Adultery -- Fiction; French fiction -- 19th century
He perceived the gulf of mystery, the abyss of the unknowable which
science shows to be at the basis of all thought and of all existence.
Beneath the problem of his own particular destiny, he touched upon the
problem of all destiny, and his moral pain was so intense that he felt a
temptation to interpret, in a consolatory sense, the mystery wherein he
felt drowned. Why should not the key to this enigma of life,
undecipherable by reason according to reason's own avowal, be one of
salvation, a key that should redeem the universal distress here below,
that should restore life to dead souls such as his own soul, and deep
peace to tortured consciences such as his own conscience? Why should
there not be a heart like to our own hearts and capable of pitying us at
the centre of that nature which has nevertheless produced us, us with
our bitter or tender manner of feeling, with our appetite for the ideal
and our infirmities, with our greatness and our depravity?
"But then," he reflected, "God would exist. I might throw myself upon my
knees now in this hour of suffering, and say, 'Our Father, which art in
heaven.' Our Father!"
When the young man had reached this stage in his reasonings, tears rose
to his eyes. He who had known neither father nor mother was caused
unspeakable emotion by this single phrase of the sublime prayer.
Then he immediately grew steady again. Thoughts came to him that were
stronger than such mystic effusion. He was disputing with his intellect
against his heart, and his intellect was always victorious. The
objections to a belief in God, drawn from the existence of evil, took
shape before him. How reconcile a Father's goodness with that law of
reversion which wills it that the sins of some shall fall ceaselessly
upon others? Of Helen and himself, which was guilty? Himself. Which of
the two had committed a crime in love? Himself, by seducing this woman
without loving her, solely to satisfy a whim of pride, weariness, and
sensuality. Who was punished? Helen. Of the latter and Alfred, who was
guilty? Helen. Who suffered? Alfred. Thus the sin of each, if there be
sin, bears its poisonous fruit in the soul of another, and the same
solidarity governs all the relations of men among themselves. The sons
atone for the fathers, the just for the wicked, the innocent for the
guilty! Ah! how is it possible, in presence of this uninterrupted
transmission of misery, to believe in the existence of a principle of
justice and goodness in that obscurity beyond the day?
"No," said Armand to himself, "just as errors are produced by the
combined necessities of circumstances and temperaments, so are the
consequences of these acts distributed at random--at least on earth."
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account