푸쉬킨의 희곡 『보리스 고두노프』 연구

김규종 한국러시아문학회 2020 러시아어문학 연구논집 Vol.71 No.-

Boris Godunov was completed by A.Puschkin just before Decembrist Revolt In 1825. Puschkin refused the three unity of the classical tragedy or romantic tragedy. Therefore we cant find not only unity of time and place, but also unity of action in Boris Godunov. Puschkin would create entirely new tragedy. In the process of writing the tragedy the great Russian poet thought of the free imagination and poetic of W.Shakespeare. Puschkin called Shakespeare my father. He would create the original Russian tragedy according to Russian conventions and history by overcoming the french classicism. Contemporary critics and writers didn’t accept Boris Godunov. Rarely the tragedy was enthusiastically greeted by small part of intellectuals, for example P.Vjazemskij. Czar Nikolaj and the critic F.Bulgarin cynically criticized the tragedy. The critical attitude to Boris Godunov continued long time. After the October Revolution in the 20th century the tragedy of Puschkin was performed on the theatre stage. My paper study many problems: Puschkin’s Dramaturgy, three unity, composition of tragedy. My next study is the relationship of Puschkin and Shakespeare, Boris Godunov and the epic theatre of B. Brecht.

뿌쉬낀의 희곡 『보리스 고두노프』와 오태석의 희곡 「태」 비교 연구

안숙현(Suk Hyeon Ahn) 한국동서비교문학학회 2013 동서 비교문학저널 Vol.0 No.29

Pushkin’s drama Boris Godunov and Oh Taesok’s drama “Tae” dealt with similar tragic incidents of history, ‘the murder of heir to the throne and usurpation of the throne’. They broke away from teleological description method with the dominant view and interpretation about the past and tried to reveal the truth of history through multifaceted perspective and many different voices. The drama Boris Godunov described the process, that Godunov, who assassinated the crown prince and ascended the throne, suffered from compunction and went to ruin by popular uprising, in 23 scenes. Oh Taesok’s drama “Tae” have two main stories of King Sejo’s distress from of the murder of Danjong and ‘blood lines’ of Park Paengnyeon’s family. The history, Pushkin and Oh Taesok understood, is irrational world, that shows estrangement between reality and appearance. And this absurdity was repeated in history. Their dramas show the age?spatial difference, but the historical consciousness of two writers, who recognize the power problem of usurpation of the throne and historic events, are based on historical view of vicious circle with nihilism. But Pushkin’s historical consciousness have aspect of passive nihilism with no way out, but Oh Taeseok’s historical view shows aspect of active nihilism to overcome nihilism. And Oh Taeseok seeks for meaning and value of life and history in the ‘blood lines’ to overcome unreasonable historical situation. Pushkin and Oh Taeseok regarded the history as absurd comedy. Pushkin showed avowedly the fact, the history is only a drama text as fiction. Oh Taeseok made historic events and facts into children’s play and sublimated nihilism of history to Dionysus’s play. Especially, they tried to newly interpret the fiction of history through the description method of crash montage. Above all, their writing of history is for ethnicity understanding of their own country. Pushkin and Oh Taeseok emphasized, the power of will to lead the history is a ‘the public’ and ‘blood lines’. Nonetheless, Pushkin pessimistically predicted the future of russian public as like the crying baby, who was thrown on the ground in drama Boris Godunov. But Oh Taeseok insisted, the blood lines have positive meaning and value of life through the son’s life force of Park Paengnyeon’s family.

뿌쉬낀의 희곡 〈보리스 고두노프〉의 ‘놀이성’ 연구

안숙현(Ahn Suk Hyeon) 한국슬라브유라시아학회 2013 슬라브학보 Vol.28 No.4

Pushkin considered that everyone assumes as one pleases regarding history description, emphasized fiction of history text and made history to the play in the drama 〈Boris Godunov〉. He broke dramatic unities of classicism, constructed free montage plot and made history story, many different voices of round characters shot, to the light game. When analyzing plays in drama text according to the play theory of Roger Cailois, Agon in this drama is rival gaming between the Emperor Boris and Gregori, pretender to the crown.. Boris is the rational character like Apollo and Gregori is the impulsive character like Dionysus, and they fight with each other to keep or take the throne. Alea is shown through taking superstitious belief of the people and divining and fortune-telling of the Emperor Boris in this text. Mimicry is the most important play in drama 〈Bois Bodunov〉. All characters perform their parts in the history stage, as history is just fiction like drama text. Ilink is expressed through dream, nightmare and phantom of Gregori and Boris. The play structure of this drama is various rival gaming of characters like between Boris and Gregori, Emperor and Nobles, Emperor and people. Especially, this drama text shows rival gaming between the text and readers(audiences) through method of crash montage. This drama uses mockery, derision, abuse language, humor, language game with antithesis expression as language play. Roger Cailois regarded society, that is ruled by Mimicry and Ilinx, as the chaos society. Pushkin thought, society at that time was chaos society, and he made this history to theatrical play, that is performed by Mimicry and Ilink. Trickery and lies are flying around in plays of Pushkin"s characters and their plays are not fair competitive plays according to the rule. Their plays don"t have pure casual play. That is, Pushkin"s play is the play to cynically deride nihilistic fictional history like light game, a not Dionysus"s play to positively overcome nihilism.

<황제 보리스와 그리슈까 오뜨레삐예프에 대한 희극>과 <보리스 고두노프>와의 차이

최선 ( Sun Choi ) 서울대학교 러시아연구소 2002 러시아연구 Vol.12 No.2

`유로지비의 귀` : V. 메이예르홀트의 실현되지 못한 공연 『보리스 고두노프』

김혜란 한국러시아문학회 2017 러시아어문학 연구논집 Vol.56 No.-

Тhis paper examines the Meyerhold`s unrealized production of Alexander Pushkin`s Boris Godunov studying Meyerhold`s director`s notes and memoirs of participants. From 1934 Meyerhold prepared Jubilee production for the 100th anniversary of Pushkin` death. He wanted to perfectly transfer Pushkin`s verses, characters and thought on his dramatic art to stage. He thought Pushkin as not only prominent dramatist but also director. He had the concept of a musical-dramatic production with the help of Prokofiev, differing from the routine performance of russian historical plays. Refused the accustomed archeological and religious settings, costumes and themes, he concentrated on rhythm of performance and passions of characters, especially Boris`s passion for power. Despite preparation with enthusiasm the production couldn`t be completed and performed. This paper infers that the reason was in the cultural circumstances of soviet mid-1930s and Meyerhold`s inevitable choice, knowing that he couldn`t satisfy his time`s aesthetic norms, but also couldn`t be tamed artist.

오페라 「보리스 고두노프」의 리브레토 연구

신영선 ( Shin Young-sun ) 서울대학교 러시아연구소 2017 러시아연구 Vol.27 No.1

Mussorgsky`s Boris Godunov, based on the play by Pushkin, is one of the most performed Russian operas. Interestingly enough, this shows a contrast to response to the original drama because the drama has been suspected of suitability for staging for a long time. The contradiction makes researchers focus on differences between the original drama and the opera. This paper examines the literary value of libretto as a primary source of opera as a form of composite art, centering around Libretto (opera script) that is a direct mediator between literary source and a completed opera work. First of all, the meaning of `people` is the notable difference between the original drama and the opera. For example, the people, who coldly watch the power class and play their role in a playful manner in the original drama, appear to have more importance and make more specific conflicts with the power class. This is the intent of the composer who placed chorus in the first and the last scenes in the opera, in order to give focus to chorus. Second, the role of females is strengthened in the opera. The composer added females in the cast after he failed to get permission to perform because there was no woman in the cast. This is strengthening of suitability for staging in response to the theatrical customs. In addition, scene changes were reduced and a structure that focuses on the main character was created, by eliminating and integrating a large number of scenes. This is due to the characteristics of opera that focuses on subjective aspects of characters. The direction of such an adaptation shows the composer`s intention and attributes of the genre in the opera script. At the same time, the adaptation can be an opportunity to trace back the suitability for staging of plays by Pushkin.

푸슈킨의 <보리스 고두노프>와 살트이코프-쉐드린의 <골로블료프씨네 사람들> 비교 연구 - 스놉(Snob)으로서의 주인공 형상을 중심으로

이규환 한국러시아문학회 2019 러시아어문학 연구논집 Vol.67 No.-

The primary objective of this paper is to sketch the contours of snob based on a peculiar model of act. Through the modernization Russians became believe the human capability and the possibility of realization of hunan value. But we discovered that characters of Pushkin's Boris Godunov, which are based in the Time of Troubles, always live like a actor under the mask. It attempts to prove the fact that the theatricality of everyday behaviors of the russian aristocracy can be understood as the emergence of the Russian modern snob, who understands and practices the recognition struggle in a distorted way. The hypothesis of this paper is that Pushkin and Saltykob's characters resemble each other and jointly embody the snobbism. Along with this, on the other hand, the second objective of this paper is to find the snob, who has escaped romanticism and became a monster. In Shchedrin's work, we can find the typical snob like a doll. They simply accept the given values of this world, have only desire to possess. Saltykob's achievement is of help to rsconsider characteristics of 'Russian attitude' towards some crucial categories surrounding the concept of self, such as freedom and human being's will.

『보리스 고두노프』에 나타난 뿌쉬낀의 역사관

이영범 ( Young Bum Lee ) 한국외국어대학교 러시아연구소 2003 슬라브연구 Vol.19 No.1

리브레토 작가 무소륵스키와 동란의 문화

김혜란 고려대학교 러시아 CIS연구소 2021 Acta Russiana Vol.13 No.-

This paper is research notes about Modest Mussorgsky’s historical operas Boris Godunov and Khovanshchina as an expression of complex and characteristic cultural phenomena in Russia in the 1870s. This study focuses on the historical insights of Mussorgsky and the characteristics of the Mussorgsky s libretto. Mussorgsky s view of art was largely formed through close exchanges with a critic Stasov and ‘the Mighty Hanful’s activities. These two operas are different from the conventions of general historical operas of the time. And they are not just operas based on historical events, but operas containing thoughts about history. Mussorgsky s view of history in these operas should be considered in connection with the motif of apocalypse. A closer look at Boris Godunov and Khovanshchina will be find the Mussorgsky s pursuit of true Russia, probably included his ahistorical thoughts.

「데메트리우스」와 「황제 보리스와 그리슈카 오트레피에프에 대한 희극」

최선 한국러시아문학회 2016 러시아어문학 연구논집 Vol.55 No.-

Schiller`s unfinished drama, Demetrius, published under the title, Fragment und Plan des Demetrius, in 1815 and translated in French in 1821, and Pushkin`s drama, Komedija o Zare Borise i o Grishke Otrep `eve, begun to be written in Michailovskoe in 1824, read in front of young intellectuals after September 1826, and published in 1993 treat the themes of the legitimacy of the governor, mechanism of power and the historic philosophical aspects of political behavior. The two dramas share extremely similar messages so that Pushkin`s drama can be considered to have received a significant influence from Schiller`s drama. These extremely similar messages are: (1) the legitimacy of the governor is artificially manufactured; (2) politics is none other than drama and camouflage; (3) the behavior of a young imposter, Grigory, is due to boredom and passion; (4) noble aristocrats are opportunistic; (5) religion is a means of power; (6) people are stupid and public opinion is manipulated, but they have influence; (7) female actor, Marina, who indulges herself in desire for power, uses her erotic attractiveness for the pursuit of power; (8) national consciousness conflicts with desire for power and power itself; and (9) destruction of the governor begins with the collapse of his legitimacy. In addition to these common messages, both works also emphasize that history repeats itself.