Political fiction; Russia -- History -- 1801-1917 -- Fiction; Russia -- Officials and employees -- Fiction
And why are you so firmly, so triumphantly, convinced that only the
normal and the positive—in other words, only what is conducive to
welfare—is for the advantage of man? Is not reason in error as regards
advantage? Does not man, perhaps, love something besides well-being?
Perhaps he is just as fond of suffering? Perhaps suffering is just as
great a benefit to him as well-being? Man is sometimes extraordinarily,
passionately, in love with suffering, and that is a fact. There is no
need to appeal to universal history to prove that; only ask yourself,
if you are a man and have lived at all. As far as my personal opinion
is concerned, to care only for well-being seems to me positively
ill-bred. Whether it’s good or bad, it is sometimes very pleasant, too,
to smash things. I hold no brief for suffering nor for well-being
either. I am standing for ... my caprice, and for its being guaranteed
to me when necessary. Suffering would be out of place in vaudevilles,
for instance; I know that. In the “Palace of Crystal” it is
unthinkable; suffering means doubt, negation, and what would be the
good of a “palace of crystal” if there could be any doubt about it? And
yet I think man will never renounce real suffering, that is,
destruction and chaos. Why, suffering is the sole origin of
consciousness. Though I did lay it down at the beginning that
consciousness is the greatest misfortune for man, yet I know man prizes
it and would not give it up for any satisfaction. Consciousness, for
instance, is infinitely superior to twice two makes four. Once you have
mathematical certainty there is nothing left to do or to understand.
There will be nothing left but to bottle up your five senses and plunge
into contemplation. While if you stick to consciousness, even though
the same result is attained, you can at least flog yourself at times,
and that will, at any rate, liven you up. Reactionary as it is,
corporal punishment is better than nothing.
X
You believe in a palace of crystal that can never be destroyed—a palace
at which one will not be able to put out one’s tongue or make a long
nose on the sly. And perhaps that is just why I am afraid of this
edifice, that it is of crystal and can never be destroyed and that one
cannot put one’s tongue out at it even on the sly.
You see, if it were not a palace, but a hen-house, I might creep into
it to avoid getting wet, and yet I would not call the hen-house a
palace out of gratitude to it for keeping me dry. You laugh and say
that in such circumstances a hen-house is as good as a mansion. Yes, I
answer, if one had to live simply to keep out of the rain.
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account