懺悔錄A Confession Ch-5

by Leo Tolstoy

1882

Bill Lin 譯

5

「或許我輕忽了某些東西？或者誤解了某些東西？」我對自己說了好幾遍。「這種絕望的情況對人來說不會是出於自然的！」我在人類知識所有的部門裡尋求對這些問題的解釋。我經過漫長痛苦的尋求，不是出於沒事幹的好奇，或是有一搭沒一搭的，而是日以繼夜，痛苦又鍥而不捨的尋求——像是一個正在滅亡中的人尋求安全一樣——結果是什麼都沒找到。

我在整個的科學領域裡尋找，但是找不到我要的，最後我總算相信，所有像我一樣在知識裡尋求生命的意義，是找不到的。他們不僅找不到，而且明白的承認，那使我絕望的東西——亦即對生命的無意義感——是人們所能知曉的一個不容置疑的事情。

我找遍各地；感謝我的一輩子的學習，也感謝我和學者圈的關係，使我可以接觸到學術界每個領域裡的科學家和學者們，而且他們願意與我分享他們的學識，不只是在書本上，而且在對話裡，所以我有掌握到所有的在科學界對這個生命的問題的說法。

我長久以來一直不能相信，科學界除了它已經發現的以外，對於人生的問題不能提供其他的解答。我一直以為，當我看到科學宣告它的各種結論，和人生的實際問題扯不上關係的重要和嚴肅的氛圍時，應該是有某些東西我還沒理解。我自小畏懼科學，所以我以為我得到的種種答案和我的問題會牛頭不對馬嘴，並不是科學的錯，而是出於自己的無知，只是這對我來說是一個生死攸關的大事，而不是一個遊戲或娛樂，而且我不由自主的得到了這樣的信念，我的疑問是唯一真正的問題，構成所有知識的基礎，我和我的問題都沒錯，而是科學該被譴責，假如它是假裝在回答那些問題。

我的問題——那個在我50歲時，把我帶到了自殺的邊緣——是所有的問題裡最簡單的，存在於每一個人的靈魂裡，從愚蠢無知的孩童，到最有智慧的老者：這是一個活不下去的人的一個沒有答案的問題，就是我從經驗裡發現的問題。它是：「從我現在正在做的事，或是明天將要做的事，會產生什麼樣的結果？我的整個生命，最後會有什麼樣的結果？」

從另個角度看來，這個問題可以是：「為什麼我該活下去？為什麼我會期望任何東西，或該做任何事情？」還可以這樣表示：「我的生命有什麼樣的意義，不會被那正在等著我的，無可避免的死亡所摧毀？」

把這一個問題，用不同的方式表達，我在科學的領域裡去尋找一個解答。我發現，所有的人類的科學，在和問題的關係上分成了兩個半球，而在端點成了兩極：一個是負的，另一個是正的；但是不管哪一極都沒有人生的問題的答案。

有一邊的科學，看來是無法認識這問題，但清楚確切的回答它自己的獨立無關的問題：那是一串的實驗科學，而最邊遠的那端就是數學。另一串的科學認識這問題，卻無法回答它；那是一串的抽象科學，而最邊遠的那端就是形而上學。

在很年輕時，我曾經對抽象的科學很有興趣，但是後來，數學和自然科學吸引了我，一直到我有了自己的問題，一直到我裡面的問題已經自己成長，而且迫切的需要解決以前，我都自我滿足於科學所給我的虛假的答案。

然而在實驗的範疇裡，我告訴自己：「每樣東西自我的發展和區分，是往更複雜，更完全的方向進展，有法則在規範這個進展。你是整體的一部分。如果能盡量的去認識整體，而且知道這個進化律，你將會了解你在整體中的地位，也會了解你自己。」我要慚愧的承認，有一段時間我很滿足於那個說法。正是那時，我自己變得更複雜和更有進展。我的肌肉在成長強壯，我的記憶更豐富，我的思考和理解力更擴張，我正在成長和發展；因為感到在自我裡頭這樣的成長，我很自然的以為，這是宇宙的法則，在這裡面，我應該會找到我的生命的問題的解答。但是當我裡面的成長一旦停止了。我覺得我不但沒有進展，反而在衰退了，牙齒掉了，而且我看到了這個法則不僅無法解釋這些，甚至可能這個法則從未存在過，但是在我生命中的一段時間，我以為在我裡面找到了這個法則。我更嚴謹的來看待那個法則的定義，我終於看清了不可能有無限發展的法則；我想通了這個說法：「在無限的時空裡的每樣事物都在發展，和變得更完全更複雜，是兩樣事情。」這等於沒說一樣。所有的字眼都沒有意義，因為在無限裡，無所謂的複雜或簡單，也沒有進前或退後，沒有更好或更壞。

"But perhaps I have overlooked something, or misunderstood something?" said to myself several times. "It cannot be that this condition of despair is natural to man!" And I sought for an explanation of these problems in all the branches of knowledge acquired by men. I sought painfully and long, not from idle curiosity or listlessly, but painfully and persistently day and night - sought as a perishing man seeks for safety - and I found nothing.

I sought in all the sciences, but far from finding what I wanted, became convinced that all who like myself had sought in knowledge for the meaning of life had found nothing. And not only had they found nothing, but they had plainly acknowledged that the very thing which made me despair - namely the senselessness of life - is the one indubitable thing man can know.

I sought everywhere; and thanks to a life spent in learning, and thanks also to my relations with the scholarly world, I had access to scientists and scholars in all branches of knowledge, and they readily showed me all their knowledge, not only in books but also in conversation, so that I had at my disposal all that science has to say on this question of life.

I was long unable to believe that it gives no other reply to life's questions than that which it actually does give. It long seemed to me, when I saw the important and serious air with which science announces its conclusions which have nothing in common with the real questions of human life, that there was something I had not understood. I long was timid before science, and it seemed to me that the lack of conformity between the answers and my questions arose not by the fault of science but from my ignorance, but the matter was for me not a game or an amusement but one of life and death, and I was involuntarily brought to the conviction that my questions were the only legitimate ones, forming the basis of all knowledge, and that I with my questions was not to blame, but science if it pretends to reply to those questions.

My question - that which at the age of fifty brought me to the verge of suicide - was the simplest of questions, lying in the soul of every man from the foolish child to the wisest elder: it was a question without an answer to which one cannot live, as I had found by experience. It was: "What will come of what I am doing today or shall do tomorrow? What will come of my whole life?"

Differently expressed, the question is: "Why should I live, why wish for anything, or do anything?" It can also be expressed thus: "Is there any meaning in my life that the inevitable death awaiting me does not destroy?"

To this one question, variously expressed, I sought an answer in science. And I found that in relation to that question all human knowledge is divided as it were into two opposite hemispheres at the ends of which are two poles: the one a negative and the other a positive; but that neither at the one nor the other pole is there an answer to life's questions.

The one series of sciences seems not to recognize the question, but replies clearly and exactly to its own independent questions: that is the series of experimental sciences, and at the extreme end of it stands mathematics. The other series of sciences recognizes the question, but does not answer it; that is the series of abstract sciences, and at the extreme end of it stands metaphysics.

From early youth I had been interested in the abstract sciences, but later the mathematical and natural sciences attracted me, and until I put my question definitely to myself, until that question had itself grown up within me urgently demanding a decision, I contented myself with those counterfeit answers which science gives.

Now in the experimental sphere I said to myself: "Everything develops and differentiates itself, moving towards complexity and perfection, and there are laws directing this movement. You are a part of the whole. Having learnt as far as possible the whole, and having learnt the law of evolution, you will understand also your place in the whole and will know yourself." Ashamed as I am to confess it, there was a time when I seemed satisfied with that. It was just the time when I was myself becoming more complex and was developing. My muscles were growing and strengthening, my memory was being enriched, my capacity to think and understand was increasing, I was growing and developing; and feeling this growth in myself it was natural for me to think that such was the universal law in which I should find the solution of the question of my life. But a time came when the growth within me ceased. I felt that I was not developing, but fading, my muscles were weakening, my teeth falling out, and I saw that the law not only did not explain anything to me, but that there never had been or could be such a law, and that I had taken for a law what I had found in myself at a certain period of my life. I regarded the definition of that law more strictly, and it became clear to me that there could be no law of endless development; it became clear that to say, "in infinite space and time everything develops, becomes more perfect and more complex, is differentiated", is to say nothing at all. These are all words with no meaning, for in the infinite there is neither complex nor simple, neither forward nor backward, nor better or worse.

Above all, my personal question, "What am I with my desires?" remained quite unanswered. And I understood that those sciences are very interesting and attractive, but that they are exact and clear in inverse proportion to their applicability to the question of life: the less their applicability to the question of life, the more exact and clear they are, while the more they try to reply to the question of life, the more obscure and unattractive they become. If one turns to the division of sciences which attempt to reply to the questions of life - to physiology, psychology, biology, sociology - one encounters an appalling poverty of thought, the greatest obscurity, a quite unjustifiable pretension to solve irrelevant question, and a continual contradiction of each authority by others and even by himself. If one turns to the branches of science which are not concerned with the solution of the questions of life, but which reply to their own special scientific questions, one is enraptured by the power of man's mind, but one knows in advance that they give no reply to life's questions. Those sciences simply ignore life's questions. They say: "To the question of what you are and why you live we have no reply, and are not occupied with that; but if you want to know the laws of light, of chemical combinations, the laws of development of organisms, if you want to know the laws of bodies and their form, and the relation of numbers and quantities, if you want to know the laws of your mind, to all that we have clear, exact and unquestionable replies."

首先，我個人的問題，「我和我的慾望到底算什麼？」還是沒有答案。我知道那些科學很有趣又好玩，但是他們的明確度是跟著人生問題的實用性成反比：對人生問題的實用性越少，他們就越明確，當他們越想去回答人生的問題，他們就越變得含糊而不具吸引力。假如一個人投入科學的領域，試圖回答人生的問題——從生理學，心理學，生物學，社會學——會遭遇到令人震驚的貧乏思考，巨大的模糊性，一個無理

In general the relation of the experimental sciences to life's question may be expressed thus: Question: "Why do I live?" Answer: "In infinite space, in infinite time, infinitely small particles change their forms in infinite complexity, and when you have understood the laws of those mutations of form you will understand why you live on the earth."

大體說來，實驗科學對人生的問題的敘述，可以如此表達：

問：「我為什麼活著？」

答：「在無限大的空間，無限大的時間裡，許多無限小的粒子，在無限大的複雜情況下，改變他們的形態；當你了解那些形態變動的原理以後，你就會了解你為什麼活在地球上。」

Then in the sphere of abstract science I said to myself: "All humanity lives and develops on the basis of spiritual principles and ideals which guide it. Those ideals are expressed in religions, in sciences, in arts, in forms of government. Those ideals become more and more elevated, and humanity advances to its highest welfare. I am part of humanity, and therefore my vocation is to forward the recognition and the realization of the ideals of humanity." And at the time of my weak-mindedness I was satisfied with that; but as soon as the question of life presented itself clearly to me, those theories immediately crumbled away. Not to speak of the unscrupulous obscurity with which those sciences announce conclusions formed on the study of a small part of mankind as general conclusions; not to speak of the mutual contradictions of different adherents of this view as to what are the ideals of humanity; the strangeness, not to say stupidity, of the theory consists in the fact that in order to reply to the question facing each man: "What am I?" or "Why do I live?" or "What must I do?" one has first to decide the question: "What is the life of the whole?" (which is to him unknown and of which he is acquainted with one tiny part in one minute period of time. To understand what he is, one man must first understand all this mysterious humanity, consisting of people such as himself who do not understand one another.

I have to confess that there was a time when I believed this. It was the time when I had my own favorite ideals justifying my own caprices, and I was trying to devise a theory which would allow one to consider my caprices as the law of humanity. But as soon as the question of life arose in my soul in full clearness that reply at once flew to dust. And I understood that as in the experimental sciences there are real sciences, and semi-sciences which try to give answers to questions beyond their competence, so in this sphere there is a whole series of most diffused sciences which try to reply to irrelevant questions. Semi-sciences of that kind, the juridical and the social-historical, endeavor to solve the questions of a man's life by pretending to decide each in its own way, the question of the life of all humanity.

我必須承認，有一段時間我是相信這個的。

But as in the sphere of man's experimental knowledge one who sincerely inquires how he is to live cannot be satisfied with the reply - "Study in endless space the mutations, infinite in time and in complexity, of innumerable atoms, and then you will understand your life" - so also a sincere man cannot be satisfied with the reply: "Study the whole life of humanity of which we cannot know either the beginning or the end, of which we do not even know a small part, and then you will understand your own life." And like the experimental semi-sciences, so these other semi-sciences are the more filled with obscurities, inexactitudes, stupidities, and contradictions, the further they diverge from the real problems. The problem of experimental science is the sequence of cause and effect in material phenomena. It is only necessary for experimental science to introduce the question of a final cause for it to become nonsensical. The problem of abstract science is the recognition of the primordial essence of life. It is only necessary to introduce the investigation of consequential phenomena (such as social and historical phenomena) and it also becomes nonsensical.

Experimental science only then gives positive knowledge and displays the greatness of the human mind when it does not introduce into its investigations the question of an ultimate cause. And, on the contrary, abstract science is only then science and displays the greatness of the human mind when it puts quite aside questions relating to the consequential causes of phenomena and regards man solely in relation to an ultimate cause. Such in this realm of science - forming the pole of the sphere - is metaphysics or philosophy. That science states the question clearly: "What am I, and what is the universe? And why do I exist, and why does the universe exist?" And since it has existed it has always replied in the same way. Whether the philosopher calls the essence of life existing within me, and in all that exists, by the name of "idea", or "substance", or "spirit", or "will", he says one and the same thing: that this essence exists and that I am of that same essence; but why it is he does not know, and does not say, if he is an exact thinker. I ask: "Why should this essence exist? What results from the fact that it is and will be?" ... And philosophy not merely does not reply, but is itself only asking that question. And if it is real philosophy all its labor lies merely in trying to put that question clearly. And if it keeps firmly to its task it cannot reply to the question otherwise than thus: "What am I, and what is the universe?" "All and nothing"; and to the question "Why?" by "I do not know".

實驗科學

So that however I may turn these replies of philosophy, I can never obtain anything like an answer - and not because, as in the clear experimental sphere, the reply does not relate to my question, but because here, though all the mental work is directed just to my question, there is no answer, but instead of an answer one gets the same question, only in a complex form.

給人類最後的信息Last Message to Mankind

by Leo Tolstoy

Bill Lin譯

為第18屆國際和平代表大會而寫，斯德哥爾摩，1909

親愛的弟兄們，

我們聚集在這裡反對戰爭。為了戰爭，地球上所有的國家——成千百萬的人們——把不只是成億的俄國盧布，德國馬克，法國法郎或日圓(佔了他們的勞力的很大部分)，而且還有他們的性命，擺到少數幾個人或有時只有一個人的手中。

現在，我們20幾個平民百姓，從地球不同的各端聚集在這裡，不具任何特權，更重要的，沒有凌駕於任何人之上的權力。我們打算對抗——我們想要對抗，同樣也想要克服——這個不只是一個政府的，而是所有政府的巨大的力量。它們有可支配的巨大的財富，數百千萬的士兵，而且他們非常清楚，那些組成政府的特殊的地位的人，只站立在軍隊上的上面。所以我們想要對抗和廢除的，就是這個軍隊的意義和它的一個目的。

這力量是如此的不對等，要我們去奮鬥，一定看來是瘋狂的。假若我們考慮到我們的對手的爭戰的工具和我們自己的相比，並不是我們的戰鬥意志看來荒繆，而是我們要去跟他爭戰的東西居然還會存在。他們有巨大的金錢和千百萬的服從的士兵；我們只有一樣東西，但那是世界上最有力量的東西——真理。

因此，我們的力量和那些我們的對手們相比，可能看來微不足道，我們的勝利卻像旭日的光輝蓋過了夜晚的黑暗般的肯定。

我們的得勝是確定的，但是只有在一個條件下——在聲言真理時，我們必須說出所有的，沒有妥協、退讓、或修改。真理是如此的簡單，如此的清楚，如此的顯著，如此的不只是基督徒而且是所有有理性的人的責任，所以必須要說出他的通盤意義才能使它成為不可抗拒。

這個真理的通盤意義出自於數千年前(在我們相信是神的律法之中)的幾個字：「你不可殺人。」這真理就是一個人不可以，也不應該在任何情況下，或用任何藉口去殺他的同胞。這個真理是如此的明顯，如此的有約束力，而且是如此的普辨認知，只要清楚的把它擺在人的面前，就可使那邪惡的所謂的戰爭變成非常的不可能。

所以我想，假若我們在這裡出席和平代表大會的人，與其只是清楚又堅定的說出這個真理，讓我們向那些政府發表一些提案來減少戰爭的惡行，或慢慢的降低發生的頻率，我們必須像是手中握有開門鑰匙的人，要試著衝破他們認為是牢不可破的那幾堵牆。

我們面對的是百萬雄兵，一直是越來裝備越精良，訓練得屠殺是越來越快速。我們知道這數百萬的人，絲毫不想殺死他們的同胞，而且絕大部分的，甚至不知道為什麼要被迫去做那令人厭惡的工作，同時他們厭倦了他們需要強制服從的處境；我們知道這些人每一次殺了人，都是來自政府的命令；而且我們知道這些政府的存在，依賴著這些軍隊。

然而，我們這些渴望滅絕戰爭的人，除了去建議這些只藉著軍隊的助力，用戰爭手段的結果賴以生存的政府，難道找不到更有利於我們的目的的方法來摧毀戰爭？我們要去建議這些政府讓他們去摧毀他們自己？

這些政府會樂於聆聽任一這類的演講，知道這種的討論將不會摧毀戰爭，也不會削減他們的權力，只會更有效的遮掩必須遮掩的，假若戰爭和軍隊和他們自己控制著軍隊將繼續的存在。

「但是，」有人告訴我：「這是無政府主義；人們從來不曾生活在沒有政府和國家的情形下，所以為了這些國家的生存，政府和國家和軍事武力保衛他們是必要的。」

但是，先把是否基督徒的生活，和其他國家可能沒有軍隊和戰爭來保衛它們的政府和國家的問題擺在一邊，或者甚至以為，為了他們的福祉它是必要的，所以他們應該盲目的服從這些叫做政府的機構(是由一些他們私下不認識的人組成的)，而且需要付出他們的勞力所得給這些機構，滿足他們所有的要求——包括謀殺他們的鄰人——予取予求；在我們的世上，還有一個尚未解決的難題。

這個困難在於不可能把基督徒的信仰(這是那些從政府來的人特別強調宣稱的)，和由被訓練去殺人的基督徒組成的軍隊取得和諧。無論你再多的區解基督徒的教導，無論你再多的隱藏它的主要原則，它的基本教導就是愛神和愛自己的鄰人；愛神——是最高完善的美德，愛自己的鄰人——是愛人沒有區別。

所以看來無可避免的，我們必須拒絕這二者之一，或是基督教的愛神和愛自己的鄰人，或是國家和它的軍隊和戰爭。

或許基督教的精神會被廢棄，當二選一時——基督教的精神，或愛國和謀殺——我們這個時代的人會判定，國家和謀殺的存在比基督教的精神更重要，我們必須拋棄基督教的精神，只保留重要的：國家和謀殺。

或許就是那樣——至少人們可以做如此的思考和感覺。但是在那個狀況下，他們應該這麼說！他們應該公開承認，我們這個時代的人已經不再相信以往全人類共同智慧所說的，和他們宣稱的神的律法所說的：已經停止相信寫在每個人的內心，不可磨滅的，而現在必須只相信一些不同的人的命令，那些人因為意外或出身而成為皇帝或國王，或藉著不同的陰謀和選舉而變成總統或參議員和國會議員——甚至假若那些命令包括謀殺人。那就是他們應該說的！

但是話不可能這麼說；還有這兩者之一一定得說出來。假若承認基督教的精神禁止殺人，軍隊和政府就變成不可能。而且假如承認政府認同合法的殺人並拒絕基督教，沒有一個人會想服從一個政府，而這個政府只是藉著它的權力去殺人而存在。而且在戰爭裡如果許可殺人，當一個民族在革命裡爭取它的權利時，殺人還是更應該可允許的。所以這些政府，既無法說這一個或那一個，急著把需要解決進退兩難的窘境從主題裡藏起來。然而我們聚在這而要抵抗戰爭的邪惡，假如我們真的達到我們的目的，只需要做一件事：就是把進退維谷的事很清楚地，堅定地同時擺到那些政府派來的人，和構成軍隊的廣大群眾的面前。

要做那件事，我們不只要清楚地，公開地重複這個我們都知道，而且不可能不知道的真理——人不應該殺他的同胞——但是我們必須也清楚地表明，沒有任何考慮能摧毀藉著全世界基督徒的真理所造成的要求。所以我建議，我們這個會議撰寫和發表一個對全人類的呼籲，特別是對基督教國家，在那裡面，我們清楚堅定地表達每一個人都知道的，但是幾乎每一個人都不說的；亦即戰爭並不是——像大多數人認為——一個好的和值得稱道的事，卻像所有的謀殺一樣，它是一個惡劣的犯罪事務，不只是針對那些自願的職業軍人，而且是對那些因為是出於貪婪，或畏懼懲罰而順從的人。

關於那些自願選擇一個軍人生涯的，我要建議清楚堅定地聲明，不要承受那些圍繞在四周的排場、閃光和一般的贊許，它是一個犯罪和羞恥的行為；一個人，他的軍職階級越高，他的工作犯的罪和羞恥也越重。

同樣的，關於那些被弄進軍對服役的人們，或是利誘或是威脅的，我建議要說清楚有關他們犯的大錯——違反了他們的信仰、道德和常理——當他們同意加入軍隊時；違反了他們的信仰，因為當他們加入了謀殺者的行列，和他們所認知的神的律法對立；違反道德，因為為了薪水或畏懼懲罰，他們同意去做他們心裡知道是錯的事情；違反常理，因為假如他們加入了軍隊，而戰爭爆發了，他們可能遭受任何不好的後果，比起他們因為拒絕而遭受的威脅更糟。最重要的是，他們的行為違反常理，因為他們加入了剝奪他們的自由，強迫他們成為士兵的那一種人。

提到了所有的兩種類型，我建議在這個呼籲裡，清楚地表達這思想給真正開明的人，他們沒有迷信於軍事的榮耀，軍事專業和呼召，不承受所有的努力去藏匿它的真正意義，是一個很像劊子手的行業一樣的羞恥或更有過之。這是因為劊子手只是使它自己預備好去殺那些已經被判決是有害的罪犯，而一個士兵卻答應去殺所有他被命令去殺的，即使他們可能是他最親近的，或是最好的人。

一般的人性，尤其是我們基督徒的人性，在它的道德要求和現存的社會秩序已經到了一個如此尖銳矛盾的階段，一個改變已經變得是不能避免的了，一個改變不在社會的道德要求裡，因為道德要求是不能變的，但是在那可以更改的社會秩序裡。被內部的矛盾所激發的對於一個不同的社會秩序的要求，藉著我們的謀殺的準備是如此的清楚的呈現了，一天又一天，一年又一年更加的堅持了。

這個要求改變的張力已經達到了如此的程度，就像有時候，只需要有一個小震動，就能將水變成冰，所以或許只要一個小小的功夫，或甚至一個單字，就改變了我們這個殘酷而不理性的生活——隨著它的軍團，軍備武裝和軍隊——變成一個有理性的生活，符合現代人性的良知。

每一個這樣的努力，每一個這樣的話語，有可能是使寒水瞬間結冰的震動。為什麼我們的聚會，不可能是這個震動呢？

在安徒生Andersen的童話故事裡，當國王走在凱旋遊行裡，經過城裡的街道時，所有的人們都很為他的漂亮的新衣服高興，但一個小孩子說了每個人都知道，卻都沒有說的一句話，改變了每一樣事情。他說：「他沒穿衣服！」整個遊行隊伍亂了，國王變得很羞愧，所有那些曾經自我保證，他們看見了他正穿著漂亮的新衣的那些人，看到了他是裸體的！我們必須也這麼說。我們必須說那個每個人都知道，但是不敢說出來的話。我們必須說那個不管人們會用什麼名堂稱呼的謀殺——謀殺就是謀殺，是個犯罪的，無恥的事情。我們只需要清楚地、堅定地、和大聲地講，就像我們能夠在這裡講的一樣，人們將不會再看到以為他們看到的，將會看到真正發生在他們的眼前的。

他們將不再看到為他們的國家的服役，戰爭的英雄主義，軍隊的榮耀，和愛國主義，卻會看到所存在的：赤裸裸的，謀殺的犯罪事業！

假若人們看到了真相，如同在童話裡相同的事情就會發生：那些做犯罪事情的人將會感到羞愧，那些自我保證沒有看到謀殺的罪行的人，就會看到這罪行，不再去當謀殺犯。

但是，這些國家如何來捍衛自己對抗它們的敵人，它們將如何維持內部的秩序，這些國家沒有軍隊又如何生存呢？

在人們拒絕謀殺以後，他們會採取什麼樣式的生活，我們不知道，也無法知道；但是有一樣是確定的：比起盲目的順從那些安排集體謀殺的人，人們的生活會更自然的遵循他們天賦的理性和良心；從此以後，社會的秩序由那些循著他們自己行為的人的生命來承擔，不是藉著謀殺的威脅下的暴力，卻是藉著理性和良心，不管是任一個情況下，都不會比現在他們過的更糟糕。

這就是我想說的。我應該抱歉，假如它冒犯了任何人，或使任何人傷心，或激起任何不好的感覺。至於我這個80歲的老人，任何時刻都面臨死亡，假若我不說出我所理解的整個真理，這會是可恥的而且是有罪的——這真理，正如我堅定的相信，唯獨這個真理，可以使人類解除因為戰爭所產生的不可估量的不幸。

**************************************************

Written for the 18th International Peace Congress held at Stockholm in 1909.

Dear Brothers,

We have met here to fight against war. For the sake of war, all the nations of the earth –millions and millions of people – place not merely billions of rubles, marks, francs, or yen(representing a very large share of their labor), but also their very lives, at the uncontrolled disposal of a few men, or sometimes only one man.

And now we, a score of private people, are gathered from the various ends of the earth, possessed of no special privileges and above all having no power over anyone. We intend to fight – and as we wish to fight we also wish to conquer – this immense power, not only of one government, but of all governments. They have at their disposal enormous wealth and millions of soldiers, and they are well aware that the exceptional position of those who comprise the governments rests on the army alone. And it is the meaning and a purpose of this army that we wish to fight against and abolish.

It must appear insane for us to struggle as we do, the forces being so unequal. But if we consider our opponent’s means of strife and our own, it is not our intention to fight that will seem absurd, but that the thing we mean to fight still exists. They have enormous wealth and millions of obedient soldiers; we have only one thing, but that is the most powerful thing in the world: Truth.

Therefore, insignificant as our forces may appear in comparison with those of our opponents, our victory is as sure as the victory of the light of the rising sun over the darkness of night.

Our victory is certain, but on one condition only - that when uttering the truth we utter it all, without compromise, concession, or modification. The truth so simple, so clear, so evident, so incumbent not only on Christians but on all reasonable men, that it is only necessary to speak it out in its full significance for it to be irresistible.

The truth in its full meaning lies in what was said thousands of years ago (in the law accepted among us as the Law of God) in four words: "You shall not kill." The truth is that man may not and should not in any circumstances or under any pretext kill his fellow man. The truth is so evident, so binding, and so generally acknowledged, that it is only necessary to put it clearly before men for the evil called war to become quite impossible.

And so I think that if we who are assembled here at this Peace Congress should, instead of clearly and definitely voicing this truth, address ourselves to the governments with various proposals for lessening the evils of war or gradually diminishing its frequency, we should be like men who having in their hand the key to a door, should try to break through walls they know to be too strong for them.

Before us are millions of armed men, ever more and more efficiently armed and trained for more and more rapid slaughter. We know that these millions of people have no wish to kill their fellows and for the most part do not even know why they are forced to do that repulsive work, and that they are weary of their position of subjection and compulsion; we know that the murders committed from time to time by these men are committed by order of the governments; and we know that the existence of the governments depends on the armies.

Can we then who desire the abolition of war, find nothing more conducive to our aim than to propose to the governments which exist only by the aid of armies and consequently by war - measures which would destroy war? Are we to propose to the governments that they should destroy themselves?

The governments will listen willingly to any speeches of that kind, knowing that such discussions will neither destroy war nor undermine their own power, but will only conceal yet more effectively what must be concealed if wars and armies and themselves in control of armies are to continue to exist.

'But', I shall be told, 'this is anarchism; people never have lived without governments and States, and therefore governments and States and military forces defending them are necessary for the existence of nations.'

But leaving aside the question of whether the life of Christian and other nations is possible without armies and wars to defend their governments and States, or even supposing it to be necessary for their welfare that they should slavishly submit to institutions called governments (consisting of people they do not personally know), and that it is necessary to yield up the produce of their labor to these institutions and fulfill all their demands - including the murder of their neighbors - granting them all that, there yet remains in our world an unsolved difficulty.

This difficulty lies in the impossibility of making the Christian faith (which those who form the governments profess with particular emphasis) accord with armies composed of Christians trained to slay. However much you may pervert the Christian teaching, however much you may hide its main principles, its fundamental teaching is the love of God and one's neighbor; of God - that is the highest perfection of virtue, and of one's neighbor - that is all men without distinction.

And therefore it would seem inevitable that we must repudiate one of the two, either Christianity is love of God and one's neighbor, or the State with its armies and wars.

Perhaps Christianity may be obsolete, and when choosing between the two - Christianity and love of the State and murder - the people of our time will conclude that the existence of the State and murder is more important than Christianity, we must forgo Christianity and retain only what is important: the State and murder.

That may be so - at least people may think and feel so. But in that case they should say so! They should openly admit that people in our time have ceased to believe in what the collective wisdom of mankind has said, and what is said by the Law of God they profess: have ceased to believe in what is written indelibly on the heart of each man, and must now believe only in what is ordered by various people who by accident or birth have happened to become emperors and kings, or by various intrigues and elections have become presidents or members of senates and parliaments - even if those orders include murder. That is what they ought to say!

But it is impossible to say it; and yet one of these two things has to be said. If it is admitted that Christianity forbids murder, both armies and governments become impossible. And if it is admitted that government acknowledges the lawfulness of murder and denies Christianity, no one will wish to obey a government that exists merely by its power to kill. And besides, if murder is allowed in war it must be still more allowable when a people seek its rights in a revolution. And therefore the governments, being unable to say either one thing or the other, are anxious to hid from their subjects the necessity of solving the dilemma. And for us who are assembled here to counteract the evil of war, if we really desire to attain our end, only one thing is necessary: namely to put that dilemma quite clearly and definitely both to those who form governments and to the masses of the people who compose the army.

To do that we must not only clearly and openly repeat the truth we all know and cannot help knowing - that man should not slay his fellow man - but we must also make it clear that no considerations can destroy the demand made by the truth on people in the Christian world. Therefore I propose that our Meeting draw up and publish an appeal to all men, and especially to the Christian nations, in which we clearly and definitely express what everybody knows, but hardly anyone says: namely war is not - as most people assume - a good and laudable affair, but that like all murder, it is a vile and criminal business not only for those who voluntarily choose a military career but for those who submit to it from avarice, or fear of punishment.

With regard to those who voluntarily choose a military career, I would propose to state clearly and definitely that not withstanding all the pomp, glitter, and general approval with which it is surrounded, it is a criminal and shameful activity; and that the higher the position a man holds in the military profession the more criminal and shameful his occupation.

In the same way with regard to men of the people who are drawn into military service by bribes or by threats of punishments, I propose to speak clearly about the gross mistake they make - contrary to their faith, morality and common sense - when they consent to enter the army; contrary to their faith because when they enter the ranks of murderers contrary to the Law of God which they acknowledge; contrary to morality , because for pay or from fear of punishment they agreed to what in their souls they know to be wrong; and contrary to common sense, because if they enter the army and war breaks out they risk having to suffer any consequences, bad or worse than those they are threatened with if they refuse. Above all they act contrary to common sense in that they join that caste of people which deprives them of freedom and compels them to be soldiers.

With reference to both classes, I propose in this appeal to clearly express the thought that for men of true enlightenment, who are therefore free from the superstition of military glory, the military profession and calling, not withstanding all the efforts to hide its real meaning, is as shameful a business as the executioner’s and even more so. This is because the executioner only holds himself in readiness to kill those who have been judged to be harmful and criminal, while a soldier promises to kill all who he is told to kill, even though they may be the dearest to him or the best of men.

Humanity in general, and our Christian humanity in particular, has reached a stage of such acute contradiction between its moral demands and the existing social order, that a change has become inevitable, and a change not in society's moral demand which are immutable, but in the social order which can be altered. The demand for a different social order, evoked by that inner contradiction which is so clearly illustrated by our preparations for murder, becomes more and more insistent every year and every day.

The tension which demands that alteration has reached such a degree that, just as sometimes only a slight shock is required to change a liquid into a solid body, so perhaps with a slight effort or even a single word may be needed to change the cruel and irrational life of our time - with its divisions, armaments and armies - into a reasonable life in keeping with the consciousness of contemporary humanity.

Every such effort, every such word, may be the shock which will instantly solidify the super cooled liquid. Why should not our gathering be the shock?

In Andersen's fairy tale, when the King went in triumphal procession through the streets of the town and all the people were delighted with his beautiful new clothes, a word from a child who said what everybody knew but had not said, changed everything. He said: 'He has nothing on!' and the spell was broken, and the king became ashamed and all those who had been assuring themselves that they saw him wearing beautiful new clothes perceived that he was naked! We must say the same. We must say what everybody knows but does not venture to say. We must say that by whatever name people may call murder - murder always remains murder and a criminal and shameful thing. And it is only necessary to say that clearly, definitely, and loudly, as we can say it here, and men will cease to see what they thought they saw, and will see what is really before their eyes.

They will cease to see the service for their country, the heroism of war, military glory, and patriotism, and will see what exists: the naked, criminal business of murder!

And if people see that, the same thing will happen as in the fairy tale: those who do the criminal thing will feel ashamed, and those who assure themselves that they do not see the criminality of murder will perceive it and cease to be murderers.

But how will nations defend themselves against their enemies, how will they maintain internal order, and how can nations live without an army?

What form of life men will take after they repudiate murder we do not and cannot know; but one thing is certain: that it is more natural for men to be guided by reason and conscience with which they are endowed, than to submit slavishly to people who arrange wholesale murders; and that therefrom the form of social order assumed by the lives of those who are guided in their actions not by violence based on threats of murder, but by reason and conscience, will in any case be no worse than that under which they now live.

That is all I want to say. I shall be sorry if it offends or grieves anyone or evokes any ill feeling. But for me, a man eighty years old, expecting to die at any moment, it would be shameful and criminal not to speak out the whole truth as I understand it - the truth which, as I firmly believe, is alone capable of relieving mankind from the incalculable ills produced by war.

托爾斯泰與你何干？寫後感

“托爾斯泰與你何干？”的意思是——我們都知道托爾斯泰是何許人(《戰爭與和平》的作者)，也都知道你林XX是何許人，你為什麼費那麼大的勁，去翻譯他那麼多的文章呢？

以世人的眼光和邏輯推敲，一定是想賺稿費或出書，沒人替你出版，也可以自費印個上百本，分送親朋好友，沒賺錢也賺個虛名。

從宗教界的人士看來，老林一定是受了聖靈的感動要廣傳福音，以他那麼好的文筆(不是自誇，而是匿名讀者留言)，許多非基督教徒讀者有福了。但是也有人(親愛的pc讀者)認為“study bible is easier”；這一句話如果被沈富雄拿來分析，最少有四種可能：

1. 花那麼多時間去幹這種事，倒不如去念聖經來得容易，也更有意義。

2. 讀聖經比讀你的(其實是托爾斯泰的)文章容易多了。

3. 讀了你的(其實是托爾斯泰的)文章以後，再去念聖經，就容易多了。

4. 當你找到這個新玩意，不再去當老師誤人子弟，我們聖經念起來都容易多了。

那些都是題外話，題內話應該是我的感觸，與沈富雄無關。當我寫完這篇文章以後，我從我的email list裡點出了80 個人，恭請他們指教，迄今有總共有92個點閱，有4個人給了指教，很謝謝大家。

我和各位交往，在我的意識裡面幾幾乎沒有所謂基督徒或非基督徒的區別，其實是真假莫辨，如果能分辨出是麥子或稗子都要大大的感謝神了。

簡單的一個問題，寫了兩篇文章來回應，到底說清楚了沒有？肯定是沒有。我花了這麼多的精神和時間只有一個目的——看到有好的東西，自己多費一點功夫，拿來和各位分享。我怎麼知道是有好東西呢？因為是從看到那第一篇的文章得到的感動。只是又有誰願意多費一點心力去看那篇文章呢？

懺悔錄A Confession Ch-4

by Leo Tolstoy

1882

Bill Lin 譯

4.

我的生命停滯了。我會呼吸、飲食、和睡覺，我是不由自主的在做這些事；但卻像行屍走肉般的沒有生命，因為沒有任何一個希望的達成，被我認為是有理性的。假若我渴望任何東西，我早就知道，不管是否滿足了我的需求，都不會有什麼結果的。假如一個仙女出現了，應許要滿足我的慾望，我會不知道該要求什麼。假如在醉夢中我感覺到某些東西，雖然這不是一個希望，而是原先的希望留下來的一個習慣，那麼在清醒的時候我知道，這是一個幻覺，沒有什麼可希望的。我甚至不能希望知道真相，因為那是我的猜測。真相是，生命毫無意義。我看來像是活著，活著，走著，走著，一直走到了一個懸崖，很清楚的看到，前面除了毀滅以外，空無一物。進退維谷，無法閉上眼睛或者不去看前面的空盪，僅存的就是痛苦和真正的死亡—完全的滅絕。

事情已經到了這樣的地步，我這樣一個健康、幸運的人，感到活不下去了：某種不可抗拒的力量逼我要採取任一方式，來拋棄我自己的生命。我不能說是我*想要*自殺。這股要把我拖離生命的力量是比任一單單的願望來得更強大、充沛、和全面性。這力量和以前的要努力活下去是很類似的，只是方向相反而已。我全身所有的力道，要把我拖離我的生命。現在，自我毀滅的念頭，就像以往要如何改善我的生活的念頭一樣，來得一樣的自然，而且它是有誘惑性的，我自己必須和自己算計才不至於一下子就落實了。我不想快死，因為我要用盡所有努力來解脫這個事端。「假如我不能解決事情，有的是時間。」而且在那時，像我這麼富有的人，我把一條繩子藏起來，使我每個晚上在自己的房間獨自更衣時，不至於把自己吊死在隔間的橫樑上，同時我不再出去做手槍射擊，避免被如此簡易方式的誘惑，來結束自己的生命。我自己不支蹈我要什麼：我愛怕生活，渴望逃避它，但是還希望它有某些東西。

當這一切發生在我的身上時，正是在我週遭所有的人，都認為我擁有最完美的福氣。我還沒到50歲；有一個愛我的好老婆，我也愛她，乖巧的孩子們，還有一大堆資產，我不需費太多功夫，它們就變得更多更好。我的相關人和朋友們，尊敬我到無以復加。我被人讚美，而且不需要太自欺，就可以自認我是著名的。沒有神經錯亂和心理疾病，和現狀相反的，我享有健康的身心，在當時我們這種人當中是少見的；體力上，我可以比美做耕種勞動的農夫，在心理上，我可以努力連續工作8至10個小時而沒有不良後果。在這種情形下，我會弄到活不下去，而且為了怕死，必須謀算自我，才能避免了斷自己的性命。

我看出我的心理狀況是這樣的：我的生命，像是某人在我的身上開了一個愚蠢惡毒的玩笑。雖然我不認為有個“某人”創造了我，只是這樣的講法—藉著把我生在這世上，某人在我的身上開了一個邪惡愚蠢的玩笑—是一個我覺得最自然的表達的方式。

自然而然的，整件事依我看來就像是，在某個地方，有某個人，他自己很高興的，看著我活了三、四十年：學習，發展，身心都成熟了，而且如何的有了成熟的精神力量達到了生命的最高峰，從那裡一切都擺在我的眼前，我站在頂點—像拱門上的傻子—很清楚的看到生命裡空無一物，一向都是這樣，以後也是空無一物，這樣*他*就樂了。

但是，不管這個在笑我的 “某人”存在與否，我都不會更好過。我無法對任何單一行動或是我的整個生命給予合理的意義。我只是驚訝，我居然可以在最早先的時候，不去了解這件事—這早就是人人皆知的事。今天或明天，生病和死亡會來到 (它們已經來了)那些我所愛的人，或我的頭上；除了惡臭和蛆以外，一無存留。遲早我的總總，不管是什麼，將被忘懷，我也不存在了。所以，還努力什麼呢？…人怎麼可能看不到這個呢？怎麼可能繼續活下去呢？那就是我的驚訝！一個人只能醉生夢死的活著；一旦清醒，不可能看到這一切只是個騙局，一個愚蠢的騙局！那正是如此：一點也不好玩也不風趣，只是殘酷和愚蠢。

很久以前有一個東方的寓言，有關一個旅客在平原上遇到一頭猛獸。在逃避猛獸時，他跳進一口乾井，但他看到井底有一條龍，張開大口要吞食他。這個不幸的人，既不敢爬出來，怕被猛獸咬死，又不敢跳下井底，怕被龍吞掉，只好抓住長在井壁裂縫中的樹藤，吊在半空中。他的雙手越來越虛弱，他感到，他不久就得放棄，讓在上面的，或在下面的來毀滅自己，但他還是緊抓著。然後他看到有兩隻老鼠，一黑一白，在他抓住的那根樹藤上，定期的爬上爬下啃著那樹藤。很快的這樹藤本身就會斷掉，他就會掉進龍的牙縫。旅客看到這個，知道他將難免一死；但當他還吊著的時候，他四下張望，發現樹藤的葉上有幾滴蜜，於是就伸出舌頭舔蜜。這樣子，我也是掛在生命的樹藤上，知道那象徵著死亡的龍不可避免的在等著我，準備把我撕成碎片；我不理解為什麼我會遭到這樣的折磨。我試著要舔那早先使我寬慰的蜜，但那些蜜不再帶給我歡樂，而白鼠和黑鼠，就是白天和黑夜，都在啃著我懸掛的樹枝。我清楚地看到龍，而蜜嚐起來也不甘甜。我只看到逃避不了的龍和老鼠，無法把我的視線從它們身上挪開。這不是一個寓言，而是真正的、沒有答案的、每個人都可以理解的事實。

生活的歡樂的錯覺在過去緩和了我對龍的恐懼，現在不再能欺騙我了。不管多少次有人對我說：「你既不能明白生命的意義，就別想了，只有活下去。」我不能再這樣做：我已經這樣做得太久了。現在我不能不看到，時間日以繼夜的在引我走向死亡。那就是我全部所看到的，因為就只有那個是真實的，其餘的一切都是虛假。

使我的眼睛，從嚴酷的真實轉移開來最久的那兩滴蜜：我對家庭的愛，和寫作—我稱之為藝術—對我來說已經不再是甜蜜的了。

「家庭，」…我自言自語。但是我的家庭—妻子、兒女—他們也是人。他們的處境和我一樣：他們要不就是活在虛偽之中，或是得看那可怕的事實。他們為什麼要活下去？我為什麼要愛他們，保護、養育和照顧他們？為的是使他們可能走到和我一樣絕望的地步？或是做個愚蠢的人？愛他們，我不能對他們隱藏真相：知識上的每一步都引他們走向這個事實。 而這個事實就是死亡。

「藝術，詩？」…在成功和人們的讚美的影響下，我一直使自己相信，這是一件可以做的事，雖然死亡正在逼近—死亡毀滅所有的東西，包括我的作品和對它們的記憶；只是我很快的發現這也是個騙局。我很清楚的知道，藝術是一個生命的裝飾品，一種生命的誘惑。當生命不再對我有吸引力的時候，我如何能用它去吸引別人呢？只要是我並非活在自己的生命裡，而是為著其他的生命逐波而流—只要是我相信生命有個意義，甚至是我都不能表達的—生命在詩裡面的回影，和各樣的藝術所帶給我的樂趣：從藝術的鏡子裡看人生是很愉快的。但是當我開始尋找生命的意義，而且感到需要活出自己的生命的時候，那面鏡子對我來說，就變成不需要，多餘，荒謬和令人難過的。當我現在從鏡子裡，看到我的處境是愚蠢和絕望時，我不能再使自己感到舒緩。只有當我在我的靈魂的深處，我相信我的生命有個意義，才能很愉快的欣賞這個景象。然後戲劇的燈光—喜劇、悲劇、感動、美麗和糟糕—在生活中才能使我歡娛。不管蜜有多甜，當我看到那條龍和老鼠囓走我的支撐時，都不能使我感到任何的甘甜。

這還不夠。如果我只是明白生命沒有意義，我或許能安靜的忍受，把它當成是自己的命運。如果我是生活在森林中的人，知道走不出這座森林，那麼我還能夠生活下去。但我像一個在森林中迷了路的人，因為迷路而感到恐怖，到處亂轉，希望走到正道上，知道每一步無非是更加糊塗，但又不能不來回折騰。

真的很恐怖。為了擺脫這種恐怖，我想自殺。我經歷的恐怖是從等著我的未來而來—我知道這恐怖會比我目前的情況更糟，但是我無法坐以待斃。不管任一種情況的立論多令人信服，有一天我的哪一條心血管總會報銷了，或著某些東西也會爆裂，一切就完了，我不能坐以待斃。那對黑暗的恐懼非常強烈，有時我想儘快地用套索或子彈幫自己得到解脫。就是這樣的思緒強烈的吸引我去自殺。

******************************************

My life came to a standstill. I could breathe, eat, drink, and sleep, and I could not help doing these things; but there was no life, for there were no wishes the fulfillment of which I could consider reasonable. If I desired anything, I knew in advance that whether I satisfied my desire or not, nothing would come of it. Had a fairy come and offered to fulfill my desires I should not have know what to ask. If in moments of intoxication I felt something which, though not a wish, was a habit left by former wishes, in sober moments I knew this to be a delusion and that there was really nothing to wish for. I could not even wish to know the truth, for I guessed of what it consisted. The truth was that life is meaningless. I had as it were lived, lived, and walked, walked, till I had come to a precipice and saw clearly that there was nothing ahead of me but destruction. It was impossible to stop, impossible to go back, and impossible to close my eyes or avoid seeing that there was nothing ahead but suffering and real death - complete annihilation.

It had come to this, that I, a healthy, fortunate man, felt I could no longer live: some irresistible power impelled me to rid myself one way or other of life. I cannot say I *wished* to kill myself. The power which drew me away from life was stronger, fuller, and more widespread than any mere wish. It was a force similar to the former striving to live, only in a contrary direction. All my strength drew me away from life. The thought of self-destruction now came to me as naturally as thoughts of how to improve my life had come formerly, and it was seductive that I had to be cunning with myself lest I should carry it out too hastily. I did not wish to hurry, because I wanted to use all efforts to disentangle the matter. "If I cannot unravel matters, there will always be time." and it was then that I, a man favored by fortune, hid a cord from myself lest I should hang myself from the crosspiece of the partition in my room where I undressed alone every evening, and I ceased to go out shooting with a gun lest I should be tempted by so easy a way of ending my life. I did not myself know what I wanted: I feared life, desired to escape from it, yet still.

And all this befell me at a time when all around me I had what is considered complete good fortune. I was not yet fifty; I had a good wife who loved me and whom I loved, good children, and a large estate which without much effort on my part improved and increased. I was respected by my relations and acquaintances more than at any previous time. I was praised by others and without much self-deception could consider that my name was famous. And far from being insane or mentally diseased, I enjoyed on the contrary a strength of mind and body such as I have seldom met with among men of my kind; physically I could keep up with the peasants at mowing, and mentally I could work for eight and ten hours at a stretch without experiencing any ill results from such exertion. And in this situation I came to this - that I could not live, and, fearing death, had to employ cunning with myself to avoid taking my own life.

My mental condition presented itself to me in this way: my life is a stupid and spiteful joke someone has played on me. Though I did not acknowledge a "someone" who created me, yet such a presentation - that someone had played an evil and stupid joke on me by placing me in the world - was the form of expression that suggested itself most naturally to me.

Involuntarily it appeared to me that there, somewhere, was someone who amused himself by watching how I lived for thirty or forty years: learning, developing, maturing in body and mind, and how, having with matured mental powers reached the summit of life from which it all lay before me, I stood on that summit - like an arch-fool - seeing clearly that there is nothing in life, and that there has been and will be nothing. And *he* was amused. ...

But whether that "someone" laughing at me existed or not, I was none the better off. I could give no reasonable meaning to any single action or to my whole life. I was only surprised that I could have avoided understanding this from the very beginning - it has been so long known to all. Today or tomorrow sickness and death will come (they had come already) to those I love or to me; nothing will remain but stench and worms. Sooner or later my affairs, whatever they may be, will be forgotten, and I shall not exist. Then why go on making any effort? ... How can man fail to see this? And how go on living? That is what is surprising! One can only live while one is intoxicated with life; as soon as one is sober it is impossible not to see that it is all a mere fraud and a stupid fraud! That is precisely what it is: there is nothing either amusing or witty about it, it is simply cruel and stupid.

There is an Eastern fable, told long ago, of a traveler overtaken on a plain by an enraged beast. Escaping from the beast he gets into a dry well, but sees at the bottom of the well a dragon that has opened its jaws to swallow him. And the unfortunate man, not daring to climb out lest he should be destroyed by the enraged beast, and not daring to leap to the bottom of the well lest he should be eaten by the dragon, seizes a twig growing in a crack in the well and clings to it. His hands are growing weaker and he feels he will soon have to resign himself to the destruction that awaits him above or below, but still he clings on. Then he sees that two mice, a black one and a white one, go regularly round and round the stem of the twig to which he is clinging and gnaw at it. And soon the twig itself will snap and he will fall into the dragon's jaws. The traveler sees this and knows that he will inevitably perish; but while still hanging he looks around, sees some drops of honey on the leaves of the twig, reaches them with his tongue and licks them. So I too clung to the twig of life, knowing that the dragon of death was inevitably awaiting me, ready to tear me to pieces; and I could not understand why I had fallen into such torment. I tried to lick the honey which formerly consoled me, but the honey no longer gave me pleasure, and the white and black mice of day and night gnawed at the branch by which I hung. I saw the dragon clearly and the honey no longer tasted sweet. I only saw the unescapable dragon and the mice, and I could not tear my gaze from them. And this is not a fable but the real unanswerable truth intelligible to all.

The deception of the joys of life which formerly allayed my terror of the dragon now no longer deceived me. No matter how often I may be told, "You cannot understand the meaning of life so do not think about it, but live," I can no longer do it: I have already done it too long. I cannot now help seeing day and night going round and bringing me to death. That is all I see, for that alone is true. All else is false.

The two drops of honey which diverted my eyes from the cruel truth longer than the rest: my love of family, and of writing - art as I called it - were no longer sweet to me.

"Family,"... said I to myself. But my family - wife and children - are also human. They are placed just as I am: they must either live in a lie or see the terrible truth. Why should they live? Why should I love them, guard them, bring them up, or watch them? That they may come to the despair that I feel, or else be stupid? Loving them, I cannot hide the truth from them: each step in knowledge leads them to the truth. And the truth is death.

"Art, poetry?"...Under the influence of success and the praise of men, I had long assured myself that this was a thing one could do though death was drawing near - death which destroys all things, including my work and its remembrance; but soon I saw that that too was a fraud. It was plain to me that art is an adornment of life, an allurement to life. But life had lost its attraction for me, so how could I attract others? As long as I was not living my own life but was borne on the waves of some other life - as long as I believed that life had a meaning, though one I could not express - the reflection of life in poetry and art of all kinds afforded me pleasure: it was pleasant to look at life in the mirror of art. But when I began to seek the meaning of life and felt the necessity of living my own life, that mirror became for me unnecessary, superfluous, ridiculous, or painful. I could no longer soothe myself with what I now saw in the mirror, namely, that my position was stupid and desperate. It was all very well to enjoy the sight when in the depth of my soul I believed that my life had a meaning. Then the play of lights - comic, tragic, touching, beautiful, and terrible - in life amused me. No sweetness of honey could be sweet to me when I saw the dragon and saw the mice gnawing away my support.

Nor was that all. Had I simply understood that life had no meaning I could have borne it quietly, knowing that that was my lot. But I could not satisfy myself with that. Had I been like a man living in a wood from which he knows there is no exit, I could have lived; but I was like one lost in a wood who, horrified at having lost his way, rushes about wishing to find the road. He knows that each step he takes confuses him more and more, but still he cannot help rushing about.

It was indeed terrible. And to rid myself of the terror I wished to kill myself. I experienced terror at what awaited me - knew that that terror was even worse than the position I was in, but still I could not patiently await the end. However convincing the argument might be that in any case some vessel in my heart would give way, or something would burst and all would be over, I could not patiently await that end. The horror of darkness was too great, and I wished to free myself from it as quickly as possible by noose or bullet. That was the feeling which drew me most strongly towards suicide.