But do we really bear the burden of the errors of the dead? In the first place, is it quite certain that the dead are really dead and no longer dwell within us? It[215] is a fact that we continue them, that we are the durable14 part of what they were. We cannot deny that we are still subject to their influence, that we reproduce their features and their characters, that we represent them almost entirely15, that they continue to live and to act in us; it is therefore very natural that they also should continue to bear the consequences of an action or a way of living which their departure has not interrupted.
“But,” you may say, “I had no part in this action, this habit, this vice for which I am paying to-day. I was not consulted; I had no opportunity of uttering a protest, of checking my father, or my grandfather, as he went to his ruin down the fatal precipice16. I was not born; I did not yet exist!”
How do you know? May there not be a fundamental mistake in the idea of heredity as we conceive it? At one end of the beam of those scales which we accuse of injustice hangs heredity, but the other is borne down by something different,[216] which we have never taken into account, for it has not yet a name, something which is the antithesis17 of heredity, which cleaves18 into the future instead of emerging from the past and which we might call preexistence or prenatality.
Even as our dead still live in us, so we have already lived in them. There is no reason to believe that the future, which is full of life, is less active and less potent19 than the past, which is full of the dead. Instead of descending20, should we not rather ascend21 the course of the years to discover the source of our actions?
We know not in what fashion those already dwell in us who shall be born of us, down to the last generation; but that they do dwell in us is certain. Whatever the number of our descendants, in the sequence of the ages, whatever the transformations22 which the elements, climates, countries and centuries may cause them to undergo, they will keep intact, through all vicissitudes23, the principle of life which they have derived24 from us. They have not obtained it[217] elsewhere or they could not be what they are. They have really issued from us; and, if they have issued from us, it is because they were in us from the first. What were they doing within us, all these innumerable, accumulated lives? Is it permissible25 to suppose that they were absolutely inactive? Then what were their functions, what their power? What divided them from us? When did we begin, where did they end? At what point did their thoughts and their desires mingle26 with ours?
“How could they think and act in us,” you ask, “having as yet no brain?”
True; but they had ours. The dead too are without a brain; nevertheless no one will deny that they continue to think and act in us. This brain of which we are so proud is not the source but the condenser27 of thought and will. Like the Leyden jar or the Ruhmkorff coil, it exists, it is animated28 only so long as the electric fluid of life passes through it or resides in it. It does not produce this fluid, it collects[218] it; what matters is not its convolutions, which may be compared with the windings of an induction-coil, but the life that flows through it; and what can this life be, if it be not the sum of all the existences which are accumulated within us, which are not extinguished at our death, which begin before our birth and which continue us, forwards, and backwards29, into the infinity30 of time?
2
Writers of essays and novels have at times endeavoured to represent these diverse lives which we harbour within us; and each of us, if he question himself sincerely and profoundly, will discover in himself two or three clearly-defined types, which have nothing in common but the body in which they reside, which rarely agree among themselves, which are incessantly32 striving to gain the upper hand and which put up with one another as best they can, in order to go through an existence whose aggregate33 forms our ego34. This ego will be good or bad, remarkable35 or[219] insignificant36, more or less generous or selfish, calm or uneasy, pacific or pugnacious37, heroic or pusillanimous38, hesitating or decided39 and enterprising, brutal
Join or Log In!
You need to log in to continue reading