Akunin read another way. Read the book “Another Way” online in full - Boris Akunin - MyBook. About the book “Another Way” Grigory Chkhartishvili, Boris Akunin

Another way Grigory Chkhartishvili, Boris Akunin

(No ratings yet)

Title: Another Way

About the book “Another Way” Grigory Chkhartishvili, Boris Akunin

Talking about love is a favorite topic for many of us. We constantly strive to find that one or that one in order to understand what true love, strong feelings, emotions are.

Boris Akunin wrote the book “The Other Way” precisely about what true love is. The book describes the events taking place in the 1920s in Russia. This is like a continuation of another book by the author called “Aristonomy”, which tells about the Big World. The creation “Another Way” is a Small World, a world of personal relationships and feelings.

The book is sort of divided into two parts. In the first, Boris Akunin reflects on what True Love is at different times in the existence of our humanity. “The Other Way,” at first glance, is a simple work and many will find it boring and incomprehensible.

In fact, the book is very complex, and only those who are able to look critically at themselves and accept their shortcomings will understand it. There is a lot of truth in the work, and everyone can find something similar to themselves in both the first and second parts, but not everyone can accept the truth. For example, if a person fits the author’s description, but, according to Boris Akunin, this is not True Love, this can offend many.

The second part of the book “The Other Way” is a love story. Boris Akunin writes in a very unique way, not many can accept and understand it.

You can talk about love endlessly, and this is what many writers try to do in their books. Romance novels for female audiences are a simple story with a happy ending. Everything here is clear and simple, there’s no point in even thinking about it.

Boris Akunin is not a writer of romance novels. He is a kind of philosopher, with his own view of the world, relationships, people. His books are not as simple and banal as they might seem. It is important not just to read literature such as the book “Another Way,” but also to understand it, delve into yourself, sorting everything out point by point.

The book “The Other Way” is something special that will lift the veil on the concept of what True Love is. Moreover, this work consists of two parts: a philosophical one and a love story, which are closely intertwined, complementing each other.

Philosophy is the science of how different people perceive this world. Boris Akunin wants to convey to society his point of view, which is very unique and really makes you think.

Whether or not to read Boris Akunin’s book “The Other Way” is entirely up to you. I would just like to add that this work is unusual. After reading it, you still have a lot of questions, but it also gives a lot of answers. The book definitely deserves the attention of everyone who cares about True Love.

* * *

(From a checkered notebook)

NL and NNL

The situation in which I now find myself has not only knocked me out of a well-worn and, in its own way, comfortable life rut, but also caused the need to partially reconsider the system of views outlined in the previous sections.

In the introduction to the treatise, saying that, in my deep conviction, every person without exception has a certain unique Gift and that the main goal of any life should be considered the discovery and full development of this natural resource in oneself, I wrote: “Happy can be called life, if it was fully realized, if a person managed to reveal his Gift and shared it with the world.” There, in the footnote, however, it is stipulated: “I admit that happiness also comes from another origin - bestowed by happy love, this magical substitute for self-realization. If it were not for the light and warmth of love, the lives of most people, not finding themselves until death, would be unbearable. I suppose, however, that the ability to love is also a Gift, which not everyone possesses and not to the same extent. However, I cannot delve into this particular aspect as I am by no means an expert on it. For some reason, it seems to me that a woman is better able to understand the nature of love. In any case, I would read such a treatise with interest.” In other words, I avoided studying this topic, on the one hand, feeling my incompetence, and on the other, to be completely honest, for fear of bringing up painful memories.

In my current situation, whether I want it or not, I still have to deal with this problem, since no one has ever written a treatise on love that would give a satisfactory answer to the questions that occupy me. I still feel woefully untalented when it comes to the complex, largely irrational movements of the soul—as if I were a colorblind person who had to talk about color scales, or a deaf person who decided to become a music critic. But, as they say, need forced it. That part of my life that I thought had been buried for a long time suddenly rose again and almost knocked me off my feet with its sudden onslaught. I stopped, confused, scared, lost. I need to collect my thoughts, restore my orientation in existential space. And I can do this in the only way familiar to me: by analyzing the new circumstances that have arisen.

My personal experience of the psycho-emotional evolution called “love” is not only scarce, but also traumatic. Not because I loved unrequitedly or unhappily, oh no, but because after the resection a wound was formed that took a long and painful time to heal. Now we have to unravel it, tear off the “wild meat” that has grown over the years. At the same time, rationalization can play the role of anesthesia, relieving the pain that will accompany this operation.

Of course, I will try to do without autobiographical details. Not out of fear that my manuscript will be read by prying eyes (I write things incomparably more risky in the treatise), but because in theoretical research personal experience can be harmful and lead astray - from the general to the particular, from the universal to the phenomenological.

I won't write about my love, but about love as a phenomenon, a special case of which were the experiences that befell me. (At the same time, maybe I’ll understand to what extent they are typical and what I did wrong.)

A scientific approach to such a topic as love - I am aware of this - may seem comical to an outsider. But I write not for strangers, but for myself. And then, that’s the way I’m made: I’m able to truly perceive reality only if I’ve sorted it out.

I am well familiar with the method by which one is supposed to explore an area where one feels like a complete layman.

First you need to determine the purpose of the research: formulate a question or questions to which you want to find an answer. Then, compile a list of references, including the works of authors who are considered experts on the topic. As you read, your own judgments, remarks and thoughts will certainly arise. Then the first conclusions will emerge: timid at first, but towards the end more and more definite. In exactly the same way, at different times, I studied many different disciplines and solved a number of scientific mysteries. Why not apply the proven method to analyze the mystery called “love”?

After all, I am far from the first bore to try to subject this ephemeral substance to anatomical dissection. There is a whole branch of philosophical science that does just this. It's called the "philosophy of love."

But I called the inserted chapter of my treatise on aristonomy differently: “Another Way.” “The Way” – with a capital P, because I mean a life algorithm that can fully replace the “Law of the Best” (nomos + aristos), in following which I see the true purpose of human existence.

In the chapter devoted to the derivation of the aristonomy formula, I came to the conclusion that a person can be considered a real aristonomicist if he 1) strives for development; 2) has self-respect; 3) responsible; 4) seasoned; 5) courageous; 6) respectful towards others; 7) compassionate - and a deficiency in any of these seven characteristics leads to disqualification. This is a very strict code, the conditions of which very few comply with. (For example, I myself cannot count myself among the Aristonomicians, since I am not sufficiently endowed with the fourth quality, much less the fifth.) Obviously, there are many more people in the world who find life meaning and happiness through love. For this reason alone, this Path deserves no less scrupulous study than the aristonomic one.

Many will say: “Keep it simple, smart guy. Just love as best you can and try to be loved too. This is all the wisdom." However, following Socrates, I believe that if a person does not try to comprehend his life in all its manifestations, it will remain meaningless. And besides, there is nothing simple about love. And, with the exception of a very few who are born with the gift love wisely(and this is the same talent as others, if only not the most precious of all), people do not know how to love or love incorrectly and do not achieve real happiness, as well as self-discovery, on this path. Moreover: love, as a powerful tool, can contribute not only to creation, but also to destruction, including self-destruction. There are many examples of this both in literature and in everyday life.

Delving deeper into the topic, I discovered that although almost everyone loves or tries to love, few people manage to find “true love,” and even those who have found "real true love” (I will explain the meaning of this strange term later), and only a few. Such lucky people do not seem to be much more common than Aristomians, and I could well, like Stendhal in The Monastery of Parma, end this introductory chapter with a dedication quotation from Goldsmith: “Those are the happy few.”

In world culture, the theme of love occupies more space than even religion. Love, in fact, is a cult that humanity serves with no less fervor than Jesus, Allah or Buddha. In the modern world, it certainly means more than Faith. But Paul also says in “First Epistle to the Corinthians”: “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, then I am like a ringing brass or a sounding cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and know all mysteries, and have all knowledge and all faith, so that I could move mountains, but do not have love, then I am nothing. And if I give away all my property and give my body to be burned, but do not have love, it does me no good.” One might think that the apostle means love for God, but below it is said: “these three remain: faith, hope, love; but love is the greatest of these.” And no matter how theologians try to interpret this saying, it is unequivocal. However, I will dwell on the conflict between Love and Faith in detail later.

Now the time has come to identify the problems, the solution of which I hope to find when starting my research.

The minimum task can be stated as follows:

“What are the parameters of love, which could become the Other Path, that is, a full-fledged substitute for aristonomy, allowing the individual to achieve self-discovery and happiness?”

I will denote such love by the abbreviation “NL”, “True Love”.

The maximum task is incomparably more difficult. I'm not sure she even has a solution. Before formulating it, we will have to make a small digression.

I began to write a treatise on aristonomy, based on the existential circumstances in which I was at that moment. It was a world of loneliness, built and inhabited by me at the cost of long, hard efforts, but in its own way comfortable and well protected.

The Aristonomic Path, of course, is intended precisely for such a coordinate system. A person blessed (but also burdened) with an emotional connection with other people - family or lover - lives in conditions of unfreedom. Making a choice in some difficult situation, principled situations, he often finds himself in an insoluble dilemma when he has to sacrifice either his principles - or the good, or even the very lives of loved ones. In the twentieth century, in my country, in my generation, many, many people went through such a heartbreaking alternative. Including me. There is no decent way out of this terrible conflict. In any case, you turn out to be a traitor and worthy of condemnation. Those who, out of love or pity for their relatives, have betrayed the Idea, abandon the Aristonomic Path and lose self-respect. This is destructive to the individual. But those who did not compromise their beliefs, paying for it with love and loved ones, cause a shudder. These, I believe, are what Paul had in mind when he spoke about those who give their bodies to be burned at the expense of love.

How to be? Is love really an unaffordable luxury for a person striving for aristonomy? Do you really have to choose between these two types of happiness?

And again, a wiser person than me would say: “Don’t fool yourself. Live and enjoy happiness while it lasts. Don't poison him with empty fears. At a difficult turn of fate, your inner tuning fork will tell you what to do.” But the sages do not write treatises, because they are too wise for this. Treatises are written by wise men, of whom I am one. We smart guys need to foresee and plan everything in advance, spread straw everywhere.

Here is the second task, incomparably more difficult than the first. I admit honestly that it leaves me in awe with its intractability:

“Is there such a love that allows a person not to give up the aristonomic principle of existence?

I will call such love, if it is possible at all, “NNL”, that is "real True Love."

Well, the questions are formulated. I'm starting to search for answers.

Subject of study: love and Love

The words “love” and “to love” are used so widely and in such different senses that, if we are to adhere to the scientific method, it is first necessary to determine as precisely as possible what kind of love I have chosen as the subject of research, and to avoid confusion, separate it terminologically from all other “loves”.

There are many people in the world (much more than it might seem to cinemagoers and novel readers) who, by their nature, are either incapable of experiencing love at all, or love only themselves. From their point of view, the behavior of a lover looks irrational and even absurd, causing misunderstanding and irritation. I myself lived without love for so long that I began to forget how this specific state affects the psyche and actions. How many times have I edifyingly, or even angrily, lectured some graduate student or nurse who, from the torment of love, began to show negligence: “Love, young lady, you have to do your own thing, and never change this love” - or something similar. (The other day, immersed in these terminological reflections, I was forced to remember my saying and blushed. I saw in a catering canteen how a grandmother fed her grandson with a spoon, he turned away, whined that he didn’t like millet, and the old woman told him:

“You must love your homeland, the party, Lenin-Stalin, your grandmother. And you have to eat porridge").

“Love for your business,” “love for porridge,” “love for Lenin-Stalin,” and “love for grandma” are completely separate classes of love. Apart from the general sense of heartfelt affection, nothing unites them. And all of them are not related to the subject of my research.

The ancient Greeks called essentially dissimilar affections of the heart with different words.

One thing - philosopher, insensible and non-kinship love for friends, for certain activities, or for a belief system. That is, love is voluntary, rational and, if you like, optional, although it can become the main meaning of life. This is, for example, “love for your work.”

Storche, love for relatives (“for grandma”), on the contrary, is the duty of every moral person.

Spiritualized, all-consuming love for the gods was revered as the highest form of love and was called agape. Later, in the Christian era, it is transformed into love for the One God and for a long time will be considered the only praiseworthy form of love. “Love for Lenin-Stalin” is perhaps also from this area.

The love that I explore, of course, traces its genealogy back to ancient times. eros. Initially, this word was used in a very broad sense - like any passionate desire (it literally means “desire”), but over time, being tied to the cult of the god Eros, it began to be used mainly to denote sensual aspirations. And if someone said that they experience eros in relation to porridge, granny or dictator, it would sound strange or even obscene to the Greek ear.

In order to distinguish my love from all others, including the most beautiful ones, I will not come up with a special word, as I had to do with “aristonomics”. I'll just capitalize it in the name of clarity: Love, Loving, Beloved.

It’s amazing, but to answer the elementary question “what is Love?” pretty hard. This is reminiscent of a situation with a complex disease, which is well known in terms of symptoms, history, complications and consequences, but the cause and causative agent have not been identified by science, and therefore medicine cannot offer effective therapy. Honest doctors grope, admitting their powerlessness; charlatans self-confidently claim that they have the secret of treatment - and they lie.

This situation has not undergone any changes since philosophers and poets first began to talk about Love.

In the “Philological Dictionary” it is written: "L. “a term that does not have a clear scientific definition and is used in different meanings.”

In the process of preparation, I wrote out several dozen definitions of both love and Love.

There are some very simple ones: “A movement of the heart that draws us toward a living being, an object, or a universal value.”

There are also complex ones: “The principle of the consubstantiality of being, through which all its content is revealed,” or even very complex ones: “The universal of culture of the subjective series, which captures in its content a deep individual-selective intimate feeling, vectorially directed towards its object and objectified in a self-sufficient desire for it. L. is also called the subject-subject relationship through which a given feeling is realized.”

Perhaps the Oxford Dictionary was most honest when it wrote: “Psychologists might be wise to relinquish responsibility for analyzing this term and leave it to poets.”

Nevertheless, I will give several definitions, each of which has its own tradition, school, or even an entire worldview.

"Individualization and exaltation of the sexual instinct."

"A frantic attraction to that which runs away from us."

“Passionate attraction to another person with the intention of starting a family, forming a couple, or experiencing sexual-romantic experiences.”

“A complex affective state and experience associated with the primary libidinal cathexis of an object. The feeling is characterized by elation and euphoria, sometimes ecstasy, sometimes pain.”

“A high degree of emotionally positive attitude, distinguishing its object from others and placing it at the center of the subject’s life needs and interests.”

“Fixation on another person as part of one’s self and the meaning of one’s existence.”

“The attitude towards someone or something as unconditionally valuable, association and connection with someone (what) is perceived as good, i.e. one of the highest values.”

“The attraction of an animate being to another in order to unite with him and mutually replenish life.”

I have arranged these definitions in a certain order: from “cold” to “warm” - according to my subjective assessment. Warmer, warmer, very warm. The last formulation seems to me to be very close to what I was looking for. It belongs to Vladimir Solovyov.

In his remarkable work “The Meaning of Love,” this philosopher writes: “The meaning and dignity of love as a feeling lies in the fact that it forces us, with our whole being, to recognize in another the unconditional central significance that, due to egoism, we feel only in ourselves. Love is important not as one of our feelings, but as a transfer of all our vital interest from ourselves to another, as a rearrangement of the very center of our personal life. This is characteristic of all love, but especially sexual love; it differs from other types of love by its greater intensity, more exciting nature, and the possibility of more complete and comprehensive reciprocity; only this love can lead to a real and inextricable union of two lives into one, only about it and in the word of God it is said: the two will become one flesh, that is, they will become one real being.”

I, unlike Solovyov, am not religious and, probably, would be inclined to consider the expression “two into one flesh” to be nothing more than a beautiful metaphor if I did not have before my eyes the example of my parents, who, once united, never parted - literally - until the very last moment of my life.

I will call true Love (NL) the connection that arises between two people, which is caused by an irresistible need to expand the scope of one’s “I” and turn it into “We”, that is, to create a certain new quality, a new community.

I do not include all types of love relationships that do not strive for the formation of such a union or do not withstand the tests in this concept - let them remain simply “Love”.

First, I will try to understand the history, philosophy and practice of True Love, separating it from all kinds of unreal Love. This task seems to me to be relatively uncomplicated, since cases of NL have been described many times in the literature, and in the surrounding life, although they are rare, they still occur.

It will be much more difficult for me when I need to move on to the description of NNL, the rules of which are still unclear to me and, perhaps, will turn out to be unrealizable.

There are many theories trying to explain what Love is; what is its purpose; what should be considered it, what should not be considered it, and so on.

Each of the sciences involved in the study of man in all his life manifestations interprets Love from its own bell tower.

From the point of view of evolutionary biology, this is a complicated (compared to animals) manifestation of the instinct of procreation and an instrument of natural selection, forcing an individual to choose the optimal partner for producing offspring.

From a theological point of view, Love is a gift sent by God. Like all theories of mystical origin, this one is very convenient, since in difficult to explain cases one can always refer to the incomprehensibility of God's Providence and the limitations of human reason.

There are a number of psychological theories that study only the emotional-behavioral mechanism of Love.

There are sociological theories that consider Love as an ideological and historically conditioned phenomenon. For example, in radical feminist circles a version has arisen that Love is invented and cultivated by men as a lull and drug in order to impose a subordinate role on women in the family and society.

Love is a subject of particular interest for philosophy - probably the most important of the sciences, for it takes on a very difficult and important mission: to offer us a version of existence that would make human life meaningful and fruitful, would save us from existential fear and add to our courage - after all, what is explained and understandable is less frightening than the unknown and irrational. Since people are structured differently, there should not and cannot be a single philosophical theory. Everyone who has any need for reflection at all chooses the concept of life meaning that best suits a given type of personality and most of all helps to bear the burden of existence.

The philosophy of love has long emerged as a kind of subdiscipline, replete with a variety of interpretations, from crudely materialistic to very intricate. I will devote the entire next chapter to reviewing these versions.

As has already been said, for my goal, which is the search for that Love that can become an alternative to aristonomic development (or, ideally, be combined with it), the most suitable view of Love is as a mutually enriching and mutually stimulating union, when Lovers remodel their personality in the name of creating a new community, changing for the better. This idea, which dates back to Aristotle and Plato, was significantly supplemented by Vladimir Solovyov, who identified three types of relationships of this type.

This is, firstly, Love descending (amor descendens), which gives more than it takes; Ascending love (amor ascendens) is predominantly taking and not giving; and finally, Equal Love (amor aequalis) - in which everyone gives and receives equally.

In my opinion, only the third type can be classified as NL, True Love - with the caveat that we are not talking about arithmetically symmetrical equality, but about the combination of descending Love with ascending Love, when, depending on the situation, the roles of giver and taker alternate and harmoniously intertwined, since each partner is stronger in some ways and weaker in others than the other.

So, from my point of view, True Love is a federation of two equal autonomies that do not absorb, but complement and develop each other.

However, this view is not the only or predominant one. It will have to be substantiated and proven, and for this you must first go along the entire historical route of “Love Studies” from its origins to the present day.

(Photo album)

* * *

“This doesn’t change anything,” Vera said, leaning back on the pillow. She touched her flushed cheek, without looking, reached towards the nightstand, and with an unerringly precise movement pulled a cigarette out of the pack. All her movements were unmistakable and precise. – You understand, Rogachov, that this doesn’t change anything?

- Understand. - He brought her a match. I also started smoking. - I love you. Do you love me. But it does not change anything.

The room was spacious - as they say, with remnants of its former luxury. Previously, the building belonged to a bank; the manager's office was located here. What remains from those times is the fleshy stucco on the ceiling and a crystal chandelier with a dozen pot-bellied shades. But Rogachov ordered all the furniture and cabinetry nonsense to be given to the People's Commissariat Club, leaving only a safe for documents and a stationery cabinet in which he kept clothes and personal property, which, if necessary, could easily fit into a small suitcase. In the middle of the room there was an iron bed, next to it there was a chair that served as a bedside table. All.

Rogachov lived here, or rather slept. In the next room, behind a double door, there was a study, a former secretarial room. It's rational and convenient. There is no need to waste time going to and from work. If you fall off your feet and nod off, you go in, collapse on the bed, sleep for an hour or two. Or, let's say, you need to change clothes.

When Vera came - this didn’t happen often, because she also had a lot to do - there was no need to go anywhere. They entered, locked themselves, and the personal assistant, a faithful person, held the line. If something is urgent, he will knock.

But today Vera came for the last time. And that’s a miracle.

“I didn’t want to come,” she said, apparently thinking the same thing. “But you and I parted badly.” After everything we had, it’s bad. I decided that I needed to part ways on good terms.

Vera looked at the ceiling and blew out smoke in a tight gray stream. She smoked beautifully. She did everything beautifully. Rogachov looked at her, and there was a wheezing in his chest, as if a cough was brewing and could not break through.

“I’m... uh... glad you... uh... came.” Yesterday at the congress after the vote, I nodded to you, and you looked at me like I was a cross between Kolchak and Yudenich.

“You’re worse,” Vera said, without adopting a joking tone. The beautiful gray eyes were narrowed. The voice is hostile. As if it wasn’t her who was hugging him five minutes ago, moaning through clenched teeth. – Kolchak and Yudenich wanted to kill the revolution. And you and your Stalin betrayed her. Betrayal is worse than murder. You traded the world revolution for a lentil stew of pathetic power over a pathetic piece of land. “Socialism in one single country”, “peaceful coexistence of two systems” is nonsense, and you know it very well. Revolution has no boundaries. She is taking over the whole world. Or dies. Your Stalin is a criminal. And you are all with him.

– Listen, Barmina, you’re smart. – Rogachov also began to get angry. “We Bolsheviks are realists, that’s the only reason we won.” And your Trotsky was a realist during the Civil War. He fought well, but he found restoring and building boring. He imagined himself as the new Bonaparte, give him all of Europe. What Europe? We even broke our teeth in poor Poland in 1920. We are still weak, Barmina. There is nothing to fight with, nothing to eat! As if you don't know! Trotsky became detached from reality. Stalin is now a realist, and therefore I am for Stalin. We must show the world proletariat how wonderfully working people can live without the bourgeoisie. When the world sees the benefits of socialism, revolutions will break out everywhere! Of course!

- What are the benefits? “She sat up on the bed and now looked down at him - just as fiercely as after the vote that determined the fate of the opposition. – You are corrupting and corrupting a country that is already corrupted and corrupted! You beckon with the carrot of petty-bourgeoisism and Nepman comfort, and crack the whip of your GPU, which is worse than the Tsarist Secret Service. Come to your senses, Rogachov! Here for that Did you and I die and kill? So that the wives of party workers wear furs and go shopping in a chauffeured car? When you fell wounded - there, near Kronstadt - I dragged you across the ice and cried, and you kept repeating: “it’s not a pity, it’s not a pity” - remember? – Is this what you wanted to give your life for? So that members of the Central Committee receive first-class financial support, and members of the Politburo – the highest? So that people whisper in the corners and are afraid to make a utterance because Dzerzhinsky’s spies are lurking everywhere? What kind of society are you building, Rogachov? Above are bureaucrats, below are slaves shaking with fear? Everything is great again, like under Tsar Pea? You This called socialism?

When Vera got excited, she should not have shouted back, but rather lowered her voice. Then she fell silent.

“It was difficult to win the Civil War,” Rogachov said quietly, “but it will be ten times more difficult to overcome the inertia of consciousness, selfishness, and greed.” The order is new, but the people are the same. This dark, dense country can only be pulled out into the light by the collar, only with kicks. Yes, through fear - if it doesn’t work out through the mind. No brain yet. It still needs to be acquired. At a minimum, learn to read and write, wash your hands before eating, and live in the public interest. I am for Stalin’s line, because in the Politburo he understands this brutal truth more clearly than anyone else, and is ready to harness himself to the cart and pull it through the mud.

- Your Stalin is a scoundrel. The only thing that interests him is power. For her sake, he will walk over the corpses.

“We are all walking over corpses.” How many of them there were - look back.

– These were the corpses of enemies. And Stalin will walk over the corpses of his comrades!

They sat a few inches away from each other, naked - and irreconcilable.

“If necessary, he will not spare his own family,” Rogachov said harshly. “If you have to choose, he won’t flinch.” Stalin is made of steel. This is a man of icy flame, it burns in his yellow eyes.

- Yes, you are in love with him, Rogachov. Look, I started talking about eyes... - An evil grin twisted her lips, swollen from kisses. - That's it, Rogachov. For clarity. You and I are enemies. One day I'll see you at gunpoint. And my hand will not tremble.

- Even so? “The room was poorly heated, he suddenly felt it and shivered. – Do you think it will come to this?

– Don’t be a child, Rogachov. If you don't kill us, we will kill you. We're not playing tag. Your it understands our- not yet. Therefore, most likely you will shoot at me. “She shrugged her beautiful bare shoulder. - Well, or you sign the verdict, it doesn’t matter. Your GPU will shoot.

- Nonsense. “He looked at her shoulder and again did not feel the cold. - This will never happen. And about your hand, which will not tremble...

I took her brush - narrow, with long thin fingers, which were not spoiled even by the nails cut at the root. Pressed it to his lips.

-...She will tremble. And you'll miss.

The fingers really trembled, but Vera pulled them out.

Throwing away the blanket, she jerked to her feet. Vera’s figure was narrow-hipped, almost boyish. On the back and buttocks there are long white stripes - marks from a Cossack whip. In nine hundred and seven, the head of the famous Ust-Zeleisk transfer ordered the obstinate convict “to be torn out like Sidorov’s goat.” It was forbidden to subject women to corporal punishment, but Ust-Zeleya in 1907 lived by its own laws. The head of the transit prison was a scoundrel. I knew that after a shameful punishment, political people usually commit suicide as a sign of protest. Only he attacked the wrong one. Vera did not poison herself or hang herself, but escaped from the prison infirmary. Alone, through the taiga and wild rivers, she reached the Pacific Ocean and left with Japanese fishermen. There was no other woman like her in the world.

Ancient Greek philosophers included here (and some put it even higher) sensual contacts between two men, but I will not touch on this type of love relationship, since it is outside my current sphere of interest.

* * *

(From a checkered notebook)

NL and NNL

Of course, I will try to do without autobiographical details.

Not out of fear that my manuscript will be read by prying eyes (I write things incomparably more risky in the treatise), but because in theoretical research personal experience can be harmful and lead astray - from the general to the particular, from the universal to the phenomenological.

I am well familiar with the method by which one is supposed to explore an area where one feels like a complete layman.

Delving deeper into the topic, I discovered that although almost everyone loves or tries to love, few people manage to find “true love,” and even those who have found "real true love” (I will explain the meaning of this strange term later), and only a few. Such lucky ones do not seem to be much more common than Aristonomics, and I could well, like Stendhal in The Monastery of Parma, end this introductory chapter with a dedication quotation from Goldsmith: “Those are the happy few.” 1
For the lucky few (English).