個人を強調する人(歴史家)に賛成して、もう一歩論をすすめましょう。人事(=人間社会の諸々の事柄)において最も知られる価値があり、最も称賛すべきことは、社会よりもむしろ個人に関係したものである,と私は考えます。ある集団に含まれる数人の個々人を越えた価値をその人間集団(自体)が独立して持っている、とは私は信じません(注:個人にまず価値がなければ、個人の集まりである集団にも価値はない。たとえば、国家があってこその個人ではなく、個人があってこその国家)。歴史(書)が国家や、民族、教会、あるいは他の集団的実体を讃美するために個人の価値を無視することは危険であると考えます。しかし、政治(の問題)に引き込まれないようにしたいので、このテーマにこれ以上深入りしないことにします。 |
I do not mean to subscribe to Carlyle's cult of heroes, still less to Nietzsche's exaggeration of it. I do not wish for one moment to suggest that the common man is unimportant, or that the study of masses of men is less worth pursuing than the study of notable individuals. I wish only to preserve a balance between the two. I believe that remarkable individuals have done a great deal to mold history. I think that, if the hundred ablest men of science of the seventeenth century had all died in infancy, the life of the common man in every industrial community would now be quite different from what it is. I do not think that if Shakespeare and Milton had not existed someone else would have composed their works. And yet this is the sort of thing that some "scientific" historians seem to wish one to believe. I will go a step farther in agreement with those who emphasize the individual. I think that what is most worthy to be known and admired in human affairs has to do with individuals rather than with communities. I do not believe in the independent value of a collection of human beings over and above the value contained in their several lives, and I think it is dangerous if history neglects individual value in order to glorify a state, a nation, a church, or any other such collective entity. But I will not pursue this theme farther for fear of being led into politics. |