검색결과

검색조건
좁혀보기
검색필터
결과 내 재검색

간행물

    분야

      발행연도

      -

        검색결과 2

        1.
        2006.06 KCI 등재 구독 인증기관 무료, 개인회원 유료
        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.
        6,000원
        2.
        2015.05 KCI 등재 서비스 종료(열람 제한)
        본 논문은 T. S. 엘리엇의 「텅 빈 사람들」에 나타난 “허공” 의미가 엘리엇이 주장하는 “전통”의 의미와 어떻게 연관관계를 지니고 있고 그 의미가 확장되어 모더니즘 측면에서 스티븐스의 「눈사람」에 나타난 “무”의 의미와 연결시켜 보고자한다. 두 시인이 말하고자했던 “무”가 단 순히 비어있음이 아니고 실재를 둘러싸고 있는 조건이거나 또는 제한된 인간의 시각으로는 규정지울 수 없는 범위를 표현하는 방식임을 증명하 고자한다. 엘리엇은「텅 빈 사람들」에서 “텅 빈 것”과 “채워짐”의 관계를 근접관계 차원에서 접근함으로써 단순한 “허공”의 의미를 어떻게 극복 하는 지를 보여주고 스티븐스는 「눈사람」에서 잠재성이 있는 무와 존재 하지 않는 무로 구분하여 실재에 다가가는 방법을 제시한다. 두 시인의 목소리가 표면적으로는 다른 것처럼 보이나 결과적으로 두 편의 시에서 독자는 같은 것을 고민하는 두 시인의 목소리를 들을 수 있게 된다.