T. S. 엘리엇의 반유태주의 논쟁

이만식 한국현대영미시학회 2009 현대영미시연구 Vol.15 No.2

T. S. Eliot is no longer an idolized literary figure. Instead he is likely to be an easy target of recent critical and political attacks partly due to the demise of modernism and partly due to the denunciation of the anti-Semitism of T. S. Eliot by Anthony Julius’s T. S. Eliot, Anti-Semitism and Literary Form. This paper is to prove that Julius’s criticism of T. S. Eliot is a logical fallacy. The notorious phrase of “any large number of free-thinking Jews undesirable” in After Strange Gods is one of Eliot’s well-known anti-Semitic remarks. However, in his letter to J. V. Healy on May 10, 1940, Eliot clarified that he intended to emphasize its religious aspect because the unity of religious background is very important to the ideal homogeneous culture and that thus “free-thinking Jews are only a special case.” Julius’s criticism is focused on the following five poems; “Gerontion,” “Burbank with a Baedeker: Bleistein with a Cigar,” “Sweeney Among the Nightingales,” “A Cooking Egg” and “Dirge.” In this paper, I tried to prove that Julius’s indictment of Eliot’s anti-Semitism is a hyperbole. Julius acts like a prosecutor bringing the case of Eliot’s anti-Semitism to the legal proceeding of felony. However, the actual case is like a misdemeanor with which a policeman can dismiss Eliot with a caution. T. S. Eliot is no longer an idolized literary figure. Instead he is likely to be an easy target of recent critical and political attacks partly due to the demise of modernism and partly due to the denunciation of the anti-Semitism of T. S. Eliot by Anthony Julius’s T. S. Eliot, Anti-Semitism and Literary Form. This paper is to prove that Julius’s criticism of T. S. Eliot is a logical fallacy. The notorious phrase of “any large number of free-thinking Jews undesirable” in After Strange Gods is one of Eliot’s well-known anti-Semitic remarks. However, in his letter to J. V. Healy on May 10, 1940, Eliot clarified that he intended to emphasize its religious aspect because the unity of religious background is very important to the ideal homogeneous culture and that thus “free-thinking Jews are only a special case.” Julius’s criticism is focused on the following five poems; “Gerontion,” “Burbank with a Baedeker: Bleistein with a Cigar,” “Sweeney Among the Nightingales,” “A Cooking Egg” and “Dirge.” In this paper, I tried to prove that Julius’s indictment of Eliot’s anti-Semitism is a hyperbole. Julius acts like a prosecutor bringing the case of Eliot’s anti-Semitism to the legal proceeding of felony. However, the actual case is like a misdemeanor with which a policeman can dismiss Eliot with a caution.

T. S. 엘리엇 작품과 여인들 ―에밀리 해일을 중심으로

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

This paper intends to reveal Emily Hale’s positive influences to Eliot’s poems and plays. Emily Hale who was 40-year-old lover and friend with T. S. Eliot contributes and influences so much the life and the works of T. S. Eliot as the muse. T. S. Eliot didn’t want to disclose his personal evidences such as letters and recordings, because of the fact that he loved Emil Hale for 40 years as well as his guilty consciousness toward his first wife. T. S. Eliot had a deep religious feeying, so he felt a contrition that is much shameful to the death of his former wife, Vivien Haigh-Wood, because he met Emily Hale while his wife died in mental hospital. That’s why he tried to hide all his personal evidences. Critics who studied Eliot’s biographical influences on his works evinced Hale’s contributions to Eliot’s works. Eliot eventually destroyed her letters sent to him, but Hale bequeathed her collection of over a thousand of his letters to her to Princeton, under the restriction that they will not be opened to the public until January 1, 2020. No one but Hale, and maybe the processing archivist, has ever read them. If the day comes to open the letters, the relations and clues between Eliot’s mysterious works and his life will be clearly revealed. The facts and truths of hidden Eliot’s life in letters and recordings will be the evidences of a new horizon to interpret Eliot’s poetry and poetic drama as symbols and allegory.

『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.

T. S. 엘리엇의 신학사상

이홍섭 한국T.S.엘리엇학회 2020 T.S. 엘리엇 연구 Vol.30 No.1

The main purpose of this article is to draw a map for the accurate understanding of T. S. Eliot’s theological thought by closely examining recent studies on this agenda, which include Spur’s “Anglo-Catholic in Religion”: T. S. Eliot and Christianity (2010), T. S. Eliot and Christian Tradition (2014), Domestico’s Divine Cartographies (2016), and Soud’s Poetry and Theology in the Modernist Period (2017). Instead of merely summarizing the content of these critical works, the article seeks to objectively revaluate them and, thereby, serve as a stepping stone for more advanced study on Eliot as a theological thinker. Spur’s monograph, which provides the first detailed analysis of Anglo-Catholicism’s lasting impact on Eliot’s Christian thought, tends to look into Eliot’s works too narrowly with the ‘fixed eyes’ of its doctrinal principles, especially Incarnation. T. S. Eliot and Christian Tradition, though illuminating the influence of French Catholic writers and the Neo-Thomism, which has been heretofore ignored, in general overlooks the importance of Karl Barth and other Protestant theologians in shaping Eliot’s theological thought. Despite an insightful account of Eliot’s growing interest in Barth’s Neo-Orthodoxy, Domestico fails to locate it accurately on the map of Eliot’s Christian thought. Unlike Domenisco, Soud delves into the traces of Barth’s theology in Eliot’s Four Quartets, yet this painstaking excavation, without persuasive analysis, falls into the mechanical juxtaposition of two thinkers.

T.S.엘리엇의 기독교 신앙

양재용 한국T.S.엘리엇학회 2012 T.S. 엘리엇 연구 Vol.22 No.1

T. S. Eliot was raised and educated under the influence of his Unitarian parents and family. Thanks to William Greenleaf Eliot, the founder who is Washington University in St. Louis and the Church of the Messiah, which is the first Unitarian church, Eliot’s father and mother practised and inculcated the family religion to T. S. Eliot. His mother, Charlotte Champe Eliot, was a writer and a reformer and committed to father-in-law’s decrees. But Eliot criticized radicalism of Christianity―it made it too tepid, too liberal, too much like the enlightened Unitarianism of his family. Eliot also worried about the Church as an institution. Eliot’s denounced empty idolatry of forms with the reforming zeal that his forebears had. Eliot took up a position opposite to the humanitarian attitude of his mother and grandfather, the faith that one tries to approach God through human effort. Everytime he went back during these undergraduate years to join in his family’s Sunday’s worship, he found it an increasingly stifling ritual. Eliot suffered religious experiences “as though traversing the Boston street were like wading through time” in undergraduate years at Harvard which are described in his Four Quartets. Eliot divorced his wife through his attorney in spite of her refusal to recognize a divorce. Eliot repented his wrongdoing due to the consciousness of guilty to her and marriage life since his former wife died lonely in mental hospital. During the rest of his life he suffered from his deeds, for which he was possessed of the consciousness of guilty and sin to his dead wife. The sense of damnation, the remorse and guilt that Vivienne evoked were essential to Eliot’s long purgatorial journey that continued long after his formal conversion and their separation six years later. He could escape from her, morally, only by embracing the ascetic Way of the Catholic mystics. In “Little Gidding” of Four Quartets written during in remorse and the sense of guilt due to the debt to Vivienne, we can find the opposite meanings that are both the fire of bomb implying the death of desire and the fire of Christ implying the love of Spirit. Eliot showed a sense of sin through the protagonists of his later poetic plays. In his poetic plays, Eliot sought human love, which was the fruit of blessings of his second marriage free from guilty consciousness after revealing his sin to his family.

기독교 신비주의의 두 흐름과 T. S. 엘리엇의 존 던에 대한 재평가

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

In the 1926 Clark Lectures at Cambridge, T. S. Eliot redrew the map of metaphysical poetry in the Western literature by including not just the Metaphysical poets of the 17th century England but Lucretius, Dante, and Baudelaire among many others. In the Lectures, published posthumously in 1993 under the title of The Varieties of Metaphysical Poetry, Eliot also revaluated the metaphysical poems of Dante and Donne in terms of their socio-cultural, philosophical, and religious background. Especially, Christian mysticism was, Eliot insisted, one of the most important factors in understanding these great poets’ works accurately. According to Eliot’s somewhat idiosyncratic genealogy of Christian mysticism, it could be basically divided into two streams: ontological-classical and psychological- romantic. A fundamental tenet of ontological-classical mysticism is that God is transcendental and the vision of God can “only be attained by a process in which the analytic intellect took apart.” By contrast, God, for psychological-romantic mystics, is immanent and a human being has an innate capability to perceive and recognize God-head intuitively and to be united with it, whether momentarily or not. Ontological-classical mysticism, whose origin Eliot attributed to Aristotle’s metaphysics, was developed by such theologians as Richard of St. Victor and Thomas Aquinas, and culminated in Dante’s poetry aesthetically. Notably, for Eliot, Dante was not merely a religious poet faithful to his own mysticism but, far more importantly, the paradigmatic figure of what Eliot famously called “united sensibility.” Inextricably combined with Eliot’s enthusiastic support of both Dante’s mysticism and his poetic achievement is his radical revision of the aesthetics of united sensibility; in addition to union of thought and feeling, order, system, and harmony, as championed by classicism, toward which he increasingly inclined, become essential parts of united sensibility. In contrast to Dante, Donne, once eulogized as a representative poet of united sensibility by Eliot himself, was degraded into a precursor of “dissociation of sensibility.” Behind this dissociation, Eliot claimed. lay Donne’s embracement of psychological-romantic mysticism, originated from Plotinus and fully developed by Eckhardt, Ignatius, Theresa and St. John of the Cross. By reading closely Donne’s “The Extasie” and examining its dualistic view of soul and body, Eliot exemplified how the poet’s disintegrated sensibility is merged with his psychological mysticism.

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.

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 Paul Valéry: 1920-1925

안중은 한국T.S.엘리엇학회 2019 T.S. 엘리엇 연구 Vol.29 No.2

The purpose of this paper is to explore, from the perspective of biographical criticism, the relationship between T. S. Eliot, the greatest English modernist poet, and Paul Valéry, the greatest French Symbolist poet during the years 1920-1925. This paper is to thoroughly trace the mutual relationship or the influential interaction between Eliot and Valéry mainly through correspondence in The Letters of T. S. Eliot 1: 1898-1922 (2009) and The Letters of T. S. Eliot 2: 1923-1925 (2009). Eliot, the editor of The Criterion, mediates perfunctorily in publishing first Captain Mark Wardle’s translation of Valéry’s “Le Serpent” (1922) in the literary magazine in 1923 with the help of Richard Cobden-Sanderson the publisher and Lady Rothermere the patron, and second Le Serpent par Paul Valéry (1924) with Wardle’s translation and his “A Brief Introduction to the Method of Paul Valéry.” Valéry’s high praise for Eliot’s The Waste Land (1922) is sharply contrasted with the latter’s severe critique on the former’s “L’Âme et la danse: Dialogue socratique” (1921). Charles Whibley and John Hayward, as intimate mutual friends of Eliot and Valéry, play important roles in consolidating their respectful friendship. In short, numerous English and/or French letters of Eliot and Valéry over a period of six years intensively reveal their influential interplay ranging from editor-contributor relationship to laudable masterly international friendship. This study will further elucidate the relationship between Eliot and Valéry during the years 1926-1929.

T. S. Eliot and James Joyce: 1915-1922

Joong-Eun Ahn(안중은) 한국비평이론학회 2019 비평과이론 Vol.24 No.1

본 논문의 목적은「타임」지가 1998년 6월 8일 선정한 20세기 모더니즘 최고 시인 엘리엇과 모더니즘 최고 소설가 조이스의 1915-1922년 사이의 관계를 전기 비평 관점에서 조명하는 것이다. 이 논문은 「T. S. 엘리엇의 서한집」1권 (2009), 「제임스 조이스의 서한집」 1권 (1957)과 3권 (1966), 파운드/조이스: 제임스 조이스에게 보낸 에즈라 파운드의 서한집 (1967)에 수록된 서신들 및 윈덤 루이스의 자서전 「작렬과 포격」(1937) 등에 나타난 1920년 엘리엇과 조이스의 프랑스 파리 조우 전후 8년 간 파운드의 중재, 엘리엇의 조이스 견해, 조이스의 엘리엇 언급 등을 집중적으로 탐색하고 있다. 아울러 조이스의 율리시즈 시리즈에 대한 리처드 알딩턴의 혹평, 엄격한 미국의 검열과 엘리엇의 옹호, 파리 소재 실비아 비치 소유인 셰익스피어 앤 컴퍼니에서 1922년 「율리시즈」 단행본의 힘든 출판 과정, 영국 서평들의 지연, 동년 「크라이티어리언」 창간호에 게재된 발레리 라르보의 서평 「율리시즈」및 엘리엇의 영역(英譯) 등을 심도 있게 천착하고 있다. 요컨대, 8년 기간에 걸쳐 엘리엇과 조이스와 파운드 등이 쓴 서한과 루이스의 엘리엇과 조이스의 관계 묘사는 그들의 친밀한 관계로부터 양면적인 관계를 거쳐서 협조적인 우정까지 강력한 영향력의 상호 작용을 집중적으로 시사하고 있다. 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 1915-1922. 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 1: 1898-1922 (2009), in Letters of James Joyce 1 & 3 (1957, 1966), in Pound/Joyce: The Letters of Ezra Pound to James Joyce with Pound’s Essays on Joyce (1967), and in Wyndham Lewis’s autobiography Blasting and Bombardiering (1937). Eliot’s views on Joyce and Joyce’s comments on Eliot before and after their first encounter through Pound’s mediation in Paris in 1920 are elaborated on. Richard Aldington’s severe critique on the series of Joyce’s Ulysses, strict American censorship and Eliot’s defence, difficult publication processes of Ulysses (1922) by Sylvia Beach’s Shakespeare and Company in Paris, the delayed British reviews, Valery Larbaud’s review “The ‘Ulysses’ of James Joyce,” and Eliot’s translation published in the first issue of The Criterion (1922) are also deeply investigated. In short, numerous letters of Eliot, Joyce, Pound, and Lewis’s description on the relationship between Eliot and Joyce over a period of eight years intensively reveal their influential interplay ranging from intimate relationship through ambivalent relationship to cooperative friendship.