投资 · 西方古典

托斯丹·凡勃伦:有闲阶级论·摘录 36

托斯丹·凡勃伦《有闲阶级论》· The Theory of the Leisure Class · 投资

Decorum set out with being symbol and pantomime and with having utility only as an exponent of the facts and qualities symbolised; but it presently suffered the transmutation which commonly passes over symbolical facts in human intercourse. Manners presently came, in popular apprehension, to be possessed of a substantial utility in themselves; they acquired a sacramental character, in great measure independent of the facts which they originally prefigured. Deviations from the code of decorum have become intrinsically odious to all men, and good breeding is, in everyday apprehension, not simply an adventitious mark of human excellence, but an integral feature of the worthy human soul. There are few things that so touch us with instinctive revulsion as a breach of decorum; and so far have we progressed in the direction of imputing intrinsic utility to the ceremonial observances of etiquette that few of us, if any, can dissociate an offence against etiquette from a sense of the substantial unworthiness of the offender. A breach of faith may be condoned, but a breach of decorum can not. "Manners maketh man."

出处: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/833
定位:Excerpt 36 · 核对日期:2026-10-19 · 核验:短摘录

白话

礼仪起初只是象征和表演,用处仅在于标示所象征的事实与品质;但它在人际交往中很快经历常见转变:人们开始觉得礼貌本身就有实质用处,获得近乎神圣的性质,很大程度上独立于它原先代表的东西。违反礼仪会让人本能反感;好教养不再只是优秀的外在标记,而被看成高尚灵魂的固有部分。我们很少能把失礼与“这人本质不行”分开。失信尚可原谅,失礼却难宽恕——“礼仪造就人”。

上下文

凡勃伦讨论礼仪如何从象征变成具有内在价值的社会规范,并引用“Manners maketh man”。

今日一问

你有没有因为别人一个失礼动作,就断定他“人品不行”?这判断站得住吗?

公版作品;原文逐字取自 Project Gutenberg,仅摘录段落并附全书链接。

本文本为公版;底本与原文链接见上。 版权

← 返回原文库