on Ellman's essay

I was intrigued by the self-conscious choices Yeats made in his middle poetry, as well as in his earlier and later work, although I don't like to use the word self-conscious, as I object to the common connotation of vanity that some people associate with the word-- Self-consciousness is not at all vain, but is rather an asset which prohibits us from being defined solely by unfavorable or difficult experiences in our pasts. And this is apparent in Yeats. The seamless precision of his language implies a familiarity with the limits of the poor articulation and logic demonstrated by his father, whose constant, unquestioned, and often reductive commentary must have been deeply frustrating for the sensitive and thoughtful son. Firsthand, the poet learned the importance of choosing one's words carefully and of the subtle injuries that we inflict upon one another when we speak too crassly.

Ellman's article also mentions Yeats' unnatural love of learning, as well as its relation to his unfullfilled wish for an orthodox education. The poet's respect for the academic is noticeable in the mythological historical, and scientific classifications he makes throughout his oevre. This brings me to a question: This morning I read Schiller's definition of good art, in which he suggests that a work of art is good if it is popularly accepted by the elite. Could Yeats' technique be read as an example of this theory? And how does the plot of "Adam's Curse" relate to Yeats' philosophies?