유진 오닐은 미국의 현대연극에서 다양한 형태의 극을 저술하였다. 오닐은 『상복이 어울리는 엘렉트라』를 통해서 뉴잉글랜드 지방에서 수행되고 있는 청교도 사회의 지나친 도덕적 억압에 대해서 비판하고 있다. 본 연구의 목적은 이 작품의 여주인공인 라비니아의 청교도적 엄격함과 위선이 촉발시킨 비극적 운명의 연쇄 고리를 끊어버리기 위한 희생적인 삶이 제공해줄 수 있는 희망적 메시지의 가능성을 살펴보고자 한다. 본 연구는 청교도적 운명의 비극적 연쇄작용을 끊어내기 위해서 세상과 단절한 채, 고통스러운 속죄의 시간을 갖는 시대적 희생자로서의 라비니아를 다른 인물들과 함께 살펴보고자 한다. 오닐은 이 작품에서 등장인물들이 청교도적 엄격함에서 벗어나 자유로운 삶과 사랑을 갈구하지만 청교도적 비극의 굴레와 속박에 구속되는 모습을 묘사하고 있다. 이 작품에서 청교도를 대표하는 마농 가문의 마지막 생존자로서 비극적 역사의 굴레를 피하지 않고, 당당하게 맞서고 있는 라비니아는 세상과 단절한 채, 고통스러운 삶을 수용하고 있다. 결국, 라비니아는 적극적인 방식으로 속죄를 통한 자기 깨달음을 경험하면서 인간 존재의 의미와 가치에 대해서 다시 한 번 생각해볼 수 있는 인식적 토대를 마련해주고 있다.

This paper is to survey what are the historical background that the Pierson family since their Viking ancestors to the descendents of Arthur Tappan Pierson and their educational contributions that they have made, through analysing a family line of A. T. Pierson’s direct ancestors. The Pierson family deserves scholars’ attention for their important influence in an early history of the establishment of two famous American universities as well as a bible school, which became a university later, in Korea. Thus it will explore how their ancestors’ Puritan value has been succeeded to their descendants and realized by them.

This essay examines the seventeenth century New England Congregationalists’ doctrine of the “church covenant” and its relationship with the “half-way covenant.” According to Perry Miller, there is a radical discontinuity between them. Miller points out three major differences. First, the half-way covenant introduced a new internal/external distinction into the early fathers’ church covenant, while the latter had considered their church covenant as a visible form of the internal covenant of grace. Second, accordingly, the defenders of the half-way covenant “drastically separated” the church covenant from the covenant of grace. As a result, the church covenant was “no longer viewed as a direct manifestation of spiritual conversion.” Third, there was a generation gap: While the old generation opposed the principle of the half-way covenant, the young generation tended to defend it. Miller shared the early seventeenth century critics’ view of the church covenant--as shown in Samuel Rutherford's polemical works against New England Congregationalism. Rutherford, for example, tended to identify Thomas Hooker’s concept of the church covenant with the Separatists’ view of it which was deeply rooted in their “pure church” ecclesiology. Both Rutherford’s and Miller’s thesis, however, represent a one-sided view. Hooker and his brethren present enough counter-evidence to show that the principle of the half-way covenant should be compatible with the early doctrine of the church covenant: First, the internal/external distinction does not belong to a later development because it was a basic feature for Hooker’s doctrine of the church covenant. Hooker clearly sees his church covenant as an external--not internal--covenant. Second, Hooker and his brethren make a significant distinction between the invisible/inward covenant of grace and the visible/outward covenant of grace. The latter, Hooker argues, is given for the visible church--either an explicit or an implicit form of church covenant. Third, Hooker’s church covenant does not nullify the traditional distinction of the visible/invisible church. On the contrary, it must preserve it. Finally, unlike Miller’s thought, the majority of the early Congregationalists--even in the 1630s--actually favored the principle of the half-way covenant. The above facts must account for the reason why the defenders of the half-way covenant could claim that they had the fathers of Congregationalism (including Hooker) on their side. In short, the complex reality demands that we should seek a more balanced approach to the issue of continuity/discontinuity between the church covenant and the half-way covenant.