대중화 시대의 프랑스 고등교육 변화와 교육정책(개혁)

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

조선 후기 문예 미학의 문학 사상사적 의의

김성룡 ( Kim Seong-ryong ) 한국고전문학교육학회 2009 고전문학과 교육 Vol.18 No.-

중세 후기에는 문학과 도가 일치해야 한다는 도문일치의 문학 사상을 반성하고 그 대신에 문학이 갖는 독자적인 가치를 미적인 즐거움을 주는 것에서 찾고자 하는 경향이 생겨나 발전했다. 문예(文藝)는 이러한 경향을 대표하는 문학의 가치를 표현한 말이라고 할 수 있다. 이것은 문예의 독립적 지위가 사회의 여러 직능 중의 하나로서 인정되는 것과 문인을 평가하는 기준도 인격적 평가로부터 벗어나 문학 자체에 대한 평가로 변화하는 현상으로 나타난다. 이러한 현상은 특히 17, 18세기에 두드러지게 나타난다. 이 시기에는 인물성동이론 등 심성론에서 중요한 진전이 이루어졌다. 또 미적 감동을 중시하는 경향이 발전해 산수유기와 척독 등의 문예 취향의 글쓰기가 발전했다. 이러한 분위기에 힘입어 신운, 성령과 같은 미적 관념이 발전할 수 있었다. There appeared many of changes in 17th Century of Yi Dynasty. One of the most important changes was the literary thoughts. From the early Yi Dynasty almost all of the gentry who was as an illustrious official as well as a man of intellectual thought that the literature might be related to the Tao at least. But the intellectuals in 17th century thought that the literature might not be related to the Tao. Instead the literature might have its own aesthetic value. This changes in literary thoughts corresponded with the various changes in the philosophical thoughts. The most distinguished changes of the branches of learning was the philosophy of mentality. In brief they thought that the Seong[性] embodied the idea of Tao and the Jeong[情] embodied the idea of Human. The former was more important than the latter. But philosophers were skeptical about the values and the relations between these two notions. Some philosophers might think that the latter would be more important to the ordinary human being. The notion of Cheon Gi Ron accumulated the knowledges of human mentalities and also provoked the study of human mentalities. Through this notion they asserted that Tao and literature were different with each other and they should express their spontaneous emotions through literature without philosophical or moral control. The intellectuals who valued Belles Letters understood the changes which appeared in the various fields of Yi Dynasty. They accept the human emotions freed from moral controls and they thought that the literary works were not a kind of philosophy or moral but a kind of art. The brothers of Kim Chang Hyup[金昌協 1651~1708] and Kim Chang Hup[金昌翕 1653~1722] took a remarkable position in these changes. Soon after, Sin Yu Han[申維翰 1681∼?], Cho Ku Myung[趙龜命 1693~1737], Yu Han Jun[兪漢雋 1732~1811] succeeded. From Park Je Ka[朴齊家 1750~1805], through Kim Jeong Hui[金正喜 1786~1856], and at last to the modern literary men, the literature of Belles Letters establish its status as one of the branches in the division of social labor.

천명론(天命論)의 등장과 도문일치(道文一致)의 문학 사상

김성룡 ( Kim Seong-ryong ) 한국고전문학교육학회 2006 고전문학과 교육 Vol.12 No.-

In this article I investigate the major theme of literary thoughts through the late Koryo dynasty to the early Yi dynasty. Destiny is the major theme from person to the state. At first glance, as there were too many of accidents during those days so the theory of destiny must flourished. But the theory of destiny, especially the theory of Heaven's command is the character of Far Eastern Asian thought. It was generated from the late Chin dynasty. But what I'm concerned about in this article is the correlative anthropocosmology which this theory is based. There were many of intellectuals who devoted his life to investigating this theme. At some sense this theme is the major theme through the Medieval Age of Far East Asia. From the early Confucians to the neo-Confucians most of them investigate the norm and the meaning of this theme. In Korea in the middle of Koryo dynasty the thought of this theme became profound religious thought. Many of Koryo and Yi neo-Confucians investigate this theme. Through the ruin and the foundation of a state the confucians need the prime mover of human history. And they thought that the literature would in some sense the symbols of this prime mover. First of all the intellectuals must realize the symbols of Heaven's sign according to the political affairs. There must many of signs from sky to the earth. So the intellectuals must be able to read the signs. Second the intellectuals must express the Heaven's will through the literary works. They might decorate the heaven's will or might issue the heaven's warning to the king. These two ways were related together. And these were also the literary intellectuals works. So theory of destiny, especially the theory of Heaven's command became the cosmology of neo- Confucians and also the literary thought. In this point this is the characteristics of the theory of destiny and the special period of the late Koryo and the early Chosun dynasty.

사회적 의사소통으로서의 문학

김성룡 ( Kim Seong-ryong ) 한국문학치료학회 2012 문학치료연구 Vol.25 No.-

이 논문은 16세기 사화기의 조선 사회에서 문학의 효용과 기능에 대하여 탐구하였다. 이를 위하여 이 시대의 대표적인 문인으로 알려진 홍귀달, 이행, 신광한 등 세 명의 관각 문인을 대상으로 하여 각각 경험한 사화의 내용을 검토하고 이러한 시기에 이들이 창작한 문학 작품을 살펴보았다. 그 결과 홍귀달은 무오사화와 갑자사화 두 번의 사화를 모두 다 현역 관료로서 최일선에서 경험했다. 부조리함을 글로써 바르게 하는 것을 문학의 역할이라고 여겼다. 이행은 무오사화, 갑자사화, 기묘사화를 겪었다. 이행은 사림파에 의해서 변화된 문학의 풍토를 개혁하는 데 힘을 쏟았다. 기묘사화와 을사사화를 경험했다. 긴 은거 기간 동안 개인적인 깨달음을 중시하는 문학을 개척했다. 사화는 당대의 문인들로 하여금 관료로서의 통치 행위 뿐만 아니라 문인으로서 사회적 의사소통의 역할을 깊이 깨닫게 했다. 또한 자신과 생각을 같이하는 동료들과의 연대 의식을 갖게 했으며 이러한 소속감이 매우 중요하다는 것을 깨닫게 했다. 그러나 그러는 한편으로 인간의 노력을 넘어서 시대의 운명과 개인적 운수와 같은 것이 있다는 수동적인 역사관은 더욱 깊어졌다. 이러한 좌절과 절망의 시기에 문학은 치유의 기능을 어느때보다 더 강조되었다. 바른 소리를 내는 것이 중요한 것이 아니라 함께 공감하고 함께 공명할 수 있는 것이 더 중요했다. 이것이 이 시기에 발견한 문학의 역할이었다. 이것은 단순히 개인적 정서의 토로에 그치지 않고 문학이 사회적 의사소통의 수단으로써 드러내야 할 내용이 되었다. In this article the utility and function of literature are investigated. For the purpose the academic writer of 16th Century Yi Dynasty Hong Gui Dal, Yi Haeng and Shin Kwang Han are studied. Hong had experienced two calamities of savants. These calamities make him accept that the obligation of literature was to reform the social abuses and absurdities. Yi had experienced three calamities of savants. These calamities make him feel the responsibility to reform literary style of those periods which was polluted by the new literacies. Shin Yi had experienced two calamities of savants. Between these two calamities he lived in retirement several years. He devoted to create the literary works which contained his individual realizations. These calamities made the intelligent of that period realize the importance of the function of social communication of literary works. They began to feel the a sense of solidarity and realize the importance of his positions in political parties. In addition they also felt that there might be a certain kind of fortune the same as at the level of nation as at the level of person. In result the sympathy became much more important values. These are found in these periods.

일반논문 : 지식의 교환으로 본 문학 연구와 문학 교육의 소통

김성룡 ( Seong Ryong Kim ) 한국어교육학회(구 한국국어교육연구학회) 2015 국어교육 Vol.0 No.151

In this article I present some considerations on the communications between literary study and literary education considering this as theexchanges of literary knowledges. I think the problems of communications happened because of the differences between the justification of the literary education and that of literary study. The concepts of literature,literary knowledge, and literary education of our culture are different from those of the western culture. But our educational establishments of modern ages are based on the western traditions. We conceive the conceptof knowledge on two traditions. On our traditional culture, we conceive it as a knowledge how to make and a knowledge how to explain. On western culture, we conceive it as justified knowledge and we think that it has process how to conceive the object, the capacity how to do it, and the capacity how to express it through language. In our traditional understanding knowledge there become the educational orientation to the learning and to the introspection. In the western there become the educational perspectives on the hierarch and objection. In our traditional education the goal of literary education is making literary works but in the western traditional education is reading literary works. Our modern age we received the western cultural establishments including education. The main goal of literary education has become to reading. Knowledges of literature has become to one of humanities by the understanding about the arche of the human and the world with the introspective thought. Literary education is one ot the social sciences that is calculating the utility of the investment of social commodities. The literary study and the literary education are based on quite different justification. I declare that we restore our literary educational traditions. The spontaneousness and intention of literary study are combined to those of the aesthetic experience and to be the same categories. The rationality of humanities and rationality of social science fuse together to one horizon. In this respect the study of literary education will be a new humanities of our time.

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.

중세 글쓰기에 나타난 자아정체성의 교육적 가치

김성룡 ( Kim Seong-ryong ) 한국작문학회 2010 작문연구 Vol.0 No.11

오늘날 자기에 관한 글을 쓰는 것이 대단히 유용하다. 이 글은 자기를 표현하는 현대의 글쓰기에 고전의 유용성을 찾는 데 그 의의가 있다. 이 주체, 반성하고 사유하고 있는 주체는 다른 어떤 대상보다도 나를 대상으로 할 때 더 철저하게 각인된다. 고전 문학 교육에서의 문학학은 사이비 과학주의pseudo science를 버리고 천문(天文)을 읽듯이 인문(人文)을 읽는 일을 해야 한다고 생각한다. 고전문학교육은 고전 시대에 생산된 언어의 우주로부터 현재적으로 미적인 모범을 찾아 읽는 일이다. 이 글은 자기 자신을 대상으로 한 전(傳), 이른바 묘도문자(墓道文字), 호설(號說), 화상찬(畵像贊) 등 네 가지 장르를 다루었다. 전의 경우 자기 자신을 그대로 드러내어 서술하기보다는 마치 다른 사람인양 입전하여 서술하므로 탁전(托傳)인 것이 보통이다. 자찬의 묘도문자는 자기 스스로 자신의 비문이나 행장 따위를 지은 것이다. 자기의 호에 담긴 인물의 특징, 기림, 경계의 의미를 풀이하는 것이다. 초상화를 만들면 대상인물에 대하여 찬(贊)을 붙이는 것이 보통인데 자기를 그린 초상화를 보면서 찬을 지은 것이다. 이것들은 모두 자기 자신을 대상으로 하면서 글쓰는 주체로서의 자아와 대상으로서의 자아의 분리를 경험한다는 공통점을 갖는다. 이를 통해 현대 글쓰기에서 고전 글쓰기의 유용성은 그에 따른 자기 인식은 개별적 자기에 대한 인식, 하나의 실체로서 시, 공간적으로 규정되어 있는 자신의 한도에 대한 이해를 근거로 한다. 이 글들은 ‘저 사람은 누구이다.’는 지정으로부터 출발한다. 자아정체성의 글쓰기는 바로 이 속성이 귀속되고 있는 나의 자각으로부터 출발한다. Nowadays it is the era of self-revelation. It is a concomitant phenomenon that the writings on I Self are very useful today. In this article I try to the value of classic writings in this self revelation era, and try to present the difference of the methods between education study and historical study on the classic literature. In the field of classic literature education study, I think that we have to discard the historical method or pseudo scientific attitude. As we find out the humane messages from the constellation, so the literary education must find out the values from the constellation of universe of words. It is not a kind of astronomy but that of astrology. I deal with four classic writing styles which writes on I, the self. One is a kind of biography, exactly speaking, autobiography. Second is a kind of epitaph. By this style the author writes about himself. Thirdly, explanation of the writer himself's pseudonym. And last, the legend on the portrait of the author. Whether the painter of this portrait might not be the author himself, but the writer of this legend should be the author himself. These four styles of writings are in common with the separation of the I the author from the I the object in a work and the typical self-revelation writings in Medievals of East Asia. These four classic writings suggest that the way of self revelation writings in nowadays. There are two things. One is that the description of the limit of I. The cognition of the limit that I is a sort of subject that is a existence which is restricted in time and space. The second is that the designation of I. I the man is designated as a man of so and so. The writings on I starts from the cognition that the properties should be attributed to the I the self.

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.

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.

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.