Most of the critics dealing with the subject of how Eliot treats women agree that Eliot's early poetry focuses on the theme of the relationship between men and women. Some critics label him a "misogynist" by focusing on the negative and disparaging comments Eliot made on women. However, a careful examination of his works shows that Eliot's women as well as men are described as unhappy and unfulfilled personae. As Joseph Bentley said, life cannot be happy without a harmonious relation between the sexes. According to Bentley, without self-transcendence, without an awareness of unity, life is impoverished and dismal, which is the pivotal theme of Eliot's poetry, criticism, and philosophical writing. This study discloses how women are represented in "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock" and how the relation of women and men is connected with Eliot's spiritual development.

Since the Bible and T. S. Eliot's poetry are highly verbal texts, both manifest the intertextual effects of rhetoric which unify sound and sense. The various rhetorical patterns and devices of the Bible play the crucial role of creating mystic experience in Eliot's poetry. While the Bible used authentic oration of primary rhetoric and secondary rhetoric to create divine experience, Eliot poeticized mainly secondary rhetoric to recreate mystic experience. As Greek oratory rhetoricians deliberately used art as an argument from probability to maximize aesthetic experience beyond human reason since the 5th century BC, Eliot employed synthetic rhetoric which he was preconceptualized by the Bible for artistic experience. In this sense, C. S. Lewis and Eliot resisted the rational literary study of the Bible because the Bible required the religious experience. Therefore, just as the Bible needs creative readers, Eliot's poetry requires creative readers because his poetry is an expressive tool. Rhetorical and figurative devices of the Bible influenced the poetics of Eliot in that biblical allusion, symmetry, parallelism, antithesis, chiasmus, authority, mysticism, homily exegesis, typology, and paradox were consistently used by the poet from "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock" through Four Quartets. In particular, Eliot's "Four Quartets" is full of these rhetorical patterns and devices of the Bible which include redemption, atonement, and incarnation. In the poem, Eliot used this biblical pattern of Christ's incarnation which united antithetical forces of the physical and the spiritual, in time and out of time, possibility and impossibility, mortality and immortality, death and life, moment and eternity, coldness and hotness, and stillness and movement. Since Eliot used biblical myth, parable, allusion, and reference in his poems, his poetry became self-consuming, timeless, open, and prophetic as the Bible did. He poeticized his text to maximize the mystic experience of multiple meanings by using biblical rhetoric. Therefore, the biblical rhetoric furnishes the important role of promoting the divine novelty in Eliot's artistic poetry and strengthening the assertion of authority for the total mystic experience.

T. S. Eliot's "Gerontion" (1919) is so ambiguous that it is almost impossible for the reader to escape the labyrinth of interpretations constructed by critics and scholars with regard to various allusions, obscure poetic dictions and phrases, and contentious images and symbols. The purpose of this paper is to pave a clear path through the labyrinth of conflicting theories and interpretations by contrasting and analyzing the labyrinthine ones on Gerontion's phantasmagoric dramatic monologue. The complicated and controversial interpretations of the battle symbolism, "the jew," "house," "Christ the tiger," characters, "knowledge," "History," "tree," "you," "gull," "the Trades," etc., are traced without bias or ambiguity. Gerontion meditates on depraved transubstantiation, the devouring Christ the tiger, History compared to Satan or a prostitute, and humanity annihilated into atomic fragments. Gerontion also evokes a variety of symbols of the collapse of Western Civilization. He, as a character, embodies the concept of "dissociation of sensibility," for by the end of the poem, his infirm body disappears and thought alone remains. All these things can be revealed to the reader who passes through the labyrinth of interpretations.

Many prominent critics have considered T. S. Eliot as a serious poet, while ignoring some pivotal elements of nonsense verse in his poetry. On the basis of Eliot's definition of poetry expounded in The Sacred Wood as "a superior amusement" or "some monstrous abuse of words", this paper examines some fundamental aspects of nonsense verse in the tradition of English poetry, and moves on to investigate some nonsensical aspects of Eliot's poetry.

T. S. 엘리엇은 ｢햄릿과 그의 문제들｣에서 세익스피어의 ꡔ햄릿ꡕ을 뿌리깊은 감정적인 소재들을 적절히 객관화시키지 못한 실패작으로 여기면서, 그 대안으로 객관적인 “일단의 사물, 정황, 혹은 일련의 사건”을 통해 정서를 환기시키는 “객관적 상관물”이라는 개념을 소개한다. 낭만주의와 빅토리아조의 문학에 불만을 표시하며, 감수성의 분열을 예리하게 의식했던 엘리엇은 프랑스 상징주의, 영국의 형이상학파, 이미지즘 등으로부터 “객관적 상관물”에 대한 영감을 받았다. “객관적 상관물” 이론은 단순한 실험의 차원에 그치지 않았으며, 이 기교적인 발견은 엘리엇으로 하여금 의미의 상실 속에 사는 현대인의 곤궁을 유기적인 전체 속에서 다룰 수 있게 해주었다. 그는 시어에 상응하는 독특한 경험이 있다고 간주하며, 사고와 정서를 환기시키는 “객관적 상관물”을 통해, 광범위한 지식을 동원하여 현대시 속에 황무지 같은 현대의 인간조건에 비젼을 제시할 만족스러운 상관물의 정교한 망을 구축하고자 한다.

On 29 December 1926, Pope Pius XI promulgated the decree of officially condemning a number of books by Charles Maurras, one of the principal directors of the “Action Française” movement in France, and the daily newspaper Action Française, the official organ of the movement. Subsequently, this historical event of European significance brought out heated controversy not only in France but also in England. The controversy between the Vatican and the “Action Française” found its commentary in the editorial page of the Monthly Criterion edited by T. S. Eliot, who was himself involved in the debate in the following pages of the literary review as well as the Church Times, the organ of the Church of England. Nonetheless, this significant event bearing on Eliot appears to have eluded a serious scrutiny of Eliot’s scholars. This study discloses the historical background of the condemnation of the “Action Française” by the Pope, and Eliot’s defense for the movement and Charles Maurras against the Vatican apologists.

This article explores the coexistence and interaction with the Other in T. S. Eliot looking in particular at different cultures’ relationship. This study escapes the usual label that Eliot tends toward one-sided emphasis on a rapprochement with England, Europe, and their traditions. Eliot begins with the epistemological argument that we can’t find anything original or ultimate. He accepts “finite centres” or “points of view” instead of the “self” and defines the unified self as an “ideal construction.” “A point of view” is conscious of the fragmentary world and identfies it with whole universe. Eliot holds that “a point of view” depends upon and interacts with other points of view and interprets experiences. In the relation of cultural community to each other, Eliot asserts that each community is based on its own tradition. Tradition can exist only through its application to particular situations by its participants who appropriate and implement the tradition, according to their particular situational interests and needs. It embodies and maintains the common meaning and “identical reference” of various finite centres. Since tradition is the cooperative consensus of various viewpoints, it follows that each cultural community is conscious of a point of view, which negates the wholly cognized and calls for taking cognizance mutually. Each community never achieves a purely unprejudiced God's eye-view which is alleged the only true understanding. Eliot focuses on the condition where a community resists assimilation into other communities and embodies incommensurable difference in diverse communities. He believes that a greater uniformity of culture seems likely to result from the pressure of one civilization, which brings about a lower grade of culture altogether. Cultural communities, while remaining distinct, should be able to mix freely. Eliot advocates each community has its own distinguishable tradition, which should also harmonise with, and enrich, the cultures of the others. He shows the desire to escape the limitations of a point of view and extend the reference through interaction with the Other.

T. S. Eliot owed the Unitarian belief of his family for his early interest in the Orient. He was introduced to Indian religion and philosophy by George Santayana and Irving Babbitt in his undergraduate years at Harvard, which led to his serious studies of lndian religion and philosophy in his graduate years under Char1es Rockwell Lanman and James Woods. My concern here, however, is why be could not accept lndian religion and philosophy. lt is apparent that Eliot's interest in Indian religion and philosophy remained much later after completion of his graduate studies. N aturally enough, Indian religious and philosophical speculations are echoed in his various poems, particularly in The Waste Land and Four Quartets. While he worked as editor of The Criterion from 1922 to 1936, he allowed space for the forum of debate on the culture of the East and the West. By this time his early view of Indian religion and philosophy had been very much discolored, reveaIing that his position was quite similar to Henri Massis’s negative attitude towards the Oriental philosophy, which is representative of the c1assicist’s view of Action Française based on the concept of sin. Because of "a Catholic cast of mind, a Catholic heritage, and a Puritan temperament," Eliot’s interest in Indian religion and philosophy, which does not allow the concept of Original Sin, could not be permanent. The three points, among others, count for the reasons for his having not fully involved in Indian religion and philosophy. One is that he left his studies of Indian religion and philosophy half done and completed his doctoral dissertation on the Westem mystical philosophy of F. H. Bradley. Another is that he became an Anglo-Catholic in 1927, whose belief is based on the concept of Original Sin. The third is that he chose to become a man of letter rather than a philosopher by profession and declared on several occasions that he could not become a Buddhist. Eliot’s belief in Original Sin prevented him from being fully involved in Indian religion and philosophy for the emotional or practical reasons. He was simply responsive to it intellectually. His East was always next to the West and was partly appropriated to support his own poetic ideas, which shows a phase of the general Westem prejudice against the East.

T. S. Eliot was immediately accepted as one of the qualified philosophers in the letter of June 23, 1916 by Prof. J. H. W oods in the Department of Philosophy, Harvard University immediately after the completion of Eliot’s doctoral dissertation, Knowledge and Experience in the Philosophy 01 F. H. Bradley in April, 1916. Eliot, however, did not go back to U.S.A., which was clearly understood by Eliot himself as the critical decision to give up the bright future as a prominent scholar and to face severe financial difficulties because of the expected problems of the relationships with his own parents in U.S.A. The literary turn of Eliot’s main attention from philosophy is explained in this essay through the examination of Eliot’s doctoral dissertation itself. 1 think Eliot could not accept Bradley’s absolute idealism fully, even though he could not reject it completely. Eliot is not a relativist to give up the whole Bradley’s absolute idealism, i.e. metaphysics, but a relative idealist not to reject blatantly nor to accept, without any condition, the probabi1ity of transcendental experience, i.e. the presence of the Absolute in this world. His dilemma in the study of Bradley’s idealism, the most important philosophy at that time as Eliot thought, led him to the poetry. As Jacques Derrida’s deconstruction is a little different from Postmodernism especially in the view that it did not deny completely the present necessity of metaphysics or the Project of Englitenment, Eliot’s philosophical position is quite similar to that of deconstruction. Eliot’s poetry and literary criticism, which have been regarded as one of the representative cases of Modernism, is discussed in this essay in terms of deconstruction, one of the major literaη criticisms of Postmodernism. 1 think Eliot has to use the ironic language or logic in his literary work, for he has to use the language or logic of Modernism for his already achieved postmodern thought against his manifested intention.

There are many themes and many contradictory aspects in T. S. Eliot's works, such as religious themes of Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism, and philosophical themes of time and space, conflict and unification, and good and evil. It is natural that a researcher of T. S. Eliot has an impulse of finding out a whole and inclusive code which can cover most of the themes in his work. My argument is that we can find an effective critical Ariadne of Christian mysticism to provide a narrative thread to unite and reconcile various contradictory themes like conflict and unification. This thesis intends to reveal that T. S. Eliot’s criticism has much in a common with many kinds of mystic thoughts. Many mystic scholars define the various aspects of mysticism; immanence and transcendence, and introvertive mysticism and extrovertive mysticism. F. C. Happold, Evelyn Underhi11, and Colin Wilson are the influential mystical scholars whose concepts of unification and transcendental experience are found in their works. Among the critics who approach Eliot’s works from the perspective of Christian mysticism are Karl Shapiro, Robert Sencourt, Lyndall Gordon, Kristian Smidt and F. M. Ishak. Their comments provide effective supplement to the thought of medieval Christians represented by Pseudo-Dionysius and John of the Cross. The core concepts of Eliot’s criticism can be found in Eliot’s critical discourse about his predecessors, written from the perspective of Christian mysticism. As Eliot says, surrendering oneself to the work to be done is the best way to reaching depersonalization. We can say that the course of depersonalization is similar to the course of the union to God in that each of them has the extinction of emotions and selves. And so it will be said that the objective correlative is to the art what the union with God is to the religious self. The sexual experience of Dante is said to be not a simple experience but a mature reflection related to the attraction towards God. This shows that a common and simple everyday experience can be a divine and reverential experience in the mystical point of view. Seen from the point of view of Eliot, the terrible experience like the despair and disil1usion of Baudelaire can also be the prelude and joy of faith. Eliot said that Tennyson also had the aspect of Christian mysticism in that he was desperately anxious to hold the faith of the believer. According to Eliot's view, Tennyson’s despair and doubt can be said to be an intense experience and a penultimate stage of ‘dark night of soul'. In conclusion, various critical and philosophical concepts of Eliot such as impersonal theory, unified sensibility, tradition, objective correlative, and the Absolute can be unified ín the scheme of Christian mystícism. By followíng various critical essays about poets, Eliot can be said to manifest his attitude and belief towards Christian mysticism.

Many times our reading of a particular poem by T. S. Eliot may be deepened by understanding the metaphoric images of cited mythological or literary works, by exploring its relation to the poem we are ready to read. Usually the meaning of mythological or literary works quoted in his poem is invaluable or crucial to understand the whole image of the poem, because it suggests the key to comprehend the particular poem as a whole. T. S. Eliot stated in his essay “Tradition and the Individual Talent” that no poet, or no artist of any art has his complete meaning alone. His significance is the appreciation of his relation to the dead poets and artists. In the structure of Eliot's poems we should be aware of the combination of the heterogeneous elements; the past and present, which makes sometimes readers puzzed at first sight but soon wide awaked. It is required that when poetry calls for knowledge, even a common reader must be prepared to answer the demand which Eliot has made use of combining techniques mixing radical elements of the past and present in his poetry. Such a combinative manner has been long acclaimed for a new and startling technique since his poem “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock” was published. This paper is designed to explain some of his poetical techniques, particularly showing some examples of complicated, ambiguous, contradictory expressions and making frequent use of ancient myths, classic literature and folklores. The difficulty which faces the reader immediately lies in his frequent use of distorted quotations and allusions, his reference to many languages and literatures. It is partly due to his careful investigation on mysticism such as Christian Mysticism(1899), The Varieties of Religious Experience(1902) and Mysticism (1911). It is not surprising that Eliot has been blamed for obscurity and pretentiousness. This is the result of being judged by readers who have not attempted to analyse his technique to unite the elements of past and present. Eliot said that difficulty reading modern poems would not be something peculiar to certain writers, but a condition of writing with deeper insights into classical literature.

본 논문은 제1차 세계대전 이후 황혜화되고, 퇴락해 가는 영국과 서구 유럽의 문명에 대하여 1920년대와 30년대에 걸쳐 T. S. 엘리엇 이 그 문명 복구률 위하여 어떤 생각파 태도률 취했는지률 살펴본 것이다. 제l차 세계대전은 서구 유럽인들이 일찌기 경험환 적이 없는 대량 학살과 기독교의 전통적인 문화 유산올 파괴 • 황폐화시킨 대참사이었올 뿐만 아나라 정신적인 가치관에도 혼란올 가져온 위기의 근원이기도 했다. 대전이 끝난 1918년 이후， 유럽의 지성인들 은 유럽의 문명복구와 정신적 가치관의 회복에 대해서 다양한 방안들올 제시했다. 이러한 방안들 중 하나로 서구의 문화적 정체성올 탐구한 독일의 학자 쿠르티우스(Ernst Robert Curtius)는 독일의 문화 개념과 프랑스의 문명개념의 차이점 속에서 두 나라가 꽁유하는 보 편성올 찾는 노력율 보여주었다. 이 같은 쿠르티우스의 노력은 엘리 엇이나 다른 유럽의 지성인들에게도 상당한 자극을 주었다. 엘리엇은 쿠르티우스의 r프랑스 문명」이란 저서에서 독일과 프 랑스의 문화개념 속에 영국의 문화개념이 빼져있는 것올 지적하면 서 영국 문명의 근깐도 프랑스와 액율 함께 하는 고대 회랍과 로마 의 문명에 었다고 주장하였다. 아율러 유럽 문명의 정체성을 앨리엇 은 중세의 천 년에 걸쳐 유럽이 가톨릭 교회흘 중심으로 통합되었던 시대에서 찾으면서 전 후 서구 유럽의 문명 건셜올 위한 방안으 로 기독교 문명올 기초로 하는 유럽의 문화적 통합올 주창한다. 그 의 기독교의 문명부활 사상은 제l차 세계대전 이후, 영국의 국교회 당국이 시도하려고 했던 중세에 런던의 중심부에 건립된 교회의 파괴와 보수 작업에 대해 앨리엇이 어떤 태도률 취하였는가를 살펴봄 으로써 엿볼 수 있다. 영국의 교회 당국이 런던의 옛 교회들을 파괴하자고하는 결의에 반대하는 엘리엇의 이유는 근본적으로 국가의 공공기관은 필요에 의해서 과거에 건립된 젓이기 때문에 현재에 이르러 그 효율성이 떨어졌다고 해서 파괴되어서는 안된다는 보수주 의적 전통주의 사상올 보여주기도 하지만，그가 영국국교로 개종하고，영국의 신민이 되기 훨씬 이전，중세에 건립된 교회훌 파괴를 하고자 하는 집단과 맞서 투쟁한 얼례는 영국의 문명이 서구의 다 른 나라들과 마찬가지로 전통적인 기독교에 그 바탱올 두고 있다는 역사인식에서 비롯한다. 이러한 인식에 바탕옳 둔 엘리엇의 문명 복 구사상은 그로 하여금 영국의 문명복구는 오직 기독교의 사회 질서 훌 회복함으로써 가놓하고，서구 휴럽의 문명 회생도 기독교의 질서 만이 유일한 방안이라눈 기독교 유일흔옳 주장한다. 제l차 세계대전 이후 붕괴된 서구 유럽의 문명 북구훌 위하여 앨리엇이 제시한 기독교 문명사상윤 1930년대 초에 도우슨(Christopher Dawson)의 영향으로 강화되었지만，자신이 영국국교로 개종한 1927년 이전에 확립된 것으로 보인다.

T. S. 엘리엇의 정치사상에 관심을 피력한 비평가들은 엘리엇이 인종차별 주의자이며， 독일에서 출발한 나치당의 파시즘을 지지했거나 동조한 문필가라고 매도했다. 그들은 그 증거로 엘리엇이 편집했던 『크라이테리언』 에 수록된 그의 기고를 제시했다. 본 논문은 그 비평가들이 제시한 증거를 면밀히 검토하고， 그 증거가 불확실하거나 정확하지 않다는 것을 반증한 것이다. 그리하여 엘리엇이 정치사상 변에서 파시트 였다는 학자들의 주장은 근거 없는 중상에 지나지 않는다는 것올 드러낸다. 그렇다면 엘리엇이 주창한 정치사상이 있었는가? 만약 그러한 사상이 있었다면， 그것이 무엇인가? 또 엘리엇이 그의 정치사상을 주장하기 이전에 그와 유사한 사상을 주창한 사상가들이 있었다면， 그즐은 어떤 주장을 했는지를 고찰하고， 그들의 사상적 유사성과 차이점을 살펴보는 것이 본 논문의 주된 목적이다. 엘리엇의 정치사상은 의회주의에 기초한 범민주주의를 주창한 사상가이기보다는 왕권올 주장하는 왕정주의이다. 엘리엇의 왕정주의는 그 전례가 없는 독자적인 것은 아니었다. 그의 왕정사상에 앞 선 왕정주의자들과 엘리엇의 직접적인 관련성을 고증하기는 쉽지 않으나 사상적으로 큰 영향을 미친 듯하다. 엘리엇이 그의 사상을 피력하기 이전， 지난 세기 초에 체계적으로 왕정주의 사상을 주창한 사상가들은 J. M. 케네디와 T. E. 흄이었다. 그들은 각기 다른 철학적 입장을 취하고 있다. 그럼에도 불구하고 그들의 정치 사상에 있어서 공통점은 그들이 의회 민주주의를 부정하면서， 세습적 귀족주의 및 왕권주의가 강화되어야 한다고 주장하는 것이다. 그리하여 그들의 공통의 정치적인 적은 의회 민주주의를 주장하는 진보적 중산층이었다. 엘리엇의 정치사상도 케네디와 흄이 주창한 왕권주의와 크게 다르지 않는 많은 공통접올 가지고 있다. 그러나 엘리엇의 왕정주의가 케네디나 흉의 사상과 차별화 되는 점은 왕권주의가 강화된 시대가 보다 높은 차원의 문화적， 도덕적 가치를 창출한 시대라는 점에 그 근거를 두고 있다는 점이다.