를 뽑아서 새롭게 교직해내는 텍스트 제작의 문법이 된다. 용사는 수사학의 일종이지만 동시에 텍스트 생성 문법 일체를 지칭하는 용어이므로 나는 용사의 이론을 텍스트 재생산의 시학 원리라고 지칭한다. 하늘 아래 새로운 것은 없다. 이념, 의경, 표현의 층위 어느 것도 새로운 것은 없다. 지금까지 나온 모든 문장은 비록 유한한 수의 문장으로 이뤄졌다고 해도 앞으로 나올 만한 문장은 이미 거의 사용한, 충분히 큰 수의 집합이라고 생각한다. 생산된 텍스트는 인류의 언어 우주를 풍성하게 한 공동의 재산으로 보아야 하므로 표절 시비는 너무도 잗다란 일이다. Plagiarism is regarded as a kind of literary piracy. We all agree with this opinion. In the middle age the valuation of using sentences or phrases of some other`s was different from today. Taking sentences or phrases from other authors is a kind of rhetoric, allusion, in order to enhance the poetic meanings. But in Korean Literature in the middle age, it was not a sort of rhetorics but poetics. Because any author can produce or create his works using the other`s works. So to the authors in middle age the allusion was poles apart in their opinions. It was a kind of plagiarism so it must be abandoned in order to take the peculiarity and originality of the authors. But it was also a very important method of creating literary works. First it was a kind of very important and very effective producing method. And second it was a kind of a criterion to evaluate poetic works. During the middle age almost all of the literacies were enthusiastic consistently to learn this method of poetic production in the atmosphere of despising this method. At last the method was despised as a kind of literary piracy. But is it really a kind of literary piracy? Supposing that we could rewrite all of the literary works from the first word to the latest works in one book, then we could not escape from duplicate the same phrases and sentences. We can never escape from the universe of the language which was already formed by creators of many generations. So in some sense finding out whether using sentences or phrases of some other`s or not is valueless thing.