Bye 2

A rising market lifts all boats and -- since importance of social networks is inverse-proportional to one's bank account -- deflates relationships. As in any bear market, the bear market in social networks means that the beta-trades -- the more iffy, more junky, more dangerous, more speculative stuff -- falls more precipitously than the alpha stuff; and some can now be gotten rid of at no expense at all.

I have been getting rid of -- left and right.

Here is a fragment of a letter to an acquaintance of twenty years -- twenty years! -- American, of course, how else -- who has refused to hold my mail presumably because doing so would expose her to all sorts of legal liabilities (how does it feel to live in a police state?):

As I see it, we are either Friends (朋友) or we are nothing. As my Friend, you would know that when I ask you a favor and say that this is very important to me and that you must help me, then I really do mean it - and there is no need to find out why; and also you would know that as your Friend I would not ask you to do anything that could possibly expose you to any sort of liability as a result of doing so. Further, as my Friend, you would do as asked immediately, no questions asked. But none of the three applies here, which means to me that we are not Friends but -- friends, which is an American category, and a very cheap one at that: tens of thousands of friends can be had by merely signing up on Facebook. I have never wanted to have friends, because friends are a useless waste of time; and if anything has changed in my life in the last twenty years it is that I want to have friends even less now; and since you are clearly only my friend, not my Friend, then, I am afraid, this is the end of the road for us, and a much belated one at that.

I shall not be calling you on August 7th, or any other August. Have a nice day.

Strong words?

Not as strong as the offense. The woman is half-Asian, was raised in Korea, a Confucian nation par excellence, and speaks Chinese fluently. It is impossible for her not to understand what 朋友 means. Which means that she knows what it means but excludes me from the category. Severing all ties is the least punishment she deserves for having misled me to think otherwise.

*

Facebook is an interesting case. Facebook -- as i understand it -- is where one signs up in pursuit of people who agree to be one's "friends"; there is a kind of competition for having the largest number of friends. ("I don't quite remember who he is, but he is my friend.")

Bill Gates has recently tried it and given up: "Ten thousand people wanted to be my friend," he confessed, "and I found myself asking myself: do I know this person? do I know this person?"
Note the repeat of the question. Do you know why he repeated it? He repeated it because he was actually going to say: "do I know this person? do I want to know this person?" but as he began to mouth the second sentence he realized that it would be perceived in America -- the land of friends -- as not nice: an American wants to be nice and friendly (i.e. friends) to all; to refuse to be friends with anyone is deemed a hostile act; Bill Gates has enough image problems as it is; he is too smart to offend the official party line, even if he does not practice it himself.

But clearly, Bill Gates did not want to be friends with the ten thousanf Facebookers who accosted him; and -- why? -- could it be possible? -- being smart as he is -- could it be that he did not want to be friends with them because he realized that there was no benefit to having "friends"?

Which makes an interesting point about the millions upon millions who sign up for Facebook in prusuit of that very asset -- "friends"; they are fools chasing after fools' gold. It has always been thus: the rich getting richer and the poor staying poor. For a reason, I might add: clearly, the poor are not especially smart.

A friend -- not a Friend -- and a friend no more (see Bye 1) did ask when I will finally get on Facebook. I said never.

Regarding a business opportunity

Dear Grammaticus:

Sorry, I guess it is me who is late replying now; surely you wont hold that against me.

I understand perfectly well that you do not have the time to engage in substantial correspondence.

As my friend, i am sure you will understand me in return: search myself far and wide, can't seem to want to find the time to engage in less than substantial correspondence. I don't know about you, but i get a sufficient supply of hihowareyouiamfines in what is sometimes referred to as rl -- real life -- neighbors, bakers, contraband booze mongers, etc. -- and don't especially care for them here, either. Why go out to internet to get more?

Socially, internet and blogging have been a bust up for me: perhaps there is something to the medium -- perhaps it attracts a certain kind of mind only -- back when i ran my blog, the net result was that my comment box and my mail box were full of hihowareyouaimfines -- half of them from single females wishing to be otherwise -- and mad when i refused to oblige -- which, in the end, i have decided was too much of a waste of time to attend to.

But perhaps this is not the fault of the internet; perhaps such are the only minds that exist?

It so happens that i have lately been refused an ordinary favor by a long standing friend: I have asked her to hold my mail for me, her response to which was to go online and look up USPS regulations and discover that it opened her to all sorts of legal liabilities under the patriot act. I therefore google-searched and discovered a commercial service which will do it for 10.99 a month, or 100 a year.

The point is this: is it not wonderful abut the US how everything one might expect from a friend can be obtained at a reasonable price from a commercial provider? I wonder if thoughtful and intelligent correspondence may be procured that way. Do you reckon there is a business opportunity in that? Shall we say, 59.99 per letter?

Well, I have read The Maias, thank you for sending the book; and I have had tremendous fun with it, but do you have the time to discuss it, or should we just do the wave?

Cheers, old fellow.

Bye

PRK writes to apologize for having dropped the ball, as he says, that is -- not corresponding; too busy, he says. Certainly he is too busy to keep up with the level of correspondence I have dictated -- I have given him too much to chew.

But if he is too busy for that type of correspondence, then, surely, I am too busy for his. I am not interested in jokes and weather and family doings; my life is too short for it.

For me, it's intellectual partnership or it is nothing. And since generally speaking, of course, it is never any sort of intellectual partnership, it is -- generally -- nothing.

To Anthante -- concerning mental hygiene

Dear Anthanante:

I am very sorry, of course, to hear that your visit with me was so very unpleasant to you.

But I must confess to having the impression that your current memories of that visit, and the facts of the visit do not quite coincide. You see, you seemed fine to me at parting, which was on good terms. I even asked you whether you thought that I had taken good care of you and you said yes. Now your write to tell me that your visit was an unending chain of relentless awfulness and you could not wait to leave. This would strike most people as possibly paradoxical.

The only explanation for this sudden change of perception is that something has happened between the time you left and now, and that that something has colored your memories. It is perhaps unkind to speculate on what that something was, but I suspect that returning to the indifferent misery which is your every day life -- consider the nasty architecture and the awful climate as just two depressing elements which obviously are much worse there than they are here -- I suspect, I repeat, that returning there from her would have been perfectly sufficient to throw anyone into a fit of depression.

For this I may seem to you to bear some responsibility: the real problem with your visit, I suppose, was that I did not invite you to prolong it and thereby, indirectly, obliged you to return home. I can see how my decision could be perceived as an act of cruelty; how it would be hated, and resented; and how it would seem to call for revenge. Which is perhaps what your words really are.

I am saddened to see this mental process take place in you, but am not really surprised by it. I have seen it work often. It offers an important benefit: it certainly helps you adjust yourself to your former life if you are able to say to yourself that the place where you had just holidayed (and were not invited to stay longer) was really too awful to live and that, bottom line, it is far better to be home, whatever its obvious shortcomings.

The problem with this technique is, of course, the resentment that you manage to produce in yourself for your supposedly terrible experiences and my mistreatment of you while here. To be perfectly honest, I suppose that most people would consider what I have given you a pretty generous gift, and would therefore consider your resentment a gross injustice. But I neither wish to dwell on my virtues, nor make an argument which I know is not going to work.

What I wish to do is help you with your current emotional turmoil because I empathize with your suffering. So perhaps you will not mind if I share with you some mental hygiene techniques which I have developed over the years, in the hope that you find them useful in your current predicament.

First, I find that it is essential to keep a good journal. By which I do not mean to say the sort of place where one writes "sunny, dry, lunch with johnsons, walked the dog in the afternoon", but a place where one notes important observations about life's events and one's resolutions about them. This is important because memory is a pliable medium and we can convince ourselves to remember anything (psychology is familiar with such amazing things as planted false memories, etc.); and not merely often, but usually do; as you do now.

But since memory is also the data-base which we use to evaluate our present-day and future choices, false memories lead us to false choices. They are therefore an important cause of suffering. Thus, it is important to note to ourselves our mental states as they happen so that we have a record of them for the future. And, secondly, and as importantly, it is important for us to reread that journal on regular basis to force ourselves to reevaluate the current state of our memories and compare them to the written record.

Writing down one's resolutions is also important: things resolved but not written down are not really resolved; they lack a sense of finality. Writing them down, seems to do the trick. (Carving them in stone would be even better, but not practical). Also, things unwritten are readily and frequently forgotten. So I actually write to myself notes like: never again... and hence forth, always... and because I frequently reread my journal, I tend to remember my resolutions.

Second, it is important to exercise thought control: one must constantly and consciously choose to dwell on the good memories of people and places over bad ones; and, if there should be people and places about which no good memories are possible, then one should suppress all reflection on them altogether. Note that I am not recommending forgetting about the bad aspects of things: that would amount to memory manipulation which I was just advising that we do our utmost to prevent. Indeed, it is important to be very clear-minded about all the things that were bad in our life so that we can avoid them in the future.

No, what I mean is: we must not dwell on bad things; we must learn a way to compartmentalize unpleasant thoughts -- set them aside, put them in a drawer and close the drawer, so to speak -- in order to prevent riling ourselves with feelings of regret, anger, vengefulness, etc.

Many people find this impossible on ideological grounds, reasoning, with the romantics, that our feelings is what is authentically us, and that, therefore we must honor them, by which they mean that we must slavishly submit to their dictates. I disagree. To my mind, our emotions are only a part of us; and ought to play no more than subservient function, just as our thumbs do: we must learn to manipulate them for our purposes so that we can achieve our ends.

(The ideal is well expressed in a Sienkiewicz short story in which Zeus signals Thanatos, the brother of death, to come and let him sleep. What we should strive at is a mastery of our emotions which would allow us to signal contentment, for example, so that we may be content. I am not there, yet, but that is the central idea of my pursuit).

Which all amounts to a recommendation that you try to perform a very difficult trick: dwell on the good aspects of your visit with me without simultaneously regretting that that visit is over and that you have had to return home. The trick amounts to learning not to grieve that something has ended; but to be glad that it happened at all. It requires great intelligence to see it; and a great strength of will to execute it. You are a smart girl and you can be pretty determined: there is no reason why you should not succeed.

It would be too bloody American to say "I wish you all success in this endeavor", and ergo, I do not. But I do wish it all the same.

An item of Jesus lore

Forgive those who trespass against you, it is explained, because by doing so you prove your moral superiority over your foolish enemies: you are greater than they, closer to god, more enlightened, more noble, more selfless, etc.

The truth is that the reason to forgive those who trespass against us, or, at any rate, to forget that they did, is entirely and wholly practical and selfish: this is because the feelings of anger and revenge are more damaging to us than they are to their objects.

In truth, revenge is rarely possible: most people trespass against us only when they feel they can do so with impunity; most trespasses against us are therefore unavengeable. What could possibly be the point of boiling with fury in such a situation?

A taxi driver nearly ran me -- and a lady walking alongside me -- over at a pedestrian crossing today and, into the bargain, showed us the finger. She was riled beyond all belief, boiled over with anger, yelling, and -- gasping for air (a heart condition?).

I wasn't. If I had a gun in my hand, and knew I could use it with impunity, I would have killed the unwed-mother's-son on the spot, of course, out of a sense of duty -- we all have the duty to punish the uncouth whenever we can. But I would not have done it in anger: I don't hate him. In truth, I don't have any feelings for him: he is like air to me.

You see, unlike my lady companion, I was not riled.

I suppose this means that, after all these years of working at it, I have at last reached the point of uppeka -- equanimity -- what was in the seventeenth century Europe called (after Seneca) costanza: an emotional indifference to the idiocies of the world.

Like all lessons in life, I learned this one from engagement with women.

A certain lady early in life caused me a great amount of grief. When we have parted, I was very angry at her for her irrational, cruel, inconsiderate behavior and considered ways in which I could punish her. Then, upon reflection, I realized that it was unnecessary for me to punish her at all: that, because of the way she thinks (or rather doesn't) and behaves, she is miserable herself; and that she will continue to be miserable for as long as she is alive; and that, in short, she will be her own punishment. It was her fate to be with herself, in her own company, every day of her life until the day she dies. I on the other hand was free to walk away from that disaster.

My feelings calmed, I did. I have been much happier since. Some years later, friends reported to me that some pretty awful things happened to her. By then, fully in command of my uppeka, I managed to express a few honest, if not really heartfelt, words of pity for her. I was right. I had seen it coming.

Poor thing, actually.

In a sense, I owe her a great deal, it would seem. But I think I have paid that tuition bill already with the pound of flesh she had extracted while we were together. We are therefore even.

That ugly girls are too stupid to date

Hoping to avoid the usual psychological warfare which seems to follow intimate relations of any duration greater than one night -- psychological warfare aimed at securing "commitment" --
I have tried to select no-hopers: such as women married to rich and successful men (why would they want to marry me when they are far better married already?) or women substantially older than I am (such women seem to think the age difference an unbridgeable barrier to marital union; hence, an older girlfriend tends not to bother you about the C-word).

(Incidentally, I do not share their ageist prejudice, but, psst, do not tell them or they will come after us).

Alas, cuckolded rich, successful men can be dangerous (which is odd; why should they care if they no longer sleep with their wives); worse: as I get older, I find the pool of sexually attractive, significantly older women shrinking every year.

Thus, I have recently been forced to try a refinement on this tactic: the idea was to aim for poor ugly ducklings. These, I thought, should realize that having no leverage at all, they stood no chance of any permanent commitment, and -- given attractive sub-commitment level rewards -- such as pleasant company, travel, wining-dining, gifts, etc., -- should therefore be prepared to settle for less and give up any silly hope of what is so obviously impossible. (Marriage).

Or, I thought, if ever they should entertain marriage hopes, they would realize that their only hope of securing one lay in seducing me by being nothing but sweet, submissive, and agreeable at all times. (This actually works, I have seen it work with other men, but, er... should we tell the girls if we really mean to stay single? Perhaps it is lucky that they do not know how to please us well?)

I was led to this scheme by a relationship of just this sort -- a relationship with an ugly duckling -- which I had had once, many years ago, in Asia: it lasted over four years only because the girl was good in bed and always and invariably sweet and agreeable. This made spending a couple days a week in her company a pure and complete pleasure despite her very ordinary looks and her very common brains; it also made it easy to lavish on her small luxuries and (reasonable) amounts of attention: she was not not unpleasant to please.

In fact, the only time I ever found out that she had indeed harbored hopes of commitment was when we bid good-bye and she broke out in tears. I remember her fondly still. She should be a lesson to my other girlfriends: given that none has married me, certainly being remembered fondly (and perhaps being recommended to someone else in due time as a result) is worth something?

In fact, I have no doubt that a lesser, or a less determined man, would have fallen for the trick and married her in the end.

Anyhow, inspired by Kumiko's wonderful example, I have tried the poor ugly duckling strategy only to find that none so far has had Kumiko's sweetness; or, if you prefer: cunning. They all did in time to me what the other, better looking nubial types always do: demand commitment and (and therein lies the problem) get all nasty about it.

Why, I wondered.

Do they not think?

Do they not realize the obvious, i.e. that they have no snow-flake's-chance-in-hell of ever marrying me (so much richer and better looking than them)? And that therefore, far from making me submit, the only possible result they can attain from being nasty to me is -- to compel me to walk? Or did they really take seriously the sweet nothings I whisper to them in moments of passion ("you are wonderful", "never anything like this", etc.?)

And if they do take these things seriously -- why do they?

The reason for this is perhaps -- I have now come to recognize -- my own conceptual mistake: I assumed that poor ugly ducklings would be, on average, as smart (and therefore as cunning) as everyone else.

But they aren't.

First, they are poor: their poverty should tell you already that not everything is working well upstairs. If you look at how they spend their money and how they think about managing their careers -- the two inputs affecting their finance -- you should quickly realize they are, well, not very smart; unless they inherit, or win the lottery (which is the same thing, actually) dumb-shits are usually poor; and, of course, vice-versa, since an intelligent person born poor will find a way to climb out.

And -- second -- there is perhaps a correlation with looks: much evolutionarily-psychological research has been done in the last twenty years to show that good looking people are not merely more lucky, more successful, richer, and better educated, but also -- smarter.

This has been interpreted as a result of beautism (i.e. prejudice in favor of the good looking, as if good looks did not represent an objectively valuable good, valuable in and of itself): good looking women get to marry higher, so their (good looking) children get better education than the also-rans. But is it just possible that what we recognize as good looks tells us something about people's brains, too? Perhaps it does: the good looking mother's father had the superior brains to a) recognize her good looks and b) acquire them for himself. The kids would have 50% of his brains.

Or, perhaps, and this is the key, the explanation is much simpler: perhaps the good looking girl had the brains to know how to sell herself? How to be sweet and agreeable most of the time; and, perhaps, too, how to be mean and difficult but only just enough -- to get the boy?

I wonder: do you follow?

2

What I am thinking now is that -- perhaps -- the willingness to be mean and nasty and confrontational in women is like the willingness in men to resort to physical violence: it is more common among the not-so-bright and not-so very good looking; the types, in other words, who do not have good looks, wits, and personal charm to fall back on.

3

I confess, my idea that ugly girls may be smart was to some extent affected by my university experience. I went to a so-called "very good school" -- the academic standards of admission were very high -- but not a very posh one; my fellow students did not seem especially rich, but they certainly were a smart and hard working crowd. If you have read the above carefully, you will not be surprised to hear that my alma mater was also famous for the ugliness its girls. From this I drew the conclusion that nature is just, spreading its all various blessings around the population so that ugly girls are smart (and go to good schools) while pretty girls are dumb (and don't) and that thus, in the end, everyone ends up being about the same.

Well, I have to conclude today, upon my break up with Anthanante, my ugly girl number 4, and, I hope, my last one, that I was mistaken in my good-natured belief in general human equality.

Since my experience dating ugly girls indicates that they are not a smart crowd -- certainly not one gifted with what some would call emotional intelligence -- I am now inclined to think that the bad looks of girls at my alma mater are to be explained by the fact that pretty girls are too busy doing other things (more pleasurable ones) to want to waste their time studying for P-Chem 2; or, perhaps one should say, they are too smart to go for that sort of laborious, tiresome, and, at bottom, ineffective, route to success. One goes much further much more quickly by being good looking, sweet, and -- playing dumb.

Perhaps the good-looking girls know that knowing P-Chem, far from being useful, is in fact a disadvantage: first, it makes you seem smart (ha ha), and, second, you do not meet especially desirable men while studying P-Chem.

Except the would-be general practitioners, of course, but every really smart person knows that it is not the doctors who make the real dough, but the heirs: the best hand-surgeon can't hold a candle to a dry-cleaning king.

And thus: no more ugly girls for me. They are too stupid to appreciate the good deal I have to offer them.

Only Beatrice (1)

.

“I have come. I have not broken the promise I had given. I am prepared to hear you out with all attention, worshipful fathers; and with great sympathy. I understand: you may not be inclined to believe in the sympathy; perhaps it would even be odd if you did. But, among all the many things which you have taught me at various times, you have also taught me the truth contained in the words of Christ, Our Savior: “You shall know them after their fruit.” Therefore note that – were I not honestly well disposed towards you – this hall would already be burning around you, above you and – with you. But I was able to impose upon your until yesterday faithful subjects an armistice, which shall last for the remainder of today, the whole tonight, and perhaps even until tomorrow noon. You smile ironically, father Bernard? You shouldn’t. This is war. Maybe not an ordinary war, but a war all the same. In wars fought by princes and counts, it often so happens to the garrison manning a fortress, when they are no longer able to resist, that the besieging forces break in and murder all defenders. You are in the same danger – precisely the same danger, even though no side here is an army of a king, prince, or count. Of course – not differently from any other war – the losing side here would also like to obtain the best possible terms upon which it might end the fight. Oftentimes, this is also the desire of the mediators; in this case, this is my role. With the difference that – if I drew the correct conclusion from my conversation which we had before daybreak – the arch-worshipful father Peter and I, your humble servant – you expect that I shall be able to save your lives without obtaining any commitments on your part in return; any commitments that is beyond merely the expression of willingness to forgive the unrighteous, godless – these are the arch-worshipful abbot’s words – rebels. I could of course discuss with your worshipfulnesses such a proposal, but I must make note, honestly and unambiguously: I could not make any guarantees to your worshipfulnesses that your lives could be spared on such terms; I could make some kind of efforts in that direction, I suppose, but without any promises as to their successful outcome.

“For the outcome would – very likely – be the opposite from the one intended; with the added result that the mad anger – quite justified, in my opinion – of your local subjects, who are now threatening you with death, might extend that danger to me, too. Yet, I would be willing to risk it – I have already said that I am guided here by a great sympathy for your worshipfulnesses. But in order for me to take that risk, it is necessary that you convince me during this armistice – and above all doubt – that, first, it is indeed necessary for you to continue to exist on earth in your current earthly form; and, second, why it is that I – yes, I – should risk my own life while trying to extend yours? Did you wish to speak, noble and worshipful father Andrew? I will be glad to hear your voice again. I have not heard it since the day when you put a dog’s muzzle on my face.”

“You wretch, you are guided by the feelings of ungratefulness, hate, and revenge towards us, not by any sort of sympathy. I was opposed to making any deals with you. Having now heard you speak, I am convinced even more thoroughly that I was right. You came here to torture and torment us; not with any thought of helping us. And no matter what we say, it will have no other end result than this: you will depart from here before daybreak laughing blasphemously, sacrilegiously, godlessly in the faces of the Lord’s martyrs; and you will gladly and contentedly watch this hall go up in flames about us, above us and – with us.

“Archworshipful father abbot, brother Bernard, and you, Urban, sweetest child, I beg you all: let us break off with this perverse man, the most unnatural of sons, this degenerate son. Let him depart from here immediately and may God himself judge him: it will be a terrible judgment!”

“Father Andrew: neither the archworshipful abbot, nor father Bernard seem to share in your opinion. As for Urban – his life, his health even – are not in the least danger. He will be able to depart from here along with me, regardless of the outcome of our talks, unless he himself chooses to share your fate. He chooses so now, I imagine; but I do hope that once he hears everything about which we shall talk here, that desire will leave him.”

Urban: “It shall not, dear brother Stanislaw”.

Andrew: “How dare you call this villain, this blasphemer, this messenger of hell – how dare you call him your brother?”

Bernard: ‘Brother Andrew, I beg of you: be careful with your words. I am not too pleased to have this man as my intercessor, either, but let us not forget: he did suffer many iniquities at our hands.”

Stanislaw: “I did not come to have my iniquities made whole. Nevertheless, you have spoken holy words, father Bernard. Worshipful Andrew ought to be careful with his words; but you have warned him too late. You did say, father Andrew, did you not: first “the most unnatural of unnatural sons” and then, much simpler: degenerate son. You aimed these words at me – in what sense? Metaphorical or literal? When saying so, did you mean me as a child of your monastery? Or rather – as your son of flesh and blood? Of course, I cannot be a son of flesh and blood of all of you. So am I perhaps – your son, worshipful Father Andrew?”

Urban: “Neither father Andrew’s; nor father Bernard’s; nor the archworshipful abbot’s…”

Stanislaw: “…and nor yours, of course. But only this last is clear and certain above all doubt, nothing more. I have intended to space out – quite widely – over the duration of the armistice various subjects which we must – must! – cover. And the time would have certainly come – I have originally expected it would come around midnight – to cover this topic, too: the identity of my father, my father in flesh and blood; but it has happened otherwise, thanks to Father Andrew. He hurried the arrival of that moment which I did not wish to hurry at all. My worshipful fathers! For some years now I have been convinced that one of you has fathered me, not quite thirty years ago, with the daughter of the Niałek miller.

Andrew: “I was not in Wieleń during the rule of the worshipful Nicholas; nor was I a member…”

“…Of the monastic complex of Obra. No. But you did come here from outside Poland twice. The first time when the Obra complex was ruled by the worshipful John, and the Wielen complex by its first abbot, Olibierus, or perhaps Henry; that is between the years one thousand two hundred seventy eight and eighty eight. And on the unforgettable night of the third day of the first week of Lent in the year ninety-six the worshipful Father Peter – today the arch-worshipful abbot – has deigned to inform me that I was then fourteen. From which it follows that I was born in the year eighty-two; perhaps eighty-one; and must therefore have been conceived in the first year of the rule of aforementioned Abbot John.

“But why are you so deeply moved, Father Andrew? Did I say that I suspect you of having fathered me? I said you could be my father; but are you more likely my father than either the arch-worshipful abbot Peter or Father Bernard? Forgive me, but you have just behaved like Achilles, the son of Peleus, when Odysseus, having struck his shield with his sword… Ah, but you know what happened then, don’t you? After all, I have heard this story from you, did I not? But then: I do not claim that you are my father, despite what could have been your inadvertent revelation a moment ago. For I happen to have found evidence that Father Bernard, when he arrived in Wielen at the side of the then Abbot Nicholas, was not in fact visiting Poland for the first time, though I do not yet know when exactly his first visit here – in Obra if not in Wielen – had taken place. But I will know it, no doubt, you will tell me, Father Bernard, will you not? No such difficulties attach to your eminent person, arch-worshipful Peter. You belonged to the Wieleń community from the very beginning. If you ever left, it was well after my birth, and never while Nicholas was abbot. Of course all three of you must be offended by now that I should bring up such filthy business – but can it really be possible that you do not understand – not one of the three of you – that I will probably lose my father within the next twenty four hours? It is a natural and noble thing to mourn for one’s father; but I must know for whom it is that I mourn. I will of course mourn for all three of you as my spiritual fathers; but only one of you as my father of flesh and blood. I wish you all well, of course, and I already said it. What’s more: I think I have the right to expect that you requite the sentiment.

Andrew: “If these cruel and sarcastic words have not been inspired – why, commanded -- by the ruler of hell himself, I’ll…”

Abbot Peter: “And now I, too, will repeat after Father Bernard: you must reckon with your words, Brother Andrew. But also you, Stanislaw. Or rather – if indeed you still remember our night time conversation, our last before your departure from here all those years ago, you must remember that I called you by a different name then. By what name did I call you?”

“Telemachos”.

“Telegonos.”

“No, you are mistaken. I am wholly certain: you called me Telemachos, not Telegonos”.

“Perhaps I am mistaken. Yet, I notice in you an unambiguous – and therefore dangerous – tendency to overestimate your memory, however impressive it may be; which memory I so greatly admire that to express this admiration I would first have to (if I do not want you to take me for your father in flesh and blood) convince you (not without difficulty, I imagine) as to the obvious truth: how wholly unimportant it is, compared to spiritual fatherhood, who begat you in flesh and blood, whether this individual, or this, or this…”

“For instance, the itinerant hurdy-gurdy player to whom you have once instructed me to give a penny; or, perhaps the opposite, one of the Piast princes…”

“Precisely. Either this, or that – it is not at all as important as it seems to you. For regardless whether it was the itinerant hurdy-gurdy player, or a Piast prince – that which you are has not been created by either one or the other. Neither could have done it even had they wanted to for the simple reason that neither had the ability to do so: neither the understanding nor the inclination. You know a lot about us; and we know a lot about you: not only that you whom we have here, in the Wieleń monastery, raised over the years, day by day, like a rare plant, and polished like a precious stone; but also about that distant you, roaming between Tartary and Cymbria. And that which we do know about you leads us – leads me at least – to be both proud of you and to fear for you. Yes, for you, not for us. Should the Lord of Heaven, our Creator and Savior at once, decide that we should stand before him in judgment within this day? What is more: should He desire that our road to Him should lead through martyrdom in flames? Well, let the name of the Lord be praised! More worthy men – more just, more holy – underwent just such a martyrdom traveling from this vale of tears into God’s presence. But what shall you do unto yourself if you do this unto us? What joy will that short moment give you? – for believe me, if it at all comes, it will be very brief indeed! The joy of having paid us back for real – not merely imagined wrongs? And believe me there were plenty more of the latter!”

“My arch-worshipful father! The death in flames which threatens you now would not go to avenge my wrongs, but to avenge for the wrongs you have dealt to your subjects!”

“Is that so indeed? I think you do not believe this yourself. Please do not say you do believe this, for if you were to say this, I would have to stop being proud of you.”

“Yet, I will say just so. When we two spoke this morning, one-on-one, in front of the house, what would I have said to you if I merely wanted to avenge my wrongs? Undoubtedly just this: you must all die. And therefore prepare yourself mentally for the fact that there is – there can be – no hope of survival for you. But what did I say? I said: if you wish to escape death in flames, you must agree to such and such demands of the peasants of Mochy. If you accepted these demands, what benefit would I have of it? Would your rebelled subjects reward me with gold? Or would they follow me unto the ends of earth in search of the Holy Grail? Surely, you do not think so.”

“We do not think so. Or at least I do not. I am not even inclined to think that you might, after burning us here, lead your colons somewhere far away, where they may escape the severe justice of the lay and church authorities. Though perhaps that would have been the smartest thing to try: become their leader, struggle through forests and marshes towards the coast, then the sea; buy – or hijack – a ship in Wolin, and sail far, far away, West, beyond England, Ireland, Iceland.

“No, you will not do it. Our peasants, well, the peasants will run away and hide in the forest perhaps; but you will remain here, above the smoldering ambers of this house, the ashes which had once been our flesh, to curse yourself and mourn for us bitterly. The prince’s – or the bishop’s – men will find you here in tears.”

“You are saying the very same thing which I have myself said here only recently: it is a noble thing to mourn one’s father. But so long as to give time for the prince’s – or bishop’s henchmen – to catch me? After all, it’s not like I would be mourning a worthy father rather than merely one who begat me in sin, with the Niałek miller’s daughter!”

“You are mistaken if you think that you are strong… No, no… do not interrupt now. Yes, you are strong but with a different strength than such as is born of hate or vengefulness…”

“Born of the hunger for justice, out of pity for wrongs done…”

“Whose wrongs? You will say not yours but the peasants’. A hunger for justice for the subjects of the monastery, not for yourself… Yes, it could be like that. Except it is not. Perhaps you yourself are not aware that it is not. Knowing you as well as I do, I am inclined to believe that you do believe yourself to be the avenger of the colons’ wrongs. But even if you had been an avenger of their wrongs, you are him no longer, you have ceased to be him. From the moment of your arrival here; from the moment in which you expressed your readiness to seek our salvation, even if we were to reject the peasants’ demands… But whence this sudden readiness to negotiate, only seemingly unexpected? Two explanations are possible: the first is that the peasants’ wrongs do not concern you at all, and that you are not at all eager to grapple with us for justice for them; and the second that considering us lost souls you want…”

“…to humiliate you and torture you, as worshipful Andrew said? Achieve that you will die cursing me?”

“On the contrary. Achieve that we will die admiring you…”

“That is not the case. But were it even the case, I could never achieve it. No one could.”

“Very probably. But you think that you just might achieve it.”

“So that I may then mourn you while cursing myself bitterly until the prince’s – or bishop’s – henchmen come? Nonsense! Your arch-worshipfulness said that you know me well. More nonsense! You do not know me at all! Nor can you know me. You said that you know a great deal about that me who roamed the great spaces between Tartary and Iceland. You do not know a hundredth part of it. That adolescent who left here, bid goodbye by your curses, in the night of the third day of the first week of Lent over thirteen years ago is no more. I have changed. You said that you were proud of me; or rather, proud of that plant you have grown, or that precious stone you have polished. Well, you have a right to that kind of pride… But do you deserve my gratitude? You had it. Plenty of it. But you still deserve a pay back. Am I not paying you back? And how generously! Here I am trying to save your life, even while risking my own; but since I am risking my own life, I must know… -- the miller’s daughter’s son will now speak to you! – that the bread I receive isn’t worth less than the price I am prepared to pay for it. This is simple – you will agree? – or at least clear?

“I repeat, you must convince me successively: first, that you deserve saving; and then: why I should do the saving while risking my own life!”

“Let us suppose that we did manage to convince you in some manner wholly satisfactory to you in respect to both the first and the second question. And let us suppose further: that you have saved us and, along with us, yourself. The Mochy peasants will receive from us forgiveness for their rebellion, but nothing else: they will have to pay their taxes in kind just as they were supposed to pay it all along (and ought to have paid before the rebellion broke out). And thus the wrongs of the peasants – as you see it – will continue unabated…”

“Ah, but you will retain the memory of the dangers which you have – practically miraculously – escaped. Your fear will remain – forever. You will be kinder to your peasants henceforth.”

“Indeed? You appear so wise, so well-raised, so well-polished – and yet you understand so little! Nothing feeds ruthlessness as well as fear… We will be far worse towards the Mochy peasants than towards any others; and the peasants will hate us even more than ever before… And they will often think to themselves: “why did we not burn them then?” And in so thinking they will also remember your intermediation; and remembering, what will they send you – near or far -- thanks? Blessings? No! Curses!”

“You appear to want the same thing father Andrew wants: that I go away already.”

“You are mistaken. Andrew does not want you to go. He merely allowed himself to speak in anger. Nor do I want you to go. But all of us here want one thing: that you avoid doing something which you will later be unable to undo; and will want to undo, badly but belatedly.”

“These are beautiful words but they do not advance the least bit the negotiations for the sake of which I have managed to arrange this truce. Arch-worshipful father, tell me, do you or do you not wish to continue living here, on earth? And if you do, please provide some argument why you should…”

“You appear here with two functions: as prosecutor and judge… But even if I were to accept to defend myself before this sort of tribunal – a tribunal which violates all rules of justice – you may want to try to afford it… if not exactly justice then – legality enough to fulfill the ancient requirement: that an accusation must precede defense. For how can the judged defend himself if he does not know wherein lies the accusation?”

“Fine.”

“But be careful. You must now set aside the wrongs of the Mochy peasants, and all monastery’s peasants in general. It is not they who want to know whether we deserve to continue our lives in flesh on earth; or whether you should be saving us. You do not wish to be a fair judge; but try at least to be a rational one.

“We have heard that you listened in Cologne, on the Rein, to the lectures of great masters of logic. Show us then how you have profited by those lectures: prove that you have not wasted your and your teachers’ time. Your accusation – if it were to reveal your ability to reason correctly – must aim to prove that we do not deserve to continue our life in flesh on earth; or, at the very least that even if we deserved to do so, then there is no reason why you should try – perhaps at risk of your own life – to save us.

“Personally, though I am very proud of you – how many times I have said it here already – I am not inclined to think that you can make such a proof; or rather that you could present such a proof without violating principal rules of correct implication. I may be mistaken in my expectations; but I say: try it, if you wish to see my defense in due course. Of course, if you do not try (which may suggest that you are not sure of your prosecutorial skills), such due course will not come. I have spoken. Or rather we have spoken, the abbot of the Monastery of the Cistercian Fathers in Wielen, and, by virtue of that fact, the shepherd of Mochy and the legal representative of Our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Andrew: “I object.”

“Our abbot’s “we” a moment ago was of course directed at Stanislaw here, but even more so at you, worshipful father. This mansion belongs to the Wieleń monastery; whether it stands or burns, there will be here only one legal authority: the will of the abbot.

“Stanislaw, we are ready to hear you. Oh, but wait. You have listened to lectures on the subject of correct implication, or, to say it in Greek, of logic; but, as far as I know, you have never studied law. That is a great pity since you must henceforth perform a judgment, even though your professional preparation for the task is no greater than that of a tailor (or roofer) who suddenly resolved to make shoes.

“Allow me to help you somewhat here, then, though without leading you to draw out of my willingness to help you the conclusion that this is yet one more proof of my fatherhood of you. Well then, you must begin your accusation as follows: it shall be shown in my argument above all doubt that such-and-such and so-and-so among the Cistersian monks (we know who they are) have committed criminal acts for which the laws of our kingdom foresee the penalty… but wait… what kingdom is this? It might seem that it is the kingdom of Poland… but by the command of which ruler of this kingdom are you here in the role of a prosecutor or judge?”

“I am here as a representative of all the peasants of the Obra province who have been attached to the property currently under the management – whether legal or illegal – of the Cistercian monks settled in two neighboring monasteries, in Obra and Wieleń. I am intentionally using the word “management” rather than “possession”: I have been taught that monks may not own any property, since they take the oath of eternal poverty.

“Of course, whether the lord exercises possession or management, the subjects of all degrees owe him their obedience. But is it unconditional? The church teaches us in the words of its greatest authorities – Pope Gregory VII, among others, and the doctor known as angelic – Thomas Aquinas – that in order to expect unconditional obedience, the ruler’s rule must also be wholly and unconditionally just. But should the rule prove unjust it is not only allowed; but it is required to refuse obedience because unjust rule is a tyranny; and the same church authorities teach that tyrannicide is not murder; and is therefore not a mortal sin; it may be at most an ordinary sin and, under certain circumstances it may even be a virtuous, deserving act. Mochy was ruled unjustly; they rose against tyranny; which is to say that if you do die here tomorrow in flames, your death will be an act of tyrannicide.”

Andrew: “Saint John the Evangelist, our Lord’s favorite student, wrote: “all power comes from God.”

Stanislaw: “Dear father, was that indeed John the Evangelist? I don’t think our arch-worshipful abbot would agree.”

“I don’t. You shame us, father vicar; and not for the first time today. And not the first time today Stanislaw, our beloved son, proves that we were not much mistaken years ago when we whispered to each other: this miller boy will one day grow up to be a great jewel and pride of our monastery.

“Jewel and pride intellectually – I must add; since hardly any one of us had expected that the boy whom we had taken in, and by taking him in had preferred him over all others; hardly any of us, I say, had expected that this boy would make us proud with virtues other than those of the intellect. It is true that I did fool myself for some time that I might be able to transform that boys’ – yours, Stanislaw, whom at some time I may have called Telemachos or Telegonos – that boys’ ever increasing tendency for self-love, which is to say, the most terrible sin of pride; transform it into its opposite, such as noble pride rooted in two things: the understanding that to possess great intellectual gifts is not a merit, as it is an unsolicited gift of God, of which it is well to be proud but with pride no greater than is proper to an undeservedly selected vessel; and, second, in constant meditation on the divine warning: to whom more is given, from him more will be expected. But when tested, that same Stanislaw showed above all doubt that God has not only gifted him, but also burdened him; which must not surprise us since being above all creatures, Divinity exceeds all teachers, whether of mathematics or music, in its love for harmony, and therefore with its dislike for self-loving youths who upset all harmony. Putting it differently, perhaps more clearly, I will say: tested, Stanislaw proved to be handicapped in spirit, and therefore also intellectually: he has no sense of duty, a sense which, we imagine, should characterize especially those who have received so much more than all others: an expectation that more will be expected of them; nor does he possess, the same test showed, another sense, closely connected with the aforementioned: self-respect; or what I have called earlier noble pride.”

Andrew: “Can there be anywhere on earth such a thing as self-respect – noble pride – of bastards?”

Bernard: “Allow me to put a word in, arch-worshipful abbot. Father Andrew’s interjections fill me with distaste; but your speech fills me with sadness. In different form you express the same injustice, or perhaps only insensitivity, or inability to understand the deeper aspects of human soul.”

Andrew: “Are you still in your old place – or are you already on your knees before the giver of life and death, Father Bernard? The wretches – the rebels, worthy of pity rather than anger – have boarded up the windows and my sight has always been weak… But, as a result, my hearing has always been keen… It is no surprise then that I catch in your voice a note of fear… Would you want to live in flesh, on earth, for ages and ages and ages?”

“I should like to leave my flesh at the moment appointed for it by Divine Will; and in company of just, or at least merciful, brothers. His arch-worshipfulness abbot has spoken at great length about Stanislaw’s pride; but has he never asked himself whether that pride has been no more than a shield, wrought from captured iron (metaphorically speaking) which he broke off constantly – and bravely – from spears and lances aimed at him by pseudo-friends, foster-fathers, spiritual fathers – indeed, his despisers and torturers. We took him in; but did we privilege him? Why, we had him for a puppy – metaphorically speaking, of course, until Father vicar put a dog’s muzzle on him; whether metaphorically or literally, he was for us no more than a puppy dog, sweet, and bright from birth; one plays with such dogs and teaches them all sorts of tricks; but when they begin to bore or tire us with their playfulness, we kick them. (And sometimes well before they begin to bore us, too). But we expect from such dogs – no, demand from them – that they should always remember the stroking hand, not the kicking foot. And how surprised we are when, kicked cruelly and often, a dog will suddenly jump up to our hand in order not to lick it but bite it!

“You also mentioned, your arch-worshipfulness, a trial of fate which Stanislaw failed thereby revealing a spiritual handicap, which is to say insufficient self-respect or noble-pride. Do you remember? I was opposed to such trials; as was Abbot Nicholas, who now rests in the lap of God, I expect, but then was both yours and mine abbot. But you insisted. Was your insistence then guided only by worthy motivations? Why, did you really select Stanislaw to undertake that a trial only because you thought it may lead to transform the youth’s supposed self-love into its opposite, noble pride, self-respect? Further: you say he failed the test; disappointed hopes placed in him. Did you ask him then – that night on which you sent him away – discarded him like a dog – that night which you can recall so very well since you speak of it so precisely: the night of the third day of the first week of Lent of the year so-and-so” – did you ask him: “Beloved son, we have placed such hopes in you, and you have disappointed us bitterly… Why?” You see, I did ask him, with these very words precisely. I ran after him for a long time, long after his mother, all in tears, had given up – because it was such a frosty night!”

“And what did he answer you?”

“He spoke softly, even tenderly, but his voice did not tremble; on the contrary, it was almost happy. He said: ‘Good father, the time comes when you will learn everything; you. Only you.’”

“And have you learned?”

“Your arch-worshipfulness has spoken. I received a letter from Prague in the year…”

Stanislaw: “Worshipful father! The time has not yet come to discuss that matter! But I am happy to hear that my letter from Prague reached you. I have long wanted to ask you about it; it was the first thing I wanted to ask when I arrived here at the doorstep of the monastery after ten years’ absence. But on my first day here I could not find you; and on the second the worshipful father Andrew, as you have already graciously observed, put a dog muzzle on my face. Which, of course...”

Andrew: “…creates hopes for one of us – father Bernard, of course – that he will escape Mochy with his flesh intact… My lords – noble, less noble, and those entirely devoid of nobility of any kind! -- time passes! It is completely dark already: not only inside, but also outside. Let us pay attention to the importance of the passage of time – if we cannot pay attention to self-respect. I am deeply convinced that I will not see the next night; and if therefore you are indeed Christians, allow me to prepare myself for my death. I wish for peace – nothing more, but nothing less. And if I have to pay for this right to peace the highest price, then I will pay it. It is my understanding that Stanislaw’s vengefulness – or, perhaps, as father Bernard’s words have shown us, a released dog’s madness – is really aimed only at one person: his father in flesh and blood. And if he has drawn all three of us into this trap, it is only because he does not know which one of us has begat him with the daughter of the Niałek miller. Once he knows, the trap for the remaining two will loosen. Listen, whatever your name (since you have been named Stanislaw, secretly by your mother and without permission from the monastic authorities), shall we make a deal? I will prove to you – in accordance with all the rules of precise and correct implication – that you are my bastard. It will not be pleasant for me to lower myself to the task of reasoning with a low-life like you – yet I will undertake this effort and I am sure its results will please you. But if you are pleased, will you assure me that the arch-worshipful abbot, the cowardly father Bernard, and the innocent child Urban will be able to leave this place unharmed? I do not doubt it, I have never doubted it for a moment, that this whole supposed peasant rebellion is really your work; not directly, but indirectly, of course: you have influence with your grandfather, and the cunning miller has influence over all the peasants in the possession of the Wieleń and Obra monasteries. You have caught us; not our peasants’ anger. So, if you want the death of your father of flesh and blood – his death in flames, no less – you will have that death, but only that death. Do you agree?”

Abbot Peter: “We order you, dear brother Andrew, to be silent. We are pleased of course by your readiness to sacrifice yourself for the sake of your brethren…”

Andrew: “I have already explained it: I am not guided by any sense of love; I merely long for some moments of peace before death… I need some moments of concentration to settle with God some earthly accounts…”

“We said: be silent! I warn you, I must speak to you more sharply – though I do not like doing so: you are behaving nobly, but with the nobility of a knight, not that of a monk. You are self-sacrificing, too, but with the self-sacrificing of a simpleton. And in this you are as proud as Stanislaw, but at the same time – unlike Stanislaw – foolish. Not in all things, but in that which is most important, because that which is most important is too complicated – it is insufficiently simple for you to grasp!

“You are right when you say that it was not the rebellion of our peasants’ which has trapped us here, in this trap, this ambush, this net – this most unusual net woven of fire. We agree with you, we the Wieleń abbot, your superior, as perhaps does father Bernard, too, that the rebellion here is the work of one individual and not, to use the language of Caesar, Cicero and Salust, of the oppressed people. Of course, without the people, this rebellion would not have become the success it has been; so the people have been fooled, fooled through the agency of a person of great authority among all the simpletons in the area, Stanislaw’s maternal grandfather, the miller; and they have been fooled into thinking that by threatening us – what is more, by threatening us with death – they may receive a commutation of the due labor and goods into payment in coin; and a rescission of the right of to judge criminals among our peasants back from the monastic to the secular authorities. They have been fooled because they do not know, though the miller knows it well, and his grandson, whom we have transformed into a great learned lord knows it even better – that even if we wanted to satisfy such demands, we could not, since, just as our colons are our subjects, we ourselves are subjects, indeed, slaves, of the set of rules which make up the law according to which our monastic order is ruled. And knowing as much, Stanislaw is in fact misleading the peasants; and more, since misleading the peasants is but a means to a further goal. You believe, father Andrew, that that goal is vengeance upon his father of flesh and blood; in thinking so, you reason further correctly: if the father reveals himself (which would amount to his accepting death), Stanislaw may let the other two (and the child Urban) slip out of here unharmed. But I deny it…”

Bernard: “And I join you in your denial. I believe – I have always believed – that Stanislaw’s greatest complaint against us has been that (since he assumed that one of us was his father) he’d never lived to see the day on which his father stepped forward to identify himself; for he reasoned thus: “Since he does not reveal himself – even secretly, to me alone – then I am not dear to him; worse: I must be repulsive to him.

“Which is to say, in other words, that he dearly – though secretly – wished for his father’s love; and if someone – I believe equally dearly myself – longs for his father’s love, then that proves that he loves his unknown father; and if he loves him, then it is impossible for him to be motivated by his disappointment, though the disappointment be year by year ever more bitter, to commit the crime of patricide, a crime which is more terrible than any other crime, except matricide. And thus I think that brother Andrew’s reasoning, however noble and selfless, is completely mistaken; I might agree with the supposition that Stanislaw may have been behind the peasants’ rebellion against us so as to force that among us who is his father to reveal himself; but he desires that revelation not in order to wreak revenge on his father, but – in order to save him.

“To save only his father.

“Surely, you remember, Stanislaw, the story about the wizard’s apprentice? The apprentice, while watching his master, learned the secret of how to compel evil spirits to perform works ordered by the human will; but only how to summon and order them to perform such works, but not how to dismiss them when their services were no longer required. I suppose it is with you just as it was with that apprentice: you were able, in order to serve your own ends, to transmute the resentment of the peasants’ into an open rebellion, but you would never be able to calm the rebellion you have caused: having learned how to call the evil spirits, you have forgotten to learn also how to dispel them. And therefore you know, if you are wise – and you are wise – that if we do not make concessions – and we cannot make concessions as the arch-worshipful abbot has shown to you very wisely only a moment ago – therefore you know that the rebellious peasants must – they have no choice – must murder the monks; or, to be precise, to burn us with this whole mansion. You could perhaps, in your overall impotence (so very clear to you, am I not right?), you could perhaps snatch a small part of the booty which the forces summoned by you, but now no longer obedient to you, will now take, since, after all, the killing of two or three can give as much animal pleasure to those bent on murder as the killing of three or four; especially if one tells them that among those about to be murdered such and such person was really in favor of making concessions, but was shouted down by the wolves among the others, among whom that person was but a gentle lamb. Which is all to say that – it must be obvious – what you really expect of our talk tonight – of the armistice, as you put it – is to discover the identity of your father; but with the purpose of saving him, not taking revenge upon him. That’s all for now.”

Abbot Peter: “You are very insightful, brother Bernard; certainly more so than brother Andrew; but you, too, are mistaken. I agree that, given a chance to save any one of us from the powers he has released upon us, but which he now cannot call back, Stanislaw would indeed do this: he would try to save that one of us as to whom he could now say without any shadow of doubt, or uncertainties, or fear: ‘I have found my father in flesh and blood.’

“But then again: having always wished Stanislaw well – too well, perhaps, for certainly a lot better than he has turned out to deserve – you have now taken your softness towards him decidedly too far: for it would most certainly not be love for his found father, but vengefulness towards him that would motivate Stanislaw to save only his father from among us all.

“Believe me! Love takes many forms; and so does vengefulness. We have talked so much together, brother Bernard, you and I, in the evenings in the monastery – over years and years – concerning all the most terrible dangers involved in hiding sin and crime under the mask of virtue! Do you remember? We even spoke about how even that which is the holiest can be employed by the arch-cunning Satan to mislead creatures of God which he selects as especially attractive to him and which, while being mortal are also sentient. You yourself have described how the incontrovertible proof – of great literary value, too – of Saint Anselm of Durovernum that the Holy Spirit comes from both Father and Son – a powerful proof against the Greek schismatics – was itself once subverted so as to give not brief pleasure to Satan; and since that could happen, who could claim that Satan cannot pull an even more daring subterfuge: to collect profits from Christ’s own instructions? “Man is not for Sabbath, but Sabbath for man”, said our Lord Savior; but how many opportunities for crime does this teaching create – as a result of Satanic whisperings – when it is put into practice by lazy men? The same must be true regarding other teachings of Our Lord Savior: gluttony and drunkenness spread behind the shield wrought from the gospel story of the miracle at Cana. Tell me, is it so, or is it not?”

Bernard: “You have spoken truthfully.”

Abbot Peter: “I am glad to hear this. And now you will be glad to hear this: the Lord said: “when a brother strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the left”; which, we have been taught, is an injunction to gentleness, humility, and rewarding evil with good. But Satan is well capable of turning this teaching into a weapon not for the humble, but for the proud; the vengeful who are not inclined to forgive mercifully. This weapon is not intended for all; only the higher minds, of course, the higher minds among the proud, vengeful and merciless. I’ll say more, because the words “higher minds” are not sufficient; one should add “for shy, unwarlike characters, in other words – the bloodless – so as not to say…

Andrew: “…those with impotent testicles; or thoroughly lacking in honor…”

Stanislaw: “I will not rebuke you, eminent vicar, should I even care to, for we waste time here – seemingly fruitlessly, though perhaps only seemingly so – priceless and merciless time, every faster advancing towards tomorrow… all this considering of my worth, whether I have matured, whom I in fact serve, how to interpret my relationship to the rebellion of the Mochy peasants – surely, you must admit, it is exactly and no more than – and attempt at self-defense. Would I, once I have identified my father, abandon him to death in flames, or, on the contrary, try to save him from the same? Or again: by saving him, would I reveal my love for him or my feelings of vengefulness towards him? And if I intended revenge, would it be the sort especially pleasing to Satan, which lies in exposing our left cheek to a brother who strikes us on the right one, in order to punish him all the more cruelly with spiritual suffering, feelings of guilt and shame; more cruelly than striking him back, or indeed, killing him would have been?!

“Spending our time in this manner, our precious time measured not in days, but only hours till the expiration of the armistice – in fact you two – you arch-worshipful abbot, and you father Bernard – show how right is the third of you: if you can or will only engage your judge here in this manner– your judge representing here your oppressed people (despite all your arguments, I am such a judge) – then perhaps it would be better if you stopped talking to me at all leaving me in conviction that I am indeed father Andrew’s son in flesh and blood…”

Andrew: “How terribly you would be punishing me, oh Lord of Heaven, if it were to be the truth…”

Stanislaw: “How valuable this admission of yours: if by way of its form alone. But let’s set that aside. Having, as I do, a great number of well founded reasons to suspect that no other person but you, father Andrew, begat me with the daughter of the Niałek miller, I said: I will not rebuke you. But you, arch-worshipful abbot? You said a great deal to attack me, and would say a great deal more, too; but by doing so do you not undermine the dignity of your own extraordinary mind, polished by both philosophical and legal education? Were you not demanding yourself only a short while ago that, respecting the foundational principles of legality I should agree to hear your self-defense only after you have learned the content of the accusation against you? I agreed – and what followed? You were offering me help – as one who has completed legal studies – you proposed to help me formulate my accusation in agreement with the rules of law – but then you cut off your work on formulation quickly and passed on to defense. After all, your disagreement – supposedly a tacit disagreement – as the eminent vicar was kind enough to put it for us – well – well – weren’t you supposed to make peace with God?

“Yes, peace with God – Him who makes your appearance – after passing the fiery gates through which you shall pass to leave this earth – a passing ever more likely – thanks to your wasting of the precious time so generously granted you by your tribunal; ever more likely – if not by now unavoidable! Perhaps you desire to die already? Do you despise this chance of survival because – it comes from me? Or perhaps you do want to live on but do not believe that I have either the power or the desire to protect you from imminent death?

“Whichever one of these possibilities (dressed by me into the form of questions) corresponds to the truth, well, such a truth would not be contradictory to the purpose of your hearing out the accusations of your tribunal – yes, tribunal: tribunal of the people against the tyrants. Are you not able to copy me – once, just this once? I said: your every utterance strengthens my ability – it teaches me, enriches me, develops: take the arch-worshipful abbot’s mention of a term from the writings of Caesar, Cicero and Sallust: this term, precisely: the people – not in the sense which I have heretofore known – which was “the people of God” – the community of Christians – but in the sense of that collective whose interests are in direct opposition to the interests of all rulers and owners. How much I have gained by becoming acquainted with this term! Learn from me then – follow me! – and try to convince me that (no more than this really) that you deserve to continue living your life; or, if you prefer, that I should save that life. Do not waste your time on secondary question: how good is he who brings you this chance? Grab this chance! You are hereby accused that you have oppressed the people; well, present proof that, although you have oppressed them, yet you do not deserve the punishment appointed by the people rebelled against tyrannical rule. Yes, you have said already that according to the rules which make up the law code by which the international – inter-tribal? – Cistercian order is ruled, you have no power to promise to the people that you will change their duties in kind and labor into a cash payment; or that you will renounce the power to punish their crimes by life or death. I know that you do not have sufficient powers to promise such changes; but are you not able to promise the people’s tribunal that, once you have escaped the present straits alive, you will seek to obtain such powers? And more: that you will promote within the order the intellectual trend – later to be made practical – seeking to make such legal changes within the order as could improve the fate of those who subject to the order’s rule?

“Indeed, I tell you, you could easily swear as much. Yet you do not. Why not? Would such a movement serve no purpose? -- would it be impractical, unable to achieve any real changes? What of it? Your good faith – and out of it arising good will – would be sufficient that those who generously spared you would have no grounds to curse you, or jeer you: ‘they promised but in bad faith’! You believe yourself to be honest good monks, and therefore law-abiding, and precisely as such are unwilling to promise anything? But why should the receipt of copper, or silver, or, indeed, gold, not be preferable to forcing your peasants to perform labor in kind? And more: if one of your peasants should indeed commit a crime deserving the penalty of death, would it not be one hundred-fold more agreeable to you – to each and every one of you here – to send the criminal before the tribunal of the governor, the prince, or the king than to send him yourself into the hands of the executioner? I do not believe that you really prefer the former custom over these new ones – though they would indeed be new here (since they have long since been accepted as normal everywhere else). Would you really want me to think yourselves intellectually slothful as well as fools? Were I to think like this (or otherwise: were you to force me to think like this) – would you not think me forced to add another chapter to my list of accusations against you?”

Andrew: “What are the basic – the original – chapters of your accusation?”

“At last we have a sensible question! There are five basic, or original, headings of my accusation. They are: the violation of the vows of poverty, violation of the vow of chastity, violation of the vow of obedience; and further: forgery; and: a subversion of the teachings of the church, which is to say – heresy.

“Have you noticed? There are more headings of the accusation than there are accused! But I believe that, if not all three of you, then at least the arch-worshipful abbot himself has noticed that fact; and more: noticed the significance of this numerical disparity. One of you could be guilty of all these crimes, which means that the rest of you could be innocent. But this is unlikely; rather, it seems more likely that one of you has committed two of these crimes, another one also two, and the third only one; or perhaps two of you have committed one of these crimes each, which would mean that the third is accused here of the other three. But now: there is another possibility: that two of you, or perhaps all three, have committed one and the same crime, in addition to the crime which each committed separately.

“There was once here –if I am not mistaken – a blackboard somewhere here; and if it still is here, then there may well be some chalk. Then we would have before us, venerable fathers, an incredibly complex and fascinating exercise; a mathematical exercise, though it seems impossible to solve by mathematical means; or even geometric; though, luckily, when I was in the service of the ruler of Tartary (in the role of a chaplain of sorts, though not exactly chaplain’s) there was there in his service a certain Indian, very learned; he taught me a new branch of mathematics: the kind which using a special notation for the conception of void, allows one to find the solution for problems in which several known and unknown quantities are joined together by means of the four arithmetical functions; such a solution being rendered possible by the use of that special notation for no number; that is: for nothing; or: for less than one. (Indeed, numbers less than nothing, too).

“This seemed to me at first a kind of black magic – but in time I came to realize that it not was black magic; and this realization firmed up here, in Mochy: a certain peasant – a bee-keeper, shall we say – is obliged by virtue of his feudal duties to deliver to the monastery five barrels of honey; but he is free to keep all others, whether for his own consumption, or for sale. Now, were he able to collect enough honey to fill up seven barrels, we would say, according to this Indian branch of mathematics, that, in that particular mathematical relationship, he has two more than nothing; a positive number. But then let us say that the fruit of his labor comes out to three barrels; and the monastery refuses to lower his dues despite his desperate pleas; then how much shall we have in that mathematical notation? Two not above but below nothing, a negative number.

Andrew: “Black magic, or not, it is a pagan teaching, and therefore Satan’s: one more weapon in his struggle against Divine Majesty.”

Stanislaw: “I very much doubt whether you are right, father vicar. Killing is sometimes referred to as a-nihil-ation, am I not right? The peasant -- the vicar – had something here on earth; more of this, or less of this, or nothing at all other than life; but even if all he had was life, yet he had something. But when he loses the power to move and feel, then he has truly nothing; he once ruled, now he rules no more; he once suffered, now he no longer suffers. That would be an example of reducing a positive number to that number by which nothingness is denoted in India. Take yourself: if the peasants should set fire to this mansion at dawn, your journey towards nothingness will begin, in the sense that first you will suffer terribly in the flames, but then you will stop suffering, you will cease to be a thought, or feeling, or shape; you shall become dust, which is to say: nothing. Or, according to mathematics, that would be your end. But will that be your end? It is fit to show respect to our teachers by displaying from time to time before them the knowledge which we owe them; which is no more than what I am doing here now, arch-worshipful abbot, by presenting you with this proof of your teaching efforts expended upon my person – I will now pass from Latin to Tuscan –

…chi e’n quell foco che view si diviso
Di spora, che par suger della pira
Ov’ Eteocle col fratel fu misto?
Risposemi: la dentro si martira
Ulisse...

“And precisely! Foco, pira, martira! And who? Why, Ulisses, arch-worshipful father, that is to say the father of both Telemachos and Telegonos. Thus you have here a mathematical problem with both positive and negative numbers. The flames of the mansion burning above you, around you, with you – before you death, before nothingness, before the end… but then it turns out that death is not the end, and therefore not that number denoting a figure smaller than one, smaller than the smallest fraction of one, that is to say, nothing – that it is not the smallest number at all! Following it, another one will come, one bearing a negative sign; then two, then ten, then hundred, then thousand, then thousands of thousands, infinity, unto infinite time; for, after all, it is not Satan, but God’s own church that teaches us – you, worshipful fathers as well as me – that the sufferings of sinners will have no end in the flames of hell; that very hell of which the Tuscan (whom I had just quoted) says that it was formed by “la divina potestate, la somma sapienza e’l primo amore”. Will you deny this, arch-worshipful fathers? You cannot, and since you cannot, then you should be able to say to yourselves: the next Saturday – which is tomorrow – will be a great mathematician and he will undertake to solve a mathematical problem involving a number whose name is Fire; that number will appear in the problem as both positive and negative; except that where that value is positive, that value might be, let us say, one hundred; but where the negative sign appears, it will also be one hundred, but multiplied by thousands of thousands; indeed, by the infinity of the fires of hell…”

Bernard: “You are threatening us, but we are not afraid… And do you know why we are not afraid? Or at least – I? Everything you say lacks any power to convince. Do you understand?”

Stanislaw: “That is your business whether you are afraid or not. For now, as an example, and for greater clarity, I spoke about problems which you must solve, not I. But I am interested in that other problem: three accused, five crimes – five numbers and three unknowns. That is not an easy problem to solve, I repeat. It can be solved, perhaps, but solving it would take the whole night. Does that make sense? Would it not be better – for me as well as for you (a thousand fold better for you) – if you, who are aware of the facts, would simply state them here out of your own free will? Which one of you has violated the vow of chastity? And which – the vow of obedience? And which – poverty? Who committed an act of forgery, and who committed the crime of heresy? Or otherwise: shall we say that it was you, Father Bernard, who forged the document proving (falsely) the perpetual right of the Obra monastery to the services and income of the mill in Nialek? And you, father Andrew, who seduced the daughter of the Niałek miller? Come on, admit it, and having once admitted it, try to convince me that these acts were not crimes. If you can, the people’s tribunal will release you from responsibility.”

Bernard: “And also from punishment?”

Abbot Peter: “People’s tribunal! You have heard in Cologne lectures on the art of correct drawing of implications, yet here you talk only pure nonsense; worse, you cast it, like Pelion casting rocks at Ossa. First, where is the people here? Second: what do the peasants of Mochy care for monks’ infractions against some or other vows; or their forgeries; or heresy? Third: had any of us indeed committed such a crime – or any of these crimes, or any other crimes – only the Church could judge us: the authorities of the order, bishops, archbichops, the Pope. No other tribunal on earth, no provincial, nor princely, nor royal, nor imperial could; all the less – a people’s tribunal! Let’s stop this play, this nonsensical, silly play. Yes, we may die here – by fire if it comes to that; we do wish to live longer because we are mere mortal men, and every man wants to live the longest he can, if – and this is a very significant if – if his continuing life is not tantamount to the betrayal of God, which would mean the sentence of eternal tortures of hell. You have us in your power. I doubt – along with the remaining brothers – that your power is as much life-saving as it is death-dealing. Yet, let us assume that indeed, you can – if you chose to – cause it that the rebelled peasants will not burn us; if so, then we must give you something: you, not the peasants. What do you want?

“The truth.”

“About what?”

“I have already said it: I want to know which one of you has broken his vow of chastity; which – the vow of poverty; which – obedience; which one of you has committed the forgery, and which fell into heresy.”

“Why must you know this?”

“Because I am your tribunal.”

“Again, in circles! We do not recognize this tribunal’s legality.”

“You will die in flames!”

“We will die. And may our blood…”

“There won’t be any blood.”

Bernard: “Please, allow me to speak now, arch-worshipful father and lord. When we kick a dog he usually knows – and we usually know – why he is dealt that kick: he did something which we consider wrong, and for this we punish him; unless that is, being by nature cruel, we enjoy torturing dogs even when they have done nothing wrong. But the dog almost never knows why we play with him; and why we play in this manner and not another. It seems clear to me that Stanislaw, the millers boy, is playing with us, just like we usually do in the monastery with dogs; and as we did, many years ago, with the miller boy himself, who was so capable of pleasing us with all kinds of charms; so much better than any dog. Do you remember how we ordered him to play the lute and sing or recite poetry in all kinds of languages? We heard in his version fragments of Christian the French, Rambald the Provancal, and Wolfram the Thuringian…”

Stanislaw: “You said it, father Bernard! To sing such songs, to recite such poems – in a monastery! – is a violation of the vow of obedience. The rule of the Cistersian order clearly forbids such pleasures!”

Abbot Peter: “These were indeed violations, but minor ones. Ordinary sins, not mortal ones”.

Bernard: “My dear son! We taught you so much; and you have learned so many more things – incomparably more – after you have parted from us so many years ago. You could not therefore claim that you do not know that atonement, repentance, and confession blot out sins. They blot out even mortal sins – and how much more easily they blot out ordinary ones! If that is meant to be in your opinion a violation of the vow of obedience, then – believe me – this fault no longer exists! Yes, such a crime did weigh upon my conscience: I have taught a certain little miller boy not only the singing of psalms and Eucharistic hymns, but also love songs, though never – and you, having such a good memory will admit as much, will you not – never indecent ones. Yes, I did have such a sin on my conscience once, but – no more! I have confessed these sins. Not otherwise does anyone who ever violates any of the monastic vows – whether of obedience, or some other ones – or who somehow disrespected the Majesty of God; and he thereby re-acquires the salvation-giving Mercy: by confessing his sins, receiving absolution. And what God, acting through the sacramental powers of the Church, forgave – you now dare to drag out in public again, as if before some tribunal; this is a sinful self-will, blasphemous and sacrilegious, and if it is such then it is a thousand-fold more threatening to you with that world of infinitely large numbers, as you say, than it is to us (negative numbers – eternal sufferings of hell)…”

Stanislaw: “You named: atonement, repentance, confession. You forgot: satisfaction of wrongs”.

Bernard: “Forgive me, but that business is solely between me and my confessors. It is, in other words, a sacred secret. Whatever it is that they imposed upon me by virtue of satisfaction of wrongs, I have fulfilled. But what that was is not your business. Or anyone’s. Nobody’s.”

Stanislaw: “It seems that you are mistaken. You mentioned my excellent memory, and therefore do not be surprised that I remember: and I remember that the noble and arch-worshipful Nicholas once spoke at table – I served at the table that night – of the importance of seeking to understand with our human mind the minds of other natures, whether lower than our own, or our equal, that is human, or superior to ours, that is, Divine. Under the influence of that speech, I have decided to kill one of the monastery hens in order to study the shape of its skeleton. And though I was then suddenly seized by pity and stopped whipping her with that stick, she died all the same. I often dreamt about her later: she appeared to me as a skeleton, but a huge one, the size of a calf, sometimes as big as an ox. These dreams stopped when I confessed my crime before you – before you, father Bernard. But do you remember? You rebuked me severely not on account of my cruelty towards that hen, but for the sin of theft of monastic property. You refused me absolution until I make up for my sin. You ordered me to go and find another hen just like it; to find it anywhere; and then bring it into the monastery’s coop. Of course, I decided to go to Niałek, to my grandfather and mother, but since I had many duties in the sacristy at that time, I was unable to get permission to leave the monastery – for what was perhaps two weeks. And that is when the skeleton of the hen grew up in my dreams to the size of an ox. And later, at the mill, I was unable to find a hen that looked exactly the same as the other one. But my grandfather saved me: he bought from someone – in Widzim, I think – paying in silver! – a hen just like it; I returned to the monastery and threw her among the hundreds of others in the coop; and then you gave me absolution; and I have never since dreamt about a hen skeleton; even an ordinary-sized one.

“If I speak about it now, it is in order to…”

Abbot Peter: “We understand; and we thank you. You have here (in order to instruct us, that is, you think, for our benefit) revealed – precisely described, perhaps I should say, betrayed -- though this was not your intention – you have betrayed the secret motives as to why you are here with us now; and why you speak to us in this and not some other manner. Your presumed judgment over us now is just like whacking that hen was then. It comes from the same motives. Having appointed yourself a researcher of human (no longer hen-) nature, you seek to establish what lies in us, under our skin; and for that purpose you are prepared to resort to killing us. But look out! Just as the causes are the same, so the ends will be no different. First, when the rebelled peasants begin to set fire to this house, you will suddenly, bitterly regret our fate; but that regret will come too late: we will burn all the same, even if you should propose to withdraw your investigation; just as the hen died even though you said to yourself: “I should not have wanted to seek the truth about the shape of the skeleton of birds through the act of killing this hen.” Further, just as you dreamt a gigantic, terrifying hen skeleton, so you will dream ours…”

“Until the moment when I receive my absolution!”

“And who would grant you – or anyone – absolution for such a terrible crime?!”

That the women I date have a too high opinion of themselves

Everyone of them wants to nest, it seems: three out of the four last ones got pregnant within three months of breaking up with me.

Of course they all strenuously deny that they want to be married; and perhaps believe their denials, too, having been fed on the women’s-lib nonsense that a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle, that marriage is an instrument of male dominance, etc.; which only shows that what we think we believe and what we really believe (as shown by the way we act) have really nothing at all in common; because, their words aside, they want an exclusive union, whatever its name; they want to be the most important thing in my life – certainly more important I am willing to allow them to be; they want to be the only one; they want me to think about them ceaselessly when we are apart; and notice no other woman when we are together, etc. and don’t want me to have any life of my own. A woman needs a man like a fish needs bicycle, it seems, unless that man is me.

Whence comes this ambition? Can't they see it cannot happen?

I have been intentionally dating ugly, poor girls hoping that they might see the light: that I am too much of a good catch for them to have the remotest hope of any such silly thing; but that the good times I give them they have no hope of having with anyone else (who else will take them for a week of sin to Paris? Who else will entertain them with learned discourse on art and literature and philosophy on the meaning of life? Who else will treat them gently and respectfully and chivalrously in the way in which I do? And who else will do all that while being not bad looking and not the worst in bed?) Can't they see that with all this, they are best off aiming lower; accepting that they can't have exclusive union; and settle down for less -- which is a lot more than what they have now, or ever will.

But it isn’t working. They can’t seem to recognize the good thing they have. They want to nest.

Logical thought and careful planning have nothing to do with it. The strategy is inborn and unconscious: find a guy you like and then go for it. Ducks are like that too: they naturally head for water (and chickens for trees). All that schooling and education, all that wit and those foreign languages have no effect at all; they do not feed into life strategy.