The Dostoevsky Tradition and Its Influence on Chekhov

문석우(Moon Seok Woo) 아시아·중동부유럽학회 2006 동유럽발칸학 Vol.8 No.2

글은 19세기 러시아 사실주의 작가인 도스또예프스끼의 문학적 유산을 이어 받았던 체홉의 문학세계를 고찰하며 두 작가의 상호관계를 밝히려는데 목적이 있다. 두 작가를 비교문학적인 방법으로 고찰해보는 일은 상호간의 특성을 조명하는데 도움을 줄 수 있다. 따라서 체홉의 난해한 문학적 특성이 도스또예프스끼와의 상호관계를 통해서 한층 두드러지게 평가될 수 있다고 생각한다. 러시아의 문학전통에 대한 체홉의 태도는 초기 유머작품에서 나타난 패러디뿐만 아니라 아이러니에서도 많은 흔적을 보여준다. 체홉의 복잡하고 난해한 미학을 논할 때, 도스또예프스끼의 미학을 비교한다면 체홉을 이해하는 데 많은 도움을 얻을 수 있다. 러시아문학사에서 두 작가는 독자들이 느끼고 있듯이, 상호 관련되어 있기 보다는 오히려 대립되어 있었다. 두 작가에 대한 비교연구도 그다지 많지 않다. 유감스럽게도 두 작가의 테마는 많은 점에서 여전히 불투명한 채로 남아있으며, 어떤 점에선 수수께끼 같기도 하다. 그러나 체홉은 도스또예프스끼를 깊이 알고 있었다. 그것은 도스또예프스끼에 대한 견해보다는 직접적인 혹은 숨겨진 인용문, 의역과 패러디의 형식들로 체홉의 서술구조에 나타나 있다. 이런 미학적 맥락에서 두 작가를 고찰함으로써 러시아 사실주의 문학의 본질을 더욱 깊 이 헤아리게 된다는 점에서 이 연구의 필요성이 요구된다.체홉을 도스또예프스끼에게 다가가게 만든 것은 다양하고 매력적인 비밀을 간직한 인간의 삶과 인간성을 꿰뚫어보는 지각과 자유에 대한 갈망이었다. 고통스러운 일상생활을 꿰뚫어보는 미학적 영감이라고도 말할 수 있다. 러시아문학사에서 수준 높은 미학적 조명과 산문이 지닌 긴장성은 상호 보완적이며 서로 유사하지 않은 예술적 경험이 중심자리를 차지한다. 미학적인 면에서 볼 때, 두 작가에게서는 더욱 심오해진 인간성과 표현의 새로운 형식을 발견할 수 있었다. 두 작가는 수세기에 걸친 러시아의 민족-문화적 전통을 따르고 있으며, 19세기의 사실주의 방법에 그 가능성을 깊게 했다. 또한 주변의 이념적이고 종교적인 규범들과 상관없이 점차 복잡해지는 인간의 사고력을 훌륭하게 보여주었다. 두 작가를 비교해본 결과 체홉은 도스또예프스끼의 뒤를 따랐으나 객관성을 지닌 채 그를 뛰어넘어 도약했다. 또한 그들의 관계는 예술형식들에 반영된 패러디 등 예술체계의 관계였다. This paper discusses the literary world of Chekhov, who inherited the literary legacy of Dostoevsky, and clarifies the relation of the two writers. It helps to understand each novelist’s characteristics to access them in terms of comparative literature. So, the abstruse elements of Chekhov’s works can be characteristically evaluated in relation to Dostoevsky and his literary attainments. Chekhov’s attitudes toward the tradition of Russian literature can be found not only as parody but also as irony in his early comedies. In discussing the tough-to-understand esthetics of Chekhov, one should compare them to that of Dostoevsky. That can help to decipher Chekhov and his ideas. In the history of Russian literature, as the reader is well aware, both novelists have been rather contrastive than correlated. Only a few comparative studies have been conducted on them. Unfortunately, the themes of the writers have still remained opaque; they even seem to be mysterious. However, Chekhov knew much about Dostoevsky. His knowledge concerning Dostoevsky is revealed in the narrative system as direct/indirect quotations, free translation, and parodies, instead of his own opinions about Dostoevsky. Viewed from this esthetic perspective, the two writers need to be discussed, allowing the kernel of Russian realism literature to be easily and profoundly understood. What attracted Chekhov to Dostoevsky was Dostoevsky’s insights into human life and humanity and his desire for freedom, as it were, Dostoevsky’s innate esthetic instinct to perceive painful daily lives. In Russia’s literary history, the attempts to illuminate its literature with esthetics and the rigidity of the prose are mutually compensatory and in betweenstand different artistic experiences. From the esthetic viewpoint, we could find the profound meaning of humanity and a new form of expressing ideas. Both artists have been surrounded by the centuries-old traditions of the Russian people and culture, and opened the door wide for 19th-century Realism. Furthermore, they show the complexity of human’s thinking irrespective of idealistic and religious norms and standards. Having compared these two artists, we find that Chekhov has followed in Dostoevsky’s steps; however, he has leaped over Dostoevsky and made big strides. Also, their relationship is composed of artistic systems: a parody reflecting a literary style or form.

도스토예프스키극의 한국 공연사 연구

안숙현(Ahn Suk Hyeon) 한국노어노문학회 2016 노어노문학 Vol.28 No.3

본 논문은 한국 무대에 올렸던 도스토예프스키극의 공연들을 정리하고, 도스토예프스키극의 한국 무대화에 나타난 특성을 밝혀보고자 하는 데에 연구의 목적을 둔다. 한국 최초의 도스토예프스키극은 1938년 부민관에서 공연된 낭만좌의 『죄와 벌』이다. 그 후 신협의 『죄와 벌』공연(1960)을 비롯해서 1960·70년대에 공연된 작품들은 대중의 취미에 영합하여 지나치게 감상적이고 신파적인 색채의 낭만적인 무대 표현이 두드러졌다. 1980년대부터는 한국의 사회상황이 공연에 반영되기 시작했으며, 특히 휴머니즘 성격이 강조되어 연출되었다. 하지만 그 결과 도스토예프스키가 전하고자 했던 신과 인간 사이의 회복 문제가 약화되기도 했다. 1990년대 도스토예프스키극 공연은 문학극의 성격이 강조되는 경향이 있었지만, 21C에 들어오면서 도스토예프스키극은 원작이 과감하게 해체되고 재구성되어 연출가만의 새로운 연극언어로 무대화되었다. 그동안 한국 무대에서 도스토예프스키극은 연극의 사회적 역할과 교육적 임무를 담당해왔다. 또한 ‘언어’의 미학을 보여줌으로써 연극의 ‘문학성’을 회복하는 무대를 이끌었으며, 인문학적 성찰을 바탕으로 한 장시간의 공연 무대로 오늘날의 속도전에 역행하는 실험정신을 보여주었다. 그 외에도 도스토예프스키극은 장편소설의 무대화로 각색의 다양한 방향을 제시했으며, 특히 현대사회를 반영할 뿐만 아니라 수수께끼가 산재한 열린 텍스트로서 이 시대 도전적인 연극인들의 새로운 무대 언어 창작에 기여했다. The purpose of this study is to survey and analyze the performances of Dostoevsky’s plays in Korean theater. The first Dostoevsky’s play in Korean stage was the play of Dostoevsky’s <Crime and Punishment>, performed in 1938 by theatrical troupe Nangmanjwa in Buminkwan theater. Dostoevsky’s plays in korean stage at the beginning in 1960s and 70s including the play <Crime and Punishment>, performed by theatrical troupe Shinhyup in 1960, were so emotional and melodramatic performances. From the 1980s in Korea Dostoevsky’s works were performed taking into account the korean situation, that korean audience could recognize Dostoevsky thought and philosophy as reality, and especially they are reinterpreted as humanism text. In 1990s Dostoevsky’s plays in korean stage were highlighted literary value of Dostoevsky’s works, but in korean stage of the 21<SUP>st</SUP> century Dostoevsky’s works were deconstructed and reconstructed as experimental theatre, and these performances showed new language of korean directors, who had a talk with Dostoevsky with enthusiastic attitude. In the 21<SUP>st</SUP> century, we believe, the humanities can heal our times of crisis, Dostoevsky’s plays are opening the door of various conversations with korean theatrical crowd towards the future.

'악'의 주체와 상징: 근대적 이성에 관한 도스또옙스끼의 해석

이상룡(Lee Sang Ryong) 한국노어노문학회 2003 노어노문학 Vol.15 No.2

Since modern reason emerged the controling idea of the trend of modernization in the middle of 18th century, it's been interpreted in various way in terms of substantial function and real connotation. Under the given circumstances, it facilitated to take modern society up to higher level and modern citizens were easily fascinated. In the meantime some literary avant-garde attempted to analyze and disoriented the essential meaning of modern reason. Consequently, a sense of plurality of real meaning of it became the main argue point and created lots of different interpretation. Dostoevsky also focused on what kind of effects modern reason could come up with from the aesthetic standpoint. In terms of human emancipation from dogmatic structure of religious hierarchy Dostoevsky evaluated highly the positive role of modern reason, at the same time, however, he insinuated the negative side of it through metaphysical hypothesis of protagonists of his narratives. Therefore in the eyes of many critics, Dostoevsky's work has disintegrated into a collection of independent philosophical structures defended by his heroes. Of modern reason Dostoevsky had got an unique interpretation. But he didn't have any intention to reveal it, so Dostoevsky juxtaposed the concept of modern reason and the inner voice of the protagonist who believed that his mission is devoted to build up the most crystallized theory. In doing so, Dostoevsky's creative imagination was concentrated on ultimate culmination of modern reason. In his treatment of hypothetical concept of 'suffocative unity of reason' and 'superman theory' Dostoevsky reveals his aesthetic interpretation of modern reason. The reason might be the fundamental structure for tragic experience of the protagonist, because his painful struggle to grasp his freedom only with logical methodology repeatedly failed him and finally freedom denied him. At this stage he assume that modern reason can easily be the subject and symbol of evil with inevitable failure of communication with others. Dostoevsky forces his heroes to experience physical reality more painfully than in everyday life, sometimes allowing them to quench their ontological thirst in circular time of eternity, in a harmonious and unreal reconciliation with universal being. Through this process the world of Dostoevsky's novels is obsessed with fantastic reality of evil concept. So as a conclusion we can assume a hypothetic theme that the novels of Dostoevsky are massive architectural and orchestral works of interrelationship of symbol of evil and real meaning of modern reason.

부조화의 시학

이상룡(Lee Sang Yong) 한국노어노문학회 2001 노어노문학 Vol.13 No.1

What kind of literary meaning has 〈A Raw Youth〉 in the sphere of Dostoevsky's creative world? Of the last five full-length novels, 〈A Raw Youth〉 is accorded the least esteem. From the standpoint of critical analysis, it lacks Dostoevsky's unique and authentic quality of inwardness, and the customary concern of his characters with moral and ethical hypothesis never really penetrates to the core of their relations to reality. The promising theme with which the novel begins is closely related with the efforts of the raw youth, Arkady. an illegitimate son. to win a place in the heart of his real father. Versilov, who has cruelly neglected him. This thematic structure is handled with an appealing freshness which Dostoevsky always seemed capable of invoking in his treatment of childhood and youth. In terms of poetics, however. the plot is almost strangled by excessive motivation and a profusion of characters, very few of whom has a unique identity. However. the novel has a particular interest for whom. who wants to search for the quest for form of Dostoevksy's creative art. for in several passages he theorizes openly on the whole problem of emotional dualism which play such a large part in the psychological make-up of some of his greatest characters. The central figure in this work. Versilov reveals an extraordinary degree of emotional dualism in his fierce passion, compounded of love and hate, for the mysterious Katerina Ahmakova. Several of Dostoevsky's leading ideas, as well as certain explanations of his creative process. are embodied in this striking characterization. He is a composite character in whose strange personality may be found the leading traits of several protagonists in the other great novels. Especially he recalls the enigmatic Stavrogin and like him, he leaves an incomplete but powerful impression. Metaphysical and ideological hypothesis which is defined by Versilov formalizes the main stream of thematic plot of this work. Versilov's view concerning the relation of Russia to Europe is very similar to Dostoevsky's. He argues that the Russian is unique. the perfect cosmopolitan, whereas the European intellectual stands on the brink of destruction because of his revolutionary materialism and denial of Christ. For the Russian. however, Europe is a second fatherland and he loves all aspects of its real culture. Russia, Versilov maintains, which lives not for itself, but for Europe and the whole world. will in the end lead Europe to the kingdom of God and the ultimate salvation. Such beliefs Dostoevsky had expressed in his journalistic articles and in 〈The Diary of a Writer〉. Further, in this novel Dostoevsky explains clearly. and for the first time, one of the underlying convictions that governed his preoccupation with the split personality in his fiction. He leads up to his explanation of dualism by a statement of the raw youth which has been much quoted: "it has always been a mystery, and I have marveled a thousand times at the faculty of man (and for the most part, it seems, of the Russian) of cherishing in his soul, his loftiest ideal side by side with the greatest baseness, and all quite sincerely". This observation, which could be applied to man in general, was no doubt prompted by Dostoevsky's insights into his own dualistic nature. And unlike previous manifestations of dualism in the novels, Versilov plainly recognizes these impulses. For he says in one place: "Yes, I am split in two mentally and I am terribly afraid of this. It is as though your double were standing beside you......" Fusion of enigmatic dualism, which Versilov and Arkady themselves felt in their inner world symbolizes the characteristics of poetics of this work. And whatever may be the artistic shortcomings of 〈A Raw Youth〉, these and other considerations, based on thematics and poetics make this work one of the most significant works of Dostoevsky for an understanding of the man himself and of the creative devices tha

도스토예프스키의 소설 『죄와 벌』의 각색 연구

안숙현(Sukhyeon Ahn) 한국동서비교문학학회 2016 동서 비교문학저널 Vol.0 No.38

The purpose of this paper is to study dramatizations of Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment through performance scripts in Korea. Ha Yoosang’s dramatization of the theater group Shinhyup’s and the Citizens Theater’s performance scripts, Andrzej Wajda’s dramatization of the theater group Sanwoollim’s performance script, and Kim Weoncuk’s dramatization of the theater group Myungpum’s The Game, Crime and Punishment are worthy of notice among performance scripts of Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment in Korea. These performance scripts show the features of dramatization and theatrization of Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment in Korea. Ha Yoosang’s adaptation is mass-cultural dramatization for audience, in which he changed the contents of Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment to the korean adapted contents, that korean climate and emotions are reflected in. So his dramatization lost Dostoevsky’s words and thought, but the atmosphere of his dramatization made Dostoevsky’s works popular in Korean Andrzej Wajda’s adaptation is a literary dramatization, that he revived Dostoevsky’s words and thought and showed the beauty of modern dramatization in Korea. Kim Weoncuk’s adaptation was deconstructive dramatization, in which he broke Dostoevsky’s words and thought and created his own new language. He sharply drew our tragedy in the dramatization reflecting realistic problems and this sentiment of the times, and he made new experimental meeting with Dostoevsky and the audience of our time.

도스토옙스키와 러시아 자유주의

신봉주 서울대학교 러시아연구소 2020 러시아연구 Vol.30 No.2

Dostoevsky tries to found his liberalism after he refuted all the ideas and practices that had been known as liberalism. In order to give Dostoevsky a title of liberalist, knowing that he approved neither of liberals protesting against tsarism nor of modest liberalists seeking to introduce Western political system under the tsarism, it is necessary to reconsider his widely known identity as a conservative Slavophile. Studies focusing on the originality of Russian liberalism compared to Western liberalism emphasize the former’s conservative aspects in that state’s active role can be compatible with the freedom of religion. The Slavophile Aksakov has demonstrated that in Russia religion can give the way for expressing one’s conscience and belief without contradicting liberal tolerance. Although Dostoevsky shares Aksakov’s ideas, he doesn’t just idealize Russian narod’s humility and argues how individual’s christian self-improvement leads to society’s integration. However, debating with contemporary liberalists, Dostoevsky concludes that hesitation in the moment of action despite one’s belief is more ethical than acting in accordance with belief. In <The Brothers Karamazov> Dostoevsky elaborates on the problem of political liberty and ethics through the concept ‘church court’. Therefore Ivan’s article and poem would help catch a glimpse of Dostoevsky’s perspective on Russian liberalism. 도스토옙스키는 자유주의로 알려져 있던 모든 생각과 실천들을 부정하고 난 가망 없는 지점에서 자신의 자유주의를 모색한다. 차르체제에 반하는 리버럴도, 차르체제 하에서 서구 정치제도의 점진적 도입을 주장하는 온건한 자유주의자도 될 수 없는 자유주의자 도스토옙스키의 정체성에서 가장 먼저 해명되어야 할 부분은 그의 보수적 슬라브주의자로서의 명성이다. 서구와 대별되는 러시아 자유주의의 특수성을 강조하는 담론들은 바로 이 보수성에 초점을 맞추어 국가의 적극적 개입과 종교의 자유가 양립가능함을 논증한다. 러시아에서 종교가 자유주의적 관용을 저해하지 않을 뿐 아니라 개인의 양심과 신념을 표출할 통로임에 주목했다는 점에서 슬라브주의자 악사코프와 뜻을 같이 하면서도 도스토옙스키는 민중의 순응적 미덕을 이상화하는 데 그치지 않고 개인의 기독교적 자기완성이 사회적 통합에 갖는 실천적 의의를 논한다. 그러나 자유주의자들과의 논쟁에서 도스토옙스키는 개인의 신념과 행동 사이의 망설임을 신념에 따른 행동보다 윤리적이라 판단한다. 정치적 자유와 윤리의 문제는 <카라마조프가의 형제들>의 ‘교회재판’ 개념으로도 발전되며 따라서 이반의 논문과 서사시를 통해 도스토옙스키가 전망하는 러시아 자유주의의 일단을 엿볼 수 있을 것이다.

치프킨이 바라본 도스토예프스키: 『바덴바덴에서의 여름』을 중심으로

조유선 한국러시아문학회 2016 러시아어문학 연구논집 Vol.52 No.-

This study explores Tsypkin’s unique novel Summer in Baden-Baden, which records the life and literature of Dostoevsky and is described by Sontag as one of the most “beautiful, exalting, and original achievements of a century’s worth of fiction.” Dostoevsky in Summer in Baden-Baden is the incarnation of the complex and morbid pride. He is not properly communicate with others in daily life and literary circles, and always complains and condemns them just like an hero ‘underground man’ in his Notes from Underground. The problem is that a Russian Jew Tsypkin is still keen on Dostoevsky although the great writer’s evildoing and anti-Semitism. “Why was I now on my way to Petersburg-yes, not to Leningrad?”, “Why was I reading this book [Anna’s Dairy] now?” Tsypkin’s train travel from Moscow to Leningrad is the process to answer these questions, and a journey to find ‘myself’. Going on pilgrimage to pursue Dostoevsky-human, Tsypkin continues to pay attention to the suffering of Anna, Russian Women and Jews, which represents the metaphor of human suffering. For Tsypkin in loneliness and helplessness, Dostoevsky is a irresistible being complicated by hate and love, literary revenge and homage. In the most difficult time of his life Tsypkin grapples with Dostoevsky and resists to him with a writing as if Dostoevsky grapples with a God who allows the suffering of children. In Summer in Baden-Baden Tsypkin recreates the memories of other’s suffering by an literary imagination for self-healing and regiment of suffering.

치프킨이 바라본 도스토예프스키: 『바덴바덴에서의 여름』을 중심으로

조유선 ( You Seon Cho ) 한국러시아문학회 2016 러시아어문학 연구논집 Vol.52 No.-

This study explores Tsypkin`s unique novel Summer in Baden-Baden, which records the life and literature of Dostoevsky and is described by Sontag as one of the most beautiful, exalting, and original achievements of a century`s worth of fiction. Dostoevsky in Summer in Baden-Baden is the incarnation of the complex and morbid pride. He is not properly communicate with others in daily life and literary circles, and always complains and condemns them just like an hero ``underground man`` in his Notes from Underground. The problem is that a Russian Jew Tsypkin is still keen on Dostoevsky although the great writer`s evildoing and anti-Semitism. Why was I now on my way to Petersburg-yes, not to Leningrad?, Why was I reading this book [Anna`s Dairy] now? Tsypkin`s train travel from Moscow to Leningrad is the process to answer these questions, and a journey to find ``myself``. Going on pilgrimage to pursue Dostoevsky-human, Tsypkin continues to pay attention to the suffering of Anna, Russian Women and Jews, which represents the metaphor of human suffering. For Tsypkin in loneliness and helplessness, Dostoevsky is a irresistible being complicated by hate and love, literary revenge and homage. In the most difficult time of his life Tsypkin grapples with Dostoevsky and resists to him with a writing as if Dostoevsky grapples with a God who allows the suffering of children. In Summer in Baden-Baden Tsypkin recreates the memories of other`s suffering by an literary imagination for self-healing and regiment of suffering.

김춘수와 도스토예프스키 (1) - 시집 『들림, 도스토예프스키』에 나타난 대화적 관계의 특성 -

김유중 한중인문학회 2015 한중인문학연구 Vol.49 No.-

이 논문은 김춘수의 시집 들림, 도스토예프스키(1997)에 나타난 대화적 상상력의 구조를러시아 문예이론가 M. M. Bakhtin의 이중성(duality)과 다성성(多聲性, polyphony)의 개념에 입각하여 조명하고 분석해보는 것을 목표로 한다. 주지하다시피 바흐찐은 도스토예프스키 소설에 등장하는 인물들의 발화적 특성을 각기 다른 세계관과 사유 체계에 속한 이들 간의 대화적 관계로 정의하고, 이를 다른 작가들에게서는쉽게 발견할 수 없는 도스토예프스키만의 특성으로 이해한 바 있다. 이와 같은 바흐찐의 설명은 시대 변화에 따른 다양한 가치관의 혼재와 그들 사이의 모순과 대립, 충돌을 반영한 근대소설의 양식적 특성을 염두에 둔 것으로, 그는 자신의 이러한 설명 모델에 가장 적합한 예로도스토예프스키의 경우를 지목한다. 여기서 중요한 것은 주인공, 또는 작중 인물의 목소리가작가의 내면 사상의 반영에 머무는 것이 아니라는 점이다. 즉 도스토예프스키 소설에서 작중인물은 때론 작가의 사상에 반하는 목소리를 내기도 한다. 요컨대 바흐찐에 따르면 도스토예프스키는 그의 소설에서 다양한 목소리들의 다성악(多聲樂)적 어울림과 조화를 지향하였던것이다. 도스토예프스키 소설에 대한 바흐찐의 설명이 주로 근대 자본주의 세계관의 대두에 따른시대 변화의 반영이라는 점에 초점을 맞춘 것이라고 한다면, 김춘수의 경우는 선과 악의 문제를 둘러싼 인간 내면의 본질적인 모순과 그로 인한 갈등의 양상들을 어떤 식으로 지양, 극복하는가가 그의 시작의 목표이며 중심 과제였다. 여기서 그는 도스토예프스키의 소설 속에 등장하는 작중 인물들에서 하나의 실마리를 발견해보려 한다. 그는 이질적인 생각을 지닌 작중인물들끼리의 대화 형식을 취해, 이러한 구도를 자신의 시작에 반영함으로써 이 문제에 대한자신의 고민을 구체화해보게 된다. 문제는 그가 이런 자신의 고민을 나열하는 장이 소설이 아닌 시라는 점이다. 시라는 양식이 지닌 한계를 뛰어넘어, 이러한 자신의 의도를 효과적으로표출해보기 위해서 그가 취한 방식은 크게 세 가지이다. 첫째, 시집의 제1, 2부에 수록된 다수의 시편들에서와 같이 한 작중 인물이 다른 작중 인물에게 보내는 편지, 즉 서간체 형식의 텍스트로 양자 사이의 입장 차이를 드러내는 방식. 둘째, 제3, 4부에 수록된 시편들에서 보듯, 독백이나 고백의 발화를 통해 인물들 사이의 극적 관계를 설정함으로써 이들 상호간의 충돌하는 가치관을 긴장감 있게 부각시키는 방식. 셋째, 다양한 목소리들을 구체화하기 위한 분신의 방법론. 이러한 대화적 관계 유형들의 제시를 통해 김춘수가 드러내고자 한 것은 결국 우리 인간의 내면에서 서로 모순적으로 충돌하는 제 가치관들의 혼란스러운 양상이라고 요약할수 있을 것 같다. 이로 보면 김춘수는 도스토예프스키의 소설에 등장하는 작중 인물들의 다양한 목소리들에영감을 받았으되, 이를 자신의 시작에 반영하는 과정에서 시대 변화가 아닌 인간 내면의 본질적인 모순과 갈등의 문제로 치환하여 풀어보려 했음이 드러난다. 그와 같은 내적 모순과 갈등을 효과적으로 부각시키기 위한 방편으로, 바흐찐이 지적한 것과 유사하게 도스토예프스키 소설에 등장하는 작중 인물들 간의 대화적 관계, 그 이질적인 목소리들의 다성성에 주목하고 이를 자신의 시작에 반영하려 한 점은 널리 인정받아 마땅할 것이다. This study aims to analyze the structure of dialogic imagination in Kim Chun Su’s Deulim, Dostoevsky(들림, 도스토예프스키), through M. M. Bakhtin’s theory of duality and polyphony. Regarding Dostoevsky’s characters, Bakhtin defined their nature as dialogic relations among their world views and structures of thinking. Choosing Dostoevsky’s works as an example, Bakhtin considered the characteristic of modern novel form that embodies various values’ mixture, contradiction, conflict, and clash depending on the periods. More importantly, the voices of such characters do not merely reflect that of the author but also oppose it in some cases. According to Bakhtin, Dostoevsky aimed for a polyphonic harmony and gathering of diverse voices in his works. While Bakhtin’s explanation of Dostoevsky’s works mostly focused on the change of times upon the emergence of modern industrialization world view, Kim problematized the human being’s intrinsic contradiction regarding the good and evil and overcoming of such conflicts. In this process, Kim sought a lead for solution in Dostoevsky’s characters. He then materialized this thought by reflecting the characters’ dialogic relations in his own poetry. However, Kim subsequently faced the challenge of developing this thought not in the form of novel, but poetry. In order to overcome the limit of poetic form and to more effectively express his thought, Kim attempted three methods. For the first method, one character writes letters to other characters, as seen in the first and second chapter’s letter style poems. As seen in the third and fourth chapter’s, the second method was to build a dramatic conflict between the characters through monologue and confession, in order to dramatically represent their clashing values. the third method was methodology of alter ego to embody these characters’ diverse voices. In summary, Kim used these dialogic relations to represent the human being’s chaotic mixture of contradicting and clashing values. As such, Kim was inspired by the Dostoevsky characters’ diverse voices, representing this idea in his poems as the human being’s intrinsic contradiction and conflict and not as the change of times. In his effort to effectively illustrate this inner contradiction and conflict, Kim’s works are similar to Bakhtin’s criticism in focusing on the dialogic relation of Dostoevsky’s characters and polyphony of the diverse voices and in reflecting this thought in his own poems.

『악령』의 러시아 메시아니즘에 대한 현대 러시아 종교 문예학계의 비평 경향 고찰 : 베르쟈예프의 고찰에 대한 논쟁을 중심으로

이경완 한국러시아문학회 2021 러시아어문학 연구논집 Vol.73 No.-

This paper aims to reflect on contemporary Russian religious literary studies on Dostoevsky’s eschatological worldview, focusing on Russian messianism in his eschatological novel, The Possessed from the author’s evangelical viewpoint, while referring to their debates on N. Berdyaev’s reflections on Dostoevsky. According to Zyryanov, the contemporary Russian religious literary studies are divided into theological-dogmatic circle and philological circle integrated into the ethno-confessional field of historic poetics. The first circle acknowledges Dostoevsky as a Russian Orthodox writer in accordance with Russian Orthodox dogmas, simultaneously criticizing Berdyaev for his acclaim of Dostoevsky as ‘the most Christian writer’ for prophesying the imminent advent of the third eschatological era and for his criticism of Dostoevsky’s negative Russian messianism. The other circle could be divided into two sub-categories: one acknowledging Dostoevsky as a Russian Orthodox writer in accordance with ethnic Russian Orthodox culture, criticizing Berdyaev’s reflections; and the other one highly estimating Berdyaevs’s reflections. From my evangelical viewpoint, contemporary Russian religious studies should inherit creatively the heritage of Berdyaev’s and other religious philosophers’ sanctuary-free studies, reflecting on the Orthodox dogmas and Russian messianism in the theological dimension.