Culture and Anarchy: An Essay in Political and Social Criticism

In Chapter 4, Arnold focuses on the contrast between Hebraism and Hellenism, which he calls the “two points of influence” in society and culture. While Arnold credits both Hebraism and Hellenism as sharing the same “final aim,” which is “man’s perfection or salvation” (319), he believes that each differs from the other in both its substance and in its means. Arnold introduces the two concepts as follows: “[T]he uppermost idea with Hellenism is to see things as they really are; the uppermost idea with Hebraism is conduct and obedience” (321, emphasis added). Arnold then explores each of these influences in more detail.

Arnold equates Hebraism with the influence of Semitic, or ancient Judaic, culture upon modern European civilization. He describes Hebraism as “seiz[ing] upon certain plain, capital intimations of the universal order” (323), to which it adheres “with unequalled grandeur of earnestness and intensity on the study and observance of them” (323). Hellenism, by contrast, is the influence of classical Greek and Roman civilization. Hellenism is concerned with “the whole play of the universal order” (323) and is therefore more flexible, open-ended, and creative than Hebraism. Arnold sums up the main difference between Hebraism and Hellenism by stating, “The governing idea of Hellenism is spontaneity of consciousness; that of Hebraism, strictness of conscience” (323, emphasis Arnold’s).

Arnold explains that both Hebraism and Hellenism have played important roles in the development of civilization, in particular European and English civilization. He says that in certain eras, one strand of influence has often been more dominant than the other. He uses the Renaissance and the Reformation as examples. During the Renaissance, Hellenism was the dominant force, as it was filled with an “exclusive preponderance given to man’s perceiving and knowing side” (340) and that it also displayed “a side of moral weakness” (339) due to its worldliness and cosmopolitan spirit. The Renaissance and its Hellenism then “provoked a reaction” (340) in the form of the Reformation. The Reformation, with its emphasis on spiritual purification and biblical literalism, once again allowed Hebraism to gain the upper hand. Arnold credits Protestantism with “moral superiority” (339) but claims that, in comparison with the more cosmopolitan Catholicism, “its [Protestantism’s] pretensions to an intellectual superiority are quite illusory” (339).

Arnold then explains that the Hebraic influence has manifested itself most strongly, within an English context, as Puritanism. While Arnold praises some of the benefits of this Hebraic influence, acknowledging it as a necessary part of English moral and national development, he argues that the time has come for a change.