사후분해 시체에 대한 법의학적 접근

최영식,이상용,김유훈,조갑래,이봉우,양경무,정낙은,서중석,이한영,이원태,강현욱 大韓法醫學會 2000 대한법의학회지 Vol.24 No.2

Disposal of a homicide victim by dismemberment is rare, but individual cases are on record in most major medicolegal departments. Recognition of postmortem mutilation may be of importance in the interpretation of certain murders committed by sexual perverts and other mentally deranged individuals and sometimes performed for the sole reason of easier disposal of the body. Postmortem dismemberment is usually readily recognizable as such; The edges of the injuries are dry and lack evidence of bleeding. The joints may be disarticulated without fracture, or the use of an axe or saw may be evident from examination of bones. Parallel horizontal or oblique furrows in the bone surface are caused by skipping of the saw prior to establishing depth. Such patterns on the bone may assist in identifying the particular saw involved. So we report 25 dismembered corpses that autopsied in National Institute of Scientific Investigation. This paper can help in attempting to establish not only the first criminal investigation steps but also the medicolegal approach methods in unidentified and dismembered deaths.

16,17세기 유럽의 극작론 : -이태리, 프랑스, 영국에서의 Aristotle의 「시학」수용을 중심으로-

李京植 서울大學校 人文科學硏究所 1992 人文論叢 Vol.28 No.-

This essay attempts to define what Italian, English, and French critics in the 16th and 17th centuries had made out of Aristotle's Poetics, thus counting for their literary creed commonly known as neo-classicism. As neo-classicism differs from the actual doctrines of classical antiquity because of its imperfect assimilation of Aristotle's Poetics, pseudo-classicism would be the better term. To make the matter worse, l6th-century Aristotelian critics in Italy overlooked. one important fact; i.e. that Aristotle's Poetics is descriptive, not prescriptive. Italian critics like Scaliger, Robortelli and Castelvetro pioneered for the first time in history at once translating into their own tongue and interpreting Aristotle's work in question. They were largely and ultimately responsible for the neo-classical emphasis upon, and the rigid implementation of, either non-or pseudo-Aristotelian dramatic rules and precepts like verisimilitude, delightful instruction, decorum, and three unities. Sidney, 16th-century English critic, upheld Italian dramatic rules and precepts in their entirety, saying to the effect that Aristotle's artistic pleasure should be accompanied by instruction, that decorum forbids kings and clowns to be mingled, and that the unities of time and place should be observed. He dismissed as 'mongrel' tragi-comedy, which he said fails to achieve the effect of tragedy, i.e. 'the admiration and commiseration'. Jonson and Milton, Sidney's literary successors, followed suit. 17th-century France like 16th-century England imported the Italian dramatic rules and precepts and saw them become far more rigid in the hands of critics like Chapelain, D'Aubignac, Racine, Rapin, and Dacier. Verisimilitude was to them the essence of the stage, and the unities became established as rules to be strictly kept, for their observance was believed to contribute decisively to verisimilitude. Moreover, they wanted to see 'Virtue Rewarded and Vice Punished' implemented by all tragedies. This rigid type of French neo-classical formalism began to influence Restoration English stage. Dryden somewhat faithfully followed it for his own plays, but when it came to those of other dramatists like Shakespeare, he proved himself to be a flexible neo-classicist by preferring them to regular 17th-century French plays, unlike Rymer who with his ideas of poetical justice and decorum was ready to find fault with the English tragedies of 'the last age'. His ruthless attack on both Shakespeare and Fletcher was considered infamous and scurrilous even in his time. Dryden believed that Shakespeare should not be judged by the laws Shakespeare was ignorant of, and 18th-century Shakespearean editors like Rowe, Pope and Johnson were also of this opinion. When every thing is said and done, no one could possibly deny that neo-classical dramatic doctrines originated from the various misinterpretations of Aristotle's Poetics on the part of 16th and 17th century European critics and writers. They had mistaken Aristotle for ur-Horace and Horace for the best interpreter of Aristotle, thus paying less attention to the text of the Poetics.

孟 ·荀 人性論의 意義

李京植 대구대학교 인문과학연구소 1987 人文科學硏究 Vol.5 No.-

This purpose of this paper is to inquire into meanings of human nature by Meng-tzu and Hsun-tzu. The conclusion can be summarized as follows: 1. Meng-tzu holds the opinion that human nature is fundamentally good, that is, man has innate senses of morality and conscience. According to him, morality is formed on the basis of human nature, and preservation and expansion of the root of virtue enables an ordinary man to lead a saintly life, and these efforts, when spread among every citizen produce the realization of a virtuous society. 2. Hsun-tzu, on the other hand, has the viewpoint that man has inborn instinctive desires, which, if not interfered, lead to conflicts and a confused society. So he maintains that man should be enlightened by factitious efforts. 3. Kuo-tzu(告子) considers human nature as the natural state before morality-the instinct of inborn sensuous desires as the undefined state prior to good and evil. The three scholars differ in opinion with one another about the concept of human nature. Naturally, it is not appropriate to compare their interpretations of human nature in all. It is possible only to investigate characteristics of each thought and the logical rationality shown in the process of thought formation.

退溪道德哲學의 根本問題

李京植 대구대학교 인문과학연구소 1991 人文科學硏究 Vol.9 No.-

셰익스피어 first Folio : 서지학적 서론

李京植 서울大學校人文大學 1978 人文論叢 Vol.2 No.-

세익스피어 First Folio는 세익스피어의 첫 전집이고, 전집류로서는 세계에서 제일 비싼, 아니 돈으로는 이제 더 이상 살 수 없는 책이 되었다. F₁는 36편의 극을 수록하고 있어서 세익스피어 정정의 추축을 이루고 있다. F₁는 또한 여기에 처음 활자 화된 18편의 극들에 대해서는 유일한 권위를 갖고 있다. 이 사실들은 모두 F₁의 중요성을 말해주고 있는 것이다. 한편 F₁는 누가 언제 어떻게 출판하였는가하는 순전히 외적인 문제로부터 본문의 전달과 관계된 여러가지 내적인 문제에 이르기까지 많은 문제를 지니고 있다. 유수한 셰익스피어 본문학자들이 20세기에 들어와서 분석서지학(analytical 혹은 critical bibliography)의 도움을 얻어 이 문제들을 해결하는데 심혈을 기울였으며 그성과 또한 다대한 바 있다.

Shakespeare의 철자 현대화 문제

李京植 서울大學校 人文學硏究所 1984 人文論叢 Vol.13 No.-

Modern-spelling editions as opposed to old-spelling editions are divided into two kinds: one is partially modernized texts or semi-popular editions and the other fully modernized texts or popular editions. A complete and absolute modern-spelling Shakespeare edition has not yet appeared because full modernization involves not a few difficult problems. Some old-spelling forms are easy to modernize. Words like lanthorn(e), murther, parfit, and vild whose interchangeable alternative forms lantern, murder, perfect, and vile also occur within the same original texts can be modernized without any loss unless rhyme is involved. It is also easy to modernize the past tense and past participial ending - ed/-'d to-ed when it is non-syllabic and to -'ed when syllabic. In Shakespeare's day a number of words were often spelt differently in accordance with a compositor's spelling preferences, text-space, type-shortage, or the exigencies of line justification. For example, hear was spelt hear, heare, and here; then as then and than; whose as whose and who's; to as to and too. Even these cases which demand a choice between two exclusive meanings can be easily modernized because context makes the choice quite easy. But difficulty arises when the ambiguity of an original edition embraces two modern words which are not clearly related in form or sense. The word travail, for instance, embraces two modern words travail and travel. No matter which one the editor chooses, he will need an annotation. Some words with final s raise a similar difficulty. Cats in an Elizabethan text may stand for modern cats, cat's, or cat is, and the sense of a passage can bear more than two of these exclusive meanings. In his Riverside Shakespeare edition which is widely recognized as the definitive edition as far as semi-popular Shakespeare editions go, Evans preserves 'a selection of Elizabethan spelling forms that reflect, or may reflect, a distinctive contemporary pronunciation' like fift or sixt (fifth or sixth), Bullingbrook(e) (Bolingbroke), conster (construe), and vild (vile) because those forms suggests, if not Shakespeare's own preferences, 'the kind of linguistic climate in which he wrote' and this approach of his avoids, he said, 'the unhistorical and sometimes insensitive levelling that full-scale modernization(never consistent itself) imposes' In 1978 Oxford University Press launched a project for a modern-spelling Oxford Shakespeare with Stanley Wells and Gary Taylor as General Editor and Associate General Editor respectively. Wells made public his modernizing principles and method in his Modernizing Shakespeare's Spelling published in book form in 1979 together with Taylor's Three Studies in the Text of 'Henry V'. Wells is quite sure that he sees 'no virtue in an attempt to suggest a 'kind of linguistic climate' and that he is capable of modernizing Shakespeare without committing an 'insensitive levelling'by making provision for special cases created by wordplay, scansion, rhyme, and so forth. He also sees no advantage in preserving 'a selection of Elizabethan spelling forms' which would create a need for many more glosses. What he proposes to do is to modernize almost all the semantically indifferent variants (like banket/banquet) and as to semantically significant variants (like courtesy/curtsy/court'sy/curt'sy/cursie, metal/mettle, and travel/travail) where Shakespeare's use is significantly ambiguous, he is to 'adopt the primary sense, and annotate'. But he is to retain stage dialects and those old spellings which 'helps the reader to see that a word is not what he might otherwise suppose'. He also refuses to modernize 'sallets' to 'salads' in Hamlet's 'no sallets in the lines to make the matter savoury', for then we lose the sense of 'something tasty' and mar metre and rhyme as well. Aphetic forms like Edgar's cham (=Ich am) and forms of a characterizing touch and those of representing the speech of uneducated characters, foreigners, etc. are also preserved. Wells will modernize such proper names as Bullingbrook(e), Gertrard, Chatillion, Alanson, Rome (or Roan), Callice which have all been retained by Evans. As to the past tense and past participial ending ed, he prefers the method of representing the syncopated form by -ed and the unsyncopated form y either -ed or -?d to that of representing the former by -'d and the latter by-ed. When these endings occur in prose he means to print the normal modern form. On the whole, Wells' proposal with its considerable number of exceptions does not live up to his ambition for a fully modernized Shakepeare edition although there can be no doubt that he will modernize Shakespeare as fully as he can and certainly more than any one has ever done so far. In conclusion, there could be no doubt that Wells' Oxford edition will be a big step forward to a complete and absolute modern Shakespeare edition although it is not likely to come out in the near future.

복굴절 환경하에서의 결정의 전기광학 성질 측정법

이경식 成均館大學校 科學技術硏究所 1993 論文集 Vol.44 No.1

A method of measuring electrooptical properties of crystals possessing birefringences is presented. Electrooptic coefficient and its temperature dependence (1/n_o^3r_41) d(n_o^3r_41)/dT of a BGO crystal were determined by this technique.

King Lear의 Q₁본문

李京植 서울大學校 人文大學 1978 人文論叢 Vol.3 No.-

Lear는 1607년 11월 26일에 'Nathanael Butter'와 John Busby에 의해서 판권등록되었다가 1608년에 Butter에 의해서 출판되었다. 이것이 소위 Lear의 초판본인 제일사절판(이하Q₁)인 것이다. Q₁는 1619년에 1608년이란 출판연대를 갖고 출판된 Lear와 구별짓기 위해서 'Pide Bull'판이라고도 불리운다. 'Pide Bull'은 Q₁의 간기에 표시된 Q₁의 판매처이다. Lear의 Q₁는 2H6, 3H6, Romeo, Hamlet, MWW, H5 등의 익사절판들(bad Quartos)이 지닌 그런 저질의 본문(bad text)은 아니지만 여러 개의 의심스런 대목들을 갖고 있어서 R3의 Q₁와 더불어 'doubtful Quartos'로 불리우고 있다. 본 논문은 Lear의 Q₁가 지닌 본문적인 문제점들에 대한 학자들의 연구들을 개관하는 것을 목적으로 한다.

셰익스피어 본문과 확립 : 이론과 실제

李京植 서울大學校 人文學硏究所 1981 人文論叢 Vol.6 No.-

There are two main origins of textual errors in early quartos and the First Folio of Shakespeare: scribes and printing houses. To discover these two kinds of errors and to remove them is to establish Shakespeare's text. What I propose to do in this writing is to discuss (1) origins of textual errors and corruptions, (2) some principles and means for correcting these errors and corruptions, (3) analytical bibliography and its contributions to the establishment of Shakespeare's text, and (4) some important practices of 16th-and 17th-century English printing houses which have important bearings on the transmission of Shakespeare's text such as stop-press correction and casting-off copy. Two things are suggested as means to correct textual errors and corruptions. One is documentary evidence which is given by the equally authoritative corresponding text, and the other emendation. Documentary evidence enables us to substitute authorial readings whereas emendation aims at substituting readings as close to inferential authorial readings as possible. It is extremely difficult to produce good emendations. Greg's warning can serve to prevent bad emendations from being produced: 'no emendation can be, or ought to be, considered in vacuo; but that criticism must always proceed in relation to what we know, or what we surmise, respecting the history of the text.' Analytical bibliography is an indispensable tool of textual criticism; i.e. the task of establishing Shakespeare's text. By analysing books as material objects, it seeks to discover all the demonstrable truths about the transmission of texts and about every process of bookmaking from papermaking to human agents involved like compositors, presscorrectors, press-men, and bookbinders. The finest triumph that analytical bibliography has so far achieved is the demonstration that six compositors worked for the First Folio of Shakespeare and which part each of them undertook, thus revealing spelling-preferences or habits and reliability of each of them. Compositor B, for instance, introduced a new error in every 15 or 16 lines he composed. This means we can emend him more freely than Compositor A who made an error in every 80 lines. In conclusion, there is no denying that analytical bibliography is indispensable for the task of establishing literary texts in general and Shakespeare's text in particular.

Hamlet의 'Solid/Sullied Flesh'

李京植 서울대학교 어학연구소 1982 語學硏究 Vol.18 No.1

This paper attempts(1) to analyze some of the important arguments on one of the most controversial Shakespearian textual cruxes, i.e. ‘solid vs sullied’ and (2) to show by way of conclusion which view should be subscribed to. Being bibliographers, both Dover Wilson and Fredson Bowers tried to solve the question bibliographically and textually and came to the same conclusion that ‘sullied’ is what Shakespeare really wrote but with different evidence. Wilson argued that ‘sallied’ (Q2 reading) is the result of the compositor’s misreading of the MS reading ‘sullied’ whereas Bowers holds that ‘sallied’ was, in Shakespeare’s time, a legitimate form of ‘sullied’, his evidence being that ‘sallied’ (Q2, 1.2 129) and ‘sallies’ (Q2, 2.1 39) were the work of not one and the same compositor and press but of two different compositors and presses. Bowers’ argument, however, was refuted by one notable philologist and linguist Professor Helge Ko¨keritz and by one equally notable bibliographer Alice Walker. According to Ko¨keritz, that ‘sallied’ is a legitimate form of ‘sullied’ is out of the question. Walker finds it difficult to accept Bowers’ argument that two compositors would not have made the same blunder and that therefore ‘sally’ equals ‘sully’, when she considers a close parallel that can be found in both texts of Troilus and Cressida (Q ‘distruction’; F ‘dis­traction’. On the other hand, literary critics like G.M. Young, G.L. Kittredge, Samuel A. Weiss and Richard Flatter argued for F reading ‘solid’, their common evidence being certain cluster image to be found in Henry Ⅳ, Part Ⅱ(3.1. 45ff) and other plays. That is to say, ‘Shakespeare’s unconscious habit of repeating image clusters’ and ‘the contextual demands of the passage’ enable them to settle the crux in favour of ‘solid flesh’. Flatter ignored the legitimacy of ‘sullied’ and went as far as to say that ‘sullied’ is nothing but an emendation. On the whole. scholars argued for ‘sullied’ and critics for ‘solid’. But it is interesting to note that Ko¨keritz and Walker made a notable and, indeed, important exception to this by saying that there would be no knowing which of the two variants Shakespeare really wrote and that it would be up to individual editors to choose between the two. This particular position should be subscribed to so long as any decisive evidence should turn up to dismiss one of the two as not Shakespearian.