Who can be called a great man? If
asked of military heroes such as Alexander, Attila,
Caesar and Tamerlane, the question is not difficult to answer. The military men
make epochs and effect vast transitions. They appal and dazzle their
contemporaries by their resounding victories. They become great without waiting
to be called great. As the lion is among the deer, so they are among men. But
it is equally true that their permanent effect on
the history of mankind is very small. Their conquests shrink, and even so great
a General as Napoleon after all his conquests left France smaller than he found
it. When viewed from a distance they are seen to be only periodical, if
necessary, incidents in the world's movement,
leaving no permanent mark on the character of the society in which they live
The details of their career and their moral may be interesting, but they do not
affect society and form no leaven to transform or
temper the whole.
The answer becomes difficult when
the question is asked about a person who is not a military general. For, it
then becomes a question of tests, and different people have different tests.
Carlyle the apostle of Hero Worship
had a test of his own. He laid it down in the following terms :
" But of great man especially, of him I will venture to assert that it is
incredible he should have been
other than true. It seems
to me the primary foundation
of him, this. . . No man adequate to do
anything, but is first of all in right earnest about it; what I call a
sincere man. I should
say sincerity, a
deep, great genuine sincerity, is the first characteristic of all
men in any way heroic."
Carlyle was of course particular in
defining his test of sincere in precise terms, and
in doing so he warned his readers by defining what
his idea Of sincerity was—
" Not
the sincerity that calls itself sincere : Ah no," he
said, " that is a very
poor matter indeed; — a
shadow, braggart, conscious
sincerity; oftenest
self-conceit mainly. The great man's sincerity is of the kind he cannot, speak of, is
not conscious of : Nay, I
suppose, he is conscious rather of insincerity ;
for what man can walk accurately by the law of truth for one day ? No, the great man. does not boast himself
sincere, far from that; perhaps
does not ask himself if he is
so: I would say rather, his sincerity does not depend on himself
; he cannot help being sincere ! "
Lord Rosebery
proposed another test when dealing with Napoleon—-who was
as great an Administrator
as a General. In answering the question, Was Napoleon
Great ? Rosebery used the following language:
" If by ' great ' be intended the combination of
moral qualities with those of intellect, great he certainty was not. But
that he- was great in the sense of being extraordinary and supreme we can have no
doubt. If greatness stands for natural power, for
predominance, for something human beyond humanity,
then Napoleon was assuredly great. Besides that indefinable spark which we call genius,
he represents a combination
of intellect and energy
which has never perhaps been equalled, never certainly surpassed."
There is a third test, suggested by the philosophers or, to
be more accurate, by those who believe in divine guidance of human affairs. They have a different conception of what
is a great man. To summarise the summary of their view, as given by Rosebery, a
great man is launched into the world, as a great natural or supernatural force, as
a scourge and a scavenger boon to cleanse society and lead it on to the right
path who is engaged in a vast operation, partly
positive, mainly negative, but all relating to
social regeneration.
Which of these is the true test ? In my judgement all are partial and none iscomplete. Sincerity must be the test of a greatman. Clemenceau once said that most statesmen arerogues. Statesmen are not necessarily great men, and obviously these on whoseexperience he founded his opinion must have been those wanting in sincerity,Nonetheless no one can accept that sincerity is the primary or thesole test. For sincerity is not enough. A great man must have sincerity.For it is the sum of all moral qualities without which noman can be called great.But there must be somethingmore than mere sincerity in a man tomake him great. A man maybe sincere and yet he maybe a fool, and a foolis the very antithesis ofa great map. A man is great because he finds a way to save society in its hours of crisis. But what can help him to find the way ? He can do so only with the help or intellect. Intellect is the light. Nothing else can be of any avail. It is quiteobvious that without the combination of sincerity and intellect no man can be great. Is thisenough to constitute a great man? At this stage we. must, I think, make a distinction between an eminent individual and a great man. For I am certain that a great man is something very different from an eminent individual. Sincerity and intellect: are enough to mark out an individual as being eminent as compared to his fellows. But they are not enough to raise him to the dignityof a great man. A greatman must have something more than what a merely eminentindividual has. What must be that thing? Here comes the importance of the philosophers definition of a great man. A great man must be motivated by the dynamics of a. social purposeand must act as the scourge and the scavenger of society. These are the elements which distinguish an eminent individual from a great man and constitute his title deeds to respect and reverence.
Comments
Social Counter