Gumilev

I know a man with whom it is impossible to disagree.

Men at the Club - new-comers - have been lured into

taking bets that they could on any topic under the sun

find themselves out of sympathy with him...

I felt I had got to understand this man,

or he would worry me.

/Jerome K Jerome. They and I/

I want to talk you about one girl she was 33 two years ago. It was New Year's eve. I was on the job of my old acquaintance. Time was late. Neighbor firms were closed. We sat in auxiliary room, used for tea and as cloak-room.

Don't ask me how I happened to be in such time and in such place. Probably my idea was to go and to congratulate my old acquaintance with New Year. But why it was so late and why we chose as our residence auxiliary my mind unable to represent dutiful report.

Probably I should be ashamed but this story only slightly attached to my old acquaintance. I heard there are "swing" houses when only couples are allowed. I didn't any amorous movements towards that 33 years old woman, nor my old acquaintance was engaged in the same business. But somehow she wasn't envious about me. She considered my prattle as amusing and harmless, so it was probably letting brisk pet to play with neighbor urchin. I hope she was partly proud with me because I was young (as young as not to think about my youngness at all), and I did tricks about which is pleasure to remember afresh in any time.

Her name was Luda, but being absent-minded person I misheard it for Lusya. How we started to talk I also can't say anything definite. I said one clever think she said casually another. I prattled glibly. She by all means uttered well-known to me name. Of course I gave to everybody my own opinion about this above-mentioned fellow who by mere chance happened to be a philosopher.

She could stop on it but somehow she didn't. So, naturally, did no I. It was Lev Gumilev who cumulated me to the great things. He was just the figure fit by size and blazing to be a "red rag". I started the game.

In this place I should clarify the nature of Luda. It could be difficult to do, sorry, you wasn't eyewitness. She was well educated. She wasn't "sophisticated" person only by one mere reason - there is not such thing on the Earth as "sophisticate" persons, arrogant? - yes, musing and tearing inside itself? - yes, "over-sophisticated"? - definitely no.

So she was a girl without pretence. - Err - Pardon. It would be incorrect to say so, because I'm a person with pretence but I pretend only for what I have and I never show any pretence for alien to me abilities. So was she. You know there are girls who try to bite you but have too weak fangs. Her fangs were in order, (not so deadly as mine, but all the way). And she had another important quality, she was a good sport, i.e. she took up the game and she wasn't in much perturbation when her set, (I would call all her sets one by one) were lost. It would be compensation to her that she lost them not after "unprovoked blunders" but namely after my provocations.

It as well known fact that I am extremely, (damn it, forget the right word, wait a minute please). Ok - that I am extremely honest man. (Beg you don't mess with single-minded). If I provoke people I do it often inadvertently or rather in the whiff of pure inspiration.

Once upon a time I have a chance to meet a quaint watchmaker, (and you know that they are the crankiest people in the world). His crankiness was not in fancy about watches but in fancy about people who come to him. He played with them just like a cat with a mouse with one exception - he didn't wear them out and he didn't eat them when watches were repaired.

How could he manage it? He talked with his client, asked him questions showing sincere interest. Then he took point of his view and it seemed to you that he is nearly the heartest admirer of this conception - "What do you think of our youth? My little is a real imp? ...."And you are right, our time was far better and we knew how to live properly". You can call this a sheer flattery but it wasn't so. Just the moment when you began to feel uneasy, (my point of view - every even self conceited man feels flattery in one or another way), in that moment he found another topic and you took light-heart breath. But business was still on the wheel. After some unobliging prattle you noted the if he didn't say: "I absolutely agree with you", but at least he meant it. In few minutes later he mined another close to your heart theme.

I guess it was one of the main conditions - to touch "touching" themes. He would possibly be not a bad fortune-teller, but he was a wizard watchmaker and it would be pity to loose him to his profession. If you want to say he had fun, I have no reason to argue with you. His tactic reminded of one well-known personage from Caroll's Alice only he used all his elaborate by watch-tuning wit to this play. He never repeated himself. He varied themes, intonation, temper, arguments, (sometime they were simple and sometime he allowed to himself a real harping). Of course he changed intervals - with hidebound person he could agree every 30 seconds without any disturbing him, with someone from intelligentsia he was more cautious. And no one ever made a row or was really angry.

Of course I counted him as a delightfulest sample of lout. I had strong opinion that every one conscious man should feel dirty helpless and naked after talking with him. I observed his trick many times but when I myself tried to have with him a conversation, (and I was armed by my knowledge about his peculiar manner), but I felt as warm worm of vanity began to creep trough my chest. - All the way - it was useful to take - as bitter vaccine.

***

But returning to Lusya, (who happened to be Luda afterwards) - did I played with her such dirty tricks and why namely with her? Of course I kept in mind to try this on somebody. I pretend to be an aesthete and he toyed with people as meritoriously as with watches. Why she? I needed partner. Probably some people could do it with anybody but I needed able assistant. Of course there weren't any necessity to enter her into the gist of my intentions, (people often do such things for far less noble motives).

But were my motives noble? I was gong to play for the art, but I didn't play with her, I entertained public with my own appearance and well-known ideas. I did ordinary things, many cynics and sophists do it but they do it without knowing what they want, and I had (at least slightest) conception what I wanted. I wanted to surprise "respected public". (Now I think, god bless no one took me seriously that time, otherwise I should have a serious problems).

I beg your pardon for being unable to reconstruct nor any pieces from it nor even my tricks and stunts. But Hark! My methods differed from the watchmaker's, - I didn't seek for harmony, I sought for nodding as sign of approval and then I crashed all basis on which I stood a minute ago. It was just like: "Yesterday was a fine weather, isn't it" - She agrees. "Oh how I was chilled you even can't imagine! And you say me that day was fine!"

You see this was the feeble imitation. I used not simple reiteration but complex logic schemes, (which would surely surprise my computer logic teachers). And our talk was complicated process in itself because we talked about philosophers of all times and tribes, we talked about all science, (I used many facts, which would be seemed unexpected even to an erudite person). Especially long fighting we had about Russians philosophers and one of them was Gumilev. Chances are she was ill one time or rather had home doings and so had a time to listening to the radio with Gumilev's lectures. (To say true I also was acquainted with his works through his course of TV-lectures, (of course I wasn't such a fool to blow the fact to her)).

I preached to her: "So what? Where are you driving at? And do you want to say that any such-and-so-Gumilev knew about it anything?" It was imposture and provocation, I liked him and still sure that he is one of "chosen" among philosophers' army. I glad to say that our dispute had more pleasant outlook than most of such ordinary disputes, when every orator stays with his own opinion, - nope - one minute I was with my own opinion and next - already with her.

And I had a profit through it! How so? - Easily. I counted on nature-born in every human benevolence and gratitude. If you hour after hour will gave up children in kinder-garden all your toys - sooner or later they would give up their toys to you. So allowing to be proved by her in her ideas (against which I had nothing at the start), I acquired a privilege and she consented with of my "truths", (which were 100% lies). But you know - I pretend to be a honest so my lies never touched real worth ideas - I trifled with "Oh it's so difficult to live to such a pal as me", and she consented. Next five minutes I pretended to be a cynic and as single as a cactus in Sahara, "The real glory to me - to fight all through the mob and the most fortunate man is man who lives happily single and ... ". - And she consented to it too. She had little chance of not being consented - I feed her with names of authorities, my own feelings and berievements, (real ones and a bit exaggerated). And of course I showed her that I was licked by her in every set. "Mmmm Yes, I should say you at last right"..... "Oh, well but it's correct only in this case but what will you say to ..."

You would say - it was the most ordinary way to talk, but don't forget, it was her opinion that was mine, i.e. there was a matter, I made her to pick up just the right and from this moment I tried to beat the ground under it, then I praised her with a victory. But if she failed and gave up I took her previous position and feasted in it. As matter of fact it was not my invention and even not of that watchmaker, do you remember how in school teacher asked you "how much is two by two?" You: "4". Teacher: "Think better". You - "Errr ... five?". Teacher: "Sit down, you, donkey".

The cinch in this business is - to get authority and confidence of to-be-fooled object. (And this part was the hardest to me all my conscious life). I took it by the heatness of manners, (talking about my favorite authors and ideas about which I mused for years I became like a Kettle on a stove).

And I proud to say it was a play. But it wasn't a cat's play with mouse. They enjoyed themselves by thought "what cranky and fickle creatures men are! And they even blame us exact for the same". But talking seriously - of course we (I and Luda) made more accurate evaluations of our conceptions and adjusted disputable points. (Sorry - can't name any one in present time). Even now I can tell you:

Berdayev (not all) and Gumilev (dunno about lyrics but sure about works) are worth to drop glance at them.

And about Luda. She was not a fool, and she didn't pretend for what she hadn't. And she didn't take offence when average girl would take a pound of offences in one bunch.

And what about my old acquaintance? I believe she was proud and just wanted to say: "Look at him, what an imp he is! And can you imagine what does it cost to temper him?"

I was straight with you and I still going to be straight further. When I say it was a brilliance speech I ever had this is true, to say more, it was practically one incident when I showed any real orator's talent. I only have a pity: in those days I wasn't acquainted with "For A Few Dollars More" and Indio's manner of speech. My force was applied to the content and I cared a little about form in those days. Even now I'm not a great master of Indio's speech, here and there I try to expose it but sometime it's the result of long pondering and "pencil-sucking" and sometimes it flies by a mere fluke.

One girl (in middle fifties) tried to urge me to talk on simple themes, I admitted that I allow myself to talk about nothing but it should be sufficiently quaint person to hear it. There is only one recent example, I had this piece in Russian so I'll try to translate it to you:

***

"Beg our pardon, it's difficult to talk to me just now,

But all the way I extremely glad.

The cinch is - I was "kissed" by a wasp, (stung in my lip)

This little beast took fancy to float in my jam and I had all chances to swallow it".

***

(If you don't see the quaintness of situation - try to answer: on what subject I was glad? (Glad of talking notwithstanding difficulty, glad of being "kissed", or rather glad of being saved from chance of swallowing a wasp?) And of course just mentioning about "having difficulties" and "being kissed" are good literary tricks by themselves.)

This is what I call the-mostly-provoking manner. And if two years ago to my young easy-at-uptake and stringy mind was added such technique I would surpass myself. This is not sufficiently to have pretty girl near you, and this is also not sufficiently to be a dazing interlocutor, looking in future optimistic, - you should have "attentive ear".

I feel sorry and sorrow for me talking so much about my old acquaintance. It does justice nor to other girls, nor to me, nor to her. She enjoyed my prattle just feeling good when I babble near her, it had consoling effect and created atmosphere. She often talked to me in inappropriate manner: "So begin to tell me something". But she wasn't really interested in what I talked about.

Today we have many troubles (at least we pay much attention to them). I discuss on the phone my problems for hours, she shares hers with me. It always has a soothing effect but ... Some time ago we didn't know what the problems are, (or at least had no slightest intention to mind them). So I prattled about philosophy and over-galaxies problems. It diverted her but not involved. She could smile at me one or another time, (it suited her - fine), but she never took much part in these discussions. We were at ease with each other so I shut my eyes on this flaw.

But returning to Luda - my old acquaintance said me after that evening on our returning when we strolled on central Moscow street: "You should marry her. You and she, you have things in common to talk about". And she was right, (I wonder - could a man be right every time?).

That girl had two the most important qualities: she wasn't arrogant and she didn't take offence. Girls are wicked creatures because they think that being arrogant and taking offence without any ground helps them to be a lady. They remark that men nourish and cherish and sing songs to such persons, who have these abilities so they even don't see where the vice comes from.

Girl learns to be arrogant either about her beauty, either about her wit. (And main part of pretty girls claims for their brains, which it seems to them are neglected by men). Worse of girls pretend to merits of which they aren't gifted and many good girls want to be acknowledged with their real ones. The prettiest of them would never show any sing of their wish to be marked but you can be sure they crave for it even more than even anyone else.

You could try to argue with me that absolutely unpretentious girls are ugly sight for any man, but I hope you know the difference between having inner respect for oneself and wish to have appraisal from a public. (I have nothing against latter but I talk about other things this time). Some clever men talk that woman was served as inferior by injustice for ages by men so they want to hear some words of reconciliation in their address. It can explain whole thing but it doesn't make me happy when I met a girl with sheer or skillfully hidden pretence.

And another aspect of women's nature - many of them consider that their petulance makes them more fair. (It always caused smile on my face to hear word-combination "fair sex". I would sooner agree with definition "unfair"). They are apt to take offence on "flat ground". You begin to feel their inner conviction that men are vile by nature:

"- You made new haircut.

- Yes, but what wrong with my hairs? It was the best barber in town. Of course if you like only blondes ..."

Or rather -

"- How about little trip to the theatre?

- So my sole society is not enough to you? I am not a entertaining person to so high-spirited person, am I?"

(Dunno why but instead of "am I?" I wanted to write "do you?" - Hm, Rum).

Such type of girls will drive you crazy in following year or months. But this is a tendency. You can see it even in very noble ones. (Again it sounds funny, as if you could be comparatively noble person).

Why did I allow myself to take so much time talking about flaws of women nature? I only want to say Luda didn't show any symptoms of this decease. We discussed we argued we waved our hands. (By the way, judging by TV (one girl said that I shouldn't judge Americans by their TV), so judging by TV American would become dumb and would lost all speaking gift if you tied his hands. It would be impossible not only to show you quotation marks and explain where is Wall Street but even he will be unable to say what time is it). It is true she wanted to be proud of her theories and she felt puzzled when I swooped on them and tried to crash them.

Probably we can call her scientific girl. I like science because you have respect for your deeds (and only for your deeds, not lies) and you can prove anything what you have up your sleeve. I was sure in my young days, and I still sure now that I can prove to anybody, having in the ground only convention in basic mathematician operations and elementary logic that our Earth is spinning. (It will require long rope and any kind of weighty thing to tie to it). And what I like in computers - it's their logic - having logic, knowing only two values, (zero and unity), and knowing only two operations, (addition and shift), this thing can make ... (but you all know what computer can make in our times).

I would call scientists as Real Cowboys from Wild West. If you said something they can go and check it, is it true, and if this happened to be untrue they'll kill your hypothesis without any preliminaries. They would never run for attorneys and would never draw you to a court. (Trial is one thing which gives me willies, and it doesn't matter am I guilty or not).

Errr... it seems to me situation turned in funny one, - I'm trying to prove that scientific girls are the more sexual creatures, and in my case it has nothing with porno scenes on this topic. The problem is I talk not about image of scientist. (And we for dozen years live in "Imageland", not seeing real people and things. One girl said me: "The devil in details". (I wonder did she invente such elaborate definition by herself or rather "cannot-helped" overhearing it on TV?). In my opinion devil is devil and details are details. On the contrary we (Russians) have proverb: "Not seeing a forest between trees". People with scientific view of things have this gift.

It's pity I don't remember exact phrase but it scorched in my mind after Russian movie about Sherlock Holmes. Dr Mortimer called Sherlock (and himself) as "people of a particular stamp", "people of particular scientific cast of mind". These people don't know what to be arrogant and petulant, and "they call spade a "spade".

So she was just "the person", and such "person" was fooled by me during three or four hours o the New Year eve. (I think, "fooling" is not the word). I would call it fair play on the ground of "silver reasoning". (Not a long time ago I've got to know that some people dunno what "the silver reasoning" is. This reasoning which Sherlock Holmes used to practice, (and in that case I'm sure for the accuracy of this expression)).

Some, (without question very wise), of you can drop: "There are a plenty of wise people which are weak, and nobody needs such "sages" who would quail first meeting with life-squall." - I absolutely agree with this noble opinion. But did I say you that she was mentally (or in any other kind) weak? She was 33 she lived on her own and she knew what is the careworn features of real life are. I was youngster in comparison with her counting our life experiences. But we talked "in general way", we were seeking, (I used past continuos just because I forgot past form of the verb "to seek", sorry), so we were seeking any reasons to live in one or rather another way. It was interesting, entertaining and invigorate. The cinch is - if that girl has a lack for notoriously known women vices, I saw no reason to abandon male's ones, that is why I couldn't help myself and stop mentally cheat and play with her. At least we had fun, ("to have fun" - expression which is prohibited to use on my page, I hope you remember it), so let rename it - we had a pleasure and it was a treat to all of us.

Last but not least question: what was wrong with her or rather with me in not prolonging acquaintance? As concerns me - I have no right to judge myself, (it would be too bias.) And talking about her - she didn't take fancy about me - that's all.

PS I met her year after above-mentioned events and year ago counting from today. I followed my old acquaintance. She needed to meet her on some business appointment. Luda smiled me nicely, I smiled in return. - She didn't recognize me.