昨日322 今日685 合計148043
課題集 ザクロ の山

○自由な題名 / 池新
○個性、勉強の意味 / 池新
○道徳教育、ローカリズムとグローバリズム / 池新
★劇は、つねに宗教的な(感) / 池新
【一番目の長文は暗唱用の長文で、二番目の長文は課題の長文です。】
 【1】ハマーショルドの日記はきわめて特異である。国連事務総長という要職にあった人の、またその職責にひたむきに献身していた人の手になるものでありながら、職務にかかわる記述が一行としてない。【2】それを読んだだけで書き手の職業を言い当てるのは、おそらく不可能だろう。世俗的な属性だけではなく、時間も空間もすべて超越しているかに見える。時折現れる日付さえ、この印象を拭い去りはしない。【3】それはそうだろう。この日記は彼と「神とのかかわり合いに関する白書のようなもの」(友人のレイフ・ベルフラーゲ宛の遺書)なのだから。
 【4】神との対話は透徹した自己省察となる。もし神の視線が自分に照射されたなら明るみに出されるのは何か、それを測り尽くすとでも言うかのように、ハマーショルドは自分の弱さと卑小さを見つめ続けた。【5】「それから目をそらしたなら、たちまち自分の行動の誠実さを脅かすことになるから」(一九五七年四月七日)である。傲慢さや自己憐憫、怯懦や取るに足らぬ自尊心を徹底的に排除した。【6】彼にとって誠実な生の営みとは、存在にまつわるそれらの夾雑物をぎりぎりまで削ぎ落とすことだった。日記中に引用されている次の文章が、そうした彼の思考をあますところなく伝えている。
 【7】大地に重みをかけぬこと。悲愴な口調でさらに高くと叫ぶのは無用である。ただ、これだけでよい。
 ――大地に重みをかけぬこと。(一九五一年・日付不明)
【8】「大地に重みをかけぬこと」とは、言いかえれば自己放棄つまりおのれを空しくすることを意味する。この自己放棄(ないしは自己滅却)という言葉はしばしば日記の中で用いられており、ハマーショルドの思想的中心点の一つだと言ってよい。【9】それは夾雑物に惑わされたり、自分自身にのみ拘泥したりせぬことである。こうして彼は、精神の高みに飛翔する瞬間のために準備を続けた。【0】∵まさに魂の彫琢とでも呼ぶほかはない。
 何がこれほどまでに、彼を魂の彫琢に駆り立てたのだろうか。この人の「憧れ」は何であったのか。ここで私たちは、「よき死のための成熟」という一つの答えに出会う。
「死はおまえから生に捧げる決定的な贈物たるべきであり、生に対する裏切りであってはならない」(一九五一年・日付不明)、そう彼は自分に語りかけている。そこに見られるのは、漠然とした死への恐怖などではなく、躍動する生の営みの果てに積極的に死を迎え入れようという、確固たる姿勢である。みずから命を絶つあきらめでもなければ、他人の生を踏みしだく傲慢さでもない。
 死を「生に対する贈物」にすべく彼が求めてやまなかったのは、「成熟」ということだった。一九五三年四月七日、国連事務総長に就任した日の日記には、くり返しそれへの渇望が書かれている。たとえば、「成熟――なかんずく、子供が仲間と遊んでいるときのように、現在の瞬間に明るく澄んだ無心さで遊び、仲間と心がひとつになりきって影ひとつささぬ境地」。遊びほうける幼子との結びつけが意表を衝くが、この「無心さ」が、実は自己滅却と同じものであると考えるならさほど不思議はない。こうして彼は、国連事務総長という、「世界で最も不可能な仕事」(初代事務総長T・リー)を、気負いもたかぶりもせずに、成熟と自己滅却という自分自身の原則を静かに再確認することだけで始めたのだった。

(最上敏樹『国境なき平和に』による)∵
 【1】劇は、つねに宗教的な秘儀のうちに、その起原を置いている。ギリシア劇においては、そのことが明瞭に看取される。その宗教的背景が、シェイクスピア劇では、一見うしなわれているかのように見えるのだ。(中略)
 【2】もちろん、かれの詩的天才を疑うものはいない。またやや通俗的ではあるが、その作品の劇的効果は否定しえない。それにしても、近代的な合理主義からいえば、かれの作劇術は、あまりにも粗雑にすぎ、実証的な写実主義からいえば、心理的リアリティを欠いている。【3】その精神や思想にいたっては、私たちはシェイクスピアのなかに一個の人間である作者の像をみとめることができない。つまり、かれは近代的な意味における芸術家ではない。ひとびとはいうであろう、ハムレットやリアの主張を読みとることができても、作者の主張はどこにも読みとれない。作者はどこにいるのか、と。
 【4】そういうひとたちに、私は答える。すでにいったように、私は個人の主張などというものに、もはやなんの興味も感じない。個性や心理の、いかに微細な分析も、いまの私にはなんら新鮮な、驚異や喜びを与えない。【5】すべてはわかりきったことだ。それらは季節に開花する路傍の花ほどにも、私の眼を惹かぬであろう。が、作者の思想と現実の分析とがなくして、現代文学はなりたたぬ。問題は、それが路傍の花にどう道を通じているかである。【6】私ばかりではあるまい。私たちが求めるのは博物学でも博物学者でもなく、生きた花なのではないか。シェイクスピアから私たちが受けとるものは、作者の精神でもなければ、主人公たちの主張でもない。【7】シェイクスピアは私たちになにかを与えようとしているのではなく、ひとつの世界に私たちを招き入れようとしているのである。それが、劇というものなのだ。それが、人間の生きかたというものなのだ。
 【8】宗教的な秘儀は、つねにそのことを目的としていた。見ることを許された特定のひとたちを、眼前に「おこなわれていること」の世界に引きずりこむのが秘儀の目的である。いわば路傍の花が私たちを季節のなかに引きずりこむように、奥儀おうぎが啓示されるのである。(中略)【9】サルトルが「嘔吐」のなかで女にいわせている「∵完璧な瞬間」というのも、じつはそういうものを背景にしなければ成りたたぬのである。対象とのあいだに、違和感を見ず、自己も対象も部分のままでありながら、全体に抱きかかえられている瞬間、それを女は欲した。そして失敗した。【0】相手の男が協力しなかったからである。ということは、女は男のまえで、路傍の花にたいするようにすなおに自分の違和感を棄てさることができなかったということだ。のみならず、女は相手にそれを棄てることを求めていたのである。いいかえれば、自分が主役を演じうるように、相手がふるまうことを期待していたのである。もし、個人が、個人の手で全体性を造りあげようとすれば、自分がその中心になり、相手を自分のまえに跪かせるまでは、とどまることを知らぬのである。「嘔吐」のなかの女は、たとえ受身の端役においても、主役を批判し制御しようとしているではないか。
 対象を路傍の花にかぎれば、それは逃避にしかならぬ。が、自然のみを対象とすることも、今日ではすでに逃避である。天災と戦おうとする科学は、私たちの自然にたいする支配慾の現れかもしれぬが、その裏で、もし私たちが自然との調和だけを心がけるとしたなら、やはりそれは逃避であろう。同様に、階級や戦争の悪を根絶しようとする試みも、私たちのあいだにあっては、容易に逃避に転化しうるのだ。

(福田恆存「人間・この劇的なるもの」)

○The frequently debated question(感) / 池新
The frequently debated question, 'Should the doctor tell?', tends to carry a false implication that the doctor knows all about the patient's approaching death and the patient knows nothing. The resultant discussion and controversy is therefore often not to the point or only touches slightly upon the real problem. Doctors are far from knowing everything. Even if they have no doubt that their patients' condition will be fatal, they can rarely predict the time of death with any accuracy unless it is close at hand. Furthermore, patients are not necessarily unaware of what is happening; many have a very clear idea that they are dying.
Rather than putting a choice between telling or not telling, it would be more useful to ask other questions. Should we encourage the patient, or hide the truth from a patient who begins to speak of matters that will lead to talk of dying? How freely should we speak about it? Should we lie if we suspect patients only want to be told that all will be well? If there is a sincere willingness to know whether the illness will be fatal or not, should the patients' suppositions be confirmed? If there are no direct questions, have we a duty to tell the truth? Is it right to deny knowledge of dying to those who ask, or wrong to tell those who show no wish to know? Should we allow the awareness of dying to grow gradually, or should patients who are mortally ill know this early on, so that they may come to terms with a greater acceptance of dying? If they are to be told more openly, how should such knowledge be given? How do people react to being told? These questions, all part of that over-simplified, 'Should the doctor tell?', can have no universally accepted answer. Individuals differ and moral beliefs or current opinions will influence judgement.
There are some good reasons for speaking freely about the possibility of dying to those with fatal conditions. An ill person who strongly suspects approaching death, but is denied the least opportunity to question or discuss this, can feel cruelly isolated if the people around the patient remain silent. The patient may be surrounded by people whose every apparent word or action is designed to deny or avoid the fact that death is approaching, and therefore the patient has an awareness of being deceived. How can one gain the ease of wholly sincere talk with others if all continue to pretend that the immediate departure from life, the loss to them for ever, is just not taking place?
The view that we have a duty to inform those about to die has some support on material and spiritual grounds. If a doctor hides from a patient the fact that death is near, the person may fail to order family affairs or may start business ventures which would not be thought of if it were known that death was likely. The doctor's legal responsibility to warn the dying person appears to be a matter of debate. Most doctors, however, will bear in mind how far people need to set their affairs in order, when considering what they should tell a dying patient. Giving advice that it might be a good idea to make preparations for one's death serves more than that single function. Delicately put, it is a hint that an ill person can discuss further with the doctor if there is a wish to know more, or it is advice that can be just accepted at its face value.
The spiritual need for a person to know that death is near may well be more important than material matters in the terminal phase. Frequently the dying person suddenly turns or returns to religious beliefs. The dying person may already have prayed for help in serious illness, perhaps with a rather unfamiliar voice. If it appears that recovery is unlikely, most people in the religious world hold strongly that the patient should know this, so that preparations can be made for eternal life.
At times there is an increasing need to be frank with a patient over the prediction concerning the outcome of the disease, because there are short periods of feverish hopes followed by long periods of despairing misery. The patient may waste effort and money on unjustified and quite hopeless treatments, only to have bitter disappointment as well-known cure-alls fail. If a patient is seriously ill and appears to be getting worse while the doctors appear content with ineffective remedies, it may be felt that opportunities for a cure are being lost. This may lead to a feeling of frustration or a desperate tour of other doctors. Of course, a second opinion from a respected source may be a great help to all concerned. This may bring assurance that no important possibility is being neglected. When a troubled patient who has been seeking fruitlessly for cure comes to a better understanding with the doctor on the nature of the disease and how much hope is justifiable, confidence may be regained and greater peace found.
In spite of these arguments which favour frankness with the dying, many doctors are unwilling to speak with them of death. They feel that most patients do not wish to raise the subject except to get reassurance, and that the truth is likely to be hurtful. This common medical attitude is uncomfortably combined with a considerable hesitation over deliberately avoiding the topic and deceiving patients who have put their trust in the doctor, even if the 'white lies' are intended to avoid distress. Some doctors who speak in a direct way, however, make plain their belief that it does patients no good to be told that they are dying. It is a viewpoint easy to attack on theoretical grounds; but when truth can give rise to considerable distress, when kindly half-truths do not materially alter the course to death and when dying people would like to hear that they will recover, it takes a very convinced person to disapprove of lies, or even the occasional untruth. Many honest people who care for the dying find themselves hiding the truth in a manner they always wished to avoid.
In practice relatively few doctors tell patients that there is no hope of recovery. In one study of medical opinion, for example, a group of over two hundred doctors, working in hospital and private practice, were asked if they favoured informing those patients found to have a cancer very likely to prove fatal. Patients so defined would include, of course, some whose signs of illness were examined early while they were in reasonable general health with death some way off. Such patients might have little reason at this stage to suspect their illness to be fatal and if a doctor did tell them, it would give them some unexpected bad news. Eighty-eight per cent of these doctors would not tell the patient, although some of them would make exceptions. The doctors felt that usually the patient's questions were wishes for reassurance. The other twelve per cent usually told the patients that they had cancer especially if the latter were intelligent and emotionally stable. Most of the doctors felt that they should inform a relative and were glad to share the burden of their knowledge. By the way, no less than sixty per cent of these same doctors said that they would like to be told if they themselves had an equally fatal form of cancer. This disagreement in opinions between giving and receiving such information was explained by the doctors on the basis of their own greater strength of mind or responsibilities. It might be so, but it is more likely to be the emotionally determined attitude found among non-professional and medical people alike. This was indicated by the fact that these physicians were not any more frank with other doctors whom they treated for cancer than any other patients with cancer.
The unwillingness to admit to a sick person that an illness may be fatal is not confined to doctors. One survey of people's wishes to be told if they had cancer indicated that they themselves would prefer to be told but were less in favour of recommending that others in a similar condition should be informed. In one particular study of terminal care in Britain the relatives and friends of those who died appeared to know more and expected to be told more than the dying person about the true condition. About half of these patients were aware of their condition. Although many of those asked in this study accepted the degree of either knowing or not knowing shown by the dying, there was stronger approval of the patient not knowing than of his being aware. From a recent inquiry into the way married people deal with their partners' fatal illnesses, it appears that hardly a quarter openly discuss each other's situations even though an unspoken understanding may be' there.