David Copperfield (which I’m currently reading) is
a fictional autobiography. The narrator, David, is a man who tries to
reconstruct, and perhaps to recover, his life through memory. In this, he
resembles Proust’s Marcel, being, like him, in search of lost time. In the
second chapter of the book he recalls events that occurred when he was still a
little boy of perhaps six years old and his mother still a very young and
handsome woman. David’s father had died shortly before he was born, and David
and his mother had been very close until she met a new man whom she would soon
marry. The man turns out to be a tyrant, his mother is too weak to oppose him,
and David is sent away to a boarding school in another part of the country. Yet
the adult David, looking back on his life, remembers his mother as she was before
that time, shortly after she had met that man and when she still dared to show
her son how much she loved him. And it is in his memory that the person that
she once was is kept alive:
“Can
I say of her face – altered as I have reason to remember it, perished as I know
it is – that it is gone, when here it comes before me at this instant, as
distinct as any face that I may choose to look on in a crowded street? Can I
say of her innocent and girlish beauty, that it faded, and was no more, when
its breath falls on my cheek now, as it fell that night? Can I say she ever
changed, when my remembrance brings her back to life, thus only; and, truer to
its loving youth than I have been, or man ever is, still holds fast what it
cherished then?”
David’s
mother is of course long gone, and even if she were still alive, she would be
old now and no longer innocent and girlishly beautiful. Yet in his memory she
still is and will always be, as long as he is there to remember her. What
interests me in David’s account is the suggestion that the past is not really
gone, that it is not really past at
all, except in the sense that we can no longer fully access it, no longer go
there. It is rather like a place that we once lived in, but now have been
barred from ever visiting again, and which is still out there, somewhere,
unchanged. Like a Garden of Eden (though not necessarily a nice one), whose
gates have been slammed shut in our faces and are now guarded by a couple of
cherubim to make sure that we can never go back there again. It suggests that
time is just another form of space, and that is exactly what I feel when I look
back at my own life. (I suppose you could say it is a B-Series experience of
time, which knows no past or future, but only earlier and later.) It feels as
if I had lived in different temporal worlds, as if the boy that I once was
still existed in a parallel universe, and the troubled teenager in another, and
the student, and the young father in yet another. It is phases of my life (not
moments) that each seem to have created their own universe. Each of these
phases is connected to particular places, which today are of course no longer
the same places, not because they have changed so much, but because I no longer
belong there. They would no longer know me. Those creations are not possible worlds of events that have
never occurred because I didn’t act in such a way that they would occur (but
which could have occurred if I had),
but actual worlds, of events that did
occur, which my memory (and a strange sort of longing) presents to me as worlds
that still co-exist with the world that I am currently inhabiting.
I’m
not even sure this idea makes sense, but then again, it is time itself, and not
any particular account of it, that seems to defy understanding. How can we
understand that there once was a time, not long ago, when we didn’t exist, and
that there will be a time, very soon, when we no longer exist? How can we
understand that we might easily have not existed at all, and generally, that
something that exists at one moment can at some other moment not exist? How can
anything ever be lost for good, simply disappear from the world? How can the
world itself have a beginning, and how an end? And how can it not have? Perhaps
those philosophers, from Parmenides to John McTaggart, who have claimed that
there is, ultimately, no time, that time is an illusion, are right after all.
No comments:
Post a Comment