『T. S. 엘리엇 연구』의 현황과 전망

최희섭 한국T.S.엘리엇학회 2006 T.S. 엘리엇 연구 Vol.16 No.1

Hie-Sup ChoiThe first issue of The Journal of the T. S. Eliot Society of Korea was published in 1993, two years after the establishment of The T. S. Eliot Society of Korea in 1991. The society published the eighteenth volume of the journal on December 31, 2005. At first the journal was issued annually but since the year 2000, it has been published biannually. It can be said that the journal has been being developed both in quantity and in quality.The aim of this paper is to check the present of the journal and to prospect the future. As there is no precedent, the method I take is to examine how many scholars cite the journal in their papers. Amazingly enough, it turns out that very few scholars seem to read the papers published by other Korean scholars. Only 30 papers out of 132 papers published in this journal acknowledge that they cite papers issued in Korea. Among 30 papers, only 14 papers cite other scholars' papers published in this journal. One scholar cites his/her papers published in this journal and two scholars cite other scholars' papers presented in the society's conference. Only 22 authors show the evidence that they read other scholars' papers at all. Only 11 scholars from 63 authors cite other scholars' papers published in this journal. All these numbers make us wonder whether we should continue to maintain this society and to publish this journal. That's why I check the present of the society. There seems to be lots of problems in the running of the society. But they can be corrected sooner or later. We can hope for the future of the society and the journal, when the executive officers, such as president, vice presidents, secretary general, and treasurer, try to make the society and the journal better.

앤드류즈에 대한 T. S. 엘리엇의 평가

이철희 한국T.S.엘리엇학회 2013 T.S. 엘리엇 연구 Vol.23 No.1

This paper attempts to trace T. S. Eliot’s thoughts on Lancelot Andrewes. Readers have thought little of Andrewes’s fame until Eliot wrote on him, thinking of him as only a prominent writer or preacher. But surprisingly Eliot in “Andrewes” compares Andrewes’s writing method with Donne’s. The paper suggests many ways Andrewes influenced Eliot. Eliot attributes to Andrewes’s writings three qualities ― 1) ordonnance or arrangement and structure, 2) precision in the use of words, 3) relevant intensity. Eliot says that Dante in his Divine Comedy succeeds in harmonizing intelligence with emotion properly. Similarly, Eliot holds that the internal structures correspond to the external ones in Andrewes’s sermons. We can see influences from Andrewes’s sermons in Eliot’s “Gerontion” and Ash-Wednesday. Especially Eliot emphasizes that Andrews uses the phrases easy to remember. Eliot views Donne as continuously seeking for objects suitable for his emotions, and Andrewes as after the ones to express his self, not his own self. Thus Eliot finds Andrewes “wholly absorbed in the object.”

T. S. Eliot and James Joyce: 1923-1927

안중은 한국T.S.엘리엇학회 2019 T.S. 엘리엇 연구 Vol.29 No.1

The purpose of this paper is to explore, from the perspective of biographical criticism, the relationship between T. S. Eliot, the greatest modernist poet, and James Joyce, the greatest modernist novelist in the 20th century during the years 1923-1927. This paper is to thoroughly trace the mutual relationship or the influential interaction between Eliot and Joyce mainly through correspondence in The Letters of T. S. Eliot 2: 1923-1925 (2009), The Letters of T. S. Eliot 3: 1926-1927 (2012), Letters of James Joyce 1 (1957), and Letters of James Joyce 3 (1966). The editor of The Criterion, Eliot’s solicitation for Geroge Saintsbury’s critical essay on Joyce’s Ulysses, his criticism on the novel, his persistent concern with Joyce’s eye operations and with finding his family’s flat, Joyce’s parody poem of Eliot’s The Waste Land, and the novelist’s concern with the Eliot couple are elaborated on. Eliot’s vehement attack towards Richard Aldington’s harsh critique on Ulysses and his high estimation of Joyce’s “mythical method” paralleled with the structure of Homer’s Odyssey in “Ulysses, Order, and Myth” (1923), the editor’s criticism on Samuel Roth’s unauthorised publication of Ulysses and his own poem, his signature for the international protest chiefly organized by Sylvia Beach as a way of Joyce’s suit against Roth are also deeply investigated. In short, numerous letters of Eliot, Joyce, and Pound with regard to the relationship between Eliot and Joyce over a period of five years intensively reveal their influential interplay ranging from intimate relationship to cooperative friendship as modernist masters allied against severe critiques on Ulysses and unlawful infringement on their copyrights.

T. S. 엘리엇과 하이모더니즘 미학에 대한 윌리엄 카를로스 윌리엄즈의 견해

김홍기 한국T.S.엘리엇학회 2006 T.S. 엘리엇 연구 Vol.16 No.2

Hong-Ki KimIn her well-known essay for the New Yorker, Cynthia Ozick described her observations on how T.S. Eliot had had no lasting influence on modern poetry. Hilton Kramer from the Eliot camp claimed that Eliot must be embraced as a poet and critic of exceptional importance. This sort of polemic between these two critics makes us continually ponder on whether Ozick's piece was merely an example of biased hyperbole based on ferocious attack or involved something much larger than the vicissitudes of a poet's reputation.It is noteworthy that Eliot was, for many scholars in the field of modernist poetry, the most vocal of his desire to ward off threat of a developing mass culture, to fortify the boundaries between high art and mass culture. Renouncing the matter-of-factness and the ideological aspects of contemporary society for an ideal society of high culture, high-modernist poets such as Eliot and Pound tried to apprehend the chaotic present through the perspective of past literature. Unlike high-modernist poets who were inimical to popular culture, Williams was from the start involved in the avant-garde art that frequently incorporated the fragmented and conflictual nature of contemporary culture. Williams's anti-highmodernist stance is likely to be grasped by comparing a sample passage from "The Wanderer" and "The Great Figure" to the opening lines of Eliot's "Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock." This comparative study of Eliot and Williams reveals that where Eliot views poetic language as highly figurative, rhetorical, and self-referential, Williams seeks a poetry free from excesses of language, from figuration, containing no word that does not contribute directly to a literal meaning.

T. S. 엘리엇과 하버드 대학교

안중은 한국T.S.엘리엇학회 2011 T.S. 엘리엇 연구 Vol.21 No.1

This paper aims to investigate T. S. Eliot at his alma mater, Harvard University, which he attended for seven years from 1906 to 1910 and from 1911 to 1914. Despite Eliot’s academic records displaying a range of subpar grades during his first and second years at Harvard, he succeeded in obtaining his BA and MA in four years. Simultaneously, Eliot contributed his early 10 Harvard poems including “Song: When we came home across the hill,” “Song: If space and time, as sages say,” “Before Morning,” “Circe’s Palace,” “On a Portrait,” “Nocturne,” “Humouresque,” “Spleen,” and “Ode” to The Harvard Advacate. Along with the French Symbolist poet Jules Laforgue, Irving Babbitt, professor and critic of New Humanism during his master’s course, Josiah Royce, pioneer philosopher at Harvard Department of Philosophy and Psychology, George Santayana, philosopher of pragmatism, Bertrand Russell, visiting professor to Harvard from Cambridge University during his doctoral course, deeply influenced the formation of Eliot’s poetic style and visions of Nobel laureate. A number of Eliot’s invaluable materials including his doctoral dissertation, Experience and the Objects of Knowledge in the Philosophy of F. H. Bradley, are now preserved at Harvard Houghton Library, which may be accessible only with a permission letter from Valerie Eliot.

T. S. 엘리엇 80년 연구사

김양순 한국T.S.엘리엇학회 2017 T.S. 엘리엇 연구 Vol.27 No.1

This study examines an eighty-year research history of T. S. Eliot, who has been highly acclaimed in Korean literary and academic society. In the book chapter entitled “A Fifty-Year Research on British Poetry” in 2006, I classified the 1950s and 1960s as the decades of importing and introducing English poetry; the 1970s as the decade of enlarging the scope of research; the 1980s as one of deepening research; the 1990s as a prosperous decade of various analytical methods and theories; and the period after 2000 as one of continuing the research directions of the 1990s, but centering around more issues of contention. Moreover, academic associations, conferences, and journals have been contributing to quantitatively expanding the research and bringing about a profound shift in literary and critical trends in English studies in Korea. This paper will start with a brief survey of translations, newspaper articles, papers, and books on T. S. Eliot before the first issue of the Journal of English Language and Literature was published in 1955, and then will move on to the periods from roughly the mid-1950s to the present, examining avenues of Eliot research covering translations, memoirs, essays, academic papers, books, theses, and dissertations. This study also aims to speculate on future research trends on Eliot in Korea.

T. S. 엘리엇의 「황무지」와 김기림의 「기상도」

이은실 한국T.S.엘리엇학회 2011 T.S. 엘리엇 연구 Vol.21 No.1

This essay surveys some literary, cultural criticism of T. S. Eliot and Kim Ki-Rim, focusing on each writer’s works, The Waste Land and Ki-Sang-Do. In Eliot’s creative and critical practice, his primary concern is to depict his own literature and culture. In other words, he seems to concentrate only on the fate of European literature, art, and cultural heritage, including the political balance of European countries. Therefore, the important issue for Eliot is how they can preserve and develop the tradition of Europe, both to make political peace among the European countries and to achieve “maturity” of their own culture. But Kim Ki-Rim, whose colonial circumstances are quite different from Eliot’s, is affected by double obstacles, the chaos of the pre-modern, underdeveloped Cho-sun and the period of colonial-imperialism from Japan (and the western countries), the prevalent international order then, with cultural ideology of modernity or modernism. In such a situation, Kim Ki-Rim does not concern himself with the idea of preserving the tradition of Europe-originated modernity. Rather, he suggests a possibility of breaking through the very western modernity and modernism, ultimately to build a whole new world, in which post-modern Cho-sun can hold a secure, culturally leading position.

칸트의 실천이성비판과 엘리엇의 실천적인 고양이들에 대한 올드 파썸의 책 연구

김영희 한국T.S.엘리엇학회 2024 T.S. 엘리엇 연구 Vol.34 No.1

T. S. 엘리엇의 실천적인 고양이들에 대한 올드 파썸의 책 은 교육적이고 철학적인 동시집으로 널리 알려져 있다. 반면 뮤지컬 캣츠 는 지나치게 상업적이고 관능적인 각색으로 성인들을 위한 공연물이다. 본 논문은 실천적인 고양이들에 대한 올드 파썸의 책 을 캣츠 와 연결지어 연구해왔던 기존 연구에 한계를 느끼고, 칸트의 윤리적 틀을 통해 이를 새롭게 재해석하여 그동안 간과되었던 엘리엇의 철학적 차원을 조명하려 한다. 칸트의 실천이성비판 은 인간의 자유에 파생되는 도덕법의 중요성을 강조하면서 기존의 윤리학을 덕윤리에서 의무윤리로 초점을 옮겨 윤리학에 혁명을 일으켰던 책이다. 본 논문은 이런 칸트의 렌즈를 통해 실천적인 고양이들에 대한 올드 파썸의 책 에 있는 실천이성에 대한 탐구를 하였다. 궁극적으로 이는 독자들을 행복과 최고선으로 안내할 것이며, 엘리엇 동시에 철학적 윤리적 의미를 더할 것이다. T. S. Eliot’s Old Possum’s Book of Practical Cats is widely recognized as a collection of educational and philosophical poems. In contrast, the musical Cats is a highly commercial and sensual adaptation designed for adult audiences. This paper critiques the limitations of previous research that has connected Old Possum’s Book of Practical Cats with Cats and instead reinterprets it through Kant’s ethical framework to explore Eliot’s often overlooked philosophical dimension. By examining Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason, which revolutionized ethics by shifting the focus from virtue ethics to duty ethics and emphasizing the importance of moral law derived from human freedom, this paper seeks to explore the concept of practical reason in Old Possum’s Book of Practical Cats. Ultimately, this approach aims to guide readers toward happiness and the supreme good (summus bonum), while also adding philosophical and ethical significance to Eliot’s work.

유기론적 전통과 엘리엇의 비평: 객관적 상관물을 중심으로

이윤섭 한국T.S.엘리엇학회 2009 T.S. 엘리엇 연구 Vol.19 No.2

This article aims to interpret T. S. Eliot’s doctrine of the objective correlative in terms of the European tradition of organicism. A consideration of the organic implications in Eliot’s major critical concepts, such as “a whole of feeling,” “unified sensibility,” and “depersonalization,” reminds us that Aristotle, Longinus, and Horace also highly valued the organic relation between the part and the whole and the organic unity of thought and feeling in great classical poetry. S. T. Coleridge had imported organic ideas from German thinkers and applied them to his Shakespearean criticism. Refuting the neo-classical view that Shakespeare failed to give an adequate verbal form and organized structure to his talent, Coleridge insisted that “no work of genius dares want its appropriate form,” and eulogized Shakespeare’s organic verbal structure equal to his genius. But, contrary to Coleridge, Eliot underestimated Hamlet as an artistic failure on the ground that Shakespeare could not find the objective correlative equivalent to Hamlet’s bafflement. However, it is worth noting that in the course of denouncing Hamlet, Eliot invented his doctrine of the objective correlative, which is an adoption of the organic principle inherited from S. T. Coleridge and Gottfried Leibniz. In his Knowledge and Experience, Eliot noticed that, having essential organic features, Leibniz’s windowless monad was very similar to F. H. Bradley’s concepts of the finite centre and immediate experience. In these concepts of holistic and empirical idealism, the distinctions between the subjective and the objective, spirit and matter, self and the world, feeling and image, and form and content cannot be maintained for their mutual interdependence. So, it should be said that the concept of the objective correlative was a special application of Eliot’s general principle of “the unity of feeling and objectivity,” for feeling and objectivity are only discriminated aspects of the whole experience. He remarked that there was the mutual inclination of mental feeling and verbal image to react upon one another so inexplicably that the relation should be said to be organic. Therefore, the organic features implied in his critical concepts and, in particular, the doctrine of the objective correlative confirms that he achieved a rapprochement between modern poetics and traditional authority.

A Hegemon’s Privilege: T. S. Eliot’s Four Quartets and John Ashbery’s Three Poems

Robert David Grotjohn 한국T.S.엘리엇학회 2014 T.S. 엘리엇 연구 Vol.24 No.1

John Ashbery’s Three Poems can be read as a postmodern response to T. S. Eliot’s modernist Four Quartets. Eliot builds his poem on the lyric impulse to create a moment of stillness in the midst of temporal flow, and that lyric impulse gains a specifically Christian center when Eliot identifies the “Incarnation” as the ultimate “still point” of “the turning world.” A close examination of Three Poems shows Ashbery echoing particular language and ideas of Four Quartets in order to deconstruct the lyric desire as well as Eliot’s Christian assertion of a fixed center that counters our temporal entrapment. While Eliot’s Eurocentric fixation on a Christian world-view creates problematic implications for non-Western readers in elevating that world-view over their own cultural constructions, Ashbery’s more egalitarian emphasis might be read as more open to non-Western cultural constructions. However, Ashbery’s apolitical absorption in the subject, especially the decentered subject, might be just as problematic in its own Eurocentrism. As critiques of postmodernism have argued, the decentered identity of the postmodern subject was privileged just as non-Western and ethnic populations were giving voice to their own identities. Ashbery’s apolitical subjectivity suggests a hegemon’s pleasure in self-exploration, however digressive and decentered that self might be, and marks a privileged Western position. Ashbery’s anti-hierarchical and exploratory critique of Eliot might suggest a way to a more successful aesthetic opposition to Eurocentricity, but it does not take that way itself.