마오쩌둥(毛澤東)은 생전에 루쉰(鲁迅)을 평가하면서 여러 방면에 있어 상당히 높은 평가를 하였다. 예를 들면 중화민족 신문화의 방향, 위대한 문학가, 사상가, 혁명가, 중국 제1의 성인, 기수 등이다. 이는 루쉰이 생을 마칠 때까지 자신의 조국 중국의 민족해방투쟁과 반 봉건투쟁에 온 몸을 던졌다는 것을 의미하는 것이다. 궈모뤄(郭沫若)나 딩링(丁玲) 등 기타 작가들에 대한 평가도 그와 다르지 않다. 문학평론가가 아닌 마오는 작품의 문학적 가치나 예술성의 실현 여부 보다는 그 작품이 당시 중국인민들에게 얼마나 긍정적인 영향을 끼치고 그로인해 인민들이 투쟁의 한길로 함께하느냐 여부를 가장 중시하였던 것이다. 즉 마오의 현대작가들에 대한 평가는 문학적 관점 보다는 혁명적 관점, 정치적 관점을 가진 평가요 비평이었다. 논문을 마치며 가장 아쉬운 점은 필자의 능력 부족과 중국현대작가의 수가 워낙 방대 하고 숫자가 많아 이 짧은 논문으로는 다 다루지는 못하고 루쉰, 궈모뤄, 딩링, 야오쉐인(姚雪垠) 등등 몇 명의 작가만을 대상으로 살펴보았다는 아쉬운 점이다. 나머지는 이후의 과제로 삼으려 한다.

본 논문은 현대문학의 중심에 예이츠를 두고 현대문학의 초민족주의시 학을 구획하고 정의하려고 한다. 20세기의 주된 작가 예이츠, 파운드, 엘리엇과 레이디 그레고리와의 문학적 교류를 다루고자 한다. 이들 중 레이디 그레고리와 파운드와의 관계는 면밀했었다. 예이츠가 극작품을 집필하기 시작할 때 레이디 그레고리의 예이츠에 대한 영향력을 컸었다. 파운드의 경우, 파운드의 초기에 예이츠의 영향력을 강력하였고, 스톤 오두막에서의 협업 이후에는 파운드의 영향은 예이츠가 낭만주의의 시삭을 극복하는 촉매가 된다. 먼저 서두에서 본 논문의 이론적 근거를 마련하려고 하는데, 예이츠는 가족적 사회적 배경을 근거로 예이츠를 바라보며 아울러 아일랜드 안에 서뿐만 아니라 영국, 프랑스 내외에서 발생하는 아트 운동과 문학운동의 맥락으로 예 이츠를 보려고 한다. 작가 예이츠의 변화를 추적할 때 본 논문은 미시적 및 거시적 관점을 견지하여, 그의 시 세계의 보다 크고 명학한 면을 드러내고자 한다.

이 논문은 중국 현대소설, 특히 신감각파(新感覺派)의 작품에 나오는 상품과 광고를 추출 하여 그 표상과 브랜드의 역사를 살펴보고자 한다. 이들 작가의 작품엔 수많은 시각 매체와 도시 매체가 출현한다. 그 가운데 현대 상품은 현대인이 갖고 싶어 하는 욕망의 리스트이자 오마주(Hommage)다. 자동차, 보석 등과 같은 고급 사치품에서부터 일상 생활용품에 이르기 까지 현대 상품은 각종 매체를 통해 자신의 가치를 온갖 방법을 동원하여 선전한다. 위의 작 품들을 토대로 현대 상품 목록을 뽑은 결과 크게 몇 가지 범주, 즉 영화나 배우 광고, 담배 광고, 양주 광고, 자동차 광고, 일상용품 광고 등으로 나눌 수 있겠다. 본 연구자는 상품 매체 와 공간 매체를 모두 상품 광고의 범주 속에 넣을 수 있다고 보고 다시 이를 도시 경관 광고, 공인 광고, 기호품 광고, 사치품 광고, 일상용품 광고 등으로 분류하여 논의할 것이다

This article attempts to excavate Korean literary works influenced by modern Chinese literature during the Japanese occupation of Korea, based on which it also analyzes the ways in which Korean writers and intellectuals received, perceived and transformed modern Chinese literature. Research findings in this article are to be summarized as follow. Firstly, writers such as Guangsoo Yi and Nanson Choi, who lived during the nascent period of modern Korean literature, approached China in the image of a looser and Japan in the image of an empire. Thus, they completely excluded Chinese literature from the world literature since the Japanese occupation of Korea. This was a dark side of modern Korean literature as a result of Korea’s marginality in the colonial age. Secondly, Baekhwa Yang is generally regarded a first writer that received modern Chinese literature; but most of his works and translations related to China were from Japan since he introduced them to Korea by translating Japanese. Consequently, the perspective that Yang applied in approaching Chinese literature was not his own but Japanese during the colonial age. Although Yang’s contribution to the translation of modern Chinese literature needs to be fairly appreciated, one may not arguably say that he was the first writer who received Chinese literature based on a proper understanding of the trajectory of China’s intellectual history. Thirdly, Dong-gog Yi and Myung Yang are the critics who for the first time accepted Chinese modern literature into Korea on their own perspective. This study has a considerable significance in excavating, introducing and analyzing the large amount of their works. Dong-gog Yi had deep interest in the value and spirit of the Chinese New Cultural Movement, and was the first critic in Korea who accepted the value and spirit of modern Chinese literature in its full measure. Myung Yang was pursued ceaselessly in what direction Korean should lead their lives under the rule of Japanese imperialism, and for the first time accepted and blended Chinese modern theory with Korean reality. This was consequential of their struggles to overcome the dual problem of particularity and universality that Korea confronted during the colonial period. Thus they approached Chinese culture and literature in terms of the world historical conjuncture of decolonization and yearnings for modernity. They did not follow the trajectory of the reception of modernity via Japan as many Korean intellectuals did but groped for a way to receive it via China.

This paper starts with the hypothesis that Irish literature should be different from English literature in theme, feeling and the technique of expression. The differences the writer has found so far are as follows: the search for the father-omphalos, the personification of nature, the recognition of sex as an origin of creation, the search for aesthetics of darkness, the attachment to silence, the spirit of wandering, the cyclic view of the world and dramatic self-awareness, etc. Since the end of the 19th century, the Irish writers’ strong attachment to their own tradition has been expressed as their reaction to a sense of lack as reflected in terms such as “center,” “omphalos,” and “search for father.” This phenomenon accounts for the birth of Irish national literature. From Oscar Wilde and Bernard Show in the 19th century to the recent poet, Seamus Heaney, they tried to deanglicize and create their own literature. But through this process, they have not neglected the chance to become a master of the international literature, by using the language of enemy. And each writer has a peculiar method of deanglicizing. For example, Oscar Wilde and Bernard Show who contributed to cosmopolitanism of modern Irish literature attacked and illuminated the English audiences by the reversing play-role. Understanding the enhanced nationalism, W.B. Yeats and other revivalists of Irish literature integrated English culture and tradition into the nationalistic movement. This is why their works were called “the cracked glass of the servants.” J. Joyce and other modernists, in a genuine sense, sought for their original nationality and to do this, they tried to recognize the picture of themselves as paralysis. From the establishment of the Irish Republic to the recent, strong nationalism and internationalism, as it has grown as one of the European countries, have been reconciled. Modern Irish literature has succeeded in regaining its own tradition and reaching top as one of the international literatures, getting through the five phases. During the first phase it showed the spirit to reverse the English cultural system and value by preempting the role of the English. The second phase is the period when they stimulated the national feeling and praised national heros. At the third phase modernists including Joyce, Kinsella, and Clarke attacked the nationalism of the second phase, saying that it was like a bubble full of the imagination the English wanted, and they exposed the realistic viewpoint of Irish life to their literary works. The fourth phase shows the reconciliation between parochialism of P. Kavanagh and cosmopolitanism of J. Montague. The fifth phase shows that with the enforcing of nationalism caused by the Ulster Trouble, harmony of nationalism and internationalism has been sought. The most important element that has led modern Irish literature to the top level is the spirit of omphalos through their confidence in their own culture and the sense of lack, and thereby the attachment to losses in language, land and tradition. Besides these, modern Irish writers haveoriented from the early period the Irish Republic towards an international country. The harmony of regionalism and cosmopolitanism, as well as that of individual interests and community interests, has led the Irish Republic to become one of the best postcolonial countries and cultural models.