Five literary terms.

Selected Five Literary TERMS.

•     Preface

         The Glossary presents a series of succinct essays in the title word or phrase to signified to terms explain to their explore to his particular terms. Terms that are related but subsidiary, or that designate subclasses, are treated under the title heading of the primary or generic terms and also I defines discusses terms, critical theories and points of view that are commonly used to classify, analyze, interpret and write the history of Works of literature. So that in point to be literary terms have to identifies and explain to example into my reading and we know that literary terms have to ancient and present world at all to studies in literature. Now explain to most important and useful to literature in five literary terms like that:

• Modernism  

In this history of 20^th century literature in modernism has most important one. The term modernism is widely used to identify new and distinctive features in the subjects, forms, concepts, and styles of literature and the other arts in the early decades of the present century, but especially after World War I.The history of literature the term ‘modern’ is used to refer to a period dating from roughly the 1860s through the 1970s and describes the style and ideology of art produced during that era. It is this more specific use of modern that is intended when people speak of modern art. The term ‘modernism’ is also used to refer to the art of the modern period. More specifically, ‘modernism’ can be thought of as referring to the philosophy of modern art.  And also modernism has to only development to literature. We see that to this terms has to use many critics agree that it involves a deliberate to traditional bases not only to western art but also western culture, thinkers and most that to literature. And in this terms many thinkers has to who had questioned the certainties that had supported traditional modes of social organization, religion and morality and we know that also traditional ways of conceiving the human self and thinkers such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, and James G. Frazer, whose The Golden Bough stressed the correspondence between central Christian tenets and pagan, religious often barbaric, myths and rituals. Literary historians locate the beginning of the modernist revolt as far back as the 1890s, but most agree that what is called high modernism, marked by an unexampled range and rapidity of change it may be came after the First World War. We see that to example and Gertrude stein often linked with Joyce, pound Eliot and Woolf as a trail blazing modernism experimented with automatic writing and other modes that achieved their effects by violating the norms of standard English syntax and sentence structure. Among other European and American writers who are central representatives of modernism are the novelists Marcel Proust, Thomas Mann, André Gide, Franz Kafka, Dorothy Richardson, and William Faulkner; and we know that other the poets Stéphane Mallarme, W. B. Yeats, Rainier Maria Rilke, Marianne Moore, William Carlos Williams, and Wallace Stevens; and the dramatists August Strindberg, Luigi Pirandello, Eugene O'Neill, and Bertolt Brech at modernism.  In this terms has to prominent feature of modernism is the phenomenon called the avant-garde, it may be that modernism in to self conscious group of artist many example to Ezra pound’s phrase to make it new and  violating the accepted conventions and proprieties  not only of art but of social discourse.  In my point way into they set out to create ever-new artistic forms and styles introduce hitherto neglected.  We see that to modernisms has a distinctive culture formation of the avant garde. And last that to modernism example like that:

E.g.  James Joyce – Ulysses & Finnegans wake

         T.S. Eliot – The Waste land

         Virginia Woolf – Jacob’s Room

        Renate Poggioli   - The Theory of the Avant-G

        Peter Burger -Theory of the Avant-Garde

       

•          Postmodernism

  In second terms has to be often applied to literature and many time we know that also art, painting and literature have all most to  morality, involved not only a continuation. When the effects on Western morale of the First World War were greatly exacerbated by the experience of Nazi totalitarianism and mass extermination into postmodernism and it may be that development and many changes of this time. We see that to threat of total destruction by the atomic bomb, the progressive devastation of the natural environment and the ominous fact of overpopulation in after modernism. And we see that to postmodernism into high art, music, mass culture, literature, cartoons film and TV and painting. Postmodernism has to also diverse attempts to break away from modernist forms which had inevitably it become in their turn conventional as well as to overthrow the elitism of modernist "high art" by recourse to the models of "mass culture" in film, television, newspaper cartoons, and popular music all of to postmodernism.  We know that the postmodernism has foundations of our accepted modes of thought and experience so as to reveal the meaninglessness of existence and the underlying  abyss  or void or nothingness on which any supposed security is conceived to be precariously suspended and many critics and reads has to creative ideas and morality to his work. Postmodernism in literature and the arts has parallels with the movement known as poststructuralist in linguistic and literary theory; poststructuralists undertake to subvert the foundations of language in order to show that its seeming meaningfulness dissipates and now all part of postmodernism in literature, music, painting, art, film, cartons etc. into of postmodernism at one of them.

          

                               In this terms into these literary anomalies are paralleled in other arts by phenomena like pop art, op art, the musical compositions of John Cage and the films of Jean-Luc Godard and other directors. In we see that to postmodernism writing mostly prominently Samuel Beckett and other literature of the absurd at is to subvert the foundations of our accepted modes of thought and experience so that as to reveal the meaninglessness of existence in postmodernism. And it became know that literature has to connection between each others. Many of the works of postmodern literature into most famous that Jorge Luis Borges, Samuel Beckett, Vladimir Nabokov, Thomas Pynchon, Roland Barthes, and many others—so blend literary genres, cultural and stylistic levels, the serious and the playful. We see that they resist classification according to traditional literary rubrics. Postmodernism in literature and the arts has parallels with the movement known as poststructuralist in linguistic and literary theory; poststructuralists undertake to subvert the foundations of language in order to show that it seems meaningfulness dissipates and for a rigorous inquirer into a play of conflicting indeterminacies at postmodernism.  And also we see that to cultural discourse are manifestations of the ideology and constructions of power and becomes contemporary society. We see that to postmodernism into literature have most one and ideology of constructive in modernism.

 E.g.  Robert M. Adams - The Modern Tradition: Backgrounds of Modem Literature

        Irving Howe - Nil: Episodes in the Literary Conquest of Void during 19th century

          Lionel Trilling -The Idea of the Modem in Literature and the Art

          Fredric Jameson -- Postmodernism and Its

          David Perkins - The Pound Era

          Andreas Huyssen - The Matrix of Modernism

•       Eco- criticism

                                        In third terms has to most important literature and may be that Ecology of literary work than. Ecocriticism is the study of the relationship between literature and the physical environment. And it just as feminist criticism examines language and literature a from gender conscious perspective and Marxist criticism brings as awareness of modes of products and economic class to its reading of texts, eco criticism takes an earth centered approach to literary studies. Ecocriticism takes as its subject the interconnections between nature and culture and also specifically the cultural artifacts of languages and literature, as a critical stance, it has one foot in literature and the other on land; as a theoretical discourse and  it may negotiates between the human and the non-human. Ecocriticism can be further characterized by distinguishing it from other critical approaches. Literary theory, in general examines the relations between writers, texts and the world. In most literary theory "the world" is synonymous with society and may be that the social sphere. Ecocriticism expands the notion of "the world" to include the entire ecosphere. If we agree with Barry Commoner's first law of ecology, "Everything is connected to everything else," we must conclude that literature does not float above the material world in some aesthetic either but, rather than plays a part in an immensely complex global system and we see that  in which energy, matter and ideas interact.  In now in this terms my point that to ecology has base into environments and also nature? I have asked to question of Eco criticism like that:
            

In this three questions are not only one answers but now days we see that to our ecology has connected and also human life, environment, nature, men and women are dependent to each other and present time science has part and most important to our life. But we know that literature has to only science has to literature at all analysis than. Eco criticism is the study  of literature and environment from an interdisciplinary point of view where all sciences come together to analyze the environment and brainstorm possible solutions for the correction of the contemporary environmental situation. And also one part to literature in Eco criticism and may be that to "environmental literary criticism” and “green culture studies” at part to literature and may be that to ecology of literature. And we know that Eco-criticism in and part that as history, philosophy, ethics and psychology are also considered by Eco-critics to be possible contributors to Eco criticism. While Dana Phillips has criticized the literary quality and scientific accuracy of nature writing in "The Truth of Ecology". And many critics and readers are studies that to ecology at literature and may be that cultural ecology, environments, nature, human life and also literature. Now example to Eco-criticism of many like that:

E.g.             William Rueckert- Literature and Ecology: An Experiment in Eco-criticism

                   Joseph Meeker- The Comedy of Survival

                   Raymond Williams- The Country and the City

                   Cheryll Glotfelty- The Eco-criticism Reader

•       Psychoanalytical criticism

                         In fourth one that psychoanalytical criticism at most and part of literature. We see that literature has to studies into psychology use of literary work. And also it may be that human mind and his behavior explain and observes that of there.  In these terms Sigmund Freud has father of psychoanalytical and his gives that to ‘Interpretation of Dreams’ and we know that Freud ideas and also conscience, external gaze of culture, human mind and human behaviors. Now that I have two questions of psychoanalytical at human mind us desire of then. What unconscious motives are operating in the main characters?  What is being repressed?  Remember that the unconscious mind consists of repressed wounds, fears, unresolved conflicts, and guilty desires Is it possible to relate a character’s patterns of adult behavior to early experiences in the family as represented in the story?  What do these behavior patterns and family dynamics reveal? Now literature in psychoanalytical criticism has help us to literary fictions and it may be that which concepts are operating in text that wild meanings and also human desire of his consists of life to other human being. We know that you might focus on the work’s representation of family dynamics and it may be one what work tells us human being psychoanalytical relationship to death or sexuality. How the narrator’s unconscious problems keep appearing over the course of the story, and the way the repetition/symptoms of the conflict changes the formation of the self and the development of boundaries self consciousness. We know that text use techniques of substitution and displacement to help you understand the human mind and his personality. Freud give that to three concept to human and also see that to our childhood in observes that to him face unconsciously. In this terms Freud give three concepts like that:

In that one concept of Freud id, ego and superego of human mind and he says that ‘the mind reworks repressed urges into acceptable forms. And unconscious at sexuality, death and trauma. We see that to human desire has to controlled his behaves, moral and culture to controlled us. Now also Melanie Klein ‘objects relations theory’ and in this essay to Theory about how people relate to the world around them and she says that the physical and social world around the self is its ‘object world.’ 
                             
                      
                              As the child emerges from its primary, close relation to its parents, it must develop a separate sense of self, and it does that by learning to distinguish between self and other self and objects. So this is psychoanalytical critic has ideology and may be that lacan says that to psychoanalytical linguistic account of the mind and the human mind is structured like a language. And his essay “On the Mirror Stage as Formative of the I” in imaginary at pre self conscious sense of wholeness and a distinction between self and other.  And Jacques lacan ideas of psychoanalytical in characterized by language and also hearsays that Freud’s concepts of displacement and substitution are linguistic processes. And all three are most and impotent to psychoanalytical criticism and Freud concepts to human personality and lacan has to linguistics to human self of conscious. And now example to psychoanalytical criticism likes that:

E.g.     Sigmund Freud- Interpretation of Dreams

            Melanie Klein- Love, Guilt, Reparation

            Jacques Lacan- On the Mirror Stage as Formative of the I.

•     Structuralism

In last terms has most important and at part to literature of almost all literary theorists and the importance of structure conceived in diverse ways in analyzing a work literature. Structuralism is a way to examine a literary text to arrive at their meaning and rather than the actual meanings of the text themselves. It is a study of structure wherever they occur. In the essay Genette analyses content, logics, grammars and semiotics and may be that to literary critics.  In this terms Structuralist criticism that designates the practice of critics who analyze literature on the explicit model of structuralism linguistics. Who applied to literature the concepts and analytic distinctions developed by Ferdinand de Saussure in his Course in General Linguistics 1915 This mode of criticism is part of a larger movement, French structuralism, inaugurated in the 1950s by the cultural anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss, who analyzed, on Saussure's linguistic model, such cultural phenomena as mythology, kinship relations, and modes of preparing food. In its early form, as manifested by Lévi-Strauss and other writers in the 1950s and 1960s, structuralism cuts across the traditional disciplinary areas of the humanities and social sciences by undertaking to provide an objective account of all social and cultural practices, in a range that includes mythical narratives, literary texts, advertisements, fashions in clothes, and patterns of social decorum. It views these practices as combinations of signs that have a set significance for the members of a particular culture, and undertakes to make explicit the rules and procedures by which the practices have achieved their cultural significance and to specify what that significance is by reference to an underlying system and combination. We see that to literature into the elementary cultural phenomena like the linguistic elements in Saussure's exposition are not objective facts identifiable by their inherent properties. But purely “relational” entities that are their identity as signs are given to them by their relations of differences from, and binary oppositions to other elements within the cultural system. The primary interest of the structuralism like that of Saussure is not in the cultural parole but in the langue; that is not in any particular cultural phenomenon but  event except as it provides access to the structure, features and rules of the general system that engenders its significance. In ideas of Saussure says that thinking of stressed the way language is arbitrary and gives that langue and parole into structuralism. Parole at example to ‘scarlet letter’ individual tale of parole and langue example at to novel then cycle of myth. Parole can’t be understood and if langue is unintelligible.

 

Structuralism has to apply into literary studies and we see that views literature as a second-order signifying system that uses the first-order structural system of Language as its medium and is itself to be analyzed primarily on the model of Linguistic theory. Structuralist critics often apply a variety of linguistic concepts to the analysis of a literary text, such as the distinction between phonemic and morphemic levels of organization and it becomes know that between paradigmatic and syntagmatic relationships and some critics analyze the structure of a literary Text on the model of the syntax in a well-formed sentence. In these terms we can see that too many critics and author has to literary work like that Roland Barthes, Gerard Genette, Julia Kristeva, and Tzvetan Todorov were prominent structuralist critics of literature. Structuralism is in explicit opposition to mimetic criticism the view that literature is primarily an imitation of reality to expressive criticism the view that literature primarily expresses the feelings or temperament or creative imagination of its author and to any form of the view that literature is a mode of communication between author and readers. Moreover that structuralism attempt to develop a science of literature and in many of its salient concepts, the radical forms of structuralism departs from the assumptions and ruling ideas of traditional humanistic criticism. We know that the late 1960s the general structuralist enterprise in its rigorous form and inclusive pretensions  ceded its central position to deconstruction and other modes of poststructural theories and  which subverted the scientific claims of structuralism and its view that literary meanings are made determinate by a system of invariant conventions and codes. So that in Structuralist premises and procedures.  However continue to manifest themselves in a number of current enterprises and especially in the semiotic analysis of cultural phenomena in stylistics and in the investigation of the formal structures that in their combinations and variations constitute the plots in novels. See semiotics, cultural studies, stylistics, and narrative and narratology all are part of structuralism. We know that explain of structuralism of that to many reader and author example like that.

E.g.              Philip Pettit - The Concept of Structuralism: A Critical Analysis

                      Terence Hawkes- Structuralism and Semi

                      Peter Caws - Structuralism: The Art of the Intelligible

                     Gerald Graff - Literature Against Its

                    Frank Lentricchia - After the New Critic

                    

•                   Conclusion

    So that in this five terms has to more complicated and may be that in literature has to important and useful to whom history talks someone ideas and his creativity. And literature has use to this terms has glossary of literary work of art. In my perspective that to terms and we know that modernism, postmodernism, psychoanalytical, Eco criticism and structuralism useful and may be literature has overjoyed of ideas and understand to literature and particular readers work of art in literature.

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.