1. One can be a lover of Space and its possibilities:
take, for example, speed, the smoothness and sword-swish of speed; the aquiline
glory of ruling velocity; the joy cry of the curve; and one can be an amateur of
Time, an epicure of duration. I delight sensually in Time, in its stuff and
spread, in the fall of its folds, in the very impalpability of its grayish
gauze, in the coolness of its continuum...I am also aware that Time is a fluid
medium for the culture of metaphors...Aurelius Augustinus, too, he, too, in his tussles with
the same theme, fifteen hundred years ago, experienced this oddly physical
torment of the shallowing mind, the shchekotiki (tickles) of approximation, the
evasions of cerebral exhaustion — but he, at least, could replenish his brain
with God-dispensed energy (have a footnote here about how delightful it is to
watch him pressing on and interspersing his cogitations, between sands and
stars, with vigorous little fits of
prayer)...
Maybe the only thing that hints at a sense of Time is rhythm; not the recurrent
beats of the rhythm but the gap between two such beats, the gray gap between
black beats: the Tender Interval. The regular throb itself merely brings back
the miserable idea of measurement, but in between, something like true Time
lurks.
2. The mind of man, by nature a monist,
cannot accept two nothings; he knows there has been one nothing, his biological
inexistence in the infinite past, for his memory is utterly blank, and that
nothingness, being, as it were, past, is not too hard to endure. But a second
nothingness — which perhaps might not be so hard to bear either — is logically
unacceptable. When speaking of space we can imagine a live speck in the
limitless oneness of space; but there is no analogy in such a concept with our
brief life in time, because however brief (a thirty-year span is really
obscenely brief!), our awareness of being is not a dot in eternity, but a slit,
a fissure, a chasm running along the entire breadth of metaphysical time,
bisecting it and shining — no matter how narrowly — between the back panel and
fore panel. Therefore, Mr Rack, we can speak of past time, and in a vaguer, but
familiar sense, of future time, but we simply cannot expect a second nothing, a
second void, a second blank. Oblivion is a one-night performance; we have been
to it once, there will be no repeat...Well, Herr Rack, I submit that the
surviving cells of aging Rackness will form such lines of torment, never, never
reaching the coveted filth hole in the panic and pain of infinite
night....With a not unfamiliar gesture, Van tore up his prepared
speech and said: ‘Mr Rack, open your eyes. I’m Van Veen. A
visitor.’
Here Nabokov mentions Aurelius Augustinus and also
Epicurus has deserved some thought, but in relation to our discussion I can only
remember, from the latter, the distinction he made between appearance and
essence, also the idea that matter and form were only separate in the realm
of appearances. Van's logic is not irreproachable, though, since he needs
to keep his faith in Hell to fulfill his imaginary vengeance on poor Rack.