온갖 종류의 전설, 설화, 신화에 대한 해박한 지식과 플라톤, 플로티노스, 드루이드주의 및 다양한 철학에 대한 광범위한 독서는 예이츠의 사상에 강하게 각인되었다. 그는 삶과 죽음 등, 인간의 본질적 문제에 많은 의문을 갖게 되었으며, 그의 시와 희곡에서, 죽음이후의 삶, 환생, 플라톤의 이데아에 대한 철학적 신념을 상징적으로 표현하였다. 물과 새는 이러한 주제에 그가 자주 사용하는 상징적 장치인데, 새는 주로 육체를 벗어난 영혼을 상징적으로 내포하고 바다는 그 영혼이 덧없는 물질세계를 벗어나 영원한 이데아의 세계에 도달하기 위해 통과하는 배경이 되는 경우가 많다. 많은 작품 중에서도, 특히 The Shadowy Waters와 “Sailing to Byzantium”이 이러한 철학적 신념을 잘 반영하고 있다는 점은 주목할 만하다. 자연계를 벗어난 인간의 영혼은 진정한 행복을 추구하며 영원한 이데아의 세계를 꿈꾼다.

스크리아빈(Alexander N. Scriabin, 1872-1915)은 19세기 말에서 20세기 초로 이어진 러시아 은세기의 독특한 문화적 환경에 노출된 작곡가로 이 시기의 문화, 예술 전반을 주도한 사조가 바로 러시아 상징주의이다. 이 연구는 스크리아빈의 ‘어두운 불꽃’(Op. 73, No. 2)에 관한 분석적 고찰을 중심으로 이 곡에 나타난 불의 상징적 의미와 음악적 의미들을 러시아 상징주의 수용의 관점에서부터 찾고 있다. 따라서 이 연구에서는 첫째 러시아 상징주의 안에서 스크리아빈 음악에 내재한 불의 의미에 대해 유추해보고 둘째 이를 그의 음악적 배경과의 연결을 통해 작품 속에서 의미하는 불의 상징적 측면에 대해 탐색하고 있다. 끝으로 ‘어두운 불꽃’의 집합류 분석을 통한 음악적 상징과의 연계를 통해 스크리아빈 음악의 불의 상징에 대한 재해석을 이끌어내고 있다.

평론 ｢무드｣에서 예이츠는 무드를 초자연적인 존재의 노동자이며 전언 자로서 정의를 내리면서 과학적 지식으로 고정할 수 있는 범위를 넘어 비가시적인 삶 의 관념을 전달한다고 설명한다. 시인에 따르면 우리가 신성한 힘과 마주할 수 있는 영역인 영원을 인식할 수 있게 하는 것이 바로 무드이다. 무드에 대한 예이츠의 시학 은 상징주의에 대한 믿음으로 점차 바뀐다. 상징을 통해 그는 무드 속에서 감각을 넘어서 운동하는 관념과 속성을 환기하거나 암시한다. 그렇지 않다면 알려지지 않을 초 자연적인 존재가 상징을 통해 무드 속에서 환기될 수 있다.

W. B. 예이츠는 중국문학에 지속적 영향을 끼친 20세기 초 서양 작가 중의 하나로서 지금 중국에서 문학연구의 중심적 대상이 되고 있다. 중국의 예이츠연구는 3단계로 구분된다. 5.4혁명(1919)부터 1940년대, 1980년대, 1990년대 이후(90년대 이후는 항시 상징주의가 주요 주제이다). 푸 두롱의 저서 W. B. 예이츠시의 상징주의 미학 (2006)은 이 분야의 이정표이다. 체계적으로 시인의 상징주의 논의를 분류 하고, 그의 작품에서 상징주의의 근원을 찾고 상징주의의 미학적 체계를 통찰력 있게 분석함으로써, 이 저서는 예이츠의 상징주의에 대한 중국학계의 연구를 요약한다. 이 저서는 세계 예이츠 연구에 커다란 자극이 되고 있다.

This paper examines Fernand Khnopff’s Symbolism, focusing on the I Lock My Door upon Myself as a manifesto of his artistic credo in style and theme. Its title was originally in English, originating from the poem “Who Shall Deliver Me?” by Dante Gabriel Rossetti’s sister Christina Rossetti. I use the term “Social Symbolism” which combines a nationalist perspective with traditional French Symbolism, in order to explain how the image of Bruges is represented in his oeuvre. Symbolism calls for psychological introspection evoking death, love, silence, and solitude and recluse from realty in pursuit of the Unknown and the Ideal. Although Khnopff shared this idea, he departed from symbolist tradition by incorporating a political milieu in his paintings. First, I discuss Khnopff’s early stage in the formation of his artistic concept, including his family background as well as his early opportunity to visit the Exposition Universelle in Paris where he formed his early interests in aesthetics, philosophy, literature, mythology and Egyptian art. His early works, La Painture, la Musique, la Poesie(1880-1881), Le Crise(1881), and En ecoutant Schuman(1883) reveal his favorite subjects which were quite prevalent in the symbolist traditions of both Belgium and France. By looking at Khnopff’s paintings, I endeavor to situate his Symbolism in the context of the development of Belgian modernity and cultural nationalism. Second, my analysis of Khnopff creates a new overview of Symbolism in Europe, especially in Belgium. In the absence of socio-political integration, the Symbolist painter adds nostalgic meaning to the landscape of Bruges. The scene of Bruges illuminates the social atmosphere in Belgium at that time. Since Belgium became an independent country, it tried to differentiate its own cultural and national identity from France. There was a powerful social movement for Belgium to claim its own identity, language, and culture. Bruges was, for Symbolists, the epitome of Belgium’s past glory. This encouraged the formation of Belgian nationalism centering on Brussels, as I demonstrate in Khnopff’s Bruges-la-Morte(1892). The relationship between Symbolist artist and writers is crucial for understanding this development. Khnopff, for instance, illustrated or provided frontispieces for many Symbolist writers such as Rodenbach, Peladan, Spencer and Le Roy. Khnopff did not objectify the exact meaning, but rather provided his own subjective interpretation. In this respect, I Lock My Door, inspired by Rossetti, started from the same motif, but Khnopff seeked escape into silence and death while Rossetti searched for Christian salvation. Finally my paper deals with the social context in which Khnopff worked. He was a founding member of Les XX in 1883 and later La Libre Esthethetique he also participated in the exhibition of le Salon de la Rose + Croix. Les XX was not a particular school of art and did not have a uniform manifesto, but its exhibitions focused on decorative arts by encompassing art for all people via common, everyday objects. The Periodical, L’art moderne was founded to support this ideal by Edmond Picard and Maux. Les XX declared art as independent art, detached from all official connections. Khnopff designed the 1890 catalogue cover of Les XX and the 1891 cover. These designs show decorative element of Art Nouveau in an early example of “modern poster.” Les XX pursued all art including graphic arts, prints, placard, posters and book illustrations and design. These forms of art were l’art social and this movement was formed by the social atmosphere in Belgium in terms of social reforms and strikes by working class. Khnopff designed the book cover for la Maison du Peuple. The artist, however, did not share the ideal egalitarianism of the working class to a certain degree, while he was working in his villa he designed under the ideal motto, “on n’a pas que,” he expressed the nihilistic emotions toward society by the theme of interiority such as solitude, silence, narcissism, introspection, and introversion. In the middle of his Symbolism, we find the “cultural nostalgia” or longing that the artist develops in the I Lock My Door upon Myself. Khnopff’s longing toward the lost city of “Bruges” form the crux of his “Social Symbolism.”

This study is an attempt to analyze Yeats’s early poetry in the light of his theory of the mask. For this purpose the writer of the present study has first proposed to define the ‘mask’ to investigate the theory and has reached the conclusion that the ‘mask’ is a Yeatsian term for an ideal image of life which is always opposite to the natural self or the natural world, and the theory of the mask has three aspects−aesthetic, moral, and philosophical−according to the role of the mask. The aesthetic meaning of the theory demonstrates Yeats’s argument on the nature, the source, and the touchstone of a work of art: art is the embodiment of the writer’s mask of life and his inner struggle between mask and life sets him to his creative work; the quality of a work depends upon the expression of this tragic war. And all the more important, Yeats’s strong belief in polarity of the two terms of conflict is clarified. The study of Yeats’s early poetry in terms of his theory of the mask has concluded that Yeats’s early mask is the very transcendent realm which Yeats’s early symbolism proposes to evoke and the main symbols used to express this ideal world are the images of Arcadian island across the sea, rose, the Irish mythic world and Maud Gonne; and the synthesis of Yeats's theory of the mask and symbolism in his early poetry causes some distortions in both his theory of the mask and symbolism. The nature of his transcendent world is conveyed not by the symbols but by the imperfect realities in spite of his strong belief that “divine essence” can only be evoked by the symbols; the nature of this ideal world has also been distorted: it is not the super reality lying beyond reality like Mallarme’s but only an ideal place where all the impurities and imperfections of the real world are removed or corrected. As for the theory of the mask, polarity, the most important basis of the theory, has been impaired: only the value and the love of the ideal world is emphasized, whereas those of the earthly life are restrained or its weaknesses and painfulness are stated to describe the ideal world.

李金髮의 詩는 兩價性 - 神聖과 慾望, 慾望과 슬픔, 그리고 삶과 죽음 - 이 매개하는 교감이 욕망과 죽음을 향해 나아가는 과정들이다. 그것이 욕망과 죽음을 뛰어넘는 듯한 모습을 보이는 것은 그의 자아가 수용하고 있는 虛無 때문이다. 이상과 현실, 현실과 자아, 그리고 미래와 지금 이 순간을 이어주고 있는 機制가 허무의 수용이라는 사실은 그의 상징체계의 모든 이끌림을 서양의 그것과 다르게 하는 원인이다. 李金髮의 서정형식은 기독교적인 관념에 의존해 있으면서도 구원을 받아들이지 않음으로써 허무를 수용하는 특수성, 다시 말해서 보들레르 말라르메 랭보와의 차이를 빚고 있는 것이다. 문화심리의 민족형식이라 할 수 있는 그의 이런 성격 때문에 보들레르의 교감이나, 말라르메의 절대언어, 그리고 랭보의 끝없는 반항과 다른 상징미학이 그 모습을 드러내게 된다. 삶에 깃든 죽음의 수용과 이것을 통한 초월 지향은 구원이라기보다는 禪趣에 근접해 가고자 하는 상징의 특수성이다. 따라서 독자의 자의적인 감수체계를 파고드는 그의 은유 암시 비약 생략 등은 상징주의가 아니라 허무/상징으로 나아가기 위한 방편들일 것이다.

본 논문의목적은 달라피콜라의 ≪괴테 가곡≫을 음렬주의, 상징주의, 순환주의의 관점에 서 논의하는 것이다. 달라피콜라는 음렬을 작품 표현의 수단으로 생각하였으며 그 자체가 목 적은 아니었다. ≪괴테 가곡≫에서는 작품의 미학과 음렬 작법 사이에서 작곡자만의 독창적 스타일이 형성되는 과정을 엿볼 수 있으며 자유로운 음렬 작법 내에서도 ‘집성’을 통해 성립 된 일관성과 이를 체계적으로 발전시켜 성립된 순환주의를 목격할 수 있다. 상징적 가사, 이에 상응하는 음악적 구조와 기본 음렬을 다루는 방식은 각 악장에서 일관 성 있게 나타나며 이는 12음렬 연가곡에서 유기적 구조를 확립하는 달라피콜라 고유의 작곡 어법이라 할 수 있다. 순환동기로서 (012)의 중요성은 결코 간과할 수 없다. ‘질문’ 동기로 정 의되기도 하는 (012)는 12음렬을 대체하여 가사의 상징적 의미를 표현하며 악장의 도입부에 유기적으로 소개되어 악장간의 응집성을 강화시킨다. (012)가 반복되어 형성하는 ‘집성’ 또 한 중요하다. 이는 작곡자가 자신만의 어법으로 음렬을 대체한 것으로 선적, 수직적으로 완 성된 집성은 음렬 진술과 유사한 효과를 준다.

As a way of investigating the interrelationship between T. S. Eliot and French Symbolism, this paper intensively delves into his criticism on the French Symbolist poets chiefly including Charles Baudelaire, Jules Laforgue, and Paul Valéry, and, briefly covered in his critical essays, Tristan Corbière and Stéphane Mallarmé, rather than the influence of French Symbolism on him, which is barely studied in Korea but widely explored overseas. Eliot's criticism on French Symbolism is summarized as follows. Firstly, Eliot on Baudelaire leads Arthur Symons to change his view, but does not fundamentally allow him to accept Baudelaire as the representative poet of Symbolism just like Eliot. Whereas Peter Quennell on Baudelaire is negative and limited by the viewpoint of Eliot. Eliot on Baudelaire in “Baudelaire in Our Time” (1927) gives us the impression of his observation of mistranslated parts derived from Symons's metrical translation. In addition, Baudelaire's technique of “synesthesia” renders him connected with Dante, Shakespeare, Donne, and Eliot in terms of the “unification of sensibility“ in the mainstream of poetry. Meanwhile, it is acceptable that Eliot evaluates Baudelaire in his “Baudelaire“ (1930) as “a fragmentary Dante,“ but it is controversial to position him below Goethe and Gautier. And Eliot considers Satanism one characteristic of Baudelaire and ironically defines him as a classicist, directly related with T. E. Hulme in terms of the Original Sin. Secondly, Eliot on Corbière suggests that a few poems of Corbière bring about the effect of irony by a unified sensibility similar to Crashaw's concentrated conceit, rather than wit as found in the metaphysical conceit of the metaphysical poets. Meanwhile, Eliot on Laforgue argues that Laforgue reveals the dissociation of sensibility, the fissure of thought and feeling, but he still is a metaphysical poet with an expanded metaphysicality, i.e., “the intellectualising of sensibility and the emotionalising of the idea.“ From this practical criticism Eliot discovers a unified sensibility similar to the metaphysical conceit in his quoted Laforgue's Derniers Vers, but G. M. Turnell and Warren Ramsey interestingly contradict this view. And Eliot indicates the Laforguian irony more ubiquitously employed in Laforgue than in Baudelaire, but he uses it more skillfully in his poetry than Laforgue himself. Additionally, Eliot argues that Laforgue rather than Whitman is the most important innovator of vers libre, but Turnell and Ramsey also deny this argument. In short, Eliot evaluates Laforgue as lower than Donne, Donne as lower than Dante, whom he praises most, over all the other poets of the world. Thirdly, Eliot on Mallarmé emphasizes Mallarmé's musicality by indicating that his technique rather than significance is crucial in the understanding of his poetry at the opposite extreme of Dante's Divine Comedy. Eliot on Valéry insists that Valéry, the last poet of French Symbolism, as the successor of experiments and exploration pursued by Mallarmé, has developed the music and fluidity, as well as a variety of technical expressions, of Symbolism. And Eliot includes Valéry's impersonality in his impersonal theory of poetry, and argues that from the viewpoint of impersonality Valery's “Le Cimetière Marin” (1920) with its philosophical structure is greater than Gray's ”Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard” (1751). Furthermore, Eliot speaks highly of Valéry as the representative poet in the first half of the 20th century, who will remain longer in posterity than Yeats, Rilke, or any other poet. Eliot points out Valéry's two characteristics, first he is the most self-conscious poet and second, he is an utmost skeptic who disbelieves even art. Meanwhile, Eliot maintains that though Valéry's anti-romantic theory of poetry regarding sonnets as the true quintessence of poetry is influenced by Poe's, it surpasses Poe's “The Philosophy of Composition” and is more original. Finally, Eliot critically subverts Valéry's comparison of poetry with “dancing” and prose with “walking” or “running.” In conclusion, it is Eliot the critic's great merit that he provides a deep, insightful, and comprehensive view, though sometimes not well-balanced one, on the relationship between French Symbolism and modernism, including himself. He does this by surveying in his essays, prefaces, forewords, and book reviews the French Symbolist poets focusing on Baudelaire, Corbière, Laforgue, Mallarmé, and Valéry, rather unfamiliar to the British and American critics in his days.