Culture and anarchy in'Hellenism and Hebraism'

       

Culture and anarchy in “Hellenism and Hebraism by Arnold

•     Preface

      Matthew Arnold belongs to the Victorian age in English literature; Arnold has critic, poet and also philosophical work in his writing. And also he has given parameters to evaluate the work of art in literature. As a critic Arnold puts emphasis on reading classical works and current ideas in highest degree animating and nourishing to the creative power. And it may be that to Arnold work in reflection of Victorian society and in  this time people has to different ideas and class different create to society and it may be that to his culture and other are not followers  to this kind of think, and know that Arnold in his work see that to Victorians society and culture. In Arnold best work in his essay “culture and anarchy” in Christian knowledge  and religious to this society and also we see that to political, social, psychoanalysis and physicist in society, it may be that to working class and Arnold in this essay between reflection to Karl Marx ideas Marxism in class and caste different to his essay. In Arnold essay in culture and anarchy about that “people talk about what they call culture” and Arnold wants on to remarks in strain with which modern speakers and writers have made us very familiar and also we see that how poor a thing this culture and it may be that culture is in political one of the poorest mortals alive. 

      We can see that of political requires common sense, sympathy, trust, resolution enthusiasm, qualities which your man of culture has carefully rooted up of his critical olfactory. Apart from his occupation as a poet and critic, Arnold earned a reputation during his lifetime as one of his age's most knowledgeable and influential advocates for educational reform in England. Born the eldest son of Dr. Thomas Arnold, a headmaster of Rugby and generally acknowledged as the innovator of the modern public school system in England, Arnold was inculcated with a liberal attitude toward education from an early age. During his formative years and as a student at Oxford, he embraced the reform-minded ideas of social thinker John Henry Newman. In 1851 at the age of thirty, Arnold was appointed Her Majesty's Inspector of Schools, a post he held for the next thirty-five years. In his role as inspector, Arnold became intimately familiar with the disadvantages and inequalities inherent in the educational system from the favored aristocratic upper class to the ignored and impoverished lower class. So now in Arnold life and social culture to this essay, it became different of people and social culture. Arnold’s essay ‘culture and anarchy’ in part to Hellenism and Hebraisms details to explains.

•      Culture and anarchy

     Culture and Anarchy is a controversial philosophical work written by the celebrated Victorian poet and critic Matthew Arnold. Composed during a time of unprecedented social and political change, the essay argues for a restructuring of England's social ideology. It reflects Arnold's passionate conviction that the uneducated English masses could be molded into conscientious individuals who strive for human perfection through the harmonious cultivation of all of their skills and talents. A crucial condition of Arnold's thesis is that a state-administered system of education must replace the ecclesiastical program which emphasized rigid individual moral conduct at the expense of free thinking and devotion to community. Much more than a mere treatise on the state of education in England, Culture and Anarchy is, in the words of J. Dover Wilson, “at once a masterpiece of vivacious prose, a great poet's great define of poetry, a profoundly religious book, and the finest apology for education in the English language.” So that in this into Arnold give six chapters and brief explain to social and political at Hellenism and Hebraisms.

•        Major work to culture  and anarchy

    Although Arnold does not create specific fictional characters to express his ideas in Culture and Anarchy, he does infuse his essays with a narrative persona that can best be described as a Socratic figure. This sagacious mentor serves as a thematic link between each of the chapters, underscoring the importance of self-knowledge in order to fully engage the concept of pursuing human perfection. This mentor also identifies and classifies three groups of people who comprise contemporary English society.

The first group is the Barbarians, or the aristocratic segment of society who are so involved with their archaic traditions and gluttony that they have lost touch with the rest of society for which they were once responsible. The second group—for whom Arnold's persona reserves his most scornful criticism—is the Philistines, or the selfish and materialistic middle class who have been gulled into a torpid state of puritanical self-centeredness by nonconforming religious sects. The third group is the Populace, or the disenfranchised, poverty-stricken lower class who have been let down by the negligent Barbarians and greedy Philistines. For Arnold, the Populace represents the most malleable, and the most deserving, social class to be elevated out of anarchy through the pursuit of culture. And also he wrote about to class difference and it may be that Arnold introduces the principal themes of Culture and Anarchy directly in the essay's title. Culture involves an active personal quest to forsake egocentricity, prejudice, and narrow-mindedness and to embrace an equally balanced development of all human talents in the pursuit of flawlessness. It is a process of self-discipline which initiates a metamorphosis from self-interest to conscientiousness and an enlightened understanding of one's singular obligation to an all-inclusive utopian society. Arnold appealed to the altruistic intellectual members of the English middle class with Culture and Anarchy that he began to gain a groundswell of support for his cause. And it may be that Arnold in his work to said that culture is “an ideal of human life, a standard of excellence and fullness for the development of our capacities, aesthetic, intellectual, and moral.”  For Arnold, the emphasis on egocentric self-assertion has a devastating impact on providing for the needs of the community; indeed, it can only lead to a future of increased anarchy as the rapidly evolving modern democracy secures the enfranchisement of the middle and lower classes without instilling in them the need for culture. Inherent in Arnold's argument is the idea of Hebraism versus Hellenism. So that now explains in detail to Hellenism and Hebraism.

·        Hellenism and Hebraism

In Arnold essay ‘culture and anarchy’ in explains to social and political one to social parts Hellenism and Hebraism. In this essay Arnold's argument is the idea of Hebraism versus Hellenism. Hebraism represents the actions of people who are either ignorant or resistant to the idea of culture. Hebraists subscribe to a strict, narrow-minded method of moral conduct and self-control which does not allow them to visualize a utopian future of belonging to an enlightened community. Moreover, Hellenism signifies the open-minded, spontaneous exploration of classical ideas and their application to contemporary society. And it may be that  Arnold believes that the ideals promulgated by such philosophers as Plato and Socrates can help resolve the moral and ethical problems resulting from the bitter conflict between society, politics, and religion in Victorian England. As well as Arnold's message is and he elects to employ the device of irony to reveal his philosophical points to his readers. Literary scholars have generally regarded Culture and Anarchy as a masterpiece of social criticism and also we see that to Victorian age issues in society and it became that to reality of England. Through irony, satire, and urbane humor, the author deftly entertains his readers with examples of educational travesties, he wittily exposes the enemies of reform and culture, and he beguiles his readers with self-deprecating humor in order to endear them to his ideas.

        In this essay, Arnold talks about to doing and thinking. It became that Hellenism and Hebraism of connected between each other and his general view about human beings is that they prefer to act rather than to think. Moreover, He rejects it because mankind is to err and he cannot always think right, but it comes seldom in the process of reasoning and meditation, or he is not rightly guided by the light of true reason. The nation follows the voice of its conscience and its best light, but it is not the light of true reason except darkness. In his opinion, the nation is energy or the capacity of doing but it is not intelligence or capacity of thinking rightly. Such energy that has the sense of obligation and duty must be related to the best light.

Arnold talks about the great idea to know and the great energy to act. Both are the most potent forces, and they should be in harmony by the light of reason. So, they are Hebraism and Hellenism. He insists on the balance of the both thought and action Hellenism and Hebraism. The final aim of Hellenism and Hebraism is the same as man's perfection and salvation. He further discusses that the supreme idea with Hellenism or the Greek Spirit is to see things as they really are, and the supreme idea of Hebraism or the Spirit of Bible is conduct and obedience. He points out that the Greek philosophy considers that the body and its desires are an impediment to right thinking, where as Hebraism considers that the body and its desires are an obstacle to right action.

·        Religious

In this essay Arnold tells that to his religious and also culture express to his ideas, views and thought then.  We see that the church is in itself a lesson towards culture and harmonious perfections. Christianity changed nothing in this essential bent of Hebraism to set doing above knowing. We know that Self−conquest, self−devotion, the following not our own individual will, but the will of God and it may be that obedience is the fundamental idea of this form, also all kind of his religious and never be of the discipline to which we have attached the general name of Hebraism. Only, as the old law and the network of prescriptions with which it enveloped human life were evidently a motive−power not driving and searching enough to produce the result aimed at patient continuance in well doing, self conquest, Christianity substituted for them boundless devotion to that inspiring and affecting pattern of self−conquest offered by Jesus Christ; and by the new motive−power, of which the essence was this, though the love and admiration of Christian churches have for centuries been employed in varying, amplifying, and adorning the plain description of it, Christianity, as St. Paul truly says, 'establishes the law,' and in the strength of the ampler power which she has thus supplied to fulfills it has accomplished the miracles. And also our Indian culture and may be that faith us. Indian culture and religious have to temple, church, derasir etc. And we see that Arnold against to concreteness’ and temple in our self and Arnold in himself also supernatural one to this essay.

·        Human nature

Arnold tells about that to Hellenism and Hebraism to main to human nature and it became human culture. Both arise out of the wants of human nature and address themselves to satisfying those wants. But their methods are so different; they lay stress on such different points and call into being by their respective disciplines such different activities, and moreover, that the face which human nature presents when it passes from the hands of one of them to those of the other is no longer the same. In this essay Arnold taking about that To get rid of one's ignorance, to see things as they are, and it may be that by seeing them as they are to see them in their beauty is the simple and attractive ideal which Hellenism holds out before human nature and from the simplicity and charm of this ideal Hellenism and humanlike in the hands of Hellenism is invested with a kind of aerial ease, clearness, and radiancy; they are full of what we call sweetness and light. Difficulties are kept out of view, and the beauty and rationales of the ideal have all our thought. Apparently it was the Hellenic conception of human nature which was unsound, for the world could not live by it and human nature is common to this essay perfection and class has to into within us.

•    My interpretation of Arnold  Hellenism and Hebraism 

In this essay into Arnold give to two kinds of culture and it became more than power and immortal ideas of reality. We see that to Old Testament it became Hebraism means ‘Hebru’ culture and than New Testament it became Hellenism means ‘Hellenic’ and we know that Arnold in his ideas are of immortal as illustrated by st. Paul the Christian saint and Plato the Greek philosopher . And also I think so that this culture to create society and different between to our culture and never to different to his religious, morality to ideas. And we see that to problem of human spirit is still unsolved in both Hellenism and Hebraism. In we know that Hellenisms is between intelligent and human nature free to whatever want to do that? And not any other rule and power to Hellenism people mind to follow to culture. And second Hebraism into power and morality at first and it became god is moral and we see that fear and obedient to any one not against to god. Also example to Hellenism that Eve in paradise lost is free to tree knowledge and whatever you want do that and she is human nature in her mind. In against and different to Hebru culture in example that serpent and Satan were every time follow to god rules and it has to one fear to god also. So that in my interpretation to this essay into I have this example to Eve and serpent to became Hellenism and Hebraism. Not at all to create his own culture and also most important to human nature has to culture and it may be free to this culture in here became came to anarchy.

·        Conclusion

So that essay ‘culture and anarchy’ into Hellenism and Hebraism as different to culture, it may be that human nature and religious of both. And we see that to people has to more than except to both culture but not that to over as power and clear intelligent has important, and also I have example to our caste of Indian and if became too different god rules, religious, culture and morality. And here Arnold in this essay Hellenism and Hebraism are different and god power to Christianity knowledge of church   and in Hellenic and Hebru culture has rule to people and human nature as most important and in this point to my ideas as to culture and free to knowledge. And also that to different between thinking and action to Hellenism and Hebraism. So that Hellenism and Hebraism have different into doing and thinking of human personality and we see that to both has against then.