History tends to be top heavy. That is, it focuses on the great figures and evolves from that point.
We know, or at least should be aware, history isn't just about the "great" figures for how to define exactly what made men "great?" We've been conditioned to think or take for granted, well, men were mythical in their greatness. It gets us into all sorts of trouble. Just look at how we deal with athletes and celebrities. Moreover, we treat with suspicion figures we don't know who could very well be "great." This comes in the form of "Who? Never heard of him." Ergo, he didn't exist and can't be important.
"Greatness" is personal and all local.
Meaning? Meaning we all meet great and extraordinary people on this highway of life. It's personal and local. We can sometimes see with our own eyes who a "great" person can be made and not just born.
I can only attach the word "great" to a person I know. Or, if I must, restrict its usage by ascribing a narrow definition to describe a "great" act or invention. Or by seperating a "great" piece of literature from a great man. To me then, an author becomes a "great" writer but necessarily a "great" man. Both can merge no doubt. The game then becomes how to not be deceived on the great man part of the equation.
My college had, amongst it's faculty, a Royal Geographic Society member and a very well, then, known composer, both Sulpician priests. I once asked one my teachers how it felt to live with such great men. With a smile he answered: "When you eat breakfast every morning with a great man, he does not remain great very long".
ReplyDeleteGood one!
ReplyDelete