http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : 閔丙天 (검색결과 153 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
민병천 19세기영어권문학회 2010 19세기 영어권 문학 Vol.14 No.2
This essay attempts to examine what manners signify in Jane Austen’s Emma and how this meaning of manners was formed in history. In the plot of Emma, the issue of how to conceive and practice appropriate manners is presented as a major theme, and Emma tackles this issue by exhibiting various characters who represent a certain aspect of manners and then testing their respective legitimacy as practitioners of manners. Emma’s constant self-correction concerning her notion of manners is a result of this process of testing in which the novel engages. In the course of this process, Emma suggests that a formal display of refinement, though necessary, is not a sufficient condition for manners especially when it is motivated by self-interest, and that sincere and sympathetic feelings toward others, as most compellingly exemplified in the character of George Knightley, should be the most essential factor of appropriate manners. This opposition between self-interest and sincerity is related to controversies of eighteenth-century moral philosophy in both historical and conceptual terms. On the issue of the location of a moral domain and the origin of morality, philosophers represented by Hobbes and Mendeville contend that a moral domain does not consist in human nature and that morality derives from a communal pursuit of individuals’ self-interest. On the other hand, empiricists such as Hutcheson and Hume foreground sincere and sympathetic feelings of humanity as a source of morality, thus locating a moral domain in sincerity and sympathy immanent in human mind. At these controversies on morality lie the conflicting concepts of manners in Emma, and the connection between these philosophical discourses and Emma’s notion of manners attests to the historicity of the novel. Although the story of Emma filters out negative elements immanent in manners for the purpose of finding and suggesting appropriate manners, this work of filtering does not necessarily mean that manners in Emma should be considered to be an exclusive social principle by which only a few desirable qualities are selected as a basis of appropriateness. Rather, manners in Emma act as an inclusive and malleable principle for a society, since a variety of conflicting concepts—i.e., sincerity, artificiality, naturalness, civility, and morality—are incorporated into the notion of manners, as illustrated in the novel's conclusion part where various characters, who embody these conflicting concepts, harmoniously co-exist in the world of manners. With this inclusive feature of manners, this essay ultimately argues that manners are a social apparatus that constantly undergoes self-reflexive modifications in order to sustain and solidify the ascendancy of the dominant class. This essay attempts to examine what manners signify in Jane Austen’s Emma and how this meaning of manners was formed in history. In the plot of Emma, the issue of how to conceive and practice appropriate manners is presented as a major theme, and Emma tackles this issue by exhibiting various characters who represent a certain aspect of manners and then testing their respective legitimacy as practitioners of manners. Emma’s constant self-correction concerning her notion of manners is a result of this process of testing in which the novel engages. In the course of this process, Emma suggests that a formal display of refinement, though necessary, is not a sufficient condition for manners especially when it is motivated by self-interest, and that sincere and sympathetic feelings toward others, as most compellingly exemplified in the character of George Knightley, should be the most essential factor of appropriate manners. This opposition between self-interest and sincerity is related to controversies of eighteenth-century moral philosophy in both historical and conceptual terms. On the issue of the location of a moral domain and the origin of morality, philosophers represented by Hobbes and Mendeville contend that a moral domain does not consist in human nature and that morality derives from a communal pursuit of individuals’ self-interest. On the other hand, empiricists such as Hutcheson and Hume foreground sincere and sympathetic feelings of humanity as a source of morality, thus locating a moral domain in sincerity and sympathy immanent in human mind. At these controversies on morality lie the conflicting concepts of manners in Emma, and the connection between these philosophical discourses and Emma’s notion of manners attests to the historicity of the novel. Although the story of Emma filters out negative elements immanent in manners for the purpose of finding and suggesting appropriate manners, this work of filtering does not necessarily mean that manners in Emma should be considered to be an exclusive social principle by which only a few desirable qualities are selected as a basis of appropriateness. Rather, manners in Emma act as an inclusive and malleable principle for a society, since a variety of conflicting concepts—i.e., sincerity, artificiality, naturalness, civility, and morality—are incorporated into the notion of manners, as illustrated in the novel's conclusion part where various characters, who embody these conflicting concepts, harmoniously co-exist in the world of manners. With this inclusive feature of manners, this essay ultimately argues that manners are a social apparatus that constantly undergoes self-reflexive modifications in order to sustain and solidify the ascendancy of the dominant class.
-
-
-
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
