19세기 말 러시아 전제정과 주류독점제

배소영 ( So Young Bae ) 호남사학회(구 전남사학회) 2012 역사학연구 Vol.48 No.-

1894년 러시아는 국가주류독점제를 시행했다. 알렉산드르 3세는 보수주의 정책을 펼쳤고, 강력한 전제정을 원했다. 그의 의지는 독점제도 법안을 작성하는 것으로 나타났으며, 니콜라이 2세에 의해 계승되었다. 주류독점 제는 말 그대로 국가가 술의 생산부터 판매까지 모든 과정을 통제하는 제도였다. 차르는 전제정의 도덕성과 정당성을 회복하여 통치력을 강화하고자 했기 때문에, 국민들에게 건전한 음주문화를 권장하고 음주량을 통제함으로써 ``목자적 사명``을 다 하고자 했다. 하지만 약 20년에 걸쳐 러시아 전역으로 확대 실시된 독점제는 차르의 기대와는 달리 큰 성과를 거두지 못했고, 오히려 부작용을 일으켰다. 주류 가격이 상승해 국민들의 부담이 가중되었을 뿐만 아니라, ``거리위 만취``와 불법 주점이라는 왜곡된 음주문화가 형성된 것이다. 사회의 비판이 거세어졌으며, 전제정은 도덕성과 통치능력을 의심받았다. 독점제도의 도입과 운영 및 결과는 19세기 말과 20세기 초 시대적 흐름에 발맞추기 위한 러시아 전제정의 노력의 흔적이었다. In 1894, the state vodka monopoly was introduced in Russian empire. Tsar Alexander Ⅲ took controversial way, wanted to powerful autocracy. His will was reflected in the draft of vodka monopoly and inherited to Nicholas Ⅱ. Through the monopoly, whole process of making, selling of vodka be controlled by state, Tsar eager to consolidate his power which would be achieved by restoring its morality and legitimacy. For the reason he choose to cultivate sound drinking culture between people and regulate their drinking as the way to perform tsar`s traditional pastoral mission. However the monopoly, which had been operated for 20years in Russian empire, noy only failed to meet to tsar`s hope, but brought side-effects. The vodka got expensive and people got burden, drinking culture get twisted to ``drunkeness on street`` and illegal tavern. The autocracy was criticized, futhermore, suspected of morality and ability to govern. The introduction, operation and result of the monopoly suggested evidence of Russian autocracy`s concerning for the needs of the times, turn of the 19-20century.

제1차 세계대전기 러시아 우익의 분열과 전제정 옹호 논거의 약화

박상철 ( Park Sang-chul ) 한국서양사학회 2017 西洋史論 Vol.0 No.134

많은 역사가들은 1차 세계대전 중에 러시아제국이 붕괴된 원인으로 흔히 전제정의 비타협적인 완고성 또는 자유주의자들의 급진성을 거론한다. 하지만 거기에는 러시아 우익세력들의 분열과 전제정 옹호 논거의 약화도 또 다른 중요한 요인으로 작용했을 것이다. 러시아 우익은 전쟁 전에 친독일적인 입장을 공공연하게 피력하였지만, 전쟁이 발발하자 독일의 군국주의와 야욕을 비난하였다. 하지만 전쟁이 장기화되자, 그들은 전쟁의 지속 여부를 둘러싸고 입장이 분열되었다. 게다가 러시아 자유주의자들은 러시아 우익을 “친독일적”이라고 공격함으로써 그들의 영향력을 약화시키려 했다. 이런 비난은 전쟁 전의 친독일적인 입장 때문에, 그리고 전쟁 기간에 일부 우익이 독일과의 단독강화를 주장했거나 그런 오해를 살 만한 발언을 했기 때문에 큰 설득력을 갖게 되었다. 러시아 우익은 전쟁이 애국적 열정을 고양시키고 모든 국민을 군주 주변으로 단합시킬 것이라고, 따라서 전쟁기간에 보수적 원칙에 입각하여 러시아가 다시 태어나게 될 것이라고 믿었다. 하지만 우익 세력들은 국내정책에서도 입장이 갈렸다. 한편에서는 자유주의자들의 권력욕을 비난하면서 국가두마의 해산 또는 무력화, 사회단체들의 역할 축소, 강력한 정부권력의 확립, 계엄령 선포 등을 황제에게 간청했다. 다른 한편에서는 전쟁 승리를 위해 정부가 국가두마 및 사회단체들과 더 적극적으로 대화하고 협력할 것을 촉구하였고, 특히 “어둠의 세력들”을 제거할 필요성을 강조하였다. 또한 ‘애국심’과 ‘강력한 정부’처럼 우익이 오랫동안 주장했던 논거들은 전쟁 상황에서 설득력을 상실하게 되었다. 자유주의 세력들은 전쟁 승리를 위한 단결이라는 명분으로 자신들의 애국심을 부각시키면서 우익의 친독일적인 성향을 매국 행위로 비난하였다. 그리고 강력한 정부란 사회의 진정한 신뢰를 받을 때에만 실현가능하며, 이를 위해 다양한 사회집단 및 소수민족들과 대화와 타협을 해야 한다고 주장하였다. 반면에 우익세력들이 주장하는, 황제에게만 충성스러운 강력한 정부란, 많은 사람들의 눈에는, 전세를 뒤집지 못한 채 사회경제적 위기를 심화시키는 기존 정부와 크게 다르지 않은 것으로 보였다. 따라서 많은 우익 인사들은 자유주의자들의 신랄한 공격에 맞서 점차 러시아 정부와 기존 체제를 옹호할 의지를 상실하게 되었다. Many historians often refer to the intransigence of autocracy and the radicalism of liberals as being the main causes of the collapse of the Russian empire. However, the fact that Russian rightists were largely divided and discredited while advocating autocracy could be counted as another important cause. Although they publicly expressed their pro-German stance before the war, when the war broke out, the Russian rightists blamed the war on German militarism. However, as the war became increasingly prolonged, they were divided because of their viewpoints, especially about the continuation of the war. In addition, Russian liberals attempted to weaken the influence of the Russian rightists by condemning them as being “pro-German.” This condemnation became quite convincing, considering the insistence of a separate peace with Germany by some Russian rightists and their remarks open to misunderstanding as was their pro-German stance before the war. Russian rightists believed that the war would create enthusiastic patriotism and unite all the peoples around the emperor. However, they were divided in terms of their stance on domestic policy. Most rightists, criticizing the liberals’ greed for power, supplicated the emperor to paralyze and even dissolve State Duma, to establish a strong government, and to declare martial law. But several rightists urged the government to actively cooperate with State Duma in order to win the war, and in particular emphasized the need to eliminate the “forces of darkness”. The long-standing arguments of rightists, such as ‘patriotism’ and ‘strong government’, eventually became less persuasive. Liberals, by insisting on unity for victory, highlighted their patriotism and denounced the rightists as being pro-German and treasonous. They argued that a strong government could be accomplished only when enjoying the trust of the society, as it were, by way of communication and compromise with various social groups and ethnic minorities. A strong government only loyal to the emperor, such as that which rightists wished to establish, did not seem to be much different from the existing government which had caused the socio-economic crisis. Thus, many rightists gradually lost their will to defend the Russian government and the established order against bitter attacks by liberals.

회고와 전망: 2015~2016년 러시아사: ‘더 많이 다양하게 쓰기’의 재현

박원용 역사학회 2017 역사학보 Vol.0 No.235

This paper attempts to assess and analyse the articles and books on the Russian history published in 2015~2016 in Korea. Taken as a whole, researchers in the Korean Association of Russian History have written about various topics during the past two years as the previous years. Especially, the subjects on the imperial Russian history that have been treated during the past two years go as follows: economic situation of the Russian imperial society, attempts from liberal political forces to save the Russian dynasty, the characteristics of the Russian society as the empire. However, this does not mean we have nothing to be desired. As it was done in the past, we have not yet produced enough books that can contribute to enhancing the knowledge and interests in the Russian history from the reading public. Considering the situation that the general public do not have chances to be acquainted with the articles published in the academic journals, it is necessary for us to publish more monographs to contact with the reading public. Furthermore, whereas we have made efforts to widen the research topics, we have neglected in deepening and debating our research topics. Considering the fact that the level of academic standard can be developed through active debates and suggestion of various perspectives on the previous research achievements, we should make more efforts to review and advance the previous researches. If we start to change to that direction, we can have more fruitful and meaningful articles and books in the near future. 이 글은 2015~2016년 한국 러시아학계의 연구성과에 대한 고찰을 바탕으로 그 이후의 연구경향을 전망해 보는 것을 목적으로 한다. 이 기간 동안 한국의 러시아사 연구자들은 이전 두 해의 연구성과에서도 나타났듯이 연구주제와 연구대상 시기를 확대해 왔다. 러시아 혁명 이후의 소비에트 시대에 집중하는 경향은 더 이상 나타나지 않으며 제정기 러시아의 다양한 측면, 즉 제정기의 경제적 상황, 혁명 직전 자유주의 정치세력의 전제정을 구하기 위한 시도, 제국으로서의 러시아 전제정의 특성 등에 관한 다양한 연구들을 수행해 왔다. 또한 포스트 소비에트 시대 주변 공화국들의 다양한 역사적 경험 및 정치적 유산 등도 러시아사 연구자들이 지난 2년간 다룬 주제들이었다. 주제와 고찰대상을 러시아사 연구자들이 확대시켜 왔지만 앞으로의 과제도 적지 않다. 연구성과의 공유와 확산을 위해서 일반 독자들이 다가가기 쉬운 단행본들을 보다 많이 출간해야 하지만 이러한 요구를 만족시키는 단행본의 출간은 많지 않았다. 또한 한국 러시아사의 연구수준의 향상을 위해서는 선행 연구에 대한 보완과 치열한 학문적 토론이 있어야 하지만 그렇게 하지 못했다. 지난 2년간의 미흡한 부분을 더욱 수준 높은 성과들이 보완해 줌으로써 2년 후의 ‘회고와 전망’은 더욱 풍성한 내용을 가지게 될 것이다.

러시아 전제정의 반격-베일리스 사건의 상징성을 중심으로

박원용 동북아시아문화학회 2010 동북아 문화연구 Vol.1 No.23

This paper attempts to disclose the implications of Beilis's case, a trial happened at the period of increasing opposition to the authority of the Russian autocracy. Rather than focusing on racial conflicts and religious rituals inherent in the case, I'm trying to put it in the context of the maneuver of Russian conservative forces, who thought that they could extend the lives of the autocracy by exploiting the implied meaning of the case. If Beilis was found guilty, the conservative forces thought that they could extend the prosecution against the Jews, who from their viewpoints were involved in various kinds of revolutionary movements. Beilis's case with passing of the time was not a simple murder case only attentive to the small group of people in the region. It might be the case contributing to strengthening power of the autocracy. In order to bring back the stability of the Russian tsardom, the conservative forces did not hesitate to ignore righteous legal procedures such as selecting qualified juries and guaranteeing the rights of the defendant. They could carry out such unlawful acts with the collaboration of high officials and Nicolas II's tacit approval. In spite of the efforts from supporters to the autocracy, Beilis after all was released from the prison. The royal forces were greatly disappointed with the final verdict. But it could not be interpreted as their total defeat. The argument that the religious rituals of Jews were the principal reason to the death of innocent Russian youth was accepted. After all the Jews were turned out to be harmful elements to the stability of the Russian society and lives of Russian people. It was difficult for the Russian autocracy to disregard the hatred against the Jews advocated by the right political forces such as the Union of Russian People and Black Hundreds, because they were the active supporters for the declining regime. They attempted to find chances of fight back to the opposing groups by expanding the implicit meaning of Beilis's case. However, the Russian autocracy could not have enough time to exploit the potential of Beilis's case for the defense of the regime as it slided into the First World War.

토크빌의 민주주의론 : 민주주의의 폐단에 대한 공화주의적 처방

이용재(LEE, Yong-Jae) 한국사학사학회 2012 韓國史學史學報 Vol.0 No.26

알렉시 토크빌은 자신의 양대 저작, 『아메리카의 민주주의』와 『앙시앵레짐과 프랑스혁명』에서 민주주의 시대의 자유와 평등에 대한 포괄적인 전망을 제시했다. 그는 평등이 지배적인 열정으로 군림하는 민주주의 사회에서 자유의 도움으로 점차 평등이 실현됨에 따라 자유 그 자체는 더욱 얻기 힘들어 졌다고 말한다. 민주주의 시대에 개인주의는 개인의 고립과 물질적 탐닉을 낳고 급기야 민주적 독재를 초래할 위험을 안고 있다는 것이 그의 최종적인 진단이다. 토크빌은 이러한 민주주의의 폐단을 치유할 궁극적 방안으로 정치적 자유의 복원을 제안했다. 『아메리카의 민주주의』 첫째 권에 선보인 ‘다수의 전제’에 대한 분석은 사실 19세기 고전적 자유주의의 틀에서 그리 벗어나 있지 않다. 하지만 둘째 권의 핵심명제인 ‘개인주의’와 ‘민주적 전제정’에 대한 분석에는 그를 공화주의의 범주에서 해석할 수 있는 요소들이 많이 나타난다. 토크빌은 정치적 자유의 훈련장으로 아메리카의 자유제도들을 높이 평가했다. 민주주의는 시민들의 정치참여 확대와 공공정신의 고양을 통해서만 확보될 수 있다는 것이다. 프랑스 자유주의에 ‘공화파적 자유’의 요소를 도입했다는 점에서 토크빌은 스스로 칭했듯이 ‘새로운 유형의 자유주의자’로 불릴 수 있을 것이다. Alexis de Tocqueville gave some comprehensive views on the liberty and the equality in democratic ages, in his classical works, Democracy in America and The Old Regime and the Revolution. He argues that the ideal of equality being the ruling passion in democratic ages, liberty is made more difficult to be obtained, as equality increasingly establishes itself. Individualism being a peculiar problem under democracy, he thinks, the materialism and individualism of democratic peoples tend to prepare the way for despotic government. Tocqueville proposed the reintegration of the political liberty as a ultimate remedy for this democratic abuses. On the ‘tyranny of majority', described in the 'First Democracy', there would be no real differences between Tocqueville and his contemporary liberal thinkers. But if one focus on 'individualism' and ‘democratic despotism', major themes of the 'Second Democracy', one can find many elements allowing to reassess him as a republican thinker. Tocqueville celebrated the local character of American freedom and asserted the importance of free associations as a gymnasium for political liberty. He insisted that democracy could only be sustained by vigorous civic activity. Tocqueville proposed himself as ‘a liberal of a new kind', introducing some republican liberties in French Liberalism.

프랑스 계몽주의와 혁명 그리고 제국적 공화국

홍태영(Hong, Taiyoung) 한국정치외교사학회 2017 한국정치외교사논총 Vol.39 No.S

18세기 프랑스가 영국과 경쟁을 벌이면서 절대왕정과 귀족들의 부패와 재정적 곤란이 심해지는 상황이 되었다. 따라서 당시 프랑스 계몽주의자들을 비롯한 많은 이들은 프랑스의 난관을 극복하고 새로운 프랑스의 모습을 찾고자 하였다. 그러한 지적 노력의 과정에서 공화국과 제국에 대한 사유들을 전개해 나갔다. 특히 ‘제국적 공화국’ 혹은 ‘공화 주의적 제국’이라는 개념은 18세기 동안 공화주의자들에 의해 로마로부터 빌려와 프랑스에 적용시키고자 한 개념이었다. 공화주의적이면서 동시에 프랑스의 영광을 구현할 수 있는 제국으로의 발전을 구현할 수 있는 개념이었다. 이글은 18세기 계몽주의자들의 공화국과 제국에 대한 사유가 무엇이었으며, 그것은 이후 프랑스 혁명과 나폴레옹 제국 시기에 어떻게 전환되어 구체화되는가를 살펴보고자 한다. This article aims to examine the imperial-republican thoughts of the 18th century French intellectuals and their development in the periods of French Revolution and Napoleon Empire. In the 18th century, France was situated under the absolute monarchy and the corruption of aristocracy. Les homme de lettres–enlightened intellectuals–searched for the way to overcome the difficulties under which it labored and to establish a new France. Not only republic but also empire were the ideas which they came up with. The idea of ‘imperial republic’ or ‘republican empire’ is the conception which originated in the ancient Rome. The French intellectuals adopted it, for it seemed to them to ensure both republicanism and the glory of imperial France.

러시아 군주정의 구원투수- 러시아 민족동맹의 형성과 전략을 중심으로

박원용(Park Won-Yong) 동북아시아문화학회 2009 동북아 문화연구 Vol.1 No.20

러시아 군주정의 구원투수- 러시아 민족동맹의 형성과 전략을 중심으로

박원용 동북아시아문화학회 2009 동북아 문화연구 Vol.1 No.19

This paper deals with one of the strongest and most influential rightist parties at the time of crisis of the Russian autocracy- the Union of the Russian People. Through the study I attempt to shed new light on the Union of the Russian People not as the organization just stick to small strata of privileged estates, but as the organization to gain wider support from large segments of Russian population. By way of establishing itself as the political party with broad social support, the Union could provide the Russian autocracy with a breathing space for extending its life span. The impetus for organizing the Union of the Russian People was originated from the three documents announced on the February 18, 1905. The Russian rightists especially paid attention to the decree, which emotionally appealed for gathering loyal forces to the autocracy around the throne. A. I. Dubrovin, the founder of the Union, thought that it was the right time for the Russian rightists to participate in the political arena actively and finally succeeded in launching the political organization with including broad social strata. On the process of pursuing its goal, the Union of the Russian People had a keen sense in appreciating the political reality at the time. Though the Union did not endorse the idea of sharing the autocratic power with a representative institution like Duma, it realized that the strategy of destroying the Duma at the present time was impossible. The only solution was that by promoting a large number of rightist forces to the Duma the Union sought to transform it into an amicable institution to the autocracy. The Union to a certain extent had succeeded in implementing its desire in the political field through the achievement of the change of electorial procedure to the Duma. The Union also had the strategy to appeal to the Russian people through the idea of “empire for the Russian people.” The ideology of an empire only for the Russian made it possible for the Union to recognize the extreme measure of terror against non-Russian people like Jews. In the long run, the strategies of the Union had an initial success for the duration of the Russian autocracy, but the forces of the Russian rightists was not enough to hold back the challenge of the socialist parties. This paper deals with one of the strongest and most influential rightist parties at the time of crisis of the Russian autocracy- the Union of the Russian People. Through the study I attempt to shed new light on the Union of the Russian People not as the organization just stick to small strata of privileged estates, but as the organization to gain wider support from large segments of Russian population. By way of establishing itself as the political party with broad social support, the Union could provide the Russian autocracy with a breathing space for extending its life span. The impetus for organizing the Union of the Russian People was originated from the three documents announced on the February 18, 1905. The Russian rightists especially paid attention to the decree, which emotionally appealed for gathering loyal forces to the autocracy around the throne. A. I. Dubrovin, the founder of the Union, thought that it was the right time for the Russian rightists to participate in the political arena actively and finally succeeded in launching the political organization with including broad social strata. On the process of pursuing its goal, the Union of the Russian People had a keen sense in appreciating the political reality at the time. Though the Union did not endorse the idea of sharing the autocratic power with a representative institution like Duma, it realized that the strategy of destroying the Duma at the present time was impossible. The only solution was that by promoting a large number of rightist forces to the Duma the Union sought to transform it into an amicable institution to the autocracy. The Union to a certain extent had succeeded in implementing its desire in the political field through the achievement of the change of electorial procedure to the Duma. The Union also had the strategy to appeal to the Russian people through the idea of “empire for the Russian people.” The ideology of an empire only for the Russian made it possible for the Union to recognize the extreme measure of terror against non-Russian people like Jews. In the long run, the strategies of the Union had an initial success for the duration of the Russian autocracy, but the forces of the Russian rightists was not enough to hold back the challenge of the socialist parties.

18세기 말과 19세기 초의 러시아 문학과 민족의식 -까람진을 중심으로

전지용 ( Ji Yong Jeon ) 전남사학회 2009 역사학연구 Vol.36 No.-

포스트 소비에트 시대의 러시아영화에 나타난 역사적 재현의 문제들

기계형(Ki Kye Hyeong) 부산경남사학회 2009 역사와 경계 Vol.71 No.-

This paper aims to analyze two historical films, that is "The Barber of Siberia" and "Admiral" from the historical aspect. It will explain the film, with a particular focus on the theme of historical fact and interpretation, specific peculiarity, and meaning of historical film as a document. Two films have both the differences and the similarities. Directors of these films are using a historical setting for their plot with positive heroes to transport the moral values of the past into present through the film "The Barber of Siberia." And Andrei Kravchuk attempted to achieve heroes among the White Army, rehabilitation of Kolchak and resurrection of Russian Orthodox in "Admiral." This paper will contrast and critic the content, style, director of the films. And it is to evaluate critically the way in which these movies present and analyze past and present. Although this paper will be focusing on historical film, it will also examine the historical circumstances of various human being. It's goal is to understand the multiple factors that shaped the Russian history of the late nineteenth century and the early twentieth century through historical film. In short, this paper will explore the relationship between history and historical films.