Thinking of what could be the
definition of a « Great Man » reminds me of the obsessive opposition
between Napoleon the First (“The Great”) and Napoleon III (“The Little”)
in Victor Hugo’s works. Napoleon the First is considered as great, as
his military victories led to an expansion of a new civilization into
the whole Europe, so that his glory is seen as the glorification of a
new humanity.
Hugo’s
vision is a romantic one. In fact, there is nothing great in Napoleon’s
policy of conquest: it may be considered as “kitsch” (in the sense
developed by Milan Kundera: a romantic posture induced by a fanatic
excitement), or as a “lyric illusion” (almost the same idea developed by
André Malraux). The alleged search for the glory of France is a pretext
hiding a quest for a personal and familial glorification. Napoleon was
ready to kill hundreds of thousand young men in his romantic campaigns.
Having said that, what should we think about Cesar ? Alexander “The Great “?
A
great political leader is certainly at the opposite: looking for the
social welfare, for the wellbeing of his population, encouraging the
arts.
If one compares Napoleon the 1st with Napoleon III, considering a no romantic greatness, who is the Great ? Who is the Little ?
Thinking
of the Freud’s genial definition of the greatness, with the idea of a
“grandiose creation”, should we exclude from the circle of great wo/men
most of the military leaders and should we concentrate our attention on
people able to create something exceptional ?
The
idea of the Panthéon, the question of who could be the next great to be
buried in, leads to a difficulty: should we consider as a great
man/woman the one officially recognized as such ? In the past,
especially in the artistic world, many great figures refused any kind of
an official recognition. In this case, we may consider the Panthéon
just as symbolic form, which gives an idea of the greatness, but just an
idea.
