레르몬토프의 소설『리고프스까야 공작 부인』의 구성의 시학

홍대화 서울대학교 러시아연구소 1995 러시아연구 Vol.5 No.-

В этой статье анализируется композиционная структура второго незавершенного романа М. Ю. Лермонтова" Княгиня Лиговская". Теоретическими основаниями для анализа послужила теория авторской точки зрения Б.А. Успенского, характеризующая типологию точек зрения в различных планах организации повествовательного текста, и также теория типов субьектной организации повествования, предложенная Б.О. Корманом. Вся сумма конкретных наблюдений приводнт к выводу о том, что в изображении каждого из героев существуег одна закономерность. Автор сначала показывает их со стороны, изображает их внешность, догадывается об их характерах, коротко излагает их биографию и лишь после всего этого более или менее свободно проникает в их внутренний мир героев. Безоговорчно раскрывая внутренние состояния героев, автор часто опирается на универсальные психологические законы, Рассмотренный метод изображения персонажей в Княгине Лиговской принципиально отличается от изображения перснажей Ваднма, первого незавершеннго романа Лермонтова. Такое изменение системы точек зрения в" Княгине Лиговской" происходит вследствие того, что изменилась позиция автора, и соответственно-субьектная. В" Книягине Лиговской" автор явно отказывается от позиции автора-демиурга, использованной в Вадиме. Он находится, в принципе, на том же уровне знания и понимания всех вещей, что и его герой. Читатели имеют право предпологать, что автор сочинил это произведение, но он не дддо конца использует свои права и свою свободу, котоые вытекают из этой ситуации, Автор существует как бы в одном измерении с читателями и персонажами и неоднократно демонстритует ограниченность своего занния о внутреннем состоянии персонажей в данный конкретный момент. Такую авторскую позицию предлагается назвать автором-хроникёром. В с0татье делается вывод о том, что эта позиция во многом предвосхищает позицию автора в романах И.С. Тургенева 1850-1860 годов, которая детально исследована В.М. Марковичем. Но при всем том эта позиция выдерживается в Княгине Лиговской не до конца. Автор иногда прямо выступает со своими мнениямн в форме светской болтовни, используя эту форму также на сюжетных стыках, и, наконец, время от времени обращается к читателям. Эти' редицивы' манеры автора-демтиурга разрушает стройность обьектированного повествования от третьего лица, в результате чего работа над романом обрывается.

빠스쩨르나크의 소설 < 의사 자바고 > 의 서술 구조에서 나타나는 서정적 서사성

홍대화 한국러시아문학회 1997 러시아 소비에트 문학 Vol.8 No.1

고골의 초기단편소설들에 나타난 거짓말의 시학 : “원이야기”에서 “가공된 이야기”로

홍대화 한국러시아문학회 2014 러시아어문학 연구논집 Vol.45 No.-

В этой статье анализируются три повести, написаннные Гоголем в начальном стадии творчетства, <Вечер накануне Ивана Купала>, <Пропавшая грамота>, и <Повесть о том, как поссорились Иван иванович с Иваном Никифоровичем>, с точки зрения ‘поэтики лжи.’ Ложь можно определяться как ‘действие, в котором скрывается истинный мысль рассказчика или факт под речью или другими способами выражения, переданными с каким-то намерением или с целью.’ В трёх повестях ‘поэтика лжи’ обнаруживается в виде обработок ‘первоначального рассказа’ с различными способами.’ Одна из больших особенностей творчества Гоголя явяется простым сюжетом, подобным анекдоту, и приёмом ‘сказа’. Эти приёмы даёт рассказчику основу очень легко и свободно лгать читателям. В повестях <Вечер накануне Ивана Купала>, <Пропавшая грамота> ‘простой и изначальный рассказ’ обрабатывается дополнением фантастичеких, фольклёрных и мифологических сюжетов, и рассказчик обнажёно показывает процесс этой обработки. В нарративе <Повести о том, как поссорились Иван иванович с Иваном Никифоровичем> проникаются ироническая ложь рассказчика и алогический сюжет, который обнажает, что переданный рассказ есть ложь. В сюжетах часто показываются вранья действующих лиц, которые пронизывают факт и ложь в своих речах, и ложь для обмана или игры. Интенсивность лжи усиливается в развитии сюжета. Таким образом, в этих повестях поэтика лжи подчеркивает не смысл текста, а способ передачи текста, и обнаруживает, что переданный текст есть не рассказ о реально происходящем событии, а ложь и подделка рассказчика.

자먀찐의 『우리들』의 단일제국: 기독교 전통에 대한 패러디

홍대화 한국문학과종교학회 2015 문학과종교 Vol.20 No.2

단일제국은 러시아 정교 교회 전통에 대한 패러디 위에 구축되어 있다. 단일제국은 2×2=4에 근거한 무류한 지식(신앙)에 근거해 만장일치의 선거(부활절)를 통해 은혜로운 분(여호와)에 의해 통치되며 보안요원(수호천사)들에 의해 수호되는 세계이다. 그리고 이 단일제국는 I-330을 비롯한 불복종하는 파편화된 오만한 개인인 메피들, 즉 ‘영혼’이라는 병이 든 사람들(교활한 뱀과 악마, 반그리스도교도들)이 재판제(예배식, 종교재판), 수술, 가스종과 처형 기계로 진압되고, 자유, 그림자, 욕망, 웃음이 존재하지 않으며, 행복과 구원과 미소가 머무는 국가이다. 이 안에는 선악에 대한 선택의 짐으로부터 해방되고 구원을 받은 순진무구하고 복종적인 D-503과 O-50과 같은 이들이(아담과 이브) ‘우리들’로 살아가며 석유식품(그리스도의 빵)과 교리강의기(율법), 시간 율법책(성상)으로 일상을 영위하는 지상낙원(기독교의 낙원이자 단일교회)인 것이다. 영원한 혁명을 꿈꾼 자먀찐은 엔트로피의 세계를 깨고 새로운 역사의 발생을 지향하는 에네르기의 세계, 악마와 반그리스도교도의 편에 서 있다. 그런 점에서 그는 도스토예프스키보다는 니체의 전통을 따르고 있다. The One State is a parody of the characters, motives and images from the Russian Orthodox Church traditions, which is established on the basis of the infallible Euclidean knowledge 2×2=4, ruled by the Benefactor (Jehovah) elected repeatedly every year on the Day of Unanimity (Easter) and protected by security guards (guardian angels). In the One State arrogant, disobedient and fragmented individuals, ‘Mefi’ with a disease called ‘soul’—cunning Serpents, devils, anti-Christians—are executed on the Holiday of Trial (Liturgy, the Inquisition) by torture-bell and execution machines and controlled by brain operation. This country is an earthly paradise (Heaven and the One Church), where meek and obedient citizens (Adam and Eve) eat the Coal food (bread of Christ), listen to and repeat Rules-lecture (God’s Commandments) from the speaker and live according to the schedule written on the Time Board (icons). Zamyatin, dreaming of infinite revolution, is takes side of the devils and the anti-Christians who aim for the destruction of the world of entropy and the start of a new history through the world of energy. Thus, he follows the tradition of Nietzsche, not Dostoevsky.

고골의 『죽은 혼』제1권에 나타난 저자와 주인공, 독자 간의 관계

홍대화 한국슬라브․유라시아학회 2022 슬라브학보 Vol.37 No.2

One of the characteristics of Gogol's protagonists is the 'absence of self-consciousness'. However, in contrast to the one-sided characters, the narrator of Dead Souls is full of self-consciousness about how readers will evaluate the work, the main character, and the art. He assumes his readers are Russians who are subject to authoritarianism (discrimination according to ‘the Table of Ranks’ and the numbers of serfs), and upper-class men and women with a high level of 6 or higher ranks who cannot speak Russian well and yet demand fluent Russian from writers. The self-conscious author often uses Chichikov's "words" when he evaluates his characters. Chichikov acts as a guide when portraying landowners and city officials, and acts as a spokesperson for the narrator when making decisive character evaluations. In this way, he becomes a shield that allows the narrator to escape reproach and criticism from readers for his evaluation and judgment. Chichikov represents the reader's remarks and at the same time represents the narrator's self-consciousness, acting as a shield that allows narrator to escape not only direct criticism, but also the duty to respond to the criticism. The narrator treats Chichikov as an independent 'subject' to make him such a shield. Chichikov is like a buffer zone between the narrator and the reader. The narrator and Chichikov are similar in that they stand in a double position. The narrator is critical of the reader and wants the reader's approval and acceptance. And Chichikov is critical of the landlords and the upper-class urban society he meets as the narrator, but he aspires to be accepted by them and to live the same life as them. Chichikov is not the narrator's alter-ego, but, like other characters, is the subject of a caricature. However, he has a common denominator with the narrator. The first volume of Dead Souls deviated from the literary method before realism as described by Korman, but did not reach the polyphonic novel that Bakhtin talked about. It can be said that a narrator with a lot of self-consciousness, the narrator's effort to establish the protagonist as an independent 'subject', a report-oriented narrative of external and internal phenomena, dialogue scenes resembling theatrical lines, the narrator's avoidance of final evaluations and declarations, and the expansion of the reader's room for interpretation prepared the emergence of Dostoevsky's polyphonic novel.

레르몬토프의 소설 “우리 시대의 영웅”에서 시공의 상징적인 의미와 인간에 대한 이해

홍대화 한국슬라브유라시아학회 1996 슬라브학보 Vol.11 No.1

고골의 희곡들에 나타난 기만과 자기기만의 시학 :『결혼』, 『검찰관』, 『도박꾼들』을 중심으로

홍대화 한국러시아문학회 2016 러시아어문학 연구논집 Vol.55 No.-

This paper analyzes the lies, deceptions, and self-deceptions of Gogol`s plays based on modern theories about lies, the heuristic theory, the self defense mechanism. In Gogol`s Marriage, the author makes the audience laugh by bringing to light life enmeshed in various lies such as lies told to achieve a certain goal, lies told to keep up appearances, and lies told to avoid difficult situations. The Inspector General portrays a pseudo-fraud. The factors that make this fraud possible is the fudge factor, a culture where corruption is common. As a result, Dobchinsky and Bobchinsky`s psychological projections in mistaking Khlestakov as an Inspector General, the self-righteous bias of the mayor, selfish tendencies, the fantasy of control, Khlestakov`s entrenchment in the fudge factor “already forsaken body”, and his self-rationalization can be observed. In The Gamblers, a thorough fraud is played out. A play of three layers is portrayed: the fraud played by Ikharev`s and Uteshitelny`s gang to fool Glov, the fraud played against Ikharev on stage, and the stage in front of the audience. After realizing that the fraud in front of their eyes is a lie and that the real fraud is somewhere else, the audience becomes gripped with the fear that the reality that they face each day is nothing but a deception. All three plays are composed to incite `fear`. All three plays are structured so that the people who attempt to deceive others end up being deceived themselves. The level of deception intensifies in the order of Marriage, Inspector General, and The Gamblers. The lies, deception, and self-deception in Gogol`s plays come from Gogol`s Christian perspective of the deceptions of the Devil. However, Gogol`s plan for moral reform fails and the audience is gripped by a mocking, laughter that ridicules the sinful nature of human beings that are unable to live without lies.

The Comparative Analysis between Dostoevsky’s "Dvojnik" and Film "Double"

홍대화 한국러시아문학회 2015 러시아어문학 연구논집 Vol.48 No.-

영화 "더블"은 도스토예프스키의 소설 "분신"을 현대적으로 개작하여 새롭게 해석한 수작이다. 소설 "분신"이 배경으로 삼는 근대화된 도시 페테르부르그의 문제를 영화 "더블"은 동서양을 막론하고 보편적이고 추상적인 현대의 공간을 통해 구현해놓는다. 디스토피아처럼 폐쇄적이고 숨 막히는 사각의 공간에서 존재감 없이 시스템의 일부로 살아가는 현대인의 모습은 수많은 도플갱어적인 인물 군상들로 구현되어 있고, 그 대표적인 인물이 사이몬 제임스이다. 영화에서 인물들의 도플갱어성은 끊임없이 중첩되는 거울과 액자를 통한 반영의 이미지들을 통해 강조된다. 시스템의 기록에서 지워지면 그 존재마저 지워져버리는 가련한 존재인 사이몬 제임스는 특별해져서 원하는 것을 쟁취하고 외로움에서 벗어나기 위해 분신을 만들어낸다. 이것은 원작에서 골랴드낀이 근대화된 러시아에 편입되고 싶은 강렬한 욕망 때문에 분신을 만들어내는 것과는 정반대의 노정을 보여준다. 원작에서 골랴드낀은 다른 사람들과 비슷하지 않기 때문에 피해망상, 편집증, 추적망상에 시달리고 그 타자와의 괴리를 극복하기 위해 분신을 만들어낸다면, 사이몬 제임스는 다른 사람들과 너무 똑같기 때문에 거기에서 벗어나기 위해 분신을 만들어낸다. 원작이 골랴드낀의 심리적 병리현상을 그 원인에 대한 해석 없이 독자들 앞에 여과 없이 드러내어 근대성의 문제를 제기하며 깊은 심리주의의 장을 열었다면, 영화는 그 근대성의 문제점을 파놉티콘적인 세계의 모습으로 시각화시켜 제시하고, ‘분신’의 모티브를 통해 독특하면서도 건강한 자아를 찾아가는 젊은이의 노정으로 해석하여 보여주고 있다. 그런 면에서 영화는 문제 제기의 서사라기보다는 해결의 서사에 가깝다. 원작에서는 서술자의 관심이 문제의 해결보다 골랴드낀의 내면, 환상과 현실의 교차를 그려내는 담화 자체에 가 있기 때문에 그의 피해망상, 거절감, 소외감의 해결방법이 전혀 제시되어 있지 않다. 영화는 새로운 여주인공 ‘한나’를 도입하여 소설 『분신』을 사랑을 통해 새로운 자아로 거듭나는 사이몬의 이야기로 풀어감으로써 사이몬 제임스의 고뇌와 갈등을 해결해주고 있다. 영화 『더블』은 도스토예프스키의 복잡한 소설 『분신』이 어떻게 영리하게 현대적으로 해석될 수 있는지를 보여주는 좋은 작품이다. .

도회전설의 전파 텍스트로서 고골의 「외투」-화자의 담화 분석

홍대화 한국러시아문학회 2015 러시아어문학 연구논집 Vol.50 No.-

Gogol`s Overcoat is famous for its text which does not reveal exact meanings due to the narrator`s ambivalent attitude to characters and events. This paper describes that this short story`s unique narrative reveals the characteristics of the realization of urban legend text. The first-person narrator is a creator of a funny and grotesque story, but simultaneously is an observer of a real story. He tells these stories to other people in a skaz on the basis of rumors and his own and other people`s memories and informations. The narrator`s ambivalent attitude to characters and events, and various tones shifts(realistic, sentimental, rhetoric, comic, or ironic) can be read as a means the author uses to catch and maintain the interest of the audience and defend his stance against their rebuttals in advance, and as a way to avoid responsibility for his own conclusive judgements later on when he shares the incredible urban legend. It could be possible to say that the narrator enjoys the propagation process of the urban legend which he performs in a skaz, hiding behind the mask of propagator. The Overcoat represents the formation and the propagation process of the urban legend. In the first half of the novel, the narrator presents the real story as a part of the urban legend he propagates. In the latter half he represents the collaborative creation process, how the urban legend originates from the real story of the first half and how new details extend it when it goes through many people`s lips. As a result the short story itself becomes the realization of the urban legend in the form of fiction. This urban legend imparts the moral lesson that if you don`t deal with people equally and personally, you will have bitter experiences. The Overcoat could be determined as a performance of the urban legend text which represents its` formation, propagation and functioning.

고골의 『죽은 혼』 1권의 담화 분석 : 최종적인 말의 부재

홍대화 한국러시아문학회 2022 러시아어문학 연구논집 Vol.77 No.-

Aside from his firm stance as an artist on the role of absurd and ugly daily life and the role of superficial and detailed depictions of humans, the narrator is wary of coming up with his own final interpretations and explanations of characters and subjects. The narrator takes a pose of constantly passing the share of the final interpretation to the reader. As for art, he only vaguely expresses what kind of human figure he will draw in the future as a different dimension of nobility, and does not say what it looks like. He only suggests that the basis for Chichikov's change is a different level of desire granted by heaven, and does not define the details of that desire. The narrator does not have a firm answer and definition on Rus's way forward. This is due to the "incomplete" of the work that depicts Russia on the "road", but it contains a stagnant appearance, not a change, and the work is not completed because the path is not completed. Rus’, who is captured as a whole through generalizations, is galloping somewhere, but she is stuck in a vagueness where the narrator doesn't even know where she's going. The narrator refers to a new level of spiritual growth, a new level of integrity, a new level of Rus’s growth, and a new level of art, suggesting that it is quite related to religious concepts. And the uncertainty, ambiguity, and immersion in the writing process itself encompasses and foreshadows the cessation of Gogol's future writing.