-
Articles/Ads
Article ISRAEL, GREECE, AND ROME. ← Page 2 of 3 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Israel, Greece, And Rome.
Rome , everything which physical life embraces and produces . Everything of the human heart , and every subjective relation in the circumstances of man , are brought to light in the life of Israel , and are the staple of his unbounded literature . In Israel the inward man stands pre-eminent to the outward , and is placed in a separate and predominant position ; indeed , the loftiest aspirations , the sublimest ideal of man , are there exhibited in their purest spirituality . Different , however , is it in Greece . There man is represented as he outwardly appears , as a whole , whose individual parts stand to each other in harmonious connection , and require cultivation . To comprehend these characteristics , we must first
examine his visible features , from which we may form the ideal of his physical perfection . In Rome every energy was directed to the attainment of political power ; national and political interests threw everything else in the back-ground . There the scope for mental activity could onl y be found in the national games ; and it may be considered significant of the Roman character , when we read that a most distinguished Roman orator and an eminent man of letters was deprived of his arm and tongue by a political opponent . We arethereforeenabled to describe
, , the principles of these three ancient nations in three distinct terms . In Israel , " understanding ; " in Greece , ' -beauty ; " in Rome , "honour . " As a demonstrative proof we may mention , that the Romans rewarded their most praiseworthy men with honour . The Greeks said " KOXKOV ayadia" ( beauty combined with kindness , viz . the harmonious connexion of the internal with the external ); whilst the Hebrews say , ? VD-T ) ( perfect ; Gen . vi . ] ., and xvii . 1 . ) , and especially 7 K DiJ D'O / I
( perfect with God ; Deut . xviii . 13 : Psal . xviii . 24 ) . Let us now cast a glance on the peculiar worlds which these nations have respectivel y founded for themselves . Israel first of all constructed for himself a terrestrial world , subordinate to the celestial . Looking upon God as providence , as judge , as incorporeal , the unlimited holiness ; and upon man as sinful , yet striving after purity , and struggling for salvation ; the former , conscious of our guilt , yet forgiving ; the latter ,
penitent for his iniquity , and anxious to be relieved therefrom;—the Hebrews look upon this terrestrial world as transient , as vain in itself , yet acknowledging it to be a means , or a kind of transition to the hi gher world ; hence it is that all human works have merely their value according to their intrinsic moral worth , being otherwise considered contemptible and vain , as the offspring ofthe moment , ( see Ecclesiastes ) . How different appears the structure of Greece ! As the Divine
elements were seen by them in the ideas of the human mind , partaking both of human passions and of human enjoyments , so they appreciated only the visible and sensual world , which exhibited man in the most perfect harmony , and in a manner greatly pleasing to the senses . It cannot be said that amongst the Greeks Man was idolised , nor that God was corporealised ; but all and every thing to them was Man . Whilst the Israelites looked upon the body as the mantle of the soul , and upon
the bosom as the shelter of the iieart , to the Greeks the soul appeared as surrounding and entwining the body , and as existing only for the purpose of refining and spiritualising physical life . Thus was the world of the Greeks purely human , finished and completed by man ; their idea of a life hereafter was confined to a subterranean region in the dark dominions of Pluto . The Roman world , on the contrary , was a physical state and government . Whether we contemplate matters within—thc contest of parties
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Israel, Greece, And Rome.
Rome , everything which physical life embraces and produces . Everything of the human heart , and every subjective relation in the circumstances of man , are brought to light in the life of Israel , and are the staple of his unbounded literature . In Israel the inward man stands pre-eminent to the outward , and is placed in a separate and predominant position ; indeed , the loftiest aspirations , the sublimest ideal of man , are there exhibited in their purest spirituality . Different , however , is it in Greece . There man is represented as he outwardly appears , as a whole , whose individual parts stand to each other in harmonious connection , and require cultivation . To comprehend these characteristics , we must first
examine his visible features , from which we may form the ideal of his physical perfection . In Rome every energy was directed to the attainment of political power ; national and political interests threw everything else in the back-ground . There the scope for mental activity could onl y be found in the national games ; and it may be considered significant of the Roman character , when we read that a most distinguished Roman orator and an eminent man of letters was deprived of his arm and tongue by a political opponent . We arethereforeenabled to describe
, , the principles of these three ancient nations in three distinct terms . In Israel , " understanding ; " in Greece , ' -beauty ; " in Rome , "honour . " As a demonstrative proof we may mention , that the Romans rewarded their most praiseworthy men with honour . The Greeks said " KOXKOV ayadia" ( beauty combined with kindness , viz . the harmonious connexion of the internal with the external ); whilst the Hebrews say , ? VD-T ) ( perfect ; Gen . vi . ] ., and xvii . 1 . ) , and especially 7 K DiJ D'O / I
( perfect with God ; Deut . xviii . 13 : Psal . xviii . 24 ) . Let us now cast a glance on the peculiar worlds which these nations have respectivel y founded for themselves . Israel first of all constructed for himself a terrestrial world , subordinate to the celestial . Looking upon God as providence , as judge , as incorporeal , the unlimited holiness ; and upon man as sinful , yet striving after purity , and struggling for salvation ; the former , conscious of our guilt , yet forgiving ; the latter ,
penitent for his iniquity , and anxious to be relieved therefrom;—the Hebrews look upon this terrestrial world as transient , as vain in itself , yet acknowledging it to be a means , or a kind of transition to the hi gher world ; hence it is that all human works have merely their value according to their intrinsic moral worth , being otherwise considered contemptible and vain , as the offspring ofthe moment , ( see Ecclesiastes ) . How different appears the structure of Greece ! As the Divine
elements were seen by them in the ideas of the human mind , partaking both of human passions and of human enjoyments , so they appreciated only the visible and sensual world , which exhibited man in the most perfect harmony , and in a manner greatly pleasing to the senses . It cannot be said that amongst the Greeks Man was idolised , nor that God was corporealised ; but all and every thing to them was Man . Whilst the Israelites looked upon the body as the mantle of the soul , and upon
the bosom as the shelter of the iieart , to the Greeks the soul appeared as surrounding and entwining the body , and as existing only for the purpose of refining and spiritualising physical life . Thus was the world of the Greeks purely human , finished and completed by man ; their idea of a life hereafter was confined to a subterranean region in the dark dominions of Pluto . The Roman world , on the contrary , was a physical state and government . Whether we contemplate matters within—thc contest of parties