Addison 과 Gottsched 에서 나타나는 Cato 의 인물묘사

정상건 한국독어독문학회 1978 獨逸文學 Vol.21 No.1

횔덜린의 사랑의 원리

정상건 한국독어독문학회 1987 獨逸文學 Vol.38 No.1

건강 성인에 있어서 혈청단백들과 LD isoenzymes의 정상치

정상건 釜山醫師會 1982 釜山醫師會誌 Vol.18 No.8

소아급성 림파성백혈병의 완해에 있어 Daunomycin의 사용

정상건 釜山醫師會 1986 釜山醫師會誌 Vol.22 No.2

Die Weltanschauung in Gottfried Kellers Roman " Der Gruene Heinrich " unter Berueck sichtigung der Wandlungen in B(Vergleich beider Fassungen)

정상건 한국독어독문학회 1972 獨逸文學 Vol.13 No.1

異郷の幻影と表現の革新 : 昭和作家の朝鮮と満州

井上健 韓國外國語大學校 外國學綜合硏究센터 日本硏究所 2011 日本硏究 Vol.50 No.-

本小論は、日本戦後文学が異郷や植民地をいかに形象してきたのかを、長谷川四郎(1909-87)、森敦(1912-1989)、小林勝(1927-1971)の三作家の作品を通して辿り、歴史的、文化的文脈と情緒的、感覚的な位相との狭間で、異郷体験がいかなる方法的革新に作家を導いていったのかを検証せんとするものである。 小林勝の短篇「フォード·一九二七年」(1956)は、生まれ育った植民地朝鮮に突如、フォードに乗って姿を現したトルコ人一家がもたらした波紋と、それが幼い感受性に及ぼした微妙で屈折した影響とを描き出す。ここで否定的契機を内在させて語られた異郷体験は、やがて小林文学の中でノスタルジーの明確な拒否へ向かっていくのだが、そうした回路の捻れが、ただちに表現や方法の見直しに作家を導くことはなかった。 これに対して、長谷川四郎の満州、シベリアにおける異郷体験のほうは、表現や方法の革新につながっていったという点で、小林の場合とは大きくその趣を異にしている。ほぼ同時期の仕事であるカフカ短篇の翻訳『飢餓術師』(1954)と、短篇集『シベリヤ物語』(1952)、『鶴』(1953)とをあわせ読むと、長谷川四郎における異郷体験と異言語体験が響き合って、国や文化や言語の境を越える表現を志向し、異化の効果を発揮する文体、非人称的な一人称複数による語りなどとして結実していく様が確認できるはずである。 一方、西洋近代的、プルースト的方法からの脱却の道を模索し続けた森敦は、その晩年にいたって、非西欧的でありながら日本的とも東洋的ともつかぬ、仏教的にしてかつ霊的な地霊を取り込むことによって、小説に現在感を確保する方法に行き着く。そうした地霊の機能する場として再び見出された、森が少年期を過ごした朝鮮は、小説「浄土」(1888)において、新たなる表現の方法として有効に機能しているのである。

" 새로 발견된 Holderlin 의 시 두 편에 관하여 "

정상건 한국독어독문학회 1988 獨逸文學 Vol.40 No.1

Ziel dieser Arbeit war, die ersten beiden unbekannten Gedichte Holderlins ochzeitsgedicht$quot; and odten-Opfer, $quot; die Reinhard Breymayer schon 1978 sowohl in der Handschriftenabteilung als auch in der Sammlung amiliengedichte$quot; der wurttembergischen Landesbibliothek Stuttgart entdeckt hatte, der Koreanischen Gesellschaft fur Germanistik zu Studienzwecken vorzulegen and dabei Breymayers Zuschreibung der Gedichte an HSlderlin zu rezensieren and erlautern. Die Besprechung kommt spat fur unsere Kollegen in Korea, hoffentlich nicht zu spat, In meiner Besprechung erhob ich keine gewichtigen Argumente gegen Breymayers Auffassung, daB Holderlin der Verfasser der beiden Gedichte sei. Eher fand ich seine Indizienbeweise and seine Hinweise auf inhaltliclie and sprachliche Parallelen zwischen beiden Gedichten and Texten von Htilderlin sehr uberzeugend. Dennoch wagte ich ein paar kleine Fragen zu stellen, die mir noch umstritten erscheinen. Der metrische Aufbau der beiden Gedichte (bes, eine Strophe von vier Zeilen mit Kreuzreimen) ist nicht typisch fur Htilderlin in seiner Tubinger Zeit (vielleicht das Gedicht n Neuffer, Im Marz. 1794$quot; ausgenommen) , In den Tubinger Hymnen bediente sich Hdlderlin oft der 8zeiligen and gereimten Strophenformen, sonst gehbren die meisten Gedichte vom 4-zeiligen and reimlosen Strophenbau bei Htilderlin zur Odendichtung. Was den Sprechtakt im Vers betrifft, so fand ich in den einzelnen Zeilen des Gedichtes ㄷochzeitsgedicht$quot; die Zahl der Takte nicht ganz regelmaBig(s. Str.2, v, l; Str,4, v.2; Str.9, v.4; Str.13, v,4), was gerade fur Hblderlin nicht kennzeichnend sein kann, wettn man an seine Auffassung vom strengen gesetzlichen Kalkul denkt. AuBerdem hob ich das Fehlen des Namens Holderlin in der Kondolentenliste von 7=1 Personen hervor. In seinem Brief vom 6, April 180 an mich erklarte Breymayer, dal3 die 74 Kondolenten die Drucklegung des Gedichtes odten-Opfer$quot; gemeinsa!n finanziert hatten and dal3 Holderlin als Verfasser rich nicht an den Kosten der Drucklegung zu beteiligen brauchte. Da man aber nicht weil3, wie and durch wen die Drucklegung erfolgte, kann man wohl auch das Gegenteil von seiner Annahme behaupten. Bei nachster Gelegenheit werde ich meine Besprechung von Breymayers weiteren Funden zu HSlderlin(lorgenopfer an den Erloser$quot; and ymne an die Heiterkeit$quot;) fortsetzen k&nnen.

켈러와 寫實主義

鄭相鍵 충남대학교 교지편집위원회 1977 寶雲 - 충남대학교 Vol.- No.7

Eighteenth German Literatur and Antique Reception-Symposium and Anti-Symposium : A Note on Wieland's Aristipp

정상건 충남대학교 인문과학연구소 1983 인문학연구 Vol.10 No.2

“18세기 독문하과 고대수용문학 - 심포지움과 反 심포지움 : 뷔란트 아리스팁에 관한 주석” Aristipp는 古代 희랍의 哲學者로서 Dyrenaic學派의 創始者이기도 하다. 그러나 Wieland는 Aristipp을 한 歷史的 人物 묘사를 초월하여 Diogenes Laertios, Horace, Cicero, Plutarch, Athenaios 등이 쓴 Aristipp 자료를 참고로 당시 18세기 개?주의 思想의 경향에 따라 批判的이고도 理想的인 Humanist로 부각시켰다. 本論文 뷔란트의 “Aristipp” 作品 제3권 제12장을 中心으로 그곳에 나타나는 女主人公 Lais의 “심포지움”을 플라톤의 “심포지움”과 비교, 그 상반된 관계를 분석연구하였다. 뷔란트는 프라통의 “심포지움”을 모방, 파로듸화하여 소위 “反심포지움“이란 개념 아래 Aristipp의 生의 哲學, 認識論, 그 중에서도 특히 Eros에 대한 문제점을 다루었다. 결국 뷔란트作品 “Aristipp”에서 우선 무엇보다도 人間이 親和性을 發見할 수 있다.

토마스 만과 도스토예프스키 고찰

정상건 한국독어독문학회 1984 獨逸文學 Vol.34 No.1

As confessed often in his letters and essays, Thomas Mann had devoted himself especially to Russian literature. He found in it inspiration and stimulants in his pursuit of a personal style. Russia was for him the land of his longing, when he was young. Thomas Mann had expressed his appreciation of Russian literature and understood it as a matter of existential significance. He placed this literature alongside the philosophy of Nietzsche, among his basic cultural experiences. They both built for him bridges into the future, They both, each in a different way, were experiences of religious nature religious in a new vital and forward-looking sense: In Nietzsche, Thomas Mann found the herald of a new religion, which was to realize in the name of the Third Kingdom the materialization of the spirit, the spiritualization of the flesh. This quest for the new religion, for the Third Kingdom, where spirit would attain corporeality and flesh its spiritualization, he found again in the Russian soul. Thus, it was Russian literature which served as the grand arena for a loftysy thesis of these two opposing forces. The experience of Nietzsche and the experience of the Russian soul led to the future because one saw in them the message of a new humanity to come, which is to dissolve the age-old opposing forces between spirit and matter, or the antithesis of Grecian and Christianity, and to dwell on the harmony of the materialized spirit and the spiritualized flesh. Thomas Mann was inclined to designate the synthetic idea of this new humanity as a new religion. He saw Russian literature since Gogol struggle with this idea. That was why this literature is full of future and holy. In the hope to bring the Russian idea to light, Russian literature had to be consciously critical; it had to measure with Gogol and Dostoevsky the abyss of the soul. We made the attempt to draw a parallel between Thomas Mann and Dostoevsky by analyzing two short works of both men-Thomas Nann's er Bajazzo (translated as "The Dilettante") and Dostoevsky's otes from the Underground". Almost every hero-perhaps antihero would be a more accurate term of Thomas Mann's early short stories is some sort of outsider, driven from society, He has lost contact with a normal life and retreats to the loneliness and the dark. He is a split personality; he is insecure and somewhat sick, Confronted with an insurmountable abyss between the isolated individual and the mass of people, he labors under a delusion, From start to finish he is doomed to failure. thus he is incapable of participating in a normal life, To add to this, some sort of sickness or misfortune always accompanies him. Thomas Mann was especially drawn to this kind of suffering and unhappy character. To this hero's counterpart, the normal man, who symbolizes ife", he shows no interest, He is, and cannot be, an object of the author's study because he offers no problems. In respresenting such an isolated individual-outwardly and inwardly-Thomas Mann perhaps used Dostoevsky as his model and example. The underground man in otes" is an egocentric and social degenerate, who lives up to personal opinions and chooses to accept a world of meaningless suffering. This short work can be looked upon as prelude to the five-act tradgedy of Dostoevsky's later works, where we find to some degree repititions or variations of the same theme-a man has sinned, his conscience is bothering him and he falls mentally ill. Finally, he takes penance of some sort upon himself, thereby attaining peace of mind or salvation. This way, Dostoevsky tried to solve moral and religious problems. We discovered the corresponding narrative form of both works. It is a first-person narrative in the manner of a confession, While the author' of the otes" turns directly to a future audience, even though he makes it clear that he is writing only for himself, the invention of an audience is missipg in Thomas Mann's ilettante". But we still could detect in it enough of a hint of an audience to whom he hero seems to address and exculpate himself: Both works are divided into two parts: the first part contains the author's philosophy of life, his explanation, how and why he has reached the decision to write the notes. In the second part there ensues the main account, a retrospect to some depressed adventures in the past, and short biographical sketches. The hero of Thomas Mann-like Dostoevsky's -represents himself as the type of a learned man of the 19th century who has developed his own ideas through intensive precoccupation with literature and art, but they are found to be not compatible with reality and everyday life. The knowledge of this incompatibility, the growing recognition that both heroes of Thomas Mann and Dostoevsky are incapable of establishing their contact with real life, plunges them into deep despair, from which they try to save themselves by writing down their memories and experiences. It is, however, love that could only save them from degradation and a meaningless life. Thomas Mann and Dostoevsky were not interested in developing a plot which is kept out of the forefront. And the events described in their booles are only important in so far as they share with the characterization of each hero in his psychological development. Thomas Mann's hero tries to establish himself as an artist and to devise his own life-style as such, but in the end he is torn between the worlds of the bourgeois and the bohemian. Thus, Thomas Mann's story ends with the hero's despair and resignation. Dostoevsky's story, however, proceeds from this point; his antihero compounds the nihilistic tendencies of his time with search of a new recognition; not only for himself, but also for people in general. The problem of human existence discussed in Dostoevsky's otes" is of great interest because it demonstrates the the author's attitude toward life. It is perhaps based on his love of life. It is not a question of the capacity or the incapacity of the author to live life" or not to live life", but of humanity in general. In Thomas Mann's he Dilettante", it is, on the other hand, a question of the hero's self-recognition and self-indulgence in his own particular way. Even though Thomas Mann never emphatically mentioned Dostoevsky among the masters of his youth, we discovered the close amity of his views with Dostoevsky's in regardof the roteskkust", which, practiced by the latter, also plays a significant role in Thomas Mann's early works. On the other hand, we must be very careful, when we speak of influence" because their styles and intentions are so different from one another that we cannot possibly label Thomas Mann as a success of Dostoevsky.