• Cross-Cultural Studies
• /
• v.43
• /
• pp.171-206
• /
• 2016

Russian anarchist thinker P. A. Kropotkin had a significant impact on the school of thought, the literary field and the anarchist movement in East Asia in the early 20th century. This paper examines the history of the translation of Kropotkin in terms of the routes and paths of translation in colonial Korea in comparison with those in Japan and China. It is a known fact that the acceptance of Kropotkin in colonial Korea is owed to pioneering translation works in Japan, but it appears that there have been various transformations and magnetizations in the process of translating the texts into the Korean language. Despite a disturbing censorship, the works of Kropotkin, such as "I appeal to the youth ("Aux Jeunes Gens" in French)", were imported, translated and distributed by various routes throughout the 1920s and there were various versions of translated Korean texts. At this point, it is noteworthy that there are works which were translated from Chinese texts about Kropotkin, such as the works of Yu Seo (柳絮), and it can be said that there is a relationship between Korean translations and Chinese original texts. Since the 1930s, the phenomenon of the appropriation of Kropotkin as a litterateur and critic rather than an anarchist thinker is particularly apparent, and this allows us to understand that Kropotkin became a major pathway to interpret Russian literature in East Asia. In colonial Korea, translations of Kropotkin were generally via Japan and China, but the process of translation also showed the struggle to accept and adapt 'the foreign text' into the Korean language.

• Journal of Korean Theatre Studies Association
• /
• no.40
• /
• pp.345-400
• /
• 2010

Konstantin S. Stanislawski(1863-1938) is one of the great acting-teachers and directors. Especially his 'System' influences this day like his period so many actors and directors in the world. In Korea, Stanislawski was introduced at first in 1920's by Kim, Woojin, dramatist. After that time, his system was influenced fast everyone in the korean drama world. As a result, so many translations of his books and researches of his system are done until nowadays, but it is not perfect for the correct understanding of Stanislawski and his system. It seems to be several causes in this misunderstanding. And the purpose of this thesis is at first to observe historically the results of researches and translations on Stanislawski and his system in Korea and then to bring it in order according to characteristics. In this thesis are the process of reception observed dividing 4 periods. The first period is from the beginning to the liberation in 1945. The second is to 1980's and the next is to the year 2000. And the final period is from that time to the present time. As a result are several characteristics found as followings: 1) translations of Stanislawski's first book like other books, for example, Building a Character and Creating a Role, an Actor Prepares, are fast all secondhand translations, that means, man translated it not from russian direct but japanese or english. It caused man to misusing of terms and then misunderstanding on the system. 2) the researches on Stanislawski in are fast all concentrated on the book, an Actor Prepares, so this leads man to regard it as his whole acting system. On the other hand, thesisses which deal with his last and final acting technique, "the Method of the physical Action" are relatively not so much. As though man knows the last, man used to think that the system is developed systematically from the psychological technique to the physical action or the method of the physical action is only the way to understand of stanislawski's acting method. The psychological method and the physical are not the divided, different acting technique, but pairs which are applied to different objects, that is, the actor himself and the role in texts. 3) the political aspects are not considered especially under the situation of Stalin's social realism. This lack of the political context having relation with the system acts as a obstacle upon understanding the correct, whole his system. But so many thesises on this theme in other countries are so vivacious. For example, man can find subjects like "Stanislawski and Meyerhold", "means of Stanislawski's method for theatres in the social context". There are also many interesting Questions related to the physical action. That is, is the physical action the final acting technique or the materialistic dialectical device to survive under the Stalin's rule? Is there some interrelations between stanislawski's physical action and Meyerhold's biomechanics? In conclusion, the researches on Stanislwski and his system are not enough to understand correctly and overcome the system. We have to start the research again at least from the direct translation his books written russian in order to apply it in a new times.