The Babylon Lottery
Jorge Luis Borges
Like
all men in Babylon I have been a proconsul;
like all, a slave; I have also known omnipotence,
opprobrium, jail. Look: the index finger
of my right hand is missing. Look again:
through this rent in my cape you can see
a ruddy tatoo on my belly. It is the second
symbol, Beth. This letter, on nights of full
moon, gives me power over men whose mark
is Ghimel; but it also subordinates me to
those marked Aleph, who on moonless nights
owe obedience to those marked Ghimel. In
a cellar at dawn, I have severed the jugular
vein of sacred bulls against a black rock.
During one lunar year, I have been declared
invisible: I shrieked and was not heard,
I stole my bread and was not decapitated.
I have known what the Greeks did not: uncertainty.
In a bronze chamber, faced with the silent
handkerchief of a strangler, hope has been
faithful to me; in the river of delights,
panic has not failed me. Heraclitus of Pontica
admiringly relates that Pythagoras recalled
having been Pyrrho, and before that Euphorbus,
and before that some other mortal. In order
to recall analogous vicissitudes I do not
need to have recourse to death, nor even
to imposture.
I owe
this almost atrocious variety to an institution
which other republics know nothing about,
or which operates among them imperfectly
and in secret: the lottery. I have not delved
into its history; I do know that the wizards
have been unable to come to any agreement;
of its powerful designs I know what a man
not versed in astrology might know of the
moon. I come from a vertiginous country where
the lottery forms a principal part of reality:
until this very day I have thought about
all this as little as I have about the behavior
of the indecipherable gods or about the beating
of my own heart. Now, far from Babylon and
its beloved customs, I think of the lottery
with some astonishment and ponder the blasphemous
conjectures murmured by men in the shadows
at twilight.
My father
related that anciently - a matter of centuries;
of years? - the lottery in Babylon was a
game of plebeian character. He said (I do
not know with what degree of truth) that
barbers gave rectangular bits of bone or
decorated parchment in exchange for copper
coins. A drawing of the lottery was held
in the middle of the day: the winners received,
without further corroboration from chance,
silverminted coins. The procedure, as you
see, was elemental.
Naturally,
these "lotteries" failed. Their
moral virtue was nil. They did not appeal
to all the faculties of men: only to their
hope. In the face of public indifference,
the merchants who established these venal
lotteries began to lose money. Someone attempted
to introduce a slight reform: the interpolation
of a certain small number of adverse outcomes
among the favored numbers. By means of this
reform, the purchasers of numbered rectangles
stood the double chance of winning a sum
or of paying a fine often considerable in
size. This slight danger - for each thirty
favored numbers there would be one adverse
number - awoke, as was only natural, the
public's interest. The Babylonians gave themselves
up to the game. Anyone who did not acquire
lots was looked upon as pusillanimous, mean-spirited.
In time, this disdain multiplied. The person
who did not play was despised, but the losers
who paid the fine were also scorned. The
Company (thus it began to be known at that
time) was forced to take measures to protect
the winners, who could not collect their
prizes unless nearly the entire amount of
the fines was already collected. The Company
brought suit against the losers: the judge
condemned them to pay the original fine plus
costs or to spend a number of days in jail.
Every loser chose jail, so as to defraud
the Company. It was from this initial bravado
of a few men that the all-powerful position
of the Company - its ecclesiastical, metaphysical
strength - was derived.
A short
while later, the reports on the drawings
omitted any enumeration of fines and limited
themselves to publishing the jail sentences
corresponding to each adverse number. This
laconism, almost unnoticed at the time, became
of capital importance. It constituted the
first appearance in the lottery of non-pecuniary
elements. Its success was great. Pushed to
such a measure by the players, the Company
found itself forced to increase its adverse
numbers.
No one
can deny that the people of Babylonia are
highly devoted to logic, even to symmetry.
It struck them as incoherent that the fortunate
numbers should be computed in round figures
of money while the unfortunate should be
figured in terms of days and nights in jail.
Some moralists argued that the possession
of money does not determine happiness and
that other forms of fortune are perhaps more
immediate.
There
was another source of restlessness in the
lower depths. The members of the sacerdotal
college multiplied the stakes and plumbed
the vicissitudes of terror and hope; the
poor, with reasonable or inevitable envy,
saw themselves excluded from this notoriously
delicious exhiliration. The just anxiety
of all, poor and rich alike, to participate
equally is the lottery, inspired an indignant
agitation, the memory of which the years
have not erased. Certain obstinate souls
did not comprehend, or pretended not to comprehend,
that a new order had come, a necessary historical
stage . . . A slave stole a crimson ticket,
a ticket which earned him the right to have
his tongue burned in the next drawing. The
criminal code fixed the same penalty for
the theft of a ticket. A number of Babylonians
argued that he deserved a red-hot poker by
virtue of the theft; others, more magnanimous,
held that the public executioner should apply
the penalty of the lottery, since chance
had so determined . . .
Disturbances
broke out, there was a lamentable shedding
of blood; but the people of Babylon imposed
their will at last, over the opposition of
the rich. That is: the people fully achieved
their magnanimous ends. In the first place,
it made the Company accept complete public
power. (This unification was necessary, given
the vastness and complexity of the new operations.)
In the second place, it forced the lottery
to be secret, free, and general. The sale
of tickets for money was abolished. Once
initiated into the mysteries of Bel, every
free man automatically participated in the
sacred drawings of lots, which were carried
out in the labyrinths of the gods every seventy
nights and which determined every man's fate
until the next exercise. The consequences
were incalculable. A happy drawing might
motivate his elevation to the council of
wizards or his condemnation to the custody
of an enemy (notorious or intimate), or to
find, in the peaceful shadows of a room,
the woman who had begun to disquiet him or
whom he had never expected to see again.
An adverse drawing might mean mutilation,
a varied infamy, death. Sometimes a single
event - the tavern killing of C, the mysterious
glorification of B - might be the brilliant
result of thirty or forty drawings. But it
must be recalled that the individuals of
the Company were (and are) all-powerful and
astute as well. In many cases, the knowledge
that certain joys were the simple doing of
chance might have detracted from their exellence;
to avoid this inconvenience the Company's
agents made use of suggestion and magic.
Their moves, their management, were secret.
In the investigation of people's intimate
hopes and intimate terrors, they made use
of astrologers and spies. There were certain
stone lions, there was a sacred privy called
Qaphqa, there were fissures in a dusty aqueduct
which, according to general opinion, lead
to the Company; malign or benevolent people
deposited accusations in these cracks. These
denunciations were incorporated into an alphabetical
archive of variable veracity.
Incredibly
enough, there were still complaints. The
Company, with its habitual discretion, did
not reply directly. It preferred to scribble
a brief argument - which now figures among
sacred scriptures - in the debris of a mask
factory. That doctrinal piece of literature
observed that the lottery is an interpolation
of chance into the order of the world and
that to accept errors is not to contradict
fate but merely to corroborate it. It also
observed that those lions and that sacred
recipient, though not unauthorized by the
Company (which did not renounce the right
to consult them), functioned without official
guaranty.
This
declaration pacified the public unease. It
also produced other effects, not foreseen
by the author. It deeply modified the spirit
and operations of the Company. (I have little
time left to tell what I know; we have been
warned that the ship is ready to sail; but
I will attempt to explain it.)
Improbable
as it may be, no one had until then attempted
to set up a general theory of games. A Babylonian
is not highly speculative. He reveres the
judgments of fate, he hands his life over
to them, he places his hopes, his panic terror
in them, but it never occurs to him to investigate
their labyrinthian laws nor the giratory
spheres which disclose them. Nevertheless,
the unofficial declaration which I have mentioned
inspired many discussions of a juridico-mathematical
nature. From one of these discussions was
born the following conjecture: if the lottery
is an intensification of chance, a periodic
infusion of chaos into the cosmos, would
it not be desirable for chance to intervene
at all stages of the lottery and not merely
in the drawing? Is it not ridiculous for
chance to dictate the death of someone, while
the circumstances of his death-its silent
reserve or publicity, the time limit of one
hour or one centuryshould remain immune to
hazard? These eminently just scruples finally
provoked a considerable reform, whose complexities
(intensified by the practice of centuries)
are not understood except by a handful of
specialists, but which I will attempt to
summarize, even if only in a symbolic manner.
Let
us imagine a first drawing, which eventuates
in a sentence of death against some individual.
To carry out the sentence, another drawing
is set up, and this drawing proposes (let
us say) nine possible executioners. Of these
executioners, four can initiate a third drawing
which will reveal the name of the actual
executioner, two others can replace the adverse
order with a fortunate order (the finding
of a treasure, let us say), another may exacerbate
the death sentence (that is: make it infamous
or enrich it with torture), still others
may refuse to carry it out . . .
Such
is the symbolic scheme. In reality, the number
of drawings is infinite. No decision is final,
all diverge into others. The ignorant suppose
that an infinite number of drawings require
an infinite amount of time; in reality, it
is quite enough that time be infinitely subdivisible,
as is the case in the famous parable of the
Tortoise and the Hare. This infinitude harmonizes
in an admirable manner with the sinuous numbers
of Chance and of the Celestial Archetype
of the Lottery adored by the Platonists .
. .
A certain
distorted echo of our ritual seems to have
resounded along the Tiber: Aelius Lampridius,
in his Life of Antoninus Heliogabalus, tells
of how this emperor wrote down the lot of
his guests on seashells, so that one would
receive ten pounds of gold and another ten
flies, ten dormice, ten bears. It is only
right to remark that Heliogabalus was educated
in Asia Minor, among the priests of the eponymous
god.
There
are also impersonal drawings, of undefined
purpose: one drawing will decree that a sapphire
from Taprobane be thrown into the waters
of the Euphrates; another, that a bird be
released from a tower roof; another, that
a grain of sand be withdrawn (or added) to
the innumerable grains on a beach. The consequences,
sometimes, are terrifying.
Under
the beneficent influence of the Company,
our customs have become thoroughly impregnated
with chance. The buyer of a dozen amphoras
of Damascus wine will not be surprised if
one of them contains a talisman or a viper.
The scribe who draws up a contract scarcely
ever fails to introduce some erroneous datum;
I myself, in making this hasty declaration,
have falsified or invented some grandeur,
some atrocity; perhaps, too, a certain mysterious
monotony . . .
Our
historians, the most discerning in the world,
have invented a method for correcting chance.
It is well known that the operations of this
method are (in general) trustworthy; although,
naturally, they are not divulged without
a measure of deceit. In any case, there is
nothing so contaminated with fiction as the
history of the Company . . .
A paleographic
document, unearthed in a temple, may well
be the work of yesterday's drawing or that
of one lasting a century. No book is ever
published without some variant in each copy.
Scribes take a secret oath to omit, interpolate,
vary.
The
Company, with divine modesty, eludes all
publicity. Its agents, as is only natural,
are secret. The orders which it is continually
sending out do not differ from those lavishly
issued by imposters. Besides, who can ever
boast of being a mere imposter? The inebriate
who improvises an absurd mandate, the dreamer
who suddenly awakes to choke the woman who
lies at his side to death, do they not both,
perhaps, carry out a secret decision by the
Company? This silent functioning, comparable
to that of God, gives rise to all manner
of conjectures. One of them, for instance,
abominably insinuates that the Company is
eternal and that it will last until the last
night of the world, when the last god annihilates
the cosmos. Still another conjecture declares
that the Company is omnipotent, but that
it exerts its influence only in the most
minute matters: in a bird's cry, in the shades
of rust and the hues of dust, in the cat
naps of dawn. There is one conjecture, spoken
from the mouths of masked heresiarchs, to
the effect that the Company has never existed
and never will. A conjecture no less vile
argues that it is indifferently inconsequential
to affirm or deny the reality of the shadowy
corporation, because Babylon is nothing but
an infinite game of chance.
|