Matthew Arnold's Concept of Hebraism and Hellenism

Matthew Arnold (1822-1888), a literary figure of the Victorian age, comes next to Browning and Tennyson. He is a poet, critic, religious thinker and educationist. He has the experience of twenty- four years as the inspector of schools. It provided him so much time to meet the different classes and examine their behaviours and habits. This experience pursued him to write 'Culture & Anarchy'. In his book, he has also discussed various topics about true culture. In this book, he has discussed Hebraism and Hellenism. In the inception of the topic, he discusses doing and thinking. His general view about human beings is that they prefer to act rather than to think. He rejects it because mankind is to err and he can not 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. He 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. The root idea of the both is the desire for reason and the will of God, and the desire of love of God. Hebraism studies the universal order and observes the magnificence of God apparent in the order, whereas Hellenism follows with flexible activity. Thus Hellenism acquires spontaneity of consciousness with a clearness of mind, and Hebraism achieves a strictness of conscience with its clarity of thought. In brief, Hebraism shows stress on doing rather than knowing, and follows the will of God. Its primary idea is absolute obedience to the will of God. Hellenism and Hebraism both are directly connected to the life of human beings. Hellenism keeps emphasis on knowing or knowledge, where as Hebraism fastens its faith in doing. The concluding aim of both is the partaking of divine life with knowledge and action. He describes that the Bible reveals the truth which awards the peace of God and liberty. The simple idea of Hellenism is to get rid of ignorance and to see things as they are and to search beauty from them. Socrates, as Hellenic, states that the best man is he who tries to make himself perfect, and the happiest man is he who feels that he is perfecting himself. He does not tell us how it is to be done, and how to see things in their reality and beauty.

Now, Matthew Arnold turns to Sin that spoils the efforts to achieve Hellenism. He is of the opinion that Sin is an obstacle to perfection because it brings hurdles in knowing ourselves; it impedes man's passage to perfection. He calls it a mysterious power that is hostile to man. The discipline of the Holy Scripture teaches how to avoid and stop the Sin. Therefore, Hellenism speaks of thinking clearly and seeing things in their essence and beauty; where as Hebraism speaks of becoming conscious of the Sin and keeping away from it. In this treatise, Arnold asserts that there is enough of Hellenism in the English nation, and he emphasizes on Hebraism, because it is based on conduct and self- control. He admits that the age is incapable of governing itself in the pursuit of perfection, and the bright promise of Greek ideal is faded. Now the obedience or submission must be to the rules of conduct, as expressed by the Holy Scripture (Bible).Hellenism lays its main stress on clear intelligence, where as Hebraism keeps main stress on firm obedience, moral power and character. Arnold talks about the idea of immortality as illustrated by St. Paul, the Christian saint and Plato, the Greek philosopher, but the both have left something unexplained. So, the problem of human spirit is still unsolved in both Hebraism and Hellenism. In this respect, the writer finds triumph of the great movement of Christianity on the man's moral impulses. He accepts that Renaissance re-established Hellenism and man's intellectual impulses in Europe and Puritanism embraced the blessings of both Hellenism and Hebraism. In Reformation, there was the more influence of Hebraism than Hellenism. It was strong and in it, there was a grave return to the Bible and to doing the will of God from the heart. The superiority of Puritanism over Catholicism was moral, as the result of its greater sincerity and greater earnestness. Arnold says that the attitude of mind of Puritanism towards the Bible in no respect differs from the attitude of mind of catholism towards the church. The 16th century stood Hellenism face to face with Hebraism. Hebraism was renewed and purged, but Hellenism of Renaissance lost its moral character. One thing must be viewed that Hellenism is of Indo-European growth and Hebraism is of Semitic growth. Those who belonged to Indo-European stock showed their natural affinity to Hellenism. The English Puritanism restored the conscience and moral sense of Hebraism to the English in 16th century. It saved the nation from moral unresponsiveness and lethargic rule of conduct which came with Renaissance in the 16th century. It was a reaction of Hebraism against Hellenism. If Hellenism was defeated by Hebraism, it showed Hellenism was imperfect. The defeat of Hellenism by early Christianity and the defeat of Hellenism by Puritanism was the result of Renaissance stress on the progress of humanism and science. It inclined man to knowing himself and the world, to seeing the things as they are and to the spontaneity of consciousness. Despite it, the main inclination of the English nation was towards strictness of conscience. In conclusion, it must be added that the rule of life should be based on the theory of Hellenism and Hebraism because the final aim of both is man's perfection or salvation.

Walter Pater La Gioconda

Paters essay on the painting La Gioconda focuses mainly on how he interprets Da Vincis inspiration and perspective. He argues that Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa as a representation of his ideal lady, embodied and beheld at last.9 Again, the concept of objectification is brought into the interpretation of art. The woman being beheld at last creates the notion that she is something hard to attain and thus worshipped, making her essence less realistic and more idealistic. The suggestion of Da Vinci having created the Mona Lisa as the ideal of femininity is congruent to the dominant male observation of sexualizing women in art. He goes so far as to say that when set...beside those white Greek goddesses or beautiful women of antiquity..how they would be troubled by this beauty!10 Not only is the Mona Lisa the idealized woman, but she is even more beautiful and more yearned for than goddesses, who are known for being untouchable and the ultimate in male adoration. It is also important to note that Pater chose to analyze La Gioconda in an essay format, and focused on Da Vincis inspiration behind the painting. Instead of personally expressing his feelings about the painting through poetry or more informal prose, he structured an essay which reflects the rigidity and objectivity of the male observer. His focus on Da Vincis interpretation shows his attention to how other males saw the image and what might have inspired Da Vinci to paint La Gioconda, which he deduces as an idealization of the perfect woman. By choosing to write a structured essay, his argument becomes a representation of the objectivity of the male observer and the focus on one fixed meaning of the image rather than in Fields poetry which was a more personal reflection and subjective in its exploration of what the female image represented. Although it may seem that the idealization of womens beauty is a way of appreciating their influence and importance, it only succeeds in doing the opposite because the focus is not on the women themselves but rather on a fake, over exaggerated idea of what a woman is or should be. It could be interpreted that Pater appears to be taking the subjective approach by individualizing Da Vincis feelings about the female form, but he is in actuality looking at the painting with an objectivist approach because of the dominance he has over the image and the narrow meaning by which he defines it. The female form is sexualized, thus becoming defined as the object of males desire. With no emphasis on any other aspect of the females being, her meaning becomes fixed and objectively viewed. The male observers, in this case both Da Vinci and Pater, view the image with sexual connotations in mind, thus creating an imbalance of power. The sexual overtones of the image define the woman as being important for the desire of the male, thus making the woman an aide in abiding to what the male wants. This gives the power to the male, and the female becomes submissive and objectified.

On Liberty
John Stuart Mill
Chapter 3, Of Individuality, as one of the Elements of Well-being

Having already examined whether people should be allowed to hold and express unpopular beliefs, Mill looks at the question of whether people should be allowed to act on their opinions without facing legal punishment or social stigma. Mill observes that actions should not be as free as opinions, and reasserts that both must be limited when they would cause harm to others and be "a nuisance to other people." However, many of the reasons for respecting different opinions also apply to respecting actions. Since humans are fallible, different "experiments of living" are valuable. The expression of individuality is essential for individual and social progress. Individuality is essential to the cultivation of the self. A basic problem that Mill sees with society is that individual spontaneity is not respected as having any good in itself, and is not seen as essential to well-being. Rather, the majority thinks that its ways should be good enough for everybody. Mill argues that while people should be trained as children in the accumulated knowledge of human experience, they should also have the freedom as adults to interpret that experience as they see fit. He places great moral emphasis on the process of making choices, and not simply accepting customs without questions: only people who make choices are using all of their human faculties. Mill then links the desires and impulses reflected in individuality with the development of character: "One whose desires and impulses are not his own, has no character, no more than a steam engine has character." Mill writes that in early stages of society, it is possible that there could be too much individuality. However, the danger now is rather the stifling of desires and impulses. He says that people become more valuable to themselves and also more able to be valuable to others when they develop their individuality. Mill then turns to the second part of his discussion, the ways in which people who exercise their liberty as individuals are valuable to others. Individuality is valuable because people might learn something from the nonconformists. Dissenters may discover new goods, and keep alive existing goods. While genius is rare, it is also true that "Genius can only breathe free in an atmosphere of freedom." Unoriginal people tend to not see the value of originality, and tend to shun genius for mediocrity. Mill argues against this tendency, saying that all people should value what originality brings to the world. Furthermore, Mill argues that the modern age (the 19th century), in contrast to the Middle Ages, tends to diminish the individual and encourage mediocrity, linking this tendency with the democratization of culture and government. A conscious effort needs to be made to counteract this trend. There is no one pattern for how to best live life. If a person is sufficiently developed, then his choices for how to live life are best precisely because they are his own. People require different atmospheres in order to develop and reach their potentials, and a healthy society must make it possible for people to follow more than one pattern.

Liberty and individuality are essential to individual and social progress. Seeing people's dissimilarities is key in learning about one's own weaknesses. Diversity also lets us see the potential of combining the positive traits of different people. Forced conformity, in contrast, keeps people from learning from each other. Mill writes that it is "despotism of custom" that prevents the improvement of England, and that it is Europe's relative diversity of lifestyles and paths that makes it more progressive than conformist China. However, Mill worries that Europe is progressing towards the Chinese ideal of "making all people alike," and will thus face stagnation. In this chapter, Mill tries to show that individuality and nonconformity are valuable both on the level of the individual and on the level of society. Mill believes that society naturally prefers conformity, and that this preference is exacerbated by democratization and the control of society by the masses. Mill's concern with the stifling of individuality extends to both legal and social realms. He believes that in the face of public pressure to conform and the institutionalized power of over-reaching laws, the individual is obstructed from an ability to make meaningful choices, and thus from personal development. More broadly, and extremely important to any argument resting on the concept of utility, conformity hurts society as well as the individual in the minority, since in conformity people lose out on potentially desirable ways of approaching life and stop learning from each other. Mill believes that social progress requires a dynamic give and take between conflicting ways of life. Mill's views of social progress are intimately tied up with his views on individuality and conformity. Mill subscribes to the belief that there are better and worse ways to live life: barbarians and savages, Mill believes live more poorly than civilized man. But, with civilization comes a tendency toward conformity. And since Mille believes that it is through a free and dynamic development of one's self and the interaction with people with different ways of life that an individual perfects himself, and similarly, that it is through discussion and dissent that "truth" is kept alive in society, conformity leads to social stagnation. There may be such a thing as too much individuality, as a barbarian nation is structured (or unstructured). Conformity, however, the opposite of too much individuality, is similarly problematic, and leads only to a lack of vitality. Mill here outlines a relationship between the liberty of man and society that is dynamic, a constantly negotiated terrain; there is a delicate balance, the individual must always be free, but the specter of too much freedom, as embodied by the uncivilized world, does exist. Mill does not give many examples in this chapter, and his discussion of liberty of action is quite general. Thus, it is important to think about what individual "liberty" Mill truly considers to be necessary for human and social development. If by liberty he merely means permitting eccentricity, then it is not clear that his position is very radical all. However, if Mill wishes to encourage people to act out against deeply engrained social norms, then one might wonder if society might simply lose cohesion and become polarized under his system. One might also wonder if there aren't some actions that are simply worthless for human development. The next two chapters provide some real examples of Mill's principles in action. When reflecting on these examples, think about whether they are consistent with Mill's arguments and predictions in this chapter.

Ruskins The Stones of Venice

The savageness of the Gothis Architecture In this volume, Ruskin describes the development of Byzantine architecture, followed by the shift to the Gothic style and its subsequent development, focusing on the stylistic changes that took place in arches and other architectural elements as demonstrated on Venetian buildings. He chooses to focus on the arches of windows and doorways as evidence for his argument because he considers them the most distinctly traceable elements of a building.[5] Interestingly, he points out that the Gothic reached Venice after it was already established on the mainland, meaning that Venice embraced the Byzantine far longer than other places in Italy. According to Ruskin, this signifies that the emergence of the Gothic in Venice was not a matter of architectural innovation, but rather a struggle between earlier conventions and a more contemporary style, equating early Gothic structures in the city to a prisoner entangled among the enemys forces, and maintaining their ground till their friends came up to sustain them.[6] He illustrates this idea by chronicling the gradual changes to arches that occurred early in the shift towards the Gothic during the twelfth century, followed by later, more radical changes in the fifteenth century. While the second and third orders represent the transitional styles moving towards the full Gothic, the fourth and fifth are purely Gothic, as well as the styles that lasted the longest, beginning in the thirteenth century and ending in the fifteenth. The fourth order is pointed like the third, but instead of straight moldings, they have a trefoil-like shape. The fifth order is similar, but has a straight molding with the trefoil shape placed inside of the arch. Both these orders can be seen on the main rows of windows on the Ca dOro, a palace designed by Giovanni and Bartolomeo Bon between 1428 and 1430. The windows of the lower arcade are of the fourth order, while those of the upper arcade are of the fifth. As expected, Ruskin considers the fourth and fifth orders, those most Gothic in nature, to be the best, as the root of all that is greatest in Christian art is struck in the thirteenth century.[7] Ruskins sixth and final order represents the late Gothic arch, present before architecture began to shift towards the Renaissance style. This order is basically the same as the fifth order, except with the addition of a finial above the point of the arch, as seen in Ruskins 1851 drawing Decoration by Disks: Palazzo dei Badoari Partecipazzi, found in the first volume of The Stones of Venice. 1. Savageness. 2. Changefulness. 3. Naturalism. 4. Grotesqueness. 5. Rigidity. 6. Redundance. These characters are here expressed as belonging to the building; as belonging to the builder, they would be expressed thus:--1. Savageness, or Rudeness. 2. Love of Change. 3. Love of Nature. 4. Disturbed Imagination. 5. Obstinacy. 6. Generosity. And I repeat, that the withdrawal of any one, or any two, will not at once destroy the Gothic character of a building, but the removal of a majority of them will. I shall proceed to examine them in their order.