콘스탄틴 레온티예프와 불가리아 교회 독립문제

한정숙 서울대학교 러시아연구소 2001 러시아연구 Vol.11 No.2

Not much has been settled about Konstantin Leont'ev(1831-1891), but he has indeed a unique place n the history of Russian thoughts. He is one of the most popular pre-revolutionary thinkers in post-Soviet Russia trying to come in terms with its own historical development. This article focuses on Leont'ev's critique on the independence of the Bulgarian church during the high tide of Russian Pan-Slavism (1870's), linking it with his critique of nationalism. Leont'ev was deeply convinced of the originality of Russian culture, based on the so-called "Byzantinism". In his typology, the most important criterion of cultural affinities was religion. He was skeptical about the political Pan-Slavism which he thought was senseless without cultural solidarity among the Slav nations. Moreover, as a conservative and reactionary thinker, he was against the progressive and revolutionary character of nationalism. Thus, he was critical of endeavors to obtain national independence or unification. The Bulgarian nation, which was subjected to the Ottoman sultan since 1393, had in his view no specifically Slavic characteristics. When the Bulgarian people insisted on a separatioin from the Greek Patriarchate of Constantinople which led to the establishment of their own national autocephalous church-which they had had before the Ottoman rule-and when it caused conflicts among Greeks and Bulgarians, Leont'ev furiously criticized the latter. He declared that the ecumenical() Orthodox Church doesn't have any national characteristics, may it be Greeks or Bulgarian, and that the Bulgarians established their national church only for political aims. He sympathized with the Greeks, though the Bulgarians expected support from Russia, their "elder Slavic brother". Leont'ev eagerly assured the Greeks that Russia won't take side with the Buylgarians. Such attitude is to be understood in the light of Leont'ev's conception of the Orthodox bloc-the solidarity of eastern Orthodox peoples against western culture. He thought that the Orthodox bloc should by no means exclude the Greeks. His suggestion to his Russian compatriots to seizure Constantinople (Istanbul) was also a part of the anti-western strategy. He objected to the nationalist position of the Bulgarian people because it undermined the prospect of solidarity among the Orthodox peoples. Leon'tev's critique of the independence of the Bulgarian church did not change even after this nation was liberated from the Ottoman rule. As for him, the Bulgarian culture did not evince cultural uniqueness in spite of its political autonomy. Leont'ev was in this sense not a Pan-Slavist, but a sort of Pan-Orthodoxy protagonist. But was Leont'ev, a loyal subject of the Russian tsar, not too arrogant in that he brushed of the cultural potentials of a lesser nation which can mature and flower only in favorable conditions?

블라지미르 솔로비요프의 아시아 문명론 : A Theory of Clash of Civilizations at the End of the 19th Century? 19세기 말의 문명충돌론 ?

한정숙 서울대학교 러시아연구소 2000 러시아연구 Vol.10 No.1

Vladimir Sergeevich Solov'ev(1853-1900) is one of the most celebrated Russian philosophers in the prerevolutionary era. From the outset of the Perestroika, Russian intellectuals have been trying to find out a new source of identity for the Russian people, who feel embarrassed in the ideològical vacuum. Many tend to put forth the so-called "Russian idea" as a new mental guideline for the russians. In this context Solov'ev is regarded as one of those thinkers, that articulated the essence of the "Russian idea" in cogent and lucid terms. Further in this trend of reinstation. not a few Western students have joined, appreciating Solov'ev's will to overcome the narrowness of mental horizon of his contemporary Russian intellectuals who adhered to the too specifically Russian situation. In this paper I tried to analyse Solov'ev's view on Eastern civilizations. In a word, his estimation of Eastern civilizations was indissolubly tied with a Chiristianity-centrism, on which his whole system was based on. According to him, only Christianity can have a claim to the absolute and whole truth; other relitions or Weltanschauungs merely speak for a relative truth. In the same vein, he maintained that all the Christian churches and societies should be (re)united. In fact, he was a trailblazer to launch the grand project of building the Christian United States of Europe, transcending the boundary of Russia. My thesis is thus provoked by the question "But what about other civilizations?" As a whole his evaluation of non-Christian civilizations was negative and sometimes even extremely hostile to them. In his article <Three Forces>(1877), written during the period of the Russian Turkish War, Solov'ev criticized the Islamic world as a civilization devoid of any vital forces. According to him this society lacked any capacity to change and develop inself. Judged from his remarks in this article only, one can fairly say that his attitude approximates that of Panslavists. During the 80's of the nineteenth century however he underwent a radical change and turned an ardent critic of Russian nationalism and Panslavism, shaking off the obsolete legacy of his Panslavism. His criticism of Islam was gradually toned down. At this juncture, one should never fail to notice the rhetorical aspect of his transformation. In other words, he vehemently criticized Slavic- and orthodoxy-centrism of the Panslavists only to bring into relief the necessity to unite all the Christian worlds. Vis-a-vis East-Asian civilizations his panic-like fear always seemed to linger over his consciousness to his deathbed. He evaluated the Chinese civilization most severely. Solov'ev regarded china as an archconservative society. Confucianism and ancestor worship were considered to be the main hindrances to social changes and progress. China was in his opinion a past-oriented society, which is very stable but cannot make progress for itself. For Solov'ev Lao-tse was the only Chinese thinker, who was able to think metaphysically, namely beyond the narrow limin of specifically chinese mentality even with his lack of originality and limitation of progressive spirit. Both confucius and Lao-tse were no more than the preachers of the ideology of stagnation. In this view, China was a country that remained ungraspable and thus fearful to this Russian philospher. As regards the Japanese civilization, Solov'ev had at first more favorable attitude to is compared with to the Chinese. Japanese people were approved as a historical and progressive nation. He expected that this nation would become a Christian one, on friendly terms with European countries. This expectation was probably associated with the fact that Japan had opened door to Western powers and pursed a policy of Westernization in her early phase of modernization. But during his last years Solov'ev expressed only fear to all the East-Asian nations. In his imagination the object of this fear had materialized in the guise of Panmongolism. It was a variant of the discourse about the so-called "Gelbe Gefahr". According to him. the danger of the Panmongolism had two dimensions. The one was related with international power politics or military aspect and the other with weltanschauung. In a curious work under the long title <Three Conversations on War, Progress and the End of the World History. Attached with a Short Story about Anti-Christ>(1900), Solov'ev expressed this fear without any hesitation. In this work he predicted that all the Asian countries would be politically united under the leadership of Japan and invade and conquer the whole European, say the Christian world. The Asians with yellow skin are depicted as military invaders, as another Tartars-Destroyers; ultimately Anti-Christ would appear and reign the world. In accordance with the apocalypstic scenario, Christians however would eventually overcome all the problems related with Anti-Christ and be united at the final round, in which the Asians would play no constructive rold. Psychologically, Solov'ev had a great fear of the ever-widening influence of Buddhism and the so-called Neo-Buddhism gaining its forces across Russia and Western European countries. <Three Conversations> reached the pinnacle of his aggressive christianity-centrism. Obviously Solov'ev had no insight into the pains of the Asian people who suffered under the invasions of the Western imperialistic powers. He could not even understand the genuine cause behind the murder case of von Ketteler, the then German ambassador in Peking. Solov'ev only thought that the Boxers were barbarous and savage killers, who would with their Panmongolistic violence precipitate the end of the world. He could not understand the anti-imperialistic aspiration of these Chinese fighters. Despite his severe criticism of imperialism, this theoretical consideration did not have any real substance with regard to concrete events. His view on the Asian civilizations thus constitutes in itself a variant of(disguised) imperialistic discourse, which he might never have dreamt of. The story of Panmongolism inevitably reminds us of Samuel Huntington's theory of the clas of civilizations. At the similar situation of finde-siecle, both Christian theorists warned against the hostilities and invasions of the non-Christian civilizations. One at the end of the 19th century, and the other at the end of the 20th century. Is it only a coincidence? Would the clash of religions really come true? I think that in both cases the discourses on the hostilities of non-Christian worlds to the Christian are nothing more than the wish fulfillment of the Western intellectuals to defend their vested interests in the international politics. It only functions as an offense in disguise, regardless of the initial or naive intention of their authors. Initiators and supporters of the new Solov'ev-Renaissance should not ignore this vital but hidden agenda of these discourses.

НЭП기 소련의 농민경제와 콘드라티예프의 친(親)농민적 경제발전계획론

한정숙 서울대학교러시아연구소 1992 러시아연구 Vol.1 No.-

Among the economists rehabilitated in July, 1987 was Nicholas Kondrat'ev, known in the West for his theory of the long wave cycle of capitalism but branded in his country since his trial and execution in 1930 as an enemy of the people who had tried to revive capitalism. He is not only cleared of these charges but is becoming a new focus of attention the man whose theory of economic development based on the strengthening of the peasant economy offered a viable alternative to Stalinism. Kondrat'ev's theory of economic development differed from the Stalinist main line on two main points. He argued that socialism could not be built and world revolution could not succeed without paying careful attention to the long wave, as well as the short-range, cycles of capitalism and that Russia as a country which successfully accomplished anti-feudal and anti-imperialist revolution without a highly developed capitalism had to strengthen its agricultural economy as prerequisite to successful industrialization. Whether Kondrat'ev's alternative would have worked better than Stalin's is a question which cannot be answered simply. Kondrat'ev's insistence on reliance on market mechanism and production incentive to the peasants may not have resulted in any noticeable increase in the income from agricultural exports since the price drop had little to do without policy-making in the Soviet Union. It might have exacerbated the problem of social differentiation in the villages and economic disparity between the city and countryside. On the other hand, the worst consequences of the Stalinist policy of forced collectivization, destruction of agriculture and bureaucratic bulldozing of the peasant life could have been avoided. The purging of the Bolshevik right and Kondrat'ev school meant the end to open-mined search for better road to socialism.

인문학 및 사회과학 학술지를 통해본 체제전환기 러시아 인문학·사회과학의 동향 : 1985-2000년대 초

한정숙,박원용,최우익 서울대학교러시아연구소 2002 러시아연구 Vol.12 No.2

This article is a parallel analysis to the database of seven sorts of Russian academic journals for the period of the transformation (from 1985 to the early 2000s.) The database was made by authors of this paper with the aim to offer an easy way to search the title, author and subject of writings (articles, translations, reminiscences, round table talks and dialogues) published in the fields of philosophy, history, politics, sociology and economics. This work gave us the chance to overview the study trends of humanities and social sciences in Russia by examining the changing subjects, theoretical premises and methodological approaches of the intellectuals productions published in the journals. Authors chose the above ` mentioned five academic disciplines as our study object because these are considered (so to say, as ideology-related disciplines) to have experienced the most remarkable transformation since the beginning of Gorbachev's policy of Perestroika and Glasnost. During the Soviet Period, studies and publications in these fields were under strong influence of the official ideology of the Communist Party, which always tried not to lose tight control of intellectual activities in almost all aspects. The gradual manifestation of arguments not subjected to the party line was possible since the middle of the 1980s, when Gorbachev's "reform of socialism" policy allowed critical approach to Stalinist legacy of the Soviet regime and search for alternatives to the existing economic and social (later, also political) system. Though each discipline differs in the degree and depth of change, authors of this paper are of the opinion that a remarkable process of transformation can be found in all the concerned fields especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The period of Perestroika was more devoted to self-criticism and search of alternative within the frame of socialist legacy. In general it was a time of a rather moderate iconoclasm. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union the genuine intellectual transformation began. All possible arguments emerged, but the construction of a new intellectual frame of reference for the Russians was not easy. In the early period of rapid system transformation, Russian scholars were rather hastily importing methodologies and perspectives of western scholars and tried to use them as tools for analysing circumstances of their own country as well as of the entire world. On the opposite side of the Westphilism one could also find a rather extreme trend of Russian nationalism (or neo-Slavophilism). It seemed that the Russian intellectuals wanted to compensate intellectual losses caused in the past by the Party control through absorbing every possible argument that stands outside of traditional Soviet intellectual horizon. This phenomenon was in itself understandable enough, but the whole sight of discourses was rather unclear and somewhat confusing too. It was a period of "search of exit in every direction". In recent years however, observers can ascertain a much stabler atmosphere among the Russian researchers in every academic discipline concerned. Authors of this paper share the view that Russian scholars and intellectuals are overcoming their once apparent extremism - whether in the direction to Westphilism or to nationalism. Open-minded to international scholarship and discussion, they are at the same time more self-confident than during the first half of the 1990s. One can hope that it would lead to intellectual works more productive and persuading for the Russians as well as for the entire world.

Between East Asia and Russia: Il`ya Levitov`s Conception of “Yellow Russia” (Zheltaya Rossiya) at the Turn of the Twentieth Century

( Jeong Sook Hahn ) 한국외국어대학교 러시아연구소 2015 슬라브연구 Vol.31 No.4

일리야 레비토프(1850~1918)는 러시아의 민속지학자이자 동아시아 전문가였다. 그는 ‘황인종’, ‘황러시아’, ‘황색 보스포루스’, ‘완충 식민지로서의 황러시아’ 등의 책자들을 집필하였다. ‘황색’은 동아시아인들과 관련된 말이다. 그는 1896~97년, 동청 철도 건설 이후 수많은 중국 노동자들이 동시베리아(우수리 강 유역, 아무르 강 유역, 바이칼 호수 이동지역)로 이동해 오는 것을 목격했다. 그가 보기에 이들은 낮은 임금만으로도 만족하는 탁월한 노동력이었으므로 러시아 노동자들에게 위협적인 존재였다. 동아시아인들의 큰 이주물결은 ‘황화’(黃禍)를 뜻하는 것으로 보였다. 동아시아인들의 값싼 노동력을 이용하되 이들이 유럽 러시아인들에게 악영향을 미치지는않게끔 하기 위해 레비토프는 시베리아를 자연경계에 따라 분할할 것을 제안하였다. 우수리 강에서 바이칼 호수에 이르는 동시베리아는 ‘황러시아’로서 동아시아인들의 노동력을 이용하는 자유경제지역이 되어야 하며 그 대신 동아시아인들은 바이칼 호수 서쪽으로는 이주할 수 없게 만들어야 한다는 것이 그의 제안이었다. 러일전쟁 후 레비토프는 황인종이 러시아를 공격하는 것을 저지하기 위한 수단으로서 ‘완충지대로서의 황러시아’를 건설해야 한다는 구상을 내놓았다. 그의 제안은 동시베리아라는 변경지대를 무대로 삼아 인종주의에 바탕을 두고 러시아 제국주의와 동아시아 주민이주의 물결 사이에서 타협점을 발견하고자 하는 제국주의적, 인종주의적 시도였다. Il`ya Levitov(1850~1918) was a Russian ethnographer and East Asia specialist. He wrote pamphlets with the titles Yellow Race, Yellow Russia, Yellow Bosporus and Yellow Russia as a Buffer Colony. ‘Yellow’ refers to the skin color of East Asian peoples. Levitov watched in Eastern Siberia (the regions of the Amur Basin and Ussuri Basin) countless Chinese workers immigrating since 1896-97, after the construction of the East Chinese Railroad as the extension of Trans-Siberian Railroad. For Levitov they were excellent labor force demanding low wages, and thus a threat to Russian workers. The great tide of East Asians seemed to be "yellow peril". Wanting to use the cheap labor force of East Asians but to prevent their influence on European Russians, he proposed to divide Siberia along natural borderlines. The Eastern Siberia from Ussuri Region to the Lake Baikal would become "Yellow Russia", a Free Economic Zone using the labor force of East Asians. Instead their immigration into the regions west of Baikal would be blocked up. After the Russo-Japanese War, Levitov developed the idea of ‘Yellow Russia as a buffer zone’ including Manchuria to restraint the attack of the yellow people against Russia. He thought that Yellow Russia would serve Russian imperialist, racist and industrialist dreams at the same time.

사포와 여성적 세계 : 협애한 성(性) 정체성 구분을 넘어서는 고대적 포용성

한정숙(Hahn Jeong-Sook) 한국여성연구소 2006 페미니즘 연구 Vol.- No.6

많은 사람들은 고대 그리스의 서정시인 사포를 여성 동성애의 대명사처럼 여긴다. 그러나 이 같은 연상이 항상 자명한 진실을 의미하지는 않는다. 물론 사포의 시 세계에서 여성적 요소가 두드러진다는 것은 분명하다. 사포는 여성의 시각으로 사물에 접근하고, 시에서는 종종 여성 화자로 하여금 다른 여성의 아름다움과 장점을 찬양하게 한다. 그 화자는 사포 자신일 경우도 있다. 그러나 이러한 시가 특정한 여성(들)에 대한 사포 자산의 개인적인 동성애 감정을 직접 표현한 것이라고 보기는 어렵다. 사포의 시는 여러 상황과 관계 속에서 형성되는 여러 종류의 감정을 표현하고 있기 때문이다. 예컨대 어떤 시는 한 여성과 제3의 여성 사이의 애틋한 관계를 보면서 여성 화자가 느끼는 기쁨을 표현하고 있고, 다른 시에서는 화자가 복수(複數)의 여성들에 대한 자신의 애정을 표현하고 있기도 하다. 젊은 여성들 사이의 우정을 노래한 시도 있다. 이들 시에서는 모든 여성이 사랑의 주체인 동시에 대상이요, 관찰자이다. 그것은 여성들 간의 경계 없는 연대와 사랑의 세계이다. 시의 내용과 관련 자료들을 검토해 볼 때, 사포는 아마도 처녀들의 합창대를 이끄는 지휘자아자 젊은 여성들에게 시, 노래 춤을 가르쳐 준 여선생의 역할을 했으리라고 보인다. 처녀들의 합창대는 그들을 위한 일종의 성인식인 공적 축제 행사에서 노래하며 자신들의 성적 매력을 드러냈고, 사포는 이들의 지휘자이자 지도자로서 그들의 매력을 찬양하는 시를 1인칭 화자를 내세워 썼을 것이다. 사포는 여성들의 사랑과 우정, 연대를 노래했을 뿐 아니라 남녀 간의 이성애를 찬양하는 시도 썼다. 결혼 축가에서 신랑의 남성적 미와 늠름함을 찬양한 것이 대표적이다. 18세기까지 사포는 여성 동성애의 상징이 아니라, 젊은 미남을 향한 이룰 수 없는 사랑 때문에 목숨을 버리는 연상의 열렬한 이성애자 여성으로 여겨졌다. 그 사랑의 대상이었다는 파온은 흔히 아도니스와 동일시되기도 한다. 사포가 파온을 열렬히 사랑했다는 전설은 사포가 아도니스 축제 참가자들을 위해, 아도니스의 죽음을 슬퍼하는 시를 썼기 때문에 생겨났다. 사포가 후대인들에게 이성애자로도 여겨지고 여성 동성애자로도 비치는 등, 모순적인 상으로 비치는 것은 사포의 시가 여라 요소를 담고 있기 때문인데, 이러한 다양성은 성 정체성과 에로스적 관행에 관한 고대 그리스의 규범에 비추어 이해해야 한다. 이는 개인주의적이고 배타적인 이성애적 관계에 바탕을 두는 근대의 성적 규범과는 다른 것이다. 당시에는 사회적으로 허용되는 성적 관계의 범위가 오늘 날보다 넓었다. 사포는 개인적으로는 동성애자였을 수도 있고, 이성애자였을 수도 있고, 양성애자였을 수도 있으며, 심지어는 그 무엇도 아니었을 수도 있다. 중요한 것은 그녀의 시 가운데 결혼 축가와 같은 이성애적 사랑을 노래한 것뿐 아니라 여성들 간의 사랑을 노래한 것으로 해석될 수 있는 시들이 그녀의 사후에도 오래 기억되고, 불리고, 나아가 파피루스에 기록되었다는 사실이다. 이는 그녀의 시가 사회적으로 인정받았기에 가능했다. 이는 고대 그리스 사회가 성적 정체성 문제에서 넉넉한 포용성을 가지고 있었음을 입증한다. For many people, the ancient Greek lyrist and poet Sappho represents the paragon of female homosexuality. This association, however, is not alway self-evident. It is true that female elements are conspicuous in Sappho's poetic world. She approaches things through a woman's eyes and lets a woman narrator praise the beauty and merit of another woman. But these poems are not direct expressions of personal homoerotic feelings of Sappho for one specific woman. Her poems express emotions of various kinds in various situations and relations. In some works, the woman narrator shows delight when she sees the mutual attraction that exists among other women. In others, the narrator expresses her love for a group of women. There are also songs about the friendship of young maidens. In essence, all the women in these poems are at one time the subjects, objects and observers of mutual love. It is a world of borderless solidarity and love among women. Sappho was probably an instructor and the senior leader of a maiden chorus who may have taught her pupils songs and dances. She might also have played the role of mediator between the society and the sexually maturing debutantes in their initiation phase. These girls sang in public festivals, and the conductor-instructor praised their sexual attractiveness in the first person. Sappho is also the author of wedding songs in which she praises the male beauty and virtuousness of the bridegrooms. In the pre-modern period she was depicted as a senior woman dying from yearning over a beautiful young man(Phaon), since she wrote lamentations on the death of Adonis for the Adonia feast. These facts were regarded by many as proof of Sappho's heterosexuality. These contradictory relations in Sappho's poetic world should be understood in the context of Ancient Greek norms of sexual identity and erotic practices. They were different from modern norms, which tend to be based on exclusively heterosexuality-oriented individualist relations. The boundary of socially tolerated sexual relations was broader at that time. Personally, Sappho might have been either homosexual or heterosexual, or possibly even bisexual. What is important is that her wedding songs and poems on heterosexual love as well as her works of reverence for female homosexuality were recorded publicly and evaluated highly among those in the ancient learned world. They are proof of the liberality of ancient Greek society on the question of sexual identity.

특집 : 소련 해체 후 러시아,동유럽 역사 재조명 ; 소련의 해체, 클리오의 새로운 모습 -현실사회주의 몰락 후 러시아 역사학의 동향-

한정숙 ( Jeong Sook Hahn ) 한국서양사학회 2011 西洋史論 Vol.0 No.111

This article tries to survey new trends of historical studies in the post-Soviet Russia. The collapse of Soviet Union opened a new horizon of historical studies for Russian scholars. There were factors that encouraged intellectual challenge for historical studies opening of archives and the abolition of the party line which in the past compelled only narrowly defined research themes and interpretations of historical scholarship. Russian historians proved themselves as flexible and receptive of new academic trends. Books on Soviet history by Western authors have been translated into Russian so that they have influence on the studies of Russian scholars. After the opening of archives compilation of historical materials on Soviet period is going very actively. Compilations deal mainly with history of political parties of the pre-revolutionary period and history of Stalin period though there are exceptions. In the theory and methodology of history, Medushevskaya`s Theory and Methodology of Cognitive History(Moscow, 2008) shows a good example of an elder historian who, after the devastating debacle of a system of value and Weltanschauung, tries to formulate an integrating theory of history. As far as post-Soviet interpretations of Soviet history are concerned, change of tide is conspicuous. The wide spectrum of streams denies a rapid generalization. Volkogonov, who during the Perestroika period highly eulogized Lenin, changed his tune after the collapse of Soviet Union and sharply criticized the founder of Soviet Union. Another expert on Lenin, Loginov on the other hand does not want to convict his protagonist according to criteria of totalitarianism and rather gives products of very scrupulous lecture of every possible source on the outward circumstances and personal factors surrounding him. Leftist groups also do not keep silence. They hold international conferences, publish books and try to offer a socialist alternative by reinterpreting Lenin`s theory and practice with new perspective which considers intellectual trends of the 21th century. Regarding Stalinism and Stalin period, the new generation of Russian historians immerse themselves less with ideological controversies or angel/devil dichotomy but are devoted to more neutral-minded search of explanatory framework of middle level. Their approach is closer to the Western revisionist model of Soviet history. Khlevniuk and Osokina are, among scholars of their generation, most productive and successful authors on Stalin period. Roy Medvedev`s detailed description on the last period of Soviet Union shows the author`s critical view on Perestroika and its architect Gorbachev, though the former Soviet dissident historian did not lose his warm attitude toward socialism and the perished Soviet society. Though Post-Soviet Russian historiography has not produced till now very impressive new grand theories of history or interpretations of Russian Revolution/Stalinism, sincere research products are seeing light nowadays. These works will contribute to the deepening of historical understanding.

올자스 술레이메노프의 「아즈 이 야」와 이를 둘러싼 논란: 투르크 유라시아주의의 한 예

한정숙 ( Jeong Sook Hahn ) 서울대학교 러시아연구소 2009 러시아연구 Vol.19 No.2

This article tries to analyse the linguistic Turkic Eurasianism formulated in Suleimenov`s book Az i Ya(Аз И Я, 1975) and the controversies bursted out around this book in the Soviet political and academic arena. In Az i Ya Suleimenov tried to reread and linguistically analyze the text of the famous Tale of Igor`s Campaign (Слово о полку Игорьеве). According to Suleimenov, this epic should be read as the evidence of the mutual contacts and cultural interactions between the ancient Eastern Slavic and the Turkic peoples than as a literary expression of their mutual enmity. He maintained that the Rus` people (Slavs) and the Polovtsian people (Turkic nomads) around the 12th century coexisted friendly, sharing various experiences in the southern steppe of Eurasia. Turkic linguistic elements penetrated deeply through the Rus` society. The Turkism in the Tale of Igor`s Campaign gives its evidence. Az i Ya roused a torrent of criticism from the Russo-centrists and the Soviet etatists. The book was attacked by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the Communist Party of Kazakhstan and Soviet scholars. The book was banned and the persons involved in the publication of the book were repressed. But for the Soviet readers it opened new horizons in understanding the relations of various peoples in the ancient Eurasia. Az i Ya does not presuppose for Eurasian world a hegemonic role of the Rus` people over the Turkic nomads. According to it, their position is equal. Suleimenov emphasized the importance of cultural exchange and harmonic coexistence of the Eastern Slavs and nomadic peoples. It is true that he is surely an Eurasianist, but he seems in such way to get out of the boundary of Russo-centrism of Russian Eurasianists.

19세기 시베리아의 지역적 자의식, 역사학을 만나다 -슬로프초프, 코스토마로프, 샤포프와 지역사-

한정숙 ( Jeong Sook Hahn ) 한국외국어대학교 러시아연구소 2012 슬라브연구 Vol.28 No.3

이 논문은 19세기 시베리아 지역의식 형성과 관련을 가졌다고 보이는 역사가들의 사론을 살펴본다. 여기서 표본적으로 선택한 역사가는 표트르 슬로프초프(1767~1843), 니콜라이 코스토마로프(1817~1885), 아파나시 샤포프(1831~1876)로 그들은 모두 시베리아 지역주의의 지도자 포타닌과 야드린체프에게서 높은 평가를 받았다. 슬로프초프는 시베리아라는 지역 자체가 엄밀한 학문으로서의 역사학의 고찰 대상이 될 수 있고 통사의 서술 대상이 될 수 있다는 것을 보여준 최초의 ``시베리아인``으로서, 시베리아인들에게 지역적 정체성에 대한 사유와 인식을 가능하게 해준 인물이다. 코스토마로프는 연방제의 중요성을 강조하면서 그 원리를 초기 루스의 역사 속에서 발견하고자 노력하였고, 19세기 러시아 제국에서도 이를 적용하고자 했던 역사가이다. 샤포프는 러시아 역사에서 지역적 독자성의 중요성에 대한 논의를 자신의 사관의 핵심으로까지 끌어올린 시베리아 출신 역사학자였다. 이 같은 사관은 인민의 자발적 활동을 통한 역사 발전이라는 또 하나의 핵심적 사관과 상보적인 관계를 가지고 있었다. 이들의 사학적 배경은 동일하지 않았고 역사관도 상이했다. 그럼에도 이들의 사고 근저에는 공통의 기본원리(에피스테메), 곧 중앙의 일방적 지배에 대비되는 원칙으로서 지역의 자율적 발전을 중시하는 견해가 깔려 있었으며 이는 그들의 후배 세대인 19세기 후반의 시베리아 지식인들과도 공유되는 원리였다. 젊은 세대 시베리아 지식인들은 그들에게서 시베리아라는 지역 자체의 역사성, 중앙과 지방의 대등한 관계, 지역의 독자적 발전의 중요성에 대한 견해를 수용하였고 이는 시베리아 지역주의 형성에도 기여했다고 할 수 있다. This article seeks to trace the characteristic historical views of Pyotr A. Slovtsov (1767~1843), Nikolai I. Kostomarov (1817~1885) and Afanasii P. Shchapov (1831~1876) in regard to the common basic principle of their views shared with theoreticians of Siberian Oblastnichestvo (regionalism) of the late 19th century. Slovtsov spent most of his life as an adult in Siberia. His greatest work Истори-ческое обозрение Сибири (Historical Overview of Siberia) traces history of Siberia from the fall of Khanate of Sibir to the period of Empress Catherine II. It is the first systematical history of Siberia written by a Sibiryak. The author tried to illuminate the autonomous socio-economic life and folkloric uniqueness of the Siberian people. Potanin called the book "the encyclopedia of Siberian life." As a historian belonging to the democratic-liberal school, Kostomarov endeavored to find out in history of Rus` the federalist principle of political body in contrast to the Moscow-centered autocracy. His interpretation of history tended to emphasize the tradition of autonomous development of each zemlia. Though he could not have enough interest in Siberia itself, his view of federalism encouraged young Siberian intellectuals to have pride in and attachment to their rodina. As the first Siberia-born historian who got a nation-wide reputation, Shchapov emphasized the importance of autonomous development of regions. He contrasted oblastnost` to centralism and maintained that in Russian history the principle of oblastnost` based on spontaneity and collective solidarity of people was dominant. All three historians were highly evaluated and respected by Potanin and Yadrintsev, the leaders of Siberian regionalism.

러시아 제국의 두 학술원을 이끈 여성총재: 예카테리나 다쉬코바의 공적 활동 돌아보기

한정숙 ( Jeong Sook Hahn ) 서울대학교 러시아연구소 2005 러시아연구 Vol.15 No.2