Читать книгу T.S. Eliot & Salvador Espriu - Dídac Llorens Cubedo - Страница 9

Introduction

E com la dita història e actes del dit Tirant sien en llengua anglesa, e a vostra il⋅lustre senyoria sia estat grat voler-me pregar la giràs en llengua portuguesa, opinant, per jo ésser estat algun temps en l’illa d’Anglaterra, degués millor saber aquella llengua que altri [...] m’atreviré expondre, no solament de llengua anglesa en portuguesa, mas encara de portuguesa en vulgar valenciana, per ço que la nació d’on jo só natural se’n puixa alegrar e molt ajudar per los tants e tan insignes actes com hi són; suplicant vostra virtuosíssima senyoria accepteu com de servidor afectat la present obra—car si defalliments alguns hi són, certament, senyor, n’és en part causa la dita llengua anglesa, de la qual en algunes partides és impossible de girar los vocables.

Tirant lo Blanc, ‘Dedicatòria’

The present work is a comparative study of the poetic imagination of T. S. Eliot (1888-1965) and Salvador Espriu (1913-1985), grounded on the assumption that they are comparable poets. This is made evident in their common use of a number of archetypal images rooted in a literary tradition that they attempt to preserve and continue. Considering the public perception of Eliot and Espriu and the awareness of their respective cultures is a good starting-point.

The depth and richness of the literary productions of Espriu and Eliot, as well as their image of self-sufficient and autonomous poets, may be the reasons why comparative approaches involving either of them are scarce. In Spain, however, Eliot’s poetry has been examined contrastively, along with the works of Federico García Lorca, Pedro Salinas, Jaime Gil de Biedma or the poets of the ‘generación del 27.’¹ On the other hand, Rosa Maria Delor i Muns’ study on Espriu and his friend Bartomeu Rosselló Pòrcel is also exceptional, although the emphasis is on the former, who, the author claims, paid homage to the deceased Majorcan poet by giving continuity to his truncated work in his own verse.²

Even though it does not seem to have been defined and pursued as a line of research before, the essential affinity or cultural equivalence between the figures of Eliot and Espriu has been noted. In 1966, the French writer and journalist Claude Roy expressed his enthusiasm about Espriu’s poetry by comparing him to a number of key modern poets in different languages, including Eliot. According to Roy, Espriu is ‘un des plus grands poètes de l’Europe moderne, le paire d’un Breton ou d’un Aragon, d’un Dylan Thomas ou d’un Eliot, d’un Ungaretti o d’un Montale, d’un Pasternak ou d’un Vozjenenski.’³ Similar associations are established by Rosa Maria Pinyol in a newspaper article on the Catalan poet titled ‘Junto a Eliot, Celan o Montale.’⁴

In short academic or newspaper articles, in tangential references aimed at briefly characterising the man and his work, Espriu will be grouped with other twentieth century poets of different nationalities and Eliot is most likely to be mentioned. Certainly, the purpose is to affirm Espriu’s stature as a poet, despite his solid use and vindication of a minority language. In his acceptance speech when receiving the Premi Catalunya 2002, Harold Bloom declared Espriu a prominent figure in the Catalan canon and—adding that he should have been awarded the Nobel prize—defined him as ‘a remarkable poet by any international standard.’⁵

Sam Abrams has written about Espriu’s international projection and the translations of his work into English, concluding that ‘tots els traductors d’Espriu estan unànimement d’acord que es tracta d’un gran poeta, de talla universal, en un mot, un clàssic modern.’ Abrams points out that Bloom used a bilingual anthology of Espriu’s poetry translated and edited by Magda Bogin, where he is ranked ‘al costat de Ramon Llull, Ausiàs March, Neruda, Hernández, García Lorca, Guillén, William Carlos Williams, T. S. Eliot, Valéry, Montale, Pessoa, etc.’⁶ These groupings of international poets are interesting in that they reveal a tendency to link the two literary figures.

It will also be useful to consider the two poets’ familiarity with each other’s culture. In exploring Eliot’s Catalan reception, Albert Manent recalls how his father, Marià Manent, met Eliot in London in 1953: ‘probablement, el meu pare va anar a veure Eliot al seu despatx londinenc de “Faber and Faber.” Després el convidà a dinar a un club anglés. S’havien escrit des dels anys trenta, i en una carta del 1932 li deia que, tot i que la desconeixia, “la llengua catalana semblava tenir una beutat particular.”’⁷ One would expect that Eliot and Manent talked about the Catalan literary scene of the time, and we might conjecture that they talked about Espriu, who had already produced some of his finest books of poetry, as well as the play Primera història d’Esther, unquestionably one of the key texts of 20^th century Catalan literature. Be that as it may, the encounter of the Anglo-American poet with Manent is about the only direct contact that Eliot had with Catalan culture.

Like Ezra Pound, Eliot had developed an early interest in Provençal poetry, which is of course linked to the very origins of the Catalan literary tradition. Eliot was fond of the troubadours’ art and fascinated by Dante’s portrayal of the Provençal poet Arnaut Daniel. In purgatory (Purg., XXVI. 136-148), Arnaut pleads with Dante, as other souls have previously done in hell, to pray for him when he returns to the world of the living. Dante’s dialogue, in the context of his Purgatorio, with a poet whose work he considers a part of his own tradition, is closely related to Eliot’s characteristic technique of poetic allusion. Eliot was deeply impressed by Arnaut’s beseeching speech, which he quoted in several of his poems. For instance, in part 5 of The Waste Land, ‘What the Thunder Said,’ the line ‘Poi s’ascose nel foco che li affina’ hints at purgation as the only hope for those gone astray in a desolate world. In part IV of Ash Wednesday, the phrase ‘Sovegna vos’ is consistent with the imploring tone of the poem; interestingly, in the early drafts, the titles of each of the sections were Provençal phrases taken from Arnaut’s imploration.⁸ Furthermore, Eliot titled one of his earliest poetry books Ara vos prec (1919), after Arnaut, although it was re-edited as Poems in 1920. The Provençal poet is called by Dante the ‘miglior fabbro del parlar materno’ (Purg., XXVI. 117) and Eliot referred to Ezra Pound, his mentor and the rigorous editor of The Waste Land manuscript, using exactly the same words in the dedication of the poem.⁹

On the other hand, Espriu had the familiarity with Anglophone literatures to be expected in a well-read, erudite man. Probably more, according to Francesc Vallverdú, one of Espriu’s closest friends and collaborators: ‘I was continually amazed by his knowledge of contemporary writers (he read both English and French with ease).’¹⁰ In 1985, Antoni Batista asked the poet what books he wished he had written. The only two English works he mentioned were Utopia, by Thomas More and The Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin.¹¹ However, although somewhat anecdotal, there are a number of Anglo-American cultural references in Espriu’s poetry: the lyrical speaker of ‘Cançó de Tipsy Jones’ is an English pirate, ‘Veient Rosie a la finestra’ tells of an American soldier marching off to war and ‘La princesa del Iang-tsé’ is grotesquely dedicated to Mrs Banks, who domesticates fleas (these three poems are from Cançons d’Ariadna); and what is more, the hanged man has an English name in ‘Knowles, el penjat’ (El caminat i el mur).¹² Espriu’s appreciation of English or American classics may also take the form of quotation. In ‘El corb’ (Cançons d’Ariadna), the phrase ‘Mai més’ obviously echoes Edgar Allan Poe’s ‘The Raven.’ In Mrs Death, the opening epigraph is from William Shakespeare’s Cymbeline: ‘Whiles yet the dew’s on ground, gather those flowers’ (I.6).

In an interview with Salvador Pàniker, the latter puts forward Paul Valéry as Espriu’s French counterpart. Espriu accepts the comparison, but being ‘un hombre de formación clásica,’ which contributes decisively to shaping his work, he sees it as closer to that of James Joyce: ‘En otros países también hay casos de la misma preocupación. Joyce por ejemplo. Pero se trata de escritores de mucha más talla que yo.’¹³ The concern that Espriu refers to is nothing but the aim of the mythical method, and works by James Joyce and T. S. Eliot are textbook examples of its application. For the latter, the purpose of the mythical method should be ‘the exploration of worlds of otherness [including ancient myth] in quest for the spiritual foundations of the modern self.’¹⁴

Espriu was more acquainted with cultures of English expression than Eliot could be with a minority language and its literature, for obvious reasons. Although both poets knew, to different degrees, about their respective traditions, there is no evidence as to their mutual influence. According to Albert Manent, Eliot’s poetry was an essential reference for a number of Catalan poets, writing in Spanish or Catalan, from the 1940s onwards. Jaime Gil the Biedma was mentioned above; his indebtedness to Eliot is easily discernible and has been the object of research.¹⁵ Among the poets of Catalan expression, Manent mentions Carles Riba, Pere Gimferrer and Narcís Comadira, but not Espriu (‘T. S. Eliot a Catalunya,’ p. 73).¹⁶

Espriu was familiar with Eliot’s poetry, as we know from his ‘Fitxer d’Aprenentatge.’ In this reading file, which the Catalan poet kept during his youth, Eliot and his key titles are listed under the heading ‘poetes nord-americans a recordar.’¹⁷ On the occasion of Eliot’s death in 1965, Manent asked a number of Catalan poets to answer two questions about the Anglo-American author: ‘¿Com veieu la poesia de T. S. Eliot dins la poesia contemporània?’ and ‘¿Què ha representat per a vós la poesia de T. S. Eliot?’ The answers would be in the form of an appreciation, to be published in the journal Serra d’Or. Manent claims that Eliot ‘ha tingut entre els nostres lectors i escriptors alguna cosa més que una vaga nomenada’ and explains that the contributors are ‘poetes d’avantguerra als quals havia interessat—o podia haver interessat—l’obra del poeta i humanista anglés.’ One of these was Salvador Espriu who, characteristically, answered the two questions in only five words: to the first, his answer was ‘com a molt important’ and to the second ‘res.’¹⁸

Espriu’s laconic answers are coherent with his systematic rejection of influences, based on his uneasiness that his work might be misinterpreted.¹⁹ He did acknowledge, however an ‘unproblematic’ source of influence on his poetry: ‘Potser serà pretensiós el que jo li vaig a dir, però pel que respecta a la poesia crec que no m’ha influït ningú, si no és potser la Bíblia’ (Batista, p. 38).

In The Anxiety of Influence, Harold Bloom quotes lines by Wallace Stevens where he, like Espriu, does not declare his indebtedness to the work of any previous poet, including Eliot.²⁰ Stevens’s dismissive denial of any influence whatsoever is put forward by Bloom as confirmation that the weight of tradition is certain to produce anxiety in poets whom he calls ‘strong’ (p. 6). In Bloom’s theory of poetry, influence is the motivating power of poetic history, which evolves as poets receive (misread) the work of those poets who preceded them: ‘strong poets make that history by misreading one another, so as to clear imaginative space for themselves’ (p. 5). This notion of poetic history is parallel to Eliot’s idea—expressed in the essay ‘Tradition and the Individual Talent’—that literary works of merit result from the interaction between poets’ creative powers and the poetry of the past.²¹ Like Eliot, Bloom suspects poets who boast the denial of this interaction. The latter’s statement that ‘weaker talents idealize; figures of capable imagination appropriate for themselves’ (p. 5) is almost a paraphrase of Eliot’s celebrated axiom ‘immature poets imitate, mature poets steal.’²²

The comparative nature of the present work does not develop, therefore, from the certainty of influence, but from the initial recognition of parallelisms between the productions of the two authors. Susan Bassnett has referred to this intuitive awareness as determining the adoption of a comparative approach: ‘a reader may be impelled to follow up what appear to be similarities between texts or authors from different cultural contexts.’²³ This study constitutes an exercise of comparative literature that would conform to at least two characteristics of the field, as defined by Bassnett (p. 1). First, it ‘involves the study of texts across cultures’ (although Espriu and Eliot could be regarded as representative authors of a unified European or Western culture, it is of course equally valid to state that they belong to two different European cultures). Second, it is ‘concerned with patterns of connection in literatures across both time and space’ (although Eliot and Espriu are, practically speaking, contemporaries, the study of their works inevitably involves other works from different periods).

The present work exemplifies one of the basic roles of comparative literature: namely, raising awareness of connections between texts that would perhaps go unnoticed in national literature studies. The detection, description and analysis of intertextual evidence has two interrelated results: cultural affinities, similarities across time and space, emerge; furthermore, the study of authors from a comparative perspective causes them to be perceived differently, new knowledge about them being gained.²⁴ Connections and parallelisms are unveiled by comparison, presupposing a vision of literature as a whole whose parts are—although not always evidently—interrelated. This implication is compatible with Northrop Frye’s archetypal structuralism, which is an important component of the theoretical and critical basis underpinning this study.

Northrop Frye ‘looks at the literature of all times as “a total form” and examines works of art not in isolation but within this formal universe, as potentially relevant to “the total cultural form of our present life.”’²⁵ Frye’s objective is to discern a ‘co-ordinating principle’ underlying and uniting the totality of literary works. This can be achieved through the study of archetypes, which ‘enables us to perceive the shared myths that literary works rely on and explore: through that awareness we can glimpse the underlying structure of the structures of all works.’²⁶

Frye’s mythopoeic or archetypal criticism was based on Carl Gustav Jung’s theories. Some of Jung’s ideas are compatible with Eliot’s critical views: the work of literature is ‘something supra-personal,’ ‘a creative reorganization’ of previous achievements, ‘a living being that uses man [the poet] as a nutrient medium.’²⁷ According to Elizabeth Drew, ‘the development of his [Eliot’s] poetry contains an interesting parallel to some of the materials cited by Jung’ and confirms that literary creativity operates fundamentally through symbolisation. Drew adds that imaginative equivalence and patterning were, to Eliot, of the very essence of poetry: ‘The recognition of sensuous symbolism as the richest form of human perception, and its ordering into pattern as the basis of poetic technique, had been from the beginning his whole theory and practice of poetry.’²⁸

The analysis of imaginative patterns and symbolism has been similarly productive in studying Espriu. In the preface of an anthology of Espriu’s poems translated into English, Magda Bogin declares that in his poetry, ‘there are few identifiable men and women; Espriu’s world is the ancient one of myth and archetype. The presences too are mythic: the ragman, the beggar, the leper; Prometheus, Tiresias, Salom, the name Espriu gave himself.’²⁹ Probably because of this, Josep Maria Castellet, in his seminal Iniciació a la poesia de Salvador Espriu, chose Frye’s archetypology as a basic reference: he used Frye’s ‘theory of modes’ to account for Espriu’s whole production, which he considered an example of the ‘encyclopaedic form,’ like Eliot’s poetry.³⁰ Another Espriuan scholar, Maria Isabel Pijoan i Picas, has adopted a number of approaches that are archetypal in essence: symbolic hermeneutics, figurative structuralism or mytho-criticism.³¹ Rather than on Frye, she draws on French theorists such as Gilbert Durand and Gaston Bachelard.³²

Eliot and Frye are considered by Evelyn J. Hinz and John J. Teunissen as archetypal critics, although not Jungian, since for them archetypes are imaginative patterns, rather than images originating in the unconscious.³³ There is another important distinction between Jungian criticism and Frye’s archetypal structuralism, as regards their notion of tradition. For Jung, the collective unconscious was parallel to cultural tradition, the latter belonging to the realm of consciousness (Drew, p. 15). Frye admits that the recurrence of images in the work of different poets indicates that these cannot be assumed to belong to their ‘private mythology’ or ‘peculiar formation of symbols’—what Jung called the personal unconscious.³⁴ However, the Canadian critic does not consider the collective unconscious to be their source, and substitutes this concept for that of literary tradition, which to him is the source of the archetypes of literature.³⁵ Frye’s notion of tradition is comparable to Eliot’s.

The appearance of archetypes in successive historical periods makes archetypal criticism easy to subsume under the wider, non-chronological perspective of comparative literature. National, cultural and linguistic specificities will be similarly disregarded by comparative archetypology. Therefore, this will be an appropriate approach for the study of Espriu and Eliot in themselves, and in their relation to their coincident references and allusions. As suggested above, the objective is not so much tracing the two poets’ influences (on each other, from previous or on subsequent poets) as examining their confluence in a number of archetypes manifested in literary tradition. Detailed description and discussion of the two poets’ imagination will demonstrate that they share a common tradition and that they play a similar role in preserving and continuing it. The method followed for this comparative study, therefore, can be described as archetypal and thematological, largely articulated through close reading and not excluding intuition, description and interpretation.

Although both Eliot and Espriu have a cohesive production that includes prose, drama and literary criticism, the present study restricts its scope to their poetry. The object of study covers the practical totality of their poetic works—about 500 poems of varying length. The emphasis is, however, on their most cohesive creative periods: in Eliot’s production, from Prufrock and Other Observations (1917) to Four Quartets (1942); in Espriu’s, from Cementiri de Sinera (1946) to Setmana Santa (1971).³⁶ Both periods comprise, curiously and fascinatingly, exactly twenty-five years.

Nancy Duvall Hargrove has identified five imaginative constructs or archetypes that define T. S. Eliot’s poetry and its internal evolution: ‘the city (boredom, triviality, sterility), the country (release, fertility, rebirth), the desert (chaos, terror, emptiness), the garden (ecstasy, innocence, serenity) and the sea and river,’ which are associated, among other things, with ‘eternity, destruction, creation, mystery.’³⁷ These clusters of imagery may be paired (city-desert, country-garden or gardensea, for instance) and they are also central to Salvador Espriu’s poetry, as we will see. The structure of this comparative study reflects the relevance of some of these archetypal clusters (desert, garden, sea, city) and their conceptual relations, as well as their thematic dimension. It will also delve into the imagery of time and the natural cycles. From the detailed study of their imagery, we will draw conclusions about the two poets, their reverence for literary tradition and the cohesive and encyclopaedic nature of their respective poetic productions.

¹ Viorica Patea, ‘Introducción,’ in La tierra baldía (Madrid: Cátedra, 2005), pp. 8-189 (p. 59).

² Rosa Maria Delor i Muns, La mort com a intercanvi simbòlic. Bartomeu Rosselló Pòrcel i Salvador Espriu: diàleg intertextual (1934-1984), Barcelona: Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat, 1993.

³ Josep Benet, Catalunya sota el règim franquista (Barcelona: Blume, 1978), p. 15.

⁴ Rosa Maria Pinyol, ‘Junto a Eliot, Celan o Montale,’ La vanguardia, 5 June 2002, p. 30.

⁵ Harold Bloom, ‘The Future of the Literary Imagination and its Forms in Relation to Catalan Achievement,’ Generalitat de Catalunya, (2002) <http://www20.gencat.cat/docs/msidgac/Premi%20Internacional%20Catalunya/pdf/discurs_bloom_eng.pdf> [accessed 1 March 2012] (para. 14 of 21).

⁶ Sam Abrams, ‘El vingueren a buscar,’ in Si de nou voleu passar. I Simposi Internacional Salvador Espriu, ed. by Víctor Martínez Gil and Laia Noguera (Barcelona: Centre de Documentació i Estudi Salvador Espriu / Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat, 2005), pp. 239-247 (pp. 247, 244).

⁷ Albert Manent, ‘La recepció de l’obra de T. S. Eliot a Catalunya,’ in Homenatge a T. S. Eliot, ed. by Àlex Susanna (Barcelona: Acta / Quaderns, 1989), pp. 63-74 (p. 68).

⁸ Quotations of Eliot’s poems are from Collected Poems 1909-1962 (London: Faber and Faber, 1974; repr. 2002), unless otherwise specified. As in the edition used, line numbers are only provided for The Waste Land.

⁹ All quotations from Dante’s The Divine Comedy are from the bilingual, three-volume, 1961 Oxford edition (see ‘Works Cited and Consulted’). Translations into English provided in footnotes are all by John D. Sinclair. References to Dante’s poem consist of the abbreviation of each of its parts (Inf., Purg. or Par.), followed by the canto number in Roman numerals and the line numbers in Arabic numerals. Notes by the editor are identified giving his name (Sinclair), the abbreviation of each of the poem’s parts, the page number and the note number, if necessary.

¹⁰ Francesc Vallverdú, ‘Introduction,’ in Selected Poems of Salvador Espriu, ed. and trans. by Magda Bogin (New York: Norton, 1989), pp. xxv-xxxiii (p. xxv).

¹¹ Antoni Batista, Salvador Espriu. Itinerari Personal (Barcelona: Empúries, 1985) p. 39. Batista opens his book on Espriu with an interesting quote from Umberto Eco: ‘Tant Joyce com Eliot m’havien ensenyat que l’art és la fugida de l’emoció personal’ (emphasis added). Espriu’s favourite works in the universal canon and his idea of tradition will be discussed in more detail in the conclusion of this study.

¹² Espriu had probably read about Malcolm Knowles (1913-1997), a pioneer of adult education in the United States. Delor i Muns has identified Mrs Banks as the Victorian novelist Isabella Banks (1821-1897), who set her novel God’s Providence House in 17^th century Chester, in the context of the plague—hence the reference to the fleas that would have caused the disease to spread. She also sees, in Espriu’s poem, a parody of John Keats’ ‘La Belle Dame sans Merci’ (‘“La princesa del Iang-tsé,” de Salvador Espriu,’ Quaderns de Lavínia <http://quadernsdelavinia.org/wordpress/?p=1952> [accessed 21 August 2012] (para. 2 and 4 of 14). All these are examples of Espriu’s obscure and playful allusions.

¹³ Salvador Pàniker, ‘Salvador Espriu dins Conversaciones en Catalunya,’ in Enquestes i entrevistes, I (1933-1973), ed. by Francesc Reina, 2 vols (Barcelona: Centre de Documentació i Estudi Salvador Espriu i Edicions 62, 1995), I, pp. 83-90 (p. 89). (Enquestes i entrevistes is part of the Edició Crítica.)

¹⁴ Viorica Patea, ‘T. S. Eliot’s The Waste Land and the Poetics of the Mythical Method,’ in Modernism Revisited. Transgressing Boundaries and Strategies of Renewal in American Poetry, ed. by Viorica Patea and Paul Scott Derrick (Amsterdam – New York: Rodopi, 2007), pp. 91-110 (p. 93).

¹⁵ See Eugenio Maqueda Cuenca, La obra de Jaime Gil de Biedma a la luz de T. S. Eliot y el pensamiento anglosajón (Jaén: Universidad de Jaén, 2003).

¹⁶ See also Santiago Rodríguez Guerrero-Strachan, ‘Multiple Voices, Single Identity: T. S. Eliot’s Criticism and Spanish Poetry,’ in The International Reception of T. S. Eliot, ed. by Elizabeth Däumer and Shyamal Bagchee (London: Continuum, 2007), pp. 141-153. The author focuses on the works of Juan Ramón Jiménez, Luis Cernuda and Jaime Gil de Biedma. He also explains how the Barcelona literary scene played a decisive role in vindicating Eliot’s poetry and criticism and determining its reception in the whole of Spain.

¹⁷ ‘Fitxer de lectura de Salvador Espriu’ (Corpus Literari Digital), in Aula Màrius Torres <http://www.aulamariustorres.org/materials/manuscrits/_autors/espr/fitxer/index.php> [accessed 8 July 2010].

¹⁸ Albert Manent, ‘Enquesta: l’obra de T. S. Eliot a Catalunya,’ Serra d’Or, 4 (1965), pp. 67-69 (p. 67-68).

¹⁹ Víctor Martínez-Gil. ‘La mirada correctora d’Espriu sobre Ruyra,’ Indesinenter, 5 (2010), 17-42 (p. 19).

²⁰ Harold Bloom, The Anxiety of Influence. A Theory of Poetry, 2^nd edn (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), p. 7.

²¹ Eliot’s essay ‘Tradition and the Individual Talent’ will be alluded to at several points of the present study, especially in its conclusion.

²² T. S. Eliot, ‘Philip Massinger,’ in Selected Essays. New Edition (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1964), pp. 181-195 (p. 182).

²³ Susan Bassnett, ‘Introduction: What is Comparative Literature Today?,’ in Comparative Literature. A Critical Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993) pp. 1-11 (p. 1).

²⁴ Ed Ahearn and Arnold Weinstein, ‘The Function of Criticism at the Present Time. The Promise of Comparative Literature,’ in Comparative Literature in the Age of Multiculturalism ed. by Charles Bernheimer (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995), pp. 77-85 (p. 79-80).

²⁵ Gerald Gillespie, ‘Newer Trends of Comparative Studies in the West,’ in Aspects of Comparative Literature. Current Approaches, ed. by Chandra Mohan (New Delhi: India Publishers and Distributors, 1989), pp. 17-34 (p. 31).

²⁶ The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism, ed. by Vincent B. Leitch (New York / London: Norton, 2001), p. 1444.

²⁷ Carl Gustav Jung, ‘On the Relation of Analytical Psychology to Poetry,’ in The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism (see previous note), pp. 990-1002 (p. 994).

²⁸ Elizabeth Drew, ‘T. S. Eliot: Mythical Vision,’ in Jungian Literary Criticism, ed. by Richard P. Sugg (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1992), pp. 9-20 (pp. 14-15, 20).

²⁹ Magda Bogin, ‘Translator’s Preface,’ in Selected Poems of Salvador Espriu (see Vallverdú, above), pp. xv-xxiii (p. xx; emphasis added). Salom is Espriu’s poetic projection, an alegorical character embodying peace and taking his name from the Hebrew word.

³⁰ Josep Maria Castellet, Iniciació a la poesia de Salvador Espriu, 3^rd edn (Barcelona: Edicions 62, 1984), pp. 20, 90.

³¹ See, for example, Maria Isabel Pijoan i Picas, Viatge per l’imaginari de l’obra de Salvador Espriu (Barcelona: Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat, 1995), pp. 56, 81-82.

³² For further details about these and other approaches, see D. Gareth Walters, ‘Critical Approaches and Methodologies,’ in The Poetry of Salvador Espriu. To Save the Words (Woodbridge: Tamesis, 2006), pp. 19-29.

³³ Evelyn J. Hinz and John J. Teunissen, ‘Culture and the Humanities: The Archetypal Approach,’ in Jungian Literary Criticism (see Drew, above) pp. 192-199 (p. 193).

³⁴ Northrop Frye, ‘The Archetypes of Literature,’ in The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism (see note above), pp. 1445-1457 (p. 1449).

³⁵ George H. Jensen, ‘Situating Jung in Contemporary Critical Theory,’ in Post-Jungian Criticism: Theory and Practice, ed. by James S. Baumlin, Tita French Baumlin and George H. Jensen (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2004) pp. 1-30 (p. 6).

³⁶ Although Les cançons d’Ariadna was first published in 1949, the book was successively revised and enlarged by Espriu. We will quote from the last version of the book, containing 100 poems and appearing in 1980.

³⁷ Nancy Duvall Hargrove, Landscape as Symbol in the Poetry of T. S. Eliot (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1978), p. 15 (emphasis added).