셰이머스 히니의 다섯 번째 시집인『밭일』은 정치 및 역사, 평화로운 전원생활 등 다양한 소재를 다루지만 북 아일랜드 사태 때 죽은 자들에 대한 애가와 사랑을 주제로 삼는 일련의 글랜모어 소네트를 담고 있는 것이 전 시집과 다른 점이다. 얼스터 분규 때 죽은 자들을 애도하는 시에서 전원애가라는 전통 장르까지 사용한 것은 그가 폭력사태를 비판하고 이상향으로서의 전원을 갈구했음을 증명하는 예이며 시인이 북아일랜드 사태를 피해 글랜모어에 정착해서 쓴 일련의 소네트는 사랑과 평화의 상징인 전원을 폭력의 치유책으로 제시한 것이라는 가설을 세울 수 있다. 이 논문에서는『밭일』에 쓰인 많은 시중에서 애가와 소네트를 주로 분석해 시인이 어떻게 북아일랜드 사태에 반응하고 있는지를 다룬다. 이 시집의 구조 역시 폭력을 고발하고 그 상처를 치유하려는 작가의 의도를 강화하고 있다. 결론적으로, 히니는 비록 북아일랜드 폭력에서 탈출하지만, 시에서 폭력을 직접 다루기보다는 장르, 시의 구조 등의 형식을 통해서 간접적으로 다루면서 폭력에 저항하고 있음을 알 수 있다.

20세기 시학과 평론은, T. S. 엘리엇의『전통과 개성』(1921년)과 해롤드 블룸의『영향의 두려움』(1973년)에서부터 지금까지, 앞의 작가의 나중의 작가에 대한 영향과 전범의 개념을 많이 다루었다. 본 논문은 예이츠를 전범으로 다루는데, 예이츠 이후의 작가로 먼저 오든을 간략하게 다루고 셰이머스 히니를 집중 고찰한다. 본 논문의 주장은, 예이츠의 영향이 통상 부정적이었다는 주장이 흔하지만, 그는 히니의 시학에 대한 생각에 지속적인 영향이 있는 것이 사실이다. (히니는 1978년 이 영향에 대한 질문을 던지는『예이츠는 전범인가?』라는 유명한 글을 썼다.) 나는 마지막으로 그 영향이 사회적 정황보다는 “예술”의 문제일 때 좋은 것이라 주장한다. 즉, “모범적인 작가”라는 표현은 어려운 정치적 시대에—옳든 그르든—정치적 관심을 초월한다고 느끼는 작가들을 칭찬하는 것을 보게 된다는 말이다. 이것은 그들의 시대에 대해서 예이츠와 히니의 평가에도 해당되는 말이다.

셰이머스 히니는 여러 편의 시에서 물, 불, 공기, 흙이라는 4원소의 속 성을 드러내고 있다. 물과 흙의 시인이라는 평을 듣는 그는 각 원소의 물질적 속성과 원형을 탐구하며, 이는 바슐라르의 물질적 상상력과 결부될 수 있다. 물질적 상상력은 4원소의 속성을 근원적이고 지속적으로 탐구하여 시적 이미지를 변형하고 재구성하는 것으로 형식적 상상력과 대비된다. 히니 시의 4원소 결합은 경작지나 아일랜드의 고 유한 지명의 호수가 등에서 나타나는 일상에서부터 신화의 이미지를 차용한 늪이나 다른 유적지에 이르기까지 다양한 공간에서 나타난다. 또한 흙을 기반으로 공기나 물 의 이미지가 특정 공간에서 다른 공간으로 이동하면서 새롭게 결합하고 공존한다. 두 개 이상의 원소 이미지가 발생하고 역사적 사실과 변증법적으로 결합하는 지점은 히 니의 유년 시절과 신화적인 이미지와 역사적 사실 그리고 다시 돌아와 새롭게 깨닫는 익숙한 공간이라는 시적 여정과 맞물려 있다.

히니의 시는 고향 떠남, 방랑, 귀향이라는 삼부구조로 되어있다. 1991년 작품인 환영보기로부터 1996년 영혼측정기 2001년 전기 등불그리고 그의 마지 막 작품인 2010년 인간 고리에 있는 서정시들에서 작가는 우리가 이미 알고 있고 우리의 눈으로 파악할 수 있는 것들이 과연 견고한 것인가 그리고 영혼은 어디에 깃 드는가라는 의문을 제기하고 있다. 그리고 이 시들에서 히니의 관심은 초기 시의 그의 정신적 중심이었던 고향과 가족으로 회귀하는 모습을 보여준다. 그런데 여기서 중심이 라하면 북아일랜드의 시골 고향마을, 그의 가족과 부모님 이 밖에도 영적 세계추구등 의 아일랜드 문학 전통과 단테 버질등의 고대 그리스 로마의 전통까지를 의미한다.

셰이머스 히니는 W. B. 예이츠 이후 가장 위대한 아일랜드의 시인으로 널리 인정된다. 그러나 그는 예이츠의 영향에 대한 두려움이 있다. 히니의 염려는 한 시인으로서든 아일랜드의 시인으로서든 간에 예이츠를 수용하기도 거부하기도 곤란한 처지에 있기 때문이다. 전략적으로는 예이츠의 유산을 옹호하면서 전술적으로는 유산 을 깨뜨리는 역할을 하여 이 두려움을 극복하고 스스로 시인으로서의 주관성을 확보 하여 예이츠의 전통을 새로운 시대로 이끄는 데 성공한다.

이 글은 김치규 교수가 2013년 5월 25일 한양대에서 열린 예이츠 국제학술대회의 플레너리 세션의 주조연설이다. 그는 고려대에서 예이츠, 엘리엇, 히니를 오래 동안 강의해왔다.

셰이머스 히니는 여러 비평적 산문을 통해 시와 시인에 대한 자신의 관점을 드러내고 있다. 그에 따르면 시는 복잡다단한 현실에 목소리를 부여하여 결국 다른 어떤 것으로도 규명할 수 없는 현실의 복잡한 실체를 드러낸다. 그리고 그 과정에서 시인은 언어가 지닌 다중적인 의미 전달의 특성을 통해 결코 단순화할 수 없는 현실의 내면을 진실에 가깝게 제시한다. 특히 히니는 자연과 인간이 맺는 상호 관련성을 자신의 시의 주요한 틀로 삼는데, 이를 통해 시인은 자연의 생명력을 고취시키는 존재임을 암시한다. 시와 시인에 대한 그의 관점은 점점 더 실용성과 경제성을 강조하는 요즘의 풍토에서 시의 대사회적 역할을 제시하는 한편, 예술로서의 존재성을 강조하여 시와 시인에 대한 본래적 의미를 성찰하게 한다.

본 논문은 예이츠와 히니 시를 갈등과 그것에 대한 해결이라는 관점으로 읽고 분석해 그 두 시인이 경험했던 갈등과 그 해결법에서 공통점과 차이점을 고찰한다. 그런데 그들의 갈등은, 예이츠의 경우에는 그가 1920년대 현대 아일랜드 초기 독립을 위해 싸웠던 시기 그가 앵글로 아이리쉬였다는 점에서 주로 파생되었고, 히니는 1960-70년대의 북아일랜드 사태 때 영국령에 살았던 카톨릭 아일랜드 인이란 점에서 주로 기원한다. 그런데 그들 자신의 갈등을 풀어 가는 해결법에서 두 시인은 모두 아일랜드인의 영혼의 중심인 “이시나흐”를 추구했다는 공통점이 발견된다.

북아일랜드의 민족주의 시인으로 알려진 셰이머스 히니는 「산사나무 등」과 「사물의 응시」에서 보편성을 향한 새로운 시적 정체성 찾기의 출발을 예고한다. 히니의 이러한 시도는 「산사나무 등」에서는 자기 성찰과 북아일랜드의 우화적 재현과 같은 객관화 전략으로 드러난다. 또한 「사물의 응시」에서는 경계라는 이미지를 이용하여 북아일랜드의 상황을 고정된 하나의 관점이 아닌 다층적인 관점으로 응시할 것을 이야기한다. 이러한 노력을 통해 히니는 지역주의를 극복하고 보편성에 접근하고자 한다.

Sonnet is a 14-lined poem in the lyric mood whose subject is mainly about love. Heaney experimented the genre of sonnet in his three books: “Glanmore Sonnets” in Field Work “Clearances” in The Haw Lantern and “Glanmore Revisited” in Seeing Things. These three books have two things in common: the poet have changed his style and subject and that they no longer contain the Northern Troubles. Through reading sonnets selected from Field Work, The Haw Lantern and Seeing Things, I came to the following conclusion: the reason the poet adopted the genre of sonnet is that he wanted to write about love, not hatred or violence after he escaped from massacre of Ulster Trouble. And sonnets of three books depict three different kinds of love: love for family, love for landscape and love for writing. The sonnets of Field Work are characterized by the poet's contrary mind: the sense of relief and the sense of sin because he ran out of the massacre, discarding his relatives and his community. Sonnets in The Haw Lantern on the whole, show his filial piety and affection for his dead mom by trying to remember the moment of being together. Seven sonnets in Seeing Things are the recollection of Glanmore where he settled down with his family and wanted to live in peace, escaping from Ulster turmoil. Meanwhile, these sequence of sonnets have some difference: these sonnets have the different tone: humorous or childlike tone in Field Work, elegiac tone in The Haw Lantern and the recollective tone of Seeing Things.

At the year Yeats died(1939) Heaney was born. It seems to say a meaningful relationship of the two poets who had achieved a great poetic success at the early and later 20th century. Yeats’ poems are full of folk tales and heroes of old Ireland to inspire their rational pride. Heaney also tried to take poetic themes from Irish local nature. The lake of Yeats and the bog of Heaney are good examples of their localism. In Yeats’ poems, the lake is a symbol of his love for the native and a kind of spiritual home where young Yeats fell in deep imagination of fairy stories. But Yeats did not try to express his homeland in realistic style. For Heaney, the bog is a good symbol which tells the tragic Irish history and people. Its hardening crusts on the surface look like those of bruises of tragic history of Ireland. The deep sinking bog is also telling the poor Irish lives. In his “The death of a Naturalist” and “Private Helicon” we can feel his typical localism. In “Digging” and “Follower” we can read the love for his family. Comparing these two poets we can conclude that Yeats is rather dreamy and Heaney realistic.

Heaney’s poems seem to build on a tripartite cyclical structure which comprises home-leaving, wandering and home-coming. This structure is thought to symbolize explorations for identity and for the limitlessness and profundity of the universe. And also, this tripartite cyclical structure is thought to symbolize perfection and holiness. And this structure symbolizes the embracement of the dynamic and cyclical phenomena of our life. In Death of A Naturalist and Door into Dark the poet explores his own identity or his community's one; in Wintering Out, he shows the resistant spirit against the violence of Northern Ireland. In North, the persona finally recognizes that he should leave his home community stricken with violence in order to live in peace and to be a free artist. Field Work and Station Island, I think, belong to the stage of wandering: Field Work shows his new aspect as a naturalist, attempting to settle down in Wicklow, the new shelter. Station Island shows the last destination of his wandering, identifying himself with Sweeney, the symbol of the free artist and finally he comes to fly as a free universal artist. The poetical works since The Haw Lantern show some aspects of journey back; The Haw Lantern lays out a new blueprint for the Irish Republic as a conscientious country; and Seeing Things searches for the Irish spiritual omphalos that the Irish people has been dreamed of, by experimenting a new-style poetry for expressing light, song, freedom and equality. My last conclusion is that, although Heaney who had explored his own and his community's identities could not but leave his home country to write poems in peace and wander in a sense of sin, he has moved toward Uisneach: the perfection and holiness-full Irish utopian land and also the omphalos of Irish psyche.

Diasporic situation can happen under such circumstances as colonization, civil war, misrule, great natural disasters and globalization etc. According to Agnew, diasporic members frequently feel a sense of alienation in the host country. To resist assimilation into the host country, and to avoid social amnesia about their collective histories, diasporic people attempt to recreate their artistic, cultural, and political practices and productions. In the sense above, Yeats and Heaney's poetry fall under diasporic literature. They describe some alienation, dispersion and the mental wound caused by the Great Famine as well as by inter-ethnic/religious conflicts as one result of colonization. The diasporic element of Yeats's poems is characterized by the extreme sense of alienation through his search for the faery land and the holy artistic city. Heaney also chose to be an inner émigré as a way of survival during Ulster Troubles. Moreover, the two poets' works share diasporic characteristics, especially in the respect that they deal with the traces of the Great Famine leading to dispersion. However, instead of assimilating into amnesia of the collective wound or into the host country, they both reveal their desire to cross over their local boundary, seemingly expanding into transnationalism.

I insist in this paper that hybridity and identity are two aspects of modernity, not the separate words like in the aesthetic theory of 'discordia concors' and that modernity carries both in it, expanding relative values. A new version of culture will be able to come out, depending upon how to arrange hybridity and identity. The modern Irish culture, especially in its literature, offers a good example. As for the Irish people, the disaster of Great Famine brought an awakening that the Irish was not the British. And the Irish Literary Revival made the will to differentiate. However, even after the Irish Literary Revival, the Irish people found out that their own culture had been hybridized and that the cultural conflict existed. However, the Irish writers have tried to recreate their own culture based on the pride of their own culture-a firm religious, political and cultural tradition. W.B. Yeats's contribution lies in his attachment to things Irish. His spirit and taste for the supernatural world can be identified with Irishness. However, for Yeats the expression of identity cannot but be limited because he himself was hybrid in blood. Meanwhile, for Heaney, the expression of his own identity is seen in his concern about landscape, history and Gaelic language. His will to search for identity starts from the sense of dispossession, experiencing the Ulster Trouble. However he comes to recognize that they are hybridized. Despite this, his studious will to recreate identity has continued by accepting the hybridity. In brief, Yeats and Heaney are the poets who, moving beyond hybridity, wanted to make the new cultural identity or to complete 'discordia concors' in culture. My last conclusion is that Yeats and Heaney seek to expand the cultural identity by accepting the hybridity and heterogeneity of their culture, and that, however, their last convergence is to search for the essence of the Irish spirit- light, freedom and song.

Yeats and Keats differently introduced their notions of time circulation and eternal life. One expressed limitations of human which could be overcome by art. And the other introduced time flowing in harmony and peace. And in one poem, we can see something lively such as young people, birds, trees, salmon-falls, and in the other poem we can find laziness and leisure. However, there is some similarity in that they introduce the subjects of circulation of life and eternal life. Yeats shows the passage of time by the Great Wheel or gyre which develops in the course of formation, fullness, decline. And Keats also presents the passage of time by using the phrases such as “swell the gourd,” “plum the hazel shell,” “warm day will never cease.” These symbolize swelling and continuance of time. So we can find the way how time is flowing in their poems. In Yeats's “Sailing to Byzantium,” time travels from a youth to an old age, and in “To Autumn,” time travels from summer to autumn. In this circulation Yeats's immortality can be reached by the media of art. And Keats gets it by the circulation of seasons. So one continues to voyage with eagerness for Byzantium in which he could find his everlasting life through the mosaic of 15th century, and the other comfortably waits for next seasons. Two poets respectively develop their poems in different ways, but they finally achieve the same subjects of ever-lasting life in the passage of time. In conclusion, Yeats pursued immortality by separating spirit from the body, because the flesh would be decayed. On the other hand, Keats thought that the immortality could be acquired by being one with time. Unlike Yeats's “Sailing to Byzantium”, Keats's “To Autumn” has a tendency to keep harmony and reconciliation, instead of confrontation. Therefore, autumn enjoys “sitting,” and “asleep” without haste.

Seamus Heaney’s “Station Island” has been viewed as a psychological drama in which Heaney explores alter-egos that he might have become. Such an approach becomes more complicated if we consider that the stage of the drama is Ricoeurian typology of mnemonic phenomena where the narrator “I” is splitted into the subject in the process of recollection and the self fixed in the pure memory. According to Paul Ricoeur, the epistemological process of recollection involves the evocation of past memories at the present moment, so that the subject-in-recollection imagines the self fixed in the pure memory to be “the other than self” and relives past memories as if real. In this sense, Ricoeur argues that memory exists in the typology of mnemonic phenomena as memory-images and that the subject-in-recollection tend to imagine the past in the way he can satisfy his desire. Likewise, in “Station Island” Heaney’s narrator “I” re-imagines his past memories as if they were memory-images and re-lives past feelings as “the other than self.” By becoming “the other than self” in the process of recollection, he reviews the burden of a national poet and finally accepts the limitation of his fellow Irish people as well as his own self. For Heaney, accepting the limitations and scars as they are becomes the foundation for love, friendship, and goodness toward his people because it lets him realize reasons for the necessity of co-dependency and reciprocity.

Motivated with the poetic utterance that "all this is signified by their language" as Heaney's own word, this essay shows that Seamus Heaney, not just by resisting past colonial domination with a decolonial literary system, has successively served for playing the colonial language in his poetic representation and finally achieved the poetic autonomy. Under and after the colonial experience, Most of Irish poets have continually struggled against English political system and its language as a colonial one. But Heaney has consistently defended poetry as agent for redressing injustices in the corrupt world and at the same time as something to be re-established and celebrated in his own right. The process of Haney's quest for playing colonial language of his Irish identity as a poet can be effectively understood by examining the way in which he employs the poetic of redress. The main subject of Heaney's poetry is to find out his Irish identification with the past linguistic tradition and its continuity. The subject is linked with the questioning of how to turn to playing the colonial language between English language and Irish language so called Gaelic which has been dominated by the ideology of colonialism. The major focus of this essay is in his redress of poetic language and playing colonial language as well as how he appropriate language in his poetry. In this regard, This essay tries to search for the true linguistic attitude which Heaney has made every effort to materialize in his poetry. In short, Heaney's poetics can help his writings maintain the positionality of the decolonial dicourse and the decolonial literature.

'Eco-feminism' as a combination of two words, 'ecology' and 'feminism', rests on the basic principle that patriarchical philosophies are harmful to women, children, and other living things. Eco-feminists feel that the patriarchical philosophy emphasizes the need to dominate and control unruly females and the unruly wilderness. What is stressed in eco-feminism is to change the still prevailing idea that the male-dominated civilization must be justified: eco-feminists think that human beings came to recognize that such civilization can't be the source of happiness. Meanwhile we can find that in Yeats's and Heaney's poems land and landscape are personified as an oppressed woman, from which I drew a hypothesis that these two poets may offer the prominent examples of literature based upon eco-feminism. By contrast, we can also find that these two poets also reveal patriarchism based upon Catholicism. Therefore, if anything, we can suppose that many works of these poets are reflecting both eco-feminism and patriarchism. The Irish poems and poets cannot but reflect these two ideas: eco-feminism and patriarchism. Meanwhile, in Irish poetry, woman is mainly reflected as three types of human-sovereign, procreator and lover. In Yeats's and Heaney's poems, woman and nature are to be appraised as important materials. Women in Yeats's poems are faithful to the traditional image as the lover or rarely the sovereign. And also, we can find that the persona wants to use her as his poetic inspiration by admiring her beauty and seeking sexual energy and wisdom from her. By contrast, women in Heaney's poems are mainly described as procreators who are to survive the oppressed land. The two poets are to be appraised to reflect eco-feminism in that they both show their love for woman and nature. Strictly speaking, however, Heaney's poems are more declined to eco-feminism while Yeats's poems are more declined to patriarchism: in Heaney's poems land and landscape sometimes appear as the oppressed woman; in Yeats's poems the persona blames woman for her violence, emphasizing that woman should have courtesy, wisdom and sexual attraction, not the intellectual hatred, whereas in Heaney's poems the persona never blames woman but feels pity for her oppressed situation.

Republic of Ireland is called a 'saint's country' since more than 90% of population believe in Catholicism. The Irish Catholicism had a great influence on the Irish society and culture by offering the hierarchical order to Irish people's way of life. And also, Catholicism had been a symbol of nationalism and played the role to confirm a sense of national identity. It is also true that since Free State Ireland, Catholicism with the word 'Gaelic' has contributed to making the national identity or 'racy Irish atmosphere'. However, the Irish Church of the 20th century was dedicated neither to spirituality nor the intellectual enhancement of the faith, but to material and social advantage. At the first stage of his writing, Yeats tries to consider Irish Catholicism as holy, combining it with mysticism of theosophy. And also he uses it to strengthen nationalism. However, Catholicism of that time, unlike what Yeats thought, sticks to the practical line, which makes Yeats criticize its materialistic ends. Meanwhile, talking about Heaney, although he accepts its values of contributing to the communal union and he himself is a serious devotee to pilgrimage going to Lough Derg or Station Ireland. Heaney feels at ease because of Catholic's fanaticism and oppression imposed on individuals. The final conclusion of this paper is that although these two poets, Yeats and Heaney, accept that Irish Catholicism has contributed to inspiration of the national patriotism and promoted the modernization of independent Ireland, they criticizes that Irish Catholicism is lacking its artistic spirituality and that it is a trap from which artists are to escape.

The essay attempts to rethink the widely acknowledged notion that the ecologial writing is a minium writing weapon to tackle the European writing and limit of modernity. Most of the intellectuals paying attention to decolonial theory have arrived in limited ideas about the recent decolonialism. As a result, the recent debates on decolonialism have been deployed under the assumptions that the so-called "troika of decolonial theory" advocated by Frentz Fanon, Edward Said, and Homi Bhabha. From the point of view, the essay thus purports to demonstrates that the unfamiliar theory ecology and ecological writing is widely helping to overcome the limit of established decolonial wiriting and interpretation of text. To do this, from a ecological viewpoint, the essay attempts to re-read the irish text and Irish decolonial poet Seamus Heaney's poem "Gifts of Rain," who was awarded a Nobel Prize for Literature in 1996.Heaney concentrates primarily on the origin and mother land of the conflict in "Gifts of Rain" through elegiac poems celebrating the identity, history, territory and tongue of his irish people. But his imagination and attitude of writing is based on not just a decolonial method and idea but a ecological preoccupation on his "Mother Land." He looks forward to finding out integrated moments in his land beyond the political, religious, and topological separations. From the viewpoint of the ecological attitude, he finally enters into the deterritorial region against its dichotomous and counter-discursive tendency in decolonialism. Roughly speaking, some say that this new writing and epistemological method is just a utopian thought, but his ecological writing suggests that this is the most effective and creative means of making a new writing code and poetics moving from silent spectator to speaking actor/actress in the world.