본 연구는 『안나 카레니나』를 주요 매개로 톨스토이가 인식한 19세기 러시아 농민과 농업 현실 전반의 모습과 그가 추구한 러시아 농업 발전 모델의 모색 과정을 성서적 기독교의 관점에서 고찰하고 이를 통해 오늘날 러시아 농업의 발전 모델 연구를 위한 의미있는 시사점을 도출하고자 한다. 19세기 러시아의 근대화 과정에서 러시아 농업 발전 모델은 서구주의와 슬라브주의가 공통으로 주장한 반농노제 모델과 상층으로부터 근대화되는 농노제 모델로 구분된다. 톨스토이는 『안나 카레니나』에서 자신의 분신인 주인공 레빈을 통하여 자유주의적인 반농노제의 입장과 보수적인 농노제 지지 입장에 대한 보다 종합적이고 현실타당한 제3의 모델을 모색해나간다.
『안나 카레니나』의 제3부에서 레빈은 러시아 농민들의 근대적 계몽과 의료 서비스 보급을 통한 러시아 농업 생산성 증대를 주장하는 서구 자주의자들에게서 서구 이념에 대한 맹목적 추종, 러시아 농민에 대한 감상주의적 이상화 혹은 계몽주의적 가치폄하, 지주 귀족으로서의 특권의식과 우월감, 자신들의 이념과 현실간의 모순에 대한 무관심 등을 공통적으로 발견한다. 그는 그들의 자기모순을 비판하는 한편, 그들의 삶에서 유쾌하고 활기찬 면은 너그럽게 수용한다.
반면 레빈은 농노제의 틀 내에서 전제정부에 의한 서구 농업 기술의 도입을 지지하는 보수적인 지주 귀족에게서 삶의 경험을 통한 러시아 농민들의 무지와 나태에 대한 합당한 비판 의식과 러시아 농촌의 현실에 대한 생생한 이해와 지식을 발견하고 이를 높이 평가한다. 반면 그 귀족은 농민들의 개별적인 부정적인 속성을 일반화하고 자연친화적인 농민 계급의 문명인에 대한 본질적인 우월성을 간과한다고 비판한다.
같은 장에서 레빈은 러시아 농민과 농촌을 감상주의나 계몽주의의 관념적 틀이 아니라 가슴과 이성으로 대할 것과, 서구의 합리적인 농업 기술과 제도를 러시아 농촌 현실과 접목시키는 종합적인 접근의 필요성을 자유주의자와 보수주의자에게 강변한다. 그리고 지주와 농민들의 경제적 이해를 고루 충족시키는 영농조합식의 균등한 분배구조를 제3의 대안으로서 제안한다.
그러나 톨스토이가 레빈을 통하여 제시하는 합리적인 러시아 농민상과 농업 발전 모델에서 근대적인 자기중심주의와 합리주의의 모순이 발견된다. 톨스토이는 레빈을 통한 자신의 사유와 재현이 보편적이고 객관적이라고 확신하지만, 사실 그는 자신의 주관적인 경험과 관찰, 제한된 이성에 의한 합리적 추론, 주어진 사회 제도의 보이지 않는 영향, 개인적인 기질과 지향성 등에 따라 주관적인 세계상을 구축해가는 것일 뿐이다. 레빈의 사유는 루소적인 이상주의적 자연관에 편중되어 자연 속의 도덕적인 삶과 도시의 비도덕적인 타락한 삶이라는 존재론적 이항대립구도를 축으로 작동한다. 그는 러시아 농민들의 부정적인 현상, 이성적 논리로는 파악되지 않는 삶의 다양성과 모호성을 인정하면서도 주관적인 편향성에 따라 자연과 농민들에 절대적인 가치를 부여하는 것이다.
이후 톨스토이는 『안나 카레니나』의 후반부에서 보다 종교적이고 윤리적인 관점에서 이상적인 농민상과 농업 발전 모델을 제시하지만, 제3부에서 확인되는 그의 루소적인 농민상과 합리적이고 이분법적인 세계상은 그대로 유지된다. 그로부터 10년 뒤에 발표되는 「참회록」에서는 종교적이고 윤리적인 농민관이 더욱 체계화되고 그로 인한 자기모순도 더 심화된다.
성서적 기독교의 관점에서 톨스토이의 농민상과 농업 모델은 긍정성과 부정성을 양가적으로 지닌다. 거기에는 근대적인 합리적 사유 방식의 숨겨진 편향성과 독백성과 더불어, 러시아 농민들의 신화적 세계상에 대한 감정적인 무시와 대화의 결여, 러시아 농민과 지주 계급간의 오랜 반목과 대립, 불신으로 인한 제도적 장벽에 대한 충분한 이해의 결여, 사회의 제도적 장벽을 극복할 수 있는 자신의 역량에 대한 근대적인 과신이 부정적인 요소로 작용한다. 반면, 절대 진리와 신을 향한 지난한 갈구, 주어진 관념과 체제에 갇히지 않고 그에 대한 객관적인 성찰과 대안 모색, 제도적 장벽에 대한 헌신적인 극복 노력, 언어의 신비적인 수행 능력에 대한 믿음에 기초한 삶과 예술의 일치 노력 등이 긍정적인 요소로 존재한다.
성서적인 관점에서 볼 때, 오늘날 러시아 농업의 19세기와 유사한 행위 패턴의 반복과 세계 식량 안보를 위한 러시아 농업 발달의 현실적 필요성에 직면한 상황에서, 그의 종교윤리적인 세계상에 토대를 둔 총체적인 접근법을 재조명하고 그 긍정적인 잠재력을 실현시키기 위한 후속 연구가 필요하다고 보인다.
This paper aims at reflecting on Tolstoy's representation of Russian peasants and his search for Russian agricultural development model amid big social and ideological turmoil after the emancipation of the serfs in 1861 through the mediation of his novel, Anna Karenina. The method is the biblical viewpoint, defined as a mythical worldview based on evangelical belief in the Bible, which might shed light on Tolstoy’s complicated subjective religiosity based on the Gospels uniquely and newly in comparison with other viewpoints. Since the second half of the 18th century, Russian intellectuals have been involved in epochal tasks of identifying the true nature of Russian peasants and the best Russian agricultural model between serfdom and western models, as a part of pivotal project for Russian national identity. In Anna Karenina Leo Tolstoy tried to suppose his own ideas of Russian peasants and agricultura lmodel through his alter ego, Levin. In the third part of the novel, Levin, engaging in disputes with liberalist landowners and a conservative landowner, perceives merits and faults of their discourses respectively. In relation to liberalists’ discourses, Levin reflects on their tendency of the blind imitation of western ideas, their overt or hidden self-awareness of superiority as enlightened Europeans to Russian peasants, their idea of Russian agricultural development through exact application of western institutions and technology to Russian reality, and their confidence in the necessity to present Enlightenment education and medical service to Russian peasants for their welfare. On the contrary, in the conservatist landowner’s anti-humanist attitude to Russian peasants and consent to serfdom Levin finds out a deep understanding of Russian rural reality. Tolstoy’s positive position to the conservatist’s viewpoint is backed up by the favorable representation of his appearance. However, Tolstoy criticizes his propensity of generalizing some peasants' specific negative aspects into typical properties of Russian peasantry. As an alternative to the two dominant oppositional viewpoints in the second half of the 19th century, Levin supposes a more integrated and comprehensive model in the direction to the application of western advanced agricultural knowledge and technology to Russian natural and human environments more flexibly and reasonably. The temporary alternative model he reached through his experience of farming, continuous empirical observation and rational analysis of Russian peasants and agriculture is the equal distribution system of profits between landowner and peasants. Apparently Tolstoy's agricultural model changes in the direction to more religious and ethical version in the last part of Anna Karenina and in Confession, published 10 years later after Anna Karenina. However, the thought paradigm is almost the same. From the biblical viewpoint, Tolstoy's position in relation to Russian peasants and agricultural development model is ambivalent, including positive and negative sides simultaneously. First, his inexhaustible devotion to Russian peasants’ welfare and Russian agricultural development is heroic and Christian in a sense. On the other hand, the model is based on his rationalist self-assertiveness of universality and objectivity of his reasoning, which turns out self-contradictory in reality. He overlooks his own narcissistic bias toward idealist viewpoint of nature and his generic dependence on contemporary external conditions. The unrelenting unconscious influence of Rousseauism on Tolstoy’ worldview is revealed in Levin’s oppositional thought between nature and civilization, Russian peasantry and modern intellectuals. Second, Levin’s anti-mythical worldview, on the one hand, prevents him from distancing himself from Russian peasants’ mythical dual belief, into which are integrated Russian Orthodoxy and pre-Christian Slavic paganism worldview. On the other hand he responds to it not in the way of productive dialogue, but of emotional rebuke and ignorance. And Tolstoy does not pay much attention to stubborn institutional obstacles between landowners and peasants, caused by the history of their social contrast and mutual mistrust. His self-reliant efforts to overcome them only partially reflect the Christian idea of individual resistance of evil practices, because the Christian version insists on human powerlessness and desperate need to rely on God. Third, his approach to the agricultural problem in Russia is oriented to the multidimensional and integral study on it on the basis of religious and ethical worldview of God, humankind and nature. His interdisciplinary approach is analogous to biblical interdisciplinary studies typologically, not in respect to contents. Fourth, his presupposition of art and language is embedded with his mystic belief in their performative power in reality, which is also analogous to the Christian idea of the performative power of words only typologically. Furthermore, Tolstoy's endeavors to search for Russian agricultural development model have great practical significance today, given the repetition of similar patterns in Russian agriculture and high potentials of Russian agriculture, which might not be realized without viable and sustainable approach. To realize the potentials are desired similar studies on the basis of a new paradigm to the reality.
This paper aims at reflecting on Tolstoy's representation of Russian peasants and his search for Russian agricultural development model amid big social and ideological turmoil after the emancipation of the serfs in 1861 through the mediation of his novel, Anna Karenina. The method is the biblical viewpoint, defined as a mythical worldview based on evangelical belief in the Bible, which might shed light on Tolstoy’s complicated subjective religiosity based on the Gospels uniquely and newly in comparison with other viewpoints. Since the second half of the 18th century, Russian intellectuals have been involved in epochal tasks of identifying the true nature of Russian peasants and the best Russian agricultural model between serfdom and western models, as a part of pivotal project for Russian national identity. In Anna Karenina Leo Tolstoy tried to suppose his own ideas of Russian peasants and agricultura lmodel through his alter ego, Levin. In the third part of the novel, Levin, engaging in disputes with liberalist landowners and a conservative landowner, perceives merits and faults of their discourses respectively. In relation to liberalists’ discourses, Levin reflects on their tendency of the blind imitation of western ideas, their overt or hidden self-awareness of superiority as enlightened Europeans to Russian peasants, their idea of Russian agricultural development through exact application of western institutions and technology to Russian reality, and their confidence in the necessity to present Enlightenment education and medical service to Russian peasants for their welfare. On the contrary, in the conservatist landowner’s anti-humanist attitude to Russian peasants and consent to serfdom Levin finds out a deep understanding of Russian rural reality. Tolstoy’s positive position to the conservatist’s viewpoint is backed up by the favorable representation of his appearance. However, Tolstoy criticizes his propensity of generalizing some peasants' specific negative aspects into typical properties of Russian peasantry. As an alternative to the two dominant oppositional viewpoints in the second half of the 19th century, Levin supposes a more integrated and comprehensive model in the direction to the application of western advanced agricultural knowledge and technology to Russian natural and human environments more flexibly and reasonably. The temporary alternative model he reached through his experience of farming, continuous empirical observation and rational analysis of Russian peasants and agriculture is the equal distribution system of profits between landowner and peasants. Apparently Tolstoy's agricultural model changes in the direction to more religious and ethical version in the last part of Anna Karenina and in Confession, published 10 years later after Anna Karenina. However, the thought paradigm is almost the same. From the biblical viewpoint, Tolstoy's position in relation to Russian peasants and agricultural development model is ambivalent, including positive and negative sides simultaneously. First, his inexhaustible devotion to Russian peasants’ welfare and Russian agricultural development is heroic and Christian in a sense. On the other hand, the model is based on his rationalist self-assertiveness of universality and objectivity of his reasoning, which turns out self-contradictory in reality. He overlooks his own narcissistic bias toward idealist viewpoint of nature and his generic dependence on contemporary external conditions. The unrelenting unconscious influence of Rousseauism on Tolstoy’ worldview is revealed in Levin’s oppositional thought between nature and civilization, Russian peasantry and modern intellectuals. Second, Levin’s anti-mythical worldview, on the one hand, prevents him from distancing himself from Russian peasants’ mythical dual belief, into which are integrated Russian Orthodoxy and pre-Christian Slavic paganism worldview. On the other hand he responds to it not in the way of productive dialogue, but of emotional rebuke and ignorance. And Tolstoy does not pay much attention to stubborn institutional obstacles between landowners and peasants, caused by the history of their social contrast and mutual mistrust. His self-reliant efforts to overcome them only partially reflect the Christian idea of individual resistance of evil practices, because the Christian version insists on human powerlessness and desperate need to rely on God. Third, his approach to the agricultural problem in Russia is oriented to the multidimensional and integral study on it on the basis of religious and ethical worldview of God, humankind and nature. His interdisciplinary approach is analogous to biblical interdisciplinary studies typologically, not in respect to contents. Fourth, his presupposition of art and language is embedded with his mystic belief in their performative power in reality, which is also analogous to the Christian idea of the performative power of words only typologically. Furthermore, Tolstoy's endeavors to search for Russian agricultural development model have great practical significance today, given the repetition of similar patterns in Russian agriculture and high potentials of Russian agriculture, which might not be realized without viable and sustainable approach. To realize the potentials are desired similar studies on the basis of a new paradigm to the reality.
