조셉 파사노는 상당한 학문적, 창의적 포트폴리오를 갖춘 다각적인 인물이다. 그는 하버드 대학에서 학업을 시작했으며, 수학과 천체 물리학을 공부한 후, 철학으로 학문적 궤도를 전환했으며, 특히 비트겐슈타인의 언어 철학에 중점을 두었다. 그 후 그는 마크 스트랜드, 루시 브록-브로이도, 리차즈 하워드와 같은 영향력 있는 멘토들과 함께 일하면서 콜럼비아 대학에서 시 대학원 공부를 했다. 이 인터뷰에서 조셉 파사노는 시적 능력의 참여와 그의 시에 대한 개인적인 관점에 대해 논의한다. 특히 파사노는 독자들이 자신의 시에 대해 부여할 수 있는 다양한 해석에 대해 개방적인 입장을 보여준다. 더욱이 그는 작가로서 자신의 개인적, 직업적 발전에 대한 통찰을 공유하며 이 여정을 ‘생존 방식’으로 규정한다. 시와 소설에 대한 그의 창작 노력의 근간을 이루는 중심 모티브는 ‘개인적인 것과 역사적인 것’을 연결하려는 필요성이다.

본 논문은 W. B. 예이츠가 20세기의 주요 작가인지를 다시 고찰하려한다. 더 나아가 그가 지난 세기뿐 아니라 금세기의 가장 위대한 시인인지를 보기 위해 그의 “주요” 시를 재조명하려고 한다. 지난 세기의 대작가들인 T. S. 엘리엇과 W. H. 오든을 포함하여 예이츠가 1939년 사망 20-30년간 주요 평론가와 시인들이 내린, 예이츠는 대시인이다, 라는 평가가 있었으니까 지금의 평가가 더 자세할 필요는 없어 보인다. 단지 엘리엇과 오든이 가졌던 이 평가에 대한 의심에 초점을 맞추려한다. 그 들은 예이츠의 신화에 대한 의심이 있었지만 본 저자는 긍정적이다. 그들의 의심은 예 이츠가 “마술”의 시인이라는 데 기인한다. 그가 마술의 시인이었다는 점은 문제가 되 기보다는 20세기의 불모성의 시학이라는 장애물에 대한 해답을 제시한 것으로 보아야 한다. 이를테면, 엘리엇의 신화의 사용은 예이츠와는 다르다. 그는 황무지에서 보듯 이 그는 신화를 빌려다 사용하는데 신화를 신화로 다루고 있다. 본 논문은 예이츠가 그의 주요시에서 신화를 어떻게 사용하는지, 이 사용이 그의 시들을 어떻게 위대하게 만들고 20세기의 큰 시인들과 차별성을 만드는지 고찰하는데 역점을 둔다.

예이츠와 엘리엇 사이의 관계 규명을 위한 시도는 있었지만 좀처럼 그 해답을 찾지 못하는 것처럼 보인다. 이 글은 이 두 시인 사이의 관계 규명을 위해 기획된 것이다. 그래서 먼저 엘리엇과 예이츠 비교 연구의 의의와 이 두 시인 사이의 첫 만남에서 시작하여 예이츠와 엘리엇 상호 간의 평가와 마지막으로 엘리엇 작품 속 예이츠의 투영 모습을 고찰했다.

자아성찰과 객관적 시각추구는 자아와 공동체를 개선하기 위해 필요한 정신이다. 그런데 히니는 시를 쓰는 목적에서, 종교 및 인종 갈등을 겪는 북아일랜드 사태를 해결하려는 자세에서, 종교와 정치 구속으로부터 벗어나 순수예술을 창조하려 는 의지에서, 자신의 시와 국수적인 국가를 엄격하게 비판하려는 태도 및 영혼의 세계 와 죽음을 고찰하는 태도 등에서 다른 시인보다 훨씬 깊은 자아 성찰적 태도와 객관적 시각을 드러내고 있다고 생각된다. 혼돈과 부조화와 단절을 찬미하는 시인과 달리 히니는 자신과 공동체를 객관적으로 보고 개선하려는 시인이다.

황동규의 죽음을 보는 시인의 자세가 잘 나타나 있는 시는 풍장 연작이 있다. 예이츠의 시 청금석 부조 (“Lapis Lazuli”)에는 무대 위 비극의 절정을 연기하는 배우의 영웅적인 과장된 연출을 지향한다면, 황동규는 죽음으로 달려가며 ‘시계’가 좁 아진 세계를 찾고자 한다. 인생이란 아무런 의미가 없지만, 열정적으로 살아갈 것을 강조한 니체와 예이츠가 가깝고, 삶이라는 것 자체엔 아무 의미가 없으니 열정적으로 사는 것을 지양한 쇼펜하우어와 황동규가 가깝다고 할 수 있다.

이 논문은 예이츠 희곡 『캐서린 백작 부인』 과 『배우 여왕』 두 편을 중 심으로 시인과 여주인공과의 대립을 연구한다. 연구의 첫 단계로 『캐서린 백작 부인』 에 등장하는 시인 어릴과 여주인공 백작부인의 대립을 분석하고 이를 통해서 이 조합 이 다른 예이츠의 대립 유형과 비교하여 갖게 되는 차이점과 그 원인을 밝혀본다. 그 다음 단계로는 희곡 『배우 여왕』의 시인과 여주인공의 대립을 비교 분석하여 시인과 여주인공의 조합만이 가지고 있는 특징들을 밝혀낸다. 결론으로써 여주인공과의 대립에서 보여 준 시인의 모습이 통상적인 예이츠가 그리는 시인의 모습과 다르게 보일 수 있지만 그럼에도 그것이 객관성보다 주관성을 우위에 두는 예이츠의 생각을 벗어 나는 것이 아니라는 것을 주장한다.

시는 기이하여 우리를 울고, 미소 짓고, 웃게 하거나, 우리를 행복하게 혹은 불행하게 하며, 평범한 것을 특별한 것으로 혹은 익숙한 것을 낯설게 한다. 어린 아이에게 시를 가르칠 수도 있지만 가르치는 것이 불가능하다는 것도 사실이다. 시는 태어날 때 가지고 태어나지만 자기와 다른 시에 작동하는 것들과 접함으로써 시인의 마음과 지력이 예민해진다. 본 논문은 세 시인, 셰익스피어, 예이츠, 파운드의 시적인 특징 몇 가지를 다룬다. 이 시인들은 비슷하다기보다 전혀 다르지만 공통점이 좀 있다. 각자는 자신의 시대를 반영하고 자신의 시대가 요구하는 시를 빗는다.

This paper is an attempt to understand George Yeats: who she was, how she lived, and what kind of relationship she had with the poet W. B. Yeats. Based on the recent biographical and critical studies of Elizabeth Butler Cullingford, Brenda Maddox, Ann Saddlemyer, and Margaret Mills Harper, the present writer tries to show that George Yeats was not only the devoted wife of W. B. Yeats and mother of their two children, but also the poet's literary and spiritual collaborator. The first introductory part of the paper deals with George Yeats's life until she married W. B. Yeats. Her birth and education, the first meeting with W. B. Yeats, and the establishing of a close relationship which, strengthened by common interest in occultism, led to their marriage in October 1917, are briefly surveyed. The paper then discusses the problem which arose from Yeats's unresolved sexual love for Iseult Gonne, and shows how George Yeats solved it by trying the automatic script at their honeymoon hotel. The automatic script, which saved George and W. B. Yeats at the critical moment, and dominated the early years of their married life, is mainly discussed in the next part of the paper. The paper first describes how it started, and then discusses the main issues related to it: why George did it, and whether it was "her hoax, a joint self-deception, or daimonic intervention" (Saddlemye xix), and how it affected W. B. Yeats's life and work. In order to see how W. B. Yeats expressed his feeling and thought about the automatic script in his poems, the writer of the paper reads "Solomon to Sheba," "Solomon and the Witch," and "The Gift of Harun Al-Rashid." The last part of the paper deals with George Yeats's life after the automatic script and the "sleeps" ended in summer 1922. Unlike the exciting and sexually intimate life of early five years, the later long years of her married life were very tiring and "problem-ridden." The paper discusses the major problems she had to face as wife of the great poet and mother of two children, and describes how she "lived through it with self-possession, with generosity, with something like nobility" (Elllmann xxviii).

This paper investigates the images of landscapes in the poetry of W. B. Yeats and T. S. Eliot, the two greatest poets of the last century. Facing landscapes of the present world and the ancient as well, using his imagination, Yeats maximizes the poetic quality in his poetry. Some of his favorite landscapes, for example, include Innisfree, an islet in Sligo, Thor Ballylee in Coole Park, Byzantium, which delineate clear-cut images of his poetic themes. Either Yeats lived in Sligo with his mother's parents in his childhood, stayed in Lady Gregory’s house in the Coole Park, and owned and lived in the tower, Thor Ballylee in summer; or he admired the old Byzantium that he idealizes in his supreme poems. They serve as optimum metaphors for his poetry, making his poetry simple but rich in its imagery. On the other hand, Eliot focuses on delineating the life of modern man in his poetry by using cities, including London, Boston, Paris, and St. Louis. The people of the cities are being described as faithless and purposeless with their mind void. His depiction of the city further represents the whole modern civilization. The big city is the backdrop of such infertile imagery of modern man.

The paper analyzes three artists by looking into their art works; Kim Hongdo and Picasso and Yeats. Kim is the greatest painter Korea has ever seen in history, and Picasso is the greatest painter of the last century, whereas Yeats is the 20th century greatest poet. What they have in common is the literati painting in them. The first two were painters, well versed in poetry. Kim did not create poems, but poems in pictorial images; the best paintings were created toward the end of his life, after a life-long effort to perfect his strokes in calligraphy. His three-pause execution of a stroke is the key to his perfection of his art. When it reaches the limit of perfection in art, its strokes resemble nothing in the world, an astounding feat in art. The effect the sum of strokes makes in a work of his is tantamount to the pure abstraction of soul in Yeats's supreme poetry, and to the pure abstraction, or the pure form of Picasso's painting. It is quite natural that the pure abstraction in Picasso evokes the most beautiful sentiment toward the whole humanity. Picasso's secret to his great art must be his literati temperament in art.

The paper defines two key terms of the last century: Deconstruction and Decreation. Emphasis is put on the second term, as it is useful to understand how Stevens composed his poetry and what he wanted to say about form and content in poetry in a modern context. In his essay "The Relations between Poetry and Painting" he talks about the term Decreation, which means the modern sensibility and mind that eye reality. Stevens' definition of decreation seems to fit well in some of Yeats's poems, the fact of which proves that it can be applied to modern poetry in general, as it has gone through the same soil and climate. Picasso exemplifies and consolidates the usefulness of the terms decreation and deconstruction. Stevens has made one term current and useful for deepening the understanding and appreciation of modern and contemporary poetry, and possibly modern and contemporary art.

“All noble things are the result of warfare; great nations and classes, of warfare in the visible world, great poetry and philosophy, of invisible warfare, the division of mind within itself" said Yeats. Warfares between thesis and antithesis, whether visible or invisible, lie at the heart of Yeats's poetic world, enabling the poet to create the enormously powerful poetic text. In “Meditations in Time of Civil War”, both visible and invisible warfares are overlapped each other, intensifying the division of the poet's own mind, revealing the bitter agony of the poetic self to criticize and remake itself. This poem dramatizes a story of the poet's self-criticism and self-recreation through the warfare between History, the Irish Civil War, and the poet's dream as a cultural nationalist to re-establish and preserve the Irish identity. In “Ancestral Houses”, the poet dreams to redeem the eighteenth-century Anglo-Irish aristocratic ideals for making the unitary Irish mind, only to realize its impossibility. In “My House" through “My Descendants”, the poet seeks to re-establish the Irish identity in his own sanctuary, Thoor Ballylee, through the poetic task to break “the symbolic rose" into flower, only to fail in it, for he has excluded and suppressed History, the Irish Civil War, from his mind. The poet's dream is broken up. In “The Road at My Door" and “The Stare's Nest by My Window", the poet encounters the Civil War face to face, struggling to transform its violence and bitterness into ‘sweetness' and pursuing his dream once more, but it's far from being realized. In “I see Phantoms of Hatred and of the Heart's Fullness and of the Coming Emptiness", the poet internalizes the violent and bitter Irish historical realities through his vigorous imagination, severely criticizing himself as a solitary Platonist and remaking his poetic self a more solid one. In “The Tower", written next to this poem, we can meet the enormous power of his recreated poetic self.

W. B. Yeats began to write his works when Ireland was struggling for its independence from England. Young Yeats hoped to be a national poet and was naturally concerned about the future of his fatherland. The way Yeats chose for his country was a cultural one, not a military or political one. He believed in the Irish people’s artistic sensibilities and believed that his country could be a healthier and better country than England through the ’Unity of Culture’. Yeats was attracted to drama because of its usefulness as a public art. He wanted to establish a national drama based on Irish folklore and myth. He believed that drama could achieve or revive the ’Unity of Culture’ which he equated with the national unity of Ireland. Yeats’s main idea was that to achieve ’Unity of Culture’, the support of common people for art would be essential. Yeats’s early play, The King’s Threshold shows the unity of the poet and common people well. The story is based on an Irish myth. The king, a man of action, banishes Seanchan the poet, a man of words, from his court (affairs of state) and the poet choose to die on a hunger-strike for his rights in the court, that is, for the value of art in society. The poet works for the common people and expects their support, of which the king is much afraid. The King’s Threshold dramatizes the theme that concerned Yeats so deeply, the role of art in society. And another main point of the play is that poetry transcends politics. Yeats satirizes the defects and deficiencies of a society which no longer recognizes the artist’s role. But the poet dies, and we are not shown any effect that his death may have had on either society or the individual. The modern Irish people were not what the young poet had expected. Though the young poet’s dream for the ’Unity of Culture’ may be naive, the play shows us Yeats’s view of art and his belief in the poet’s role in society.

In this paper, through appreciating one of W. B. Yeats’s later poems, I try to find how the poet’s creative self gets to have its creative power and in what mechanism it expands its poetic circumference. “Among School Children” is the very poem his poetic self and creative imagination are well wrought into. In the poem, the poet suggests that power and knowledge cannot exist together, speaking of the powerful theories of Plato and simultaneously of the philosopher’s powerless being before Nature. He praises Aristotle as a king of kings, and Pythagoras as world-famous golden-thighed, but he mocks them of being old clothes upon an old stick to scare a bird. In the same way, he asserts that “the body is not bruised to pleasure soul.” In the sense of deconstructionists, all the binary oppositions have their hierarchies; however, Yeats puts the two antithetical elements on the identical level, as they are not subordinated to each other, and tries to bridge the abyss or space between. Such an attempt to unite the opposite worlds is manifested in his A Vision. Concerning his “gyre” theory, the figure is frequently drawn as a double cone. The one is called primary gyre, representing space, intellect, mask and fortune; the other antithetical one to represent time, emotion, creativity and will. The narrow end of each cone is in the centre of the broad end of the other. Seen at the narrow end of each cone through the centre of each broad end, appears a circle having a dot at the center. This is the poet’s world of imagination whose centre is his “self” and whose circumference is the limit of the self’s perception. The poet’s life-long activities are related with his efforts to expand the circumference. “Among School Children” is a trace of such activities. The centre is the place where the self of the poet is located; the circumference is where the self “perceives its limitation,” or where arises the feeling of awe, terror, or ecstasy, which means a kind of tension geared between the binary opposite worlds: the finite and the infinite; the mortal and the immortal; life and death; the real and the ideal; youth and age; the body and soul; pleasure and despair. The perception network of the poet connects the centre and circumference. The power to widen the circle originates from the poet’s paradoxical sense of life, of deprivation, and of renunciation through an attainable love with Maud Gonne, tensions between religious struggles, civil revolutions, and so on. The sharp confrontation of these tensions takes place rise to in the circumference and stimulates the poet’s creative imagination. This power of self strengthened by these tensions starts its quest-journey to explore the mysteries beyond the limit of its circle: the mysteries of the opposite worlds separated here and there. The ultimate purpose of the journey, finally, is to reach the united condition of the two worlds, which means what Greg Johnson calls “the highest imaginative enhancement of human identity” or immortality. This united world is the place where “we cannot know the dancer from the dance” and where Yeats’s “unity of being” is synthesized.

엘리엇은 매우 포괄적인 시인이다. 그는 겉으로는 자신의 선배시인이 나 비평가를 맹렬하게 공격하는 듯해도 실제 그들로부터 많은 것을 배 우고 빌렸으며 이를 자신의 몰개성 시론에 적극 활용하였다. 프랑스 상 징주의자의 경우도 예외는 아니어서 겉으로는 그럴듯하게 그들의 영향 력을 가렸지만, 시의 자기충족성이나 시어의 기능, 그리고 시인의 임무 나 역할과 같은 중요한 이론과 개념에서 많은 부분을 수용했다. 엘리엇 의 몰개성 시론의 가장 근본이 되는 개념을 발레리와 말라르메가 그들 의 이론에서 이미 예견하고 실행하였으니, 시는 자동성을 가진 몰개성 적 존재이며, 창작의 과정은 인간이 노동력을 매개로 여러 파편을 융합 하여 유기적이며 와해될 수 없는 총체적 존재를 만드는 것이고, 시어는 대중의 언어를 차용한 탓에 근본적으로 몰개성적인 것이며, 시인은 그 스스로가 보편인류를 대변하는 대행자라는 개념은 모두 엘리엇의 시학 에 지대한 영향을 미쳤다. 비록 엘리엇이 시어와 시인의 역할 부분에서 이들과 거리를 두게 되었으나, 시의 자동성을 예술의 자기충족성으로, 상징의 몰개성적 특성을 객관적상관물로 전화하고, 궁극적으로는 시인 으로부터 시의 독립성으로 나아간 데에는 이 두 상징주의 시인의 영향 이 지대하였음에 틀림없다.

The criticism of T. S. Eliot shows an extraordinary lack of interest in what literary works actually say. Its attention is almost extremely confined to qualities of language, styles of feeling, the relations of image and experience. With Arnold, however, the emphasis is on substance rather than on form. Such emphasis led him into his attempted definition of poetry as criticism of life. In like manner, Leavis also emphasized that poetry be in serious relation to “Life,” have a firm grasp of the actual, of the object. If we may call Eliot a poet as poet, either Arnold or Leavis can be rightly labeled a poet as preacher. These two contrasting attitudes are illustrated in their criticism on such Romantic poets as Wordsworth, Shelley, and especially Keats, where the difference is most distinctly manifested. Though Eliot, in his later poems and essays, have passed on to other problems including the relation of poetry to the spiritual and social life of its time, he has never derailed himself from considering poetry primarily as poetry, not as any other.