식민지 시기 예술 개념 수용과 문학장의 변동; 홍명희의 예술, 개념과 운동의 지반 -일본 경유 톨스토이의 비판적 수용-

이예안 ( Yea Ann Lee ) 한림과학원 2013 개념과 소통 Vol.0 No.12

As part of an effort to clarify the acceptance and formation of the modern concept of art in Korea, this essay considers, first, how Japan accepted Tolstoy as an advocate of ‘art for life’ in the Meiji period, and then examines how Hong Myeong-hee made use of this in his understanding of Tolstoy and how this influenced his concept of art. In the early Meiji period, the Japanese understanding of Tolstoy became strongly tinged with Christianity through the influence of Tokutomi Roka, and this has characterized the Japanese image of Tolstoy ever since. Tolstoy was assimilated into Japan in three distinct ways by religious, socialist, and literary circles, and this essay considers Hong`s understanding of Tolstoy in terms of these three categories. Hong was quite critical about the religious attitudes prevailing in Japan, while he had no clear vision about the early Japanese socialism inspired by Tolstoy. He rediscovered the significance of Tolstoy`s concept of art and appreciated it, but at the same time, he remained sceptical of its religious aspects. Accordingly, this nuanced critical attitude toward Tolstoy led him to accept the Marxist proletarian concept of art in the following years. Hong initially relied on a conceptual framework of art which was a combination of Marxism with Tolstoyism as revised by Lenin; that is, he adopted a Marxian concept of art while sympathizing with the Tolstoyan stance modified in the style of Lenin. He subsequently came to re-consider Tolstoy, however, by distancing him from Lenin`s ideas, as he changed his views in line with those of the National United Front. He was groping for a different concept of art which could provide a common basis for the entire Joseon people. At this point, Hong considered Tolstoy as an artist who expressed the Russian ideal of ‘the people’ through realism, yet when Hong sought for a new concept of ‘literature’ and ‘art’ relevant to Joseon he had no role for Tolstoy. Then he took a step backward from the proletarian art movement based on Marxian socialism, however, looking for a way to integrate ‘people, art, and movement’ on a national level, and the tension between his positive and negative responses to Tolstoy finally opened a space for “Joseon Literature” to emerge. Hong had still to establish “what is proper and peculiar to Joseon”, however, and his concept of ‘art’ was also not fully formed.

"지(知)"의 근대적 전환 -톨스토이 수용을 통해 본 "근대지"의 편성과 유통-

소영현 ( Young Hyun So ) 연세대학교 국학연구원 2011 동방학지 Vol.154 No.-

한국에서 톨스토이에 대한 소개가 시작된 것은 1900년대 후반이다. 이후로 『소년』 지를 비롯한 근대 초기의 인쇄 매체들, 『청춘』, 『개벽』 등 근대적 지식 형성의 토대를 이루었던 매체를 중심으로 톨스토이에 대한 관심이 본격화되었다. 톨스토이에 대한 근대 초기의 관심은 ``사상가로서의 톨스토이``를 중심으로 한 ``선택적 수용``의 형태를 취했다. 초기 수용 단계에서 톨스토이는 문인인 도스토옙스키가 아니라 철학자 니체와의 대비 속에서 논의되었다. 이러한 정황은 톨스토이의 위상을 검토하는 작업이 사상계의 좌표 속에서 우선적으로 이루어져야 한다는 점을 말해준다. 무엇보다 톨스토이 수용의 이러한 문맥은 톨스토이 번역을 둘러싼 전반적 특징을 검토하기 위해서 문학 혹은 사상이나 종교와 같은 특정 영역을 넘어설 필요가 있음을 역설한다. 이에 따라 본고에서는 톨스토이의 ``선택적 수용``의 시대적 맥락을 파악하고, 그 흐름을 추적하면서 예술과 사상의 교착과 분화의 흐름을 되짚고 근대적 지식이 형성/생산/유통되는 과정과 근대적 지식 패러다임이 전환되는 장면을 엿보고자 했다. 구체적으로 1910년대 전후, 1920년대 전후의 톨스토이 수용의 문맥을 개인과 사회의 상관성, 형성과 개조를 둘러싼 사상적 궤적 속에서 검토해 보았으며, 이후로 ``톨스토이``라는 기호가 종교적 실천윤리에서 반문명적 사회비평에 이르기까지 두루 호명되는 사회역사적 문맥을 추적해보았다. 일본에서의 톨스토이 붐과 연동하면서도 톨스토이로 대변되는 러시아의 성격에 대한 관심이 톨스토이에 대한 반복적 호명의 원인이었음을 밝혀보았다. 아울러 톨스토이 수용 주체에 대한 관심을 통해 근대지의 재편성 과정, 그 생산과 유통의 장 자체에 주목해보았다. 이 작업을 통해 외래 사상과 문화의 유입을 ``번역``이라는 틀로 접근하는 연구를 상대화하고, 학술공동체의 존재방식이 근대라는 경계를 관통하면서 거듭된 반복과 차이 속에서 재편성되고 있음을 확인했다. Tolstoy was introduced to Korean intellectuals in the late of 1900`s. Afterwards, their Interest in Tolstoy was accelerated through the modern print media`s focus on Tolstoy as a thinker. It was a selective adoption. Tolstoy was treated as a thinker not in the vein of Dostoevsky but of Nietzsche. It indicates the research for the topology of Tolstoy, which was needed in the field of scholarship above all. Therefore, we should focus on the intersection of the specific realms of literature, thought, religion to consider the characteristics of Tolstoy`s adoption in Korea. To understand this adoption, I considered the historical context and examined the modern paradigm of knowledge which produced and distributed modern knowledge. Specifically, I examined the adoption of Tolstoy in terms of the relationships between individuals and society and the development of thought between the formation and the re-formation of individual/society in the pre- and post- 1910`s and 1920`s. I then retraced the social-historical context of the influences of Tolstoy from the religious moral to anti-civilizational social criticism. Furthermore, I examined the repetition of the different forms of adoption of Tolstoy related to the "Tolstoy boom" in Japan and the characteristics of Russia expressed in Tolstoy. Specifically, I focused on the process of re-organizing modern knowledge and the field of production and distribution through the translation issues regarding Tolstoy. As a result, I made inquiries into the introduction of western thought and culture in terms of translation and attempted to reorganize the existing scholarship in those fields throughout modernity through repeated differentiation.

톨스토이 작품의 한국 공연사 연구

안숙현(Ahn Suk Hyeon) 한국노어노문학회 2017 노어노문학 Vol.29 No.4

본 논문은 한국무대에서 100여 년 동안 공연되었던 톨스토이 작품을 살펴보고, 톨스토이 작품의 한국 무대화에 나타난 특성을 밝혀보고자 하는 데에 연구의 목적을 둔다. 한국 최초의 톨스토이 작품은 예성좌의 『카츄샤』공연(1916)이다. 해방 이전에는 톨스토이 작품이 활발하게 공연되었던 시기로, 토월회의 『부활』·『산송장』공연과 연전학생회와 극예술연구회의 『어둠의 힘』공연과 같이 톨스토이 작품은 한국무대에서 대중극과 신극의 가교로서 역할을 했다. 해방 후부터 1980년대까지는 톨스토이 작품이 더욱 다양한 방식으로 무대화되었지만, 활발하게 공연되지는 못했다. 하지만 서사극으로 무대화된 극단 광장의 『전쟁과 평화』공연(1976)은 이 시기에 주목할 만했다. 톨스토이 작품은 1980·90년대에는 거의 공연되지 않다가, 1997년에 극단 유인촌레퍼토리가 호암아트홀에서 『홀스또메르』를 공연하면서부터 새롭게 부각되었다. 21C에 들어와서는 그동안 공연되지 않았던 『크로이체르 소나타』등이 실험적으로 무대화되었고, 경기도립극단의 『부활』공연(2013) 역시도 톨스토이 사상을 현대적인 무대로 표현하면서 다시 관심의 대상이 되었다. 톨스토이 작품의 한국 공연에서 나타난 특성을 살펴보면, 우선 톨스토이 작품은 한국 대중극을 이끌었다. 그리고 사실주의극으로 무대화되어 한국 근대극을 정립하는 데에 큰 역할을 했으며, ‘교훈극’으로 이 시대에 우리가 어떻게 살아야할지 그 길을 제시하기도 했다. 이 외에도 톨스토이 작품은 고전 텍스트의 무대화에 맞는 각색과 무대화의 방향을 제시했고, 노래와 음악을 효과적으로 사용하여 음악극을 탄생․발전시켰다. 또한 스타 배우와 명연기의 탄생도 이끌어냈다. The purpose of this paper is to study Tolstoy’s works, which was performed on the Korean stage. The first Tolstoy’s works in Korean stage was the play of Tolstoy’s Resurrection, performed in 1916 by theatrical troupe Yeseongja. Before liberation, Tolstoy’s works performed actively and served as a bridge between the popular plays and the new-drama. From the end of the Liberation to the 1980s, Tolstoy’s works were performed on a more diversified stage, but they were not actively performed. Tolstoy’s works were hardly performed in the 1980s and 1990s, it has come to light since theatrical troupe Yooinchon repertory performed Kholstomer of Tolstoy in 1997. Tolstoy’s works led the Korean popular plays in korean stage. Tolstoy’s works were staged as a historical realism and it played a major role in establishing a Korean modern drama. Tolstoy’s works suggested how we should live as a morality play, and it proposed the direction of an adaptation to the stage of classical text and the performance stage. Tolstoy’s works effectively used songs and music and created a musical drama. Tolstoy’s works led to the birth of star actors and the famous actors.

기억의 문학적 재구성: 톨스토이의 서유럽 여행

윤새라 한국러시아문학회 2022 러시아어문학 연구논집 Vol.78 No.-

Lev Tolstoy traveled in Western Europe only twice all throughout his long life. Moreover, he did not write travelogues, quite an unusual phenomenon in comparison with his fellow Russian writers. Consequently, Tolstoy’s travels have not attracted much critical attention. Yet he kept a journal and wrote letters during his travels. An examination of Tolstoy’s non-fiction writing (diary and letters) and fictional works proves that Tolstoy’s experience inspires his fiction writing, but in different manners. “Lucerne” and Anna Karenina serve as good examples to explore the relationship between Tolstoy’s personal experience of the West and his literary treatment in fiction. “Lucerne” demonstrates that Tolstoy’s first European travel was immediately and directly translated into fiction. A clear direction of development is detected: first, Tolstoy wrote diary, and subsequently expanded it in a letter addressed to a critic. Finally, the writer completed his manuscript within two weeks and got it published shortly afterwards. “Lucerne” reveals a process of Tolstoy’s creative writing. Anna Karenina, on the other hand, relies upon a different method. Tolstoy projects his travel experience onto two female characters: Anna and Kitty. In particular, Kitty’s experience in Soden overlaps with Tolstoy’s, focusing on the theme of a brother’s death. However, Tolstoy’s choice of Kitty, not his alter-ego, indicates the artistic distance between his real-life experience and the fictional character’s.

Fascination and Aversion: Science in Tolstoy`s Work

( Sae Ra Yoon ) 한국외국어대학교 러시아연구소 2011 슬라브연구 Vol.27 No.4

Tolstoy is known for a vocal critic of science and modern technology. This paper questions the general notion of the Russian master`s hostility toward science and thus investigates Tolstoy`s view in three dimensions: 1) his life and non-fiction, 2) Tolstoy`s artistic representation of Levin and a scientist in Anna Karenina, 3) Tolstoy`s quest of science in history writing. Tolstoy turns out to have devoted much attention to science. He understood the importance of science education and such view is clearly reflected his treatment of science in Azbuka, a textbook for peasant children. Scientific topics such as electricity and heat are included in harmony with other themes. Tolstoy takes the same approach in presenting Levin in Anna Karenina. Levin, a former science student, is fundamentally scientific minded, but ultimately overcomes the limitation of science and its world-view. The comparison of Levin with a biologist Katavasov underscores Tolstoy`s underlying criticism of professional scientists. Nonetheless, Tolstoy`s fiction writing is rooted in thorough analysis and with War and Peace the writer strove to raise history to the level of science. Caught between fascination and aversion, Tolstoy carves out his own unique relationship with science.

러일전쟁 전후 일본 혁명가들의 톨스토이 수용 양상

임경화 ( Kyoung Hwa Lim ) 서울대학교 인문학연구원 2015 人文論叢 Vol.72 No.2

러시아와 일본은 모두 비서구 후발자본주의국가로서 강력한 군국주의에 기반한 대외팽창정책을 추진하여 사회 모순을 극복하고자 했다. 따라서 서구 문명을 비판하고 군국주의에 저항했던 톨스토이의 사상은 특히 러일전쟁을 전후한 시기에 양국의 혁명가들에게 다대한 영향을 미쳤다. 그중에는 톨스토이 사상에 심각한 모순을 느끼고 대치하면서 그것을 디딤돌로 삼아 무정부주의로 향한 고토쿠 슈스이 등과, 톨스토이를 발판으로 삼아 레닌주의를 심화시켜 갔던 레닌이 있다. 고토쿠 등은 일본의 초창기 사회주의운동을 대표했고, 레닌은 소련사회에 톨스토이를 기념하는 근거를 제공했다는 점에서, 양국 혁명가들의 톨스토이 전유 방식의 전형을 읽어낼 수 있다. 본고에서는, 동시대에 전개된 레닌의 톨스토이 비판을 염두에 두면서, 일본 초기 사회주의자들의 톨스토이 수용 양상을 밝히고자 한다. 사회주의운동 초기 일본에서 톨스토이의 절대평화주의에 기초한 친사회주의적 주장은 합법 정당을 추구했던 사회당 이미지 구축에 유효했다. 이들은 비전론을 주장하면서 톨스토이와 동일시되기도 했다. 하지만, 러일전쟁에 대한 톨스토이의 비판이 일본에 소개되자, 그들은 개인적인 종교성의 회복에 기초한 사회의 근본 개조를 주장하는 톨스토이의 주장이 사회체제의 변혁에 기초한 정의의 실현에는 심각한 한계를 지녔다고 보았다. 이 인식은 레닌에게도 보였다. 또한 러시아혁명을 거친 후로는 톨스토이의 무저항주의에 대해서도 비판이 가해졌다. 이것은 고토쿠 그룹이 혁명을 경험하면서 무정부공산주의와 직접행동으로 사상적 전환을 이루는 흐름과 연동되어 있었다. 레닌도 러시아혁명패배의 최대 원인을 톨스토이의 무저항주의에서 찾았다. 그러면서도,톨스토이의 사상에는 전형적인 농민혁명가로서의 부정적인 면과 함께, 착취 없는 사회주의적 사회를 창조하려는 긍정적인 면이 있다고 보고,후자에서 톨스토이의 역사적 의의를 찾으려 했다. 하지만, 일본에서는 대역사건으로 혁명가들에 대한 혹독한 탄압이 가해져 톨스토이주의의 급진적인 부분의 수용도 종언을 고했다. In this article, I will shed light on the reception of Tolstoy by Japan``s early socialists while having in my mind the chronologically overlapping criticisms against Tolstoy made by Lenin. At the early stage of the development of the socialist movement in Japan, Tolstoy``s seemingly pro-socialist stance based on absolute pacifism was instrumental in making the image of a socialist party striving to obtain the opportunities for legal activity. The socialist anti-war position was also seen as "Tolstoyist". However, as soon as Tolstoy``s criticisms of the Russo-Japanese War became known in Japan, the local socialists could not help sensing serious limitations in the possibilities for the realization of basic societal reforms and social justice inside the Tolstoyist framework of society``s rebuilding based on the revival of personal religiosity. The same skeptical attitude can be seen in Lenin``s criticism of Tolstoy. Following the course of Russia``s 1905-07 revolution, Tolstoy``s "non-resistance" became a target of criticisms as well. Concomitantly, Kotoku``s group evolved into anarchists following the Russian revolutionary events, and embraced anarchic communism and the method of direct actions. Lenin, at the same historical moment, found a reason for the 1905-07 Revolution’s defeat in the peasant “non-resistance” articulated by Tolstoy. However, Lenin also found that “Tolstoyism”, together with negative features typical for peasant dissenters, exhibited such a positive quality as willingness to build a socialist society free from exploitation. The latter was to be considered to be Tolstoy’s historical contribution. In Japan, however, as revolutionaries were cruelly suppressed during and after the “High Treason” trials of 1911, Tolstoy’s radicalism was now to be hidden away from the public’s eyes.

러일전쟁 전후 똘스또이(톨스토이)의 반전사상과 공동체방안

김영수 단국대학교 동양학연구원 2023 東洋學 Vol.- No.92

The past of the early 20th century was marked by war and violence, which Leo Tolstoy criticized. But even now, in the early 21st century, the threat of nuclear war, small-scale wars and racial violence still rage. This was because human beings fell into love of power and vanity rather than rational thinking. Power was the coercive force that compelled people to obey existing laws. Tolstoy criticized that all social systems in human history acknowledged the existence of power. Tolstoy hated the state but acknowledged its role in foreign aggression. He judged that the state had to fend off attacks from other peoples, and that was the reason for the existence of the government. To him, the state was a necessary evil because the world was a reality in which he had to endure suffering. Tolstoy did not criticize the nation, because the nation itself did not impose patriotism and aggression. Tolstoy, he suggested, as an alternative to the state, a small, moral ‘agricultural community’. If Tolstoy’s criticism and alternatives are connected to today’s reality, it means the orientation of small government, local community, and civil society. After all, Tolstoy thought critically about national patriotism, arguing that the only way man could be free was to combine his will with the will of God. Humans are spiritual beings similar to gods, and humans carry out God’s will, but humans are beings who can achieve blessings through love. Tolstoy argued that human beings should pursue the life of a rational being. Humans needed some realization about the mission and meaning of life or an ‘internal guideline’ for action. Tolstoy presented the following ‘internal guideline’ that can be practiced in life, and he said that you should treat others as you would like to be treated. 20세기 초반의 과거는 똘스또이(톨스토이)가 비판했던 전쟁과 폭력으로 얼룩졌다. 그런데 21세기 초반의 현재도 핵전쟁의 위협과 소규모의 전쟁과 인종간의 폭력이 여전히 벌어지고 있다. 이것은 인간이 이성적인 사 고보다는 권력에 대한 사랑과 허영에 빠져있기 때문이었다. 권력이란 사람들에게 기존의 법률을 따르도록 강 요하는 강제력이었다. 똘스또이는 인류의 역사 속에서 모든 사회체제가 권력의 존재를 인정했다고 비판했다. 똘스또이는 국가를 혐오했지만 외세의 침범에 대한 국가의 역할을 인정했다. 그는 국가가 다른 민족의 공격 을 막아야 하는데 그것이 정부의 존재 이유였다고 판단했다. 그에겐 세상이 고통을 감내해야 하는 현실이기 때문에 국가는 필요악의 존재였다. 똘스또이는 민족에 대해서 비판하지는 않았는데 민족 자체는 애국심과 침 략성을 강요하지 않았기 때문이었다. 똘스또이는 소규모의 도덕적인 ‘농촌공동체’를 국가의 대안으로 제시했 다. 똘스또이의 비판과 대안을 오늘날의 현실과 연결시킨다면 그것은 작은 정부, 지역 공동체, 시민사회 등의 지향을 의미한다. 결국 똘스또이는 국가의 애국심에 대해서 비판적으로 사고했는데 인간이 자유로워질 수 단 하나의 방법에 대해서 자신의 의지와 신의 의지를 결합하는 것이라고 주장했다. 인간은 신과 유사한 정신적 존재이고 인간은 신의 의지를 수행하는데 인간은 사랑으로 축복을 이룰 수 있는 존재였다. 똘스또이는 인간이 이성적인 존재의 삶을 추구해야 한다고 주장했다. 인간은 삶의 사명과 의미에 대한 어떤 깨달음이나 행동의 ‘내적지침’이 필요 했다. 똘스또이는 생활 속에서 실천할 수 있는 그 ‘내적지침’을 다음과 같이 제시했는데 남에게 대접을 받고자 하는 대로 너희도 남을 대접하라는 것이었다.

Fascination and Aversion: Science in Tolstoy’s Work

윤새라 한국외국어대학교(글로벌캠퍼스) 러시아연구소 2011 슬라브연구 Vol.27 No.4

Tolstoy is known for a vocal critic of science and modern technology. This paper questions the general notion of the Russian master’s hostility toward science and thus investigates Tolstoy’s view in three dimensions: 1) his life and non-fiction, 2) Tolstoy’s artistic representation of Levin and a scientist in Anna Karenina, 3) Tolstoy’s quest of science in history writing. Tolstoy turns out to have devoted much attention to science. He understood the importance of science education and such view is clearly reflected his treatment of science in Azbuka, a textbook for peasant children. Scientific topics such as electricity and heat are included in harmony with other themes. Tolstoy takes the same approach in presenting Levin in Anna Karenina. Levin, a former science student, is fundamentally scientific minded, but ultimately overcomes the limitation of science and its world-view. The comparison of Levin with a biologist Katavasov underscores Tolstoy’s underlying criticism of professional scientists. Nonetheless, Tolstoy’s fiction writing is rooted in thorough analysis and with War and Peace the writer strove to raise history to the level of science. Caught between fascination and aversion, Tolstoy carves out his own unique relationship with science.

레오 톨스토이와 마하트마 간디

이정호(Lee, Jeong-Ho) 한국외국어대학교 인도연구소 2012 남아시아연구 Vol.18 No.2

본 논문은 간디의 비폭력저항 사상인 ‘사띠아그라하’(Satyagraha)라는 투쟁의 무기에 미친 톨스토이의 영향을 살펴보았다. 간디와 톨스토이는 서로 만난 적은 없지만, 간디는 톨스토이의 저서 The Kingdom of God is within You에 깊은 감명을 받아 그를 스승(teacher, true mentor)으로 부르며 존경을 표하였다. 이 책을 포함하여 다수의 톨스토이 저서는 간디로 하여금 소박하고 검소하게 살게 하였으며 확고한 아힘사 신봉자가 되는 데 영향을 주었다고 할 수 있다. 그러나 그것은 일방적인 관계는 아니었다. 톨스토이도 간디의 남아프리카에서의 비폭력투쟁 과정을 높이 평가하면서 존경을 표하였던 것이다. 간디는 요하네스버그 근처에 집단 거주지 이름을 ‘톨스토이 농장’으로 명명하여 그에게 감사를 표하고 톨스토이의 이상을 집단 거주자들의 규칙(진리서약, 비폭력, 담대함, 육체적 노동과 검소한 삶)으로 삼아 따르게 하였다. 간디와 톨스토이의 서신 교환은 비록 몇 통 밖에 되지않지만, 그들의 사고와 행동의 동질성을 확인하여 주는 것이다. 이들 두 사람은 인생의 모든 문제 ?개인과 집단, 나아가 국가-해결에는 사랑밖에 없다는 것을 선언하고 실행에 옮긴 선각자임에 틀림없다. 비폭력은 모든 사회적 혼란을 치유할 수 있고 정치적 난제를 해결 할 수 있으며 이 지구상에 평화를 가져 올 수 있다. 간디의 ‘사띠아그라하’ 사상에는 힌두교의 관용과 불교와 자이나교의 아힘사, 기독교의 사랑 등이 깊이 배어있다. This paper examined Tolstoy"s influence on Gandhi"s faith in non-violent resistance, Satyagraha. Although Gandhi and Tolstoy never met, Tolstoy"s work, The Kingdom of God is within You, captivated and inspired Gandhi, and Gandhi in turn expressed his respect for Tolstoy by calling him his teacher and true mentor. However, this relationship of respect was not one-way. Tolstoy also highly regarded Gandhi"s fight for non-violence in South Africa. Gandhi named a resident area near Johannesburg ‘Tolstoy Farm’ and set down ideas formulated by Tolstoy such as truthful promising, non-violence, audacity, and physical labor as rules of the community, thereby expressing his gratitude. Although the letter exchanges between the two were few, they confirmed the analogous nature of their thoughts. Both Tolstoy and Gandhi were pioneers who preached and practiced that love is the only solution to life"s problems, whether they are personal, organizational, or national. Of course, one distinguishing fact was that Gandhi"s concept of Satyagraha included Hinduism"s tolerance and Jainism and Buddhism"s Ahimsa, as well as Christianity"s love.

삶의 텍스트, 소설의 텍스트- 이광수와 톨스토이

김진영 ( Jean Young Kim ) 국제비교한국학회 2014 비교한국학 Comparative Korean Studies Vol.22 No.3

The reception history of Tolstoy in Korea, especially his influence on Yi Kwang-su, has long been a topic of interest in the fields of both Korean and Russian studies. Quite a few research works have been produced on the subject. But most of the existing studies, while concentrating mainly on the subject matters of ideological and bibliographical aspects, have either treated the topic as a part of the boom Russian literature enjoyed during Korea` s enlightenment period, or limited their scope to textual comparison. This paper attempts to compensate for such a limit through a thorough investigation of the process how Yi Kwang-su, once called “Chosun` s Tolstoy, selectively read and reproduced Tolstoy with his texts of life and novel. It is true that Yi Kwang-su read and emulated Tolstoy throughout the whole life, but his reading of Tolstoy was rather selective and pragmatic. Resurrection, Yi Kwang-su` s favorite among Tolstoy` s works, became a major subtext for his biographical experience(wandering in Siberia) and autobiographical writing(My Confession, His Autobiography, Youjong, etc.). The narrative of fall and rebirth that frequents his life and writing could be seen as a vivid record of how he, together with other young male readers of his time, read Tolstoy` s novel. The paper is comprised of three parts. The first section identifies various intentions lying behind Yi Kwang-su` s reading of Tolstoy; the second section focuses on the male-oriented standpoint that generated the specific fashion of translation concerning Tolstoy` s Resurrection; the third section is devoted to Yi Kwang-su` s texts(texts of both life and novel), through which he strived to embody his Russian mentor.