Dear Friends of the Clinic! I would not be exaggerating if I were to say that dealing with shadows is my calling, my profession, and my pleasure. In terms of the situation reported here, I can say with certainty that the long shadows of the pines are beckoning like cruel black fingers from the edges of the nursery [1]. And that is without mentioning the extensive variety of strange voices which sail through my substantial office here in the Hall of the Murals from time to time. And needless to say, this is a very well-appointed place too. 

 

It is an awful thing that we shall have to lock our doors in due course from a lack of funding after the death of our generous but unrecognised sponsor, the Old Soldier. He disappeared when I was a child, and for years he wandered in lands overseas, joining the army (he says), and travelling to the four corners of the world to discover, or invent, pioneering knowledge regarding the magic of words and beguiling music. And all the time, while he was away, I was labouring and studying, trying to make ends meet. It is fair to say that voices were always calling on him from within and from without, to accomplish considerable wonders, in his opinion at least.

 

In the end, after suffering much (so the story goes), when he had accumulated a stack of money through his ventures (and of course he always acted legally, except when he was playing fast-and-loose), he came home, gained a Certificate in Studies (I am learned Doctor, as you know), and became a self-taught teacher, for no reason at all in my humble opinion. Of course, while he was enjoying himself so much, it was I who was the true soldier, so to speak, who was fighting for truth and justice on behalf of the downtrodden and the afflicted, learning in the process so much about the human mind, and its peculiarities, and the ability to experience special states of consciousness. The old rogue never found true magic, despite the incessant protestations to the contrary, even on his death-bed. 

 

However, having explained all that, one must keep to the topic under consideration. Let me say therefore that the shadow thrown by an extended object is not a unitary object, but a complex entity – like a personality, like a relationship, like information – which contains an umbra or totally black region, a penumbra or shade, which is partly dark, and an antumbra where the object displays a bright halo [2]. 

 

In this document, I present a full report on our most famous case, containing everything which was discussed and written in our Clinic, in addition to transcripts of several conversations which happened here. I have indulged myself also in including some explanatory notes at the head of each section by my secretary, Helen Grossmann MSc (the ‘prospective mentalist’ in her own words). She has provided me with exceptionally helpful warnings and ideas on a number of essential topics. In the light of these forthright observations, I need to advise you from the outset that our syncretic methods, which are based on dreaming and imagining, are more similar to poetry-making and casting spells than to the logical techniques of science. Here multiple personalities, fractured landscapes, and stream of consciousness, are the normal thing [3]. 

 

In truth, there are several characters in this report, to all appearances. Definitely, the chapters portray various voices including those of two lads, a girl, a teacher, a father and mother, a soldier, a ghast, a baby in the womb, a televisual broadcaster, a doctor, a pyramid or ziggurat, and beings from beyond. They have been arranged in a way that is similar to the mathemagical pattern of seeds in the various types of female cones, spiralling out from a common hub to create an otherworldly and hypnotic object. They are all involved in an abstruse web, in which they play the part of sources which cast illumination on each other, creating shadows at the same time.

 

In this report, therefore, names appear and disappear constantly. Of course, in the Old Book, when Tho-vítha asks “What is your name?", the fiend Az-mothus replies, at first, "My name is Legion, as we are many.” (And look where he and his siblings ended up: capering like pigs in clover on the Southern Continent!) On occasions (or, in some places), we have Daud, Stjepan, Jelena, and Ivan – elsewhere, there are Dave (Dai), Steffan (Steff, Stezza), Elen, and Jack – and also, you will meet David, Stevie, Helen, and John. Up to now, I have been speaking of shadows, voices, and names for sure; but I hesitate when it comes talking about enfleshed wraiths, despite all the nastiness to be discussed (together with the goodness). It is matter for you to accept or not whether such things exist in reality. 

 

With all the complexity, one must ask: can I tell you who is who on every occasion? I cannot, most assuredly – as in the old Kimbric tales, sometimes women are flowers or owls; sometimes men become eagles, deer, wolves, or wild boars [4]. And in the Heart of the Continent, women can be does, and pine-trees also. There is enchantment everywhere in this tale, as there always is in the real world (whatever that means), if you are able to discern it accurately enough. Doubtless, these chunks of flesh are transmogrified by magical acts, through naming. They cannot tell lies, as they do not know the truth, it appears on the surface. But, having investigated in more detail, one confesses that possibly they do recognise veracity, but that they do not speak about it because they are mute. On this account, perhaps, they conceal sins of all kinds, which will be revealed here as a result of my delving, without their own knowledge. Go at it carefully, therefore, when you come into the shadows which melt and coagulate like tincture in the Majishya-nír’s cauldron.

 

Assuredly, this apocalyptic tale is full of shadows, namely the shades of abuse, madness, loneliness, and loss, together with the phantom of uncertainty that hangs over the ability to judge beyond reasonable doubt. How could several of the correspondents appear cheery, then, whilst reciting all these stories, as you will discern from the enclosed notes? Well, one can understand this, to some extent at least, if one accepts that I myself grin from ear to ear all the time whilst working in this madhouse, especially when Swtakh sneaks into the consulting room as I doze, to gnaw my gouty big toe – the furry old dybbuk!

 

Then again, our story raises endless questions about these matters; about self-forgetting and self-discovery; about symbols, images, and reality and how they interact with each other, whilst inquiring about the nature of binary distinctions such as light and shadow, correct and incorrect, good and evil, logic and feeling, experience and knowledge, the individual and the group, the ‘self’ and the ‘other’, for instance {Light and Darkness}. But it is not my role to answer such riddles, I can scarcely think about the ideas. After all, I am tired out after all the excitement. I never get a grain of thanks in this job, either. I shall speak more about that later on, but for the time being, I must keep quiet. 

 

Reference is made here (often incorrectly), to literary sources, and to popular culture, but I have not attempted to clarify: shadows of the real thing, we might say, are the mistakes and omissions. Also, there is a little crude language, which I have left extant, for the sake of completeness: who has the right to silence the host of voices which communicate here, whether they be refined or otherwise vulgar? And what is speech today anyway but a pale shadow of the magical singing that existed at the time of the Tower of Biblael – that original ivory-tower – which has become by now but mixed-up mumbling? 

 

Here are the raw materials. But I must remind you that everyone will tend to suffer from the same kind of pressures to some degree, and from time to time: who knows how they will respond? We are all shadows of each other, are we not? To close, I enquire: is there a lesson to be learned from all this? From my own experience, the only answer I can give is the following. Perhaps in the fullness of time we shall see that the self will develop, reaching out to embrace the other, and wrapping it into its essence, so that their foundational differences – the ones that come between me and you, her and him, us and you – shall be overcome in some significant and lasting way [5]. That was the hope of the Strange Old Gods, at least, as far as I know, who asked: Are not damnation and deliverance parts of the same contrary dialectics? Who, therefore, can apportion praise and blame? Should we judge, or, should we be judged? I shall leave you to decide — D.B.P.

 

*             *             *             *             *             *             *             *

 

[1]  I believe he’s thinking here of the short story by Krayg at-Lugus called “Crippled by Conflict.” — P.M.

 

[2] I would like to add the following here. The mythographer Bkink has commented on the fact that everything existing is a complex combination of "clockwork systems" that can be measured and analyzed, and "cloud systems" that are unpredictable and free-flowing. Furthermore, no-one knows what exactly the "psyche" of the Thorlin is, nor how far it extends into the World. He notes nevertheless that consciousness is multi-dimensional, uniting aspects that are cultural, experiential, mythological, narrative, physiological, psychological, societal, spiritual, and symbolic. According to him, the imagination is an organ of nonlocal perception that extends through time and space embracing matter and energy. It was he who realized that one's conceptions are simultaneously mediated and restricted by societal norms and expectations.

 

He alleges that the parts of the subconscious appear under appropriate conditions as independent, shadow-clad personalities to reveal psychological truths. Especially when a group interacts, it is possible to focus the energy to create external thought-forms, the very presence of which serves to upset the mirage that serves as reality, not to mention their words and their thoughts. They exist within, and open a pathway to, a place that is ambiguous, transient, slippery, paradoxical, liminal, marginal, anti-structural, and fundamentally illogical. Hovering between this World and the Otherworld, in a space where the normal order fails, they obliterate binary distinctions between opposites which usually appear inconsistent. It is these who blend different concepts, deconstructing the firm boundaries between the real and the unreal, the self and the other [X].

 

They have characteristics of the Trickster, mixing attributes that are absurd and highly meaningful at the same time, and by being forced by them to appreciate difference you will come to absorb so much at random that it will take lifetimes to comprehend. These entities can possess one and cause metapsychosis, psycho-immunological effects, and symptoms like amnesia, anaesthesia, blindness, conversion and somatoform disorders, convulsions, dermatoglyphs, hallucinations, hysteria, paralysis, and stigmata. After all, the body is the chief means of self-expression which forms the interface between the Two Worlds, and is transformed during the performances. The Imagineers of the Grove Illumed have developed psycho-energetic principles to study these phenomena through biofeedback, electromyography, electroencephalography, and skin-resistance measurement. — P.M.

 

[X] Maybe a little relevant context would be helpful here. — Prof J Pekar. The exceptional logophilist Derghída Shakí points out that the Thorlin seem fated to conceptualize in term of “binary divisions” such as “good/bad” – “man/woman” – “inside/outside” – “presence/absence” – “reason/emotion” – “essentia/fōrma” – “speech/writing.” One term (the first in these cases) is privileged over the other (it is considered better, more desirable, and so on). He goes on to show through painstaking investigation of many examples that these “oppositions” are not grounded rigorously in any external features of the world and are thus precarious. This means that any text using such categories (that is any text at all to some extent) is bound to “defeat itself” through the very terms it employs. All texts will thus necessarily fail in the task of expressing their meaning with complete clarity and precision (or even without various serious – although maybe very well-hidden – internal inconsistencies).

Shakí insists that all the sophophilia prior to his revolutionary work was founded on the unspoken basis of “dictopraecidentia” (or a “gnosology of being-there”) which promises direct access to meaning. It does this by siting speech as the primary feature of language which represents thought whilst in the same breath dismissing writing as secondary. A lingualistic “sign” consists of the fundamental “essentia” (the concept) and the derived “fōrma” (the way of expressing the concept). Thoughts are represented in speech (which is a form of “presence” as the speaker transmits directly to the listener), and speech is represented by writing (which is a form of “absence” because the writer is not present when the reader reads). On the dictopraecidentic view, writing is always attempting to “reinstate” the absent speaker’s voice. Shakí claims that this leads to the postulation of a “transcendental essentia.” This is some “master concept” which cannot be expressed by any one of, or indeed by the array of all the fōrmae together, but which nevertheless must exist. However, he “(re)(de)(con)structs” this “gnosology of being-there” by showing how the fōrma acts in an exactly parallel manner to the essentia in terms of determining meaning – due to the very way in which the two are taken to be linked. This understanding destabilizes the original idea of the priority of the essentia itself.

For Shakí, there exists one concept that is indefinable and yet essential within the dictopraecidentic framework, namely  “diffilassum” (recalling both “diffissum” / “deferring” and “dīlātum” / “differing”). As soon as signification takes place, diffilassum is automatically invoked, and it is in fact the essential condition for the existence of the “presence / absence” binary. The “thread” is the feature that creates diffilassum between one sign and another. It is like a “shadow” on the sign’s presence of that which is absent from it. Paradoxically, this “absence” is thus a kind of “presence.” It means that no fōrma is ever full present or absent. The very possibility of signification implies an ethereal “web” of “threads” linking all concepts. In terms of binary oppositions, Shakí argues that the first term (e.g., “good”) cannot be “complete,” since if it were, the second term (i.e., “evil”) would not be required. He suggests that the first term must therefore be fundamentally “lacking” and that the second term is an “adjunct” which exists to complete this lack. 

 

[3] I feel it would be useful to adduce this here. One must remember that there are common roots to enchantment, faith, and medicine, and that in "life-magic" the Great Women and the Wise Men use word, touch, and emotion to cause changes. Rituals involve artefacts as well as appropriate bodily and symbolic stimuli to cause psycho-physical excitation, generate willingness to suspend disbelief, and promote the instantaneous belief that the performance will succeed. They have the ability to shift attention from every-day reality towards a sense of the numinous, that is preternatural awe arising from perceiving an extensive new perspective on existence that is hugely mysterious. Repeating the patterns stimulates a synergism between the consciousness of the participants and external force-fields and thus makes the effects more likely to occur. 

 

Such practices can be very efficacious. The participants need to accept the suggestions, and one must bust a gut whilst performing in order to create a "virtual universe." Then, one must take the experiences seriously and embrace the anomalous happenings which are an important part of daily life for very many mystics, healers, shamans, and visionaries throughout the Wondrous World, carrying on working without worrying whether they are "real" or not. The striking outcomes such as transformational emotional responses are much more important that the details of the process itself. They can be extremely unusual, exceptionally strange, absurd even, and almost unbelievable, but they are true nevertheless. After all, there is no call for Nature to play according to the rules of the games that we, the Thorlin, indulge in (as the pre-eminent paranthropologist Rilfoh says), is there? — P.M.

 

[4] I discovered a while ago that D.B.P. was creating secret stories about the “Twduhl” family, and especially the Páhdnuh (Hyw Chimní), the Máhtuh (Unlivin Belpul), the Fýlyá (Silí-niní), and the Jeminayz (Jehfndum and Shay-boy). They speak an experimental language called “Gbumzic” that distinguishes between living things (the “pawsic” class) and everything else (the “swapic” class). This makes them sound very strange and behave even more oddly!

 

Throughout these tales he uses symbols (“sigila”) – stolen shamelessly (and incorrectly!) from my work – to represent people living in Aberdydd and their attendant characteristics (in his opinion at least). He didn’t mention me at all, I should add! Here they are:

 

E: man, everything, civilization [Dr P]; Δ: woman, individual, river, sea [Mrs G]; ⊏: write, shame, sham, staff [Steff]; Λ: labour, boast, love, kill, die [Dai]; S: snake, knowledge, lies [Jack]; ⊤: son, sword, king, sad [Elfan]; ⊢: daughter, mother, love, ice, battle, gaze [Helen]; Χ: combine, separate, tale, repeat [Fred]; ◻: death, life, story, cycle [Gertrude].

 

The glyphs are very similar to those of abstract argumentation. However, I’d hazard a guess that he was trying to use them in some magical practice to control the individuals and bring about his own odious outcomes. We shall see, I venture. — P.M.

 

[5] Well. D.B.P. always was an old windbag. But, I’ll say it to you straight: Fine words. Parsnips. Butter! And in response, I shall share here a portion of my unpublished notes: “How is the Reality of Death Even Possible? A logophilic foundation.” (The ideas came to me after having a skinful of the old “Gland-grease” – a fiercely sour but really rather special potion concocted by Fred – trying to avoid the cauldron-visions. What hateful irony!).

 

This is the “unifabula” according to the Four Yarnspinners of Damasòdoh, the Grelaytàmdou in “Zhamza Khwvrā el Magkriva” (“The Great Blaze of Insight"). In Asokrak the Dead-land, every life is inherently the same – day after day, night upon night. Behold the Man, therefore: Here Come All! Watch us as we live and laugh; loathe and lie; love and leave.

 

The World-mind, its will and its words have been, are, and ever shall be writing and wringing and righting and ringing their rwnen and their rules, their wrongs and their ruins. Here, under this dispensation, everything must come to recognize itself and become unique by comparison with different entities because universality and particularity, subjectivity and objectivity cannot escape each other.

 

And so, there are always foreign somethings inside of each of us talking to ourselves, so that we must struggle to isolate one unique “I” from our multiple “me’s.” Having completed these trials, we invest ourselves as deities in our own domains. Through decadence and decay, the divinities shrivel and become heroes. These get fat and lazy and become mortals. The bored, petty humans seek annihilation and find it. Those surviving the catastrophe ascend to become gods. First we feel; next we forage and find; then we feast and fall. This is the one story of all.

 

Ere you depart and till we meet again, perhaps, chew on this. Is it necessary that this sick cycle come to and end somhowerwen, releasing us from our bondage in the house of time, transition, trauma and transfiguration? But, regardless of that, in the meantime it is you who shall decide your own fate (well at least it is not I who’ll do that). Let me share with you, at least, what I have unearthed for myself: a memory of the future, a dream of the past, or a reflection of the present.

 

I, the wanderer on the outskirts of existence, approach the Temple of Lethí that exists not in our World, on the banks of the stream of sound. Three long-forgotten symbols adorn its walls – S E Δ – one in wood, one in stone, and one in bronze.

 

There, the twin suns cast the shadows of the naked man playing a lyre and the enshrouded woman keening a lament. They are stalked by a wild lynx with a dark violet torch in its fangs. All their faces are like empty, eyeless masks. I call to them in my loneliness and despair but they disappear, only the mournful tones and spectral glow remaining.

 

After an age of meditating in vain on my situation, I see that I am the only one capable of giving the signs meaning and bridging between the Two Worlds. This I do, searing them with the eerie radiance, awakening them, and turning them to a torrent of song flowing over me, through me. So great is my appetite and so profound my dismay that I nibble on the sounds – che, quel, cal, qué, tshe, quae – and my belly fills with coruscating “what if's?”. And then, on fire with frantic zeal, I revoice the sorrowful air to create a portal for myself alone, and cross the sacred river of Alp.

 

Now, on the Farside of Nowhere, a chill gale thrills the cloud-waves beating a retreat from oblivion through the turbid air.

 

“You have called me: I am here. I come willingly,” I cry to the riotous sky. “I am not cloaked in a cloak of darkness, nor defended by a winged serpent. In the Otherworld it was claimed that I was an underhanded shitdog. So to prove myself I learned to ride my horse backwards, and seized every opportunity to grow and flourish with cunning. And now I have left behind that detestable life in the depraved sewer with the ravenous pigs.”

 

The shadows lengthen across the inhospitable wildscape. Here, time and space are like root-nodules and insect-swarms. I continue, faltering:

 

“And I say this: Heed me now! The heart of art is not truth but creation, and I alone have wrought the rules of my own artifice. I have refused to travel in luxury in the six-chambered coach, and have turned a deaf ear to the futile promises of the diabolus of the mute dead who possesses almost everyone. I demand that you give me this instant what I have won!”

 

The two distempered sky-balls drizzle brackish globules on the graveyard below: a pair of blistered metal spheres smouldering dull red, desperate to unite to ignite an astronomical explosion. Across the barren plains of fused silica, will-o’-the wisps flutter, splutter and fart. At once I ankylose as I sense there’s not a soul there, nothing. I am utterly alone, beseeching the squalls. The Vainglorious Viceroy of Vacuity.

 

Then. A bland, buff eternity, filled with high-pitched whining (or an illimitable, smothering, lightless void). Where and when I am now in fact, I know not. But here I am conversing with all my inner selves in chorus, the only possibility left to me. They chatter, Oh yes, but they do not listen. And yet as sure as night follows day, I feel that this is but a semblance of things that shall be and a prelude to that which will happen.

 

Sense, seek, seize: swallow and sin. Save? The only tale. Devas, daredevils, drudges, demons, divines. Wordy worlds without end. Our own onflailing onefabling. — P.M.

Annwyl gyfeillion y Clinig! Ni fyddwn yn gorliwio pe dywedwn mai trin cysgodion yw fy ngalwedigaeth, fy mhroffesiwn, a’m pleser. O ran y sefyllfa a adroddir yma, rwy’n gallu dweud i sicrwydd y deniff cysgodion hirion y pinwydd fel bysedd duon creulon o ffiniau'r blanhigfa [1]. A dyna heb sôn am yr amrywiaeth helaeth o leisiau rhyfedd fydd yn hwylio trwy fy swyddfa sylweddol yma yn Neuadd y Murluniau o bryd i’w gilydd. Ac nid rhaid dweud mai lle â phob cyfleuster priodol ydy hwn hefyd.

 

Peth ofnadwy ydy y bydd rhaid inni gloi ein drysau maes o law o ddiffyg cyllid ar ôl marwolaeth ein noddwr hael ond anhysbys, yr Hen Filwr. Fe ddiflannodd pan oeddwn yn blentyn, ac am flynyddoedd crwydrai ef mewn gwledydd dros y môr, gan ymuno â’r fyddin (mae’n dweud), a theithio i bedwar ban byd i ddarganfod, neu ddyfeisio, gwybodaeth arloesol ynghylch hud geiriau a cherddoriaeth swynol. A thrwy’r amser, tra oedd ef i ffwrdd, roeddwn innau’n llafurio ac astudio, gan geisio cael deupen llinyn ynghyd. Teg dweud bod lleisiau wastad yn galw arno oddi mewn ac oddi allan, i gyflawni cryn ryfeddodau, yn ei farn o leiaf.

 

Yn y pen draw, ar ôl dioddef lawer (felly yn ôl y stori), pan gronasai bentwr o arian trwy ei fentrau (ac wrth gwrs yr oedd yn gweithredu’n gyfreithlon bob amser, ac eithrio pan oedd yn chwarae'r llaw wen), daeth ef adref, ennill Tystysgrif mewn Astudiaethau (Doethur hyddysg ydwyf fi, fel y gwyddoch), a dod yn athro hunanddysgedig, heb reswm yn y byd hwn yn fy nhyb ostyngedig. Wrth gwrs, tra oedd e’n mwynhau’i hunan gormod, myfi oedd y gwir filwr, fel petai, a oedd yn brwydro dros wirionedd a chyfiawnder o ran y gorthrymedig a’r cystuddiedig, gan ddysgu yn ystod y broses gymaint am y meddwl dynol, ei hynodweddau, a’r gallu i brofi cyflyrau arbennig o ymwybyddiaeth. Ni ddaeth yr hen gnaf o hyd i hud go iawn erioed, er gwaethaf y datganiadau di-baid i’r gwrthwyneb, hyd yn oed ar ei wely angau.

 

Fodd bynnag, wedi esbonio hynny oll, rhaid i ddyn gadw at y pwnc dan sylw. Gadwech imi ddweud felly nad endid unedol yw’r cysgod a deflir gan wrthrych estynedig, ond hanfod cymhleth – megis personoliaeth, megis perthynas, megis gwybodaeth – sy’n cynnwys wmbra neu barth hollol ddu, penwmbra neu ogysgod, sy’n rhannol ddu, a rhag-wmbra lle yr arddangosa’r gwrthrych leugylch llachar [2].

 

Yn y ddogfen hon rwy’n cyflwyno adroddiad llawn ar ein hachos mwyaf enwog, yn cynnwys popeth a drafodwyd ac ysgrifennwyd yn ein Clinig, yn ogystal ag adysgrifau o sawl sgwrs a ddigwyddodd yma. Yr wyf wedi ymbleseru hefyd mewn cynnwys rhai nodiadau esboniadol ar ben pob adran gan fy ysgrifennydd, Helen Grossmann MSc (y ‘darpar feddyliaethydd’ yn ôl ei geiriau ei hunan). Mae hi wedi darparu ar fy nghyfer rybuddion a syniadau eithriadol o gynorthwyol ar nifer o bynciau hanfodol. Yng ngoleuni’r sylwadau plaen hyn, mae arnaf angen eich hysbysu o’r dechrau fod ein dulliau syncretaidd, sy’n seiliedig ar freuddwydio a dychmygu, yn debycach i farddoni ac i fwrw hud nag i dechnegau rhesymegol gwyddoniaeth. Yma, personoliaethau amryfal, tirweddau wedi’u torri, a llif yr ymwybod, yw’r peth arferol [3].

 

Yn wir, mae sawl cymeriad yn yr adroddiad hwn, yn ôl pob ymddangosiad. Yn bendant, bydd y penodau’n portreadu amryw leisiau’n cynnwys eiddo ddau lanc, merch, athro, tad a mam, milwr, cythraul, baban yn y groth, darlledwr teledol, meddyg, pyramid neu sigwrat, a bodolaethau o’r tu hwnt. Fe’u trefnwyd mewn modd sy’n gyffelyb i batrwm mathemahudol hadau yn yr amryw fathau o bigyrnau benyw, gan ymdroelli o foth gyffredin i greu gwrthrych arallfydol a hypnotaidd. Gwnânt i gyd â gwe astrus, ym mha le y byddant yn chwarae rhan tarddleoedd sy’n bwrw goleuni ar ei gilydd, wrth greu cysgodion ar yr un pryd.

 

Yn yr adroddiad hwn, felly, bydd enwau’n dod i’r golwg a mynd o’r golwg yn gyson. Wrth gwrs yn yr Hen Lyfr, pan ofyn Tho-vítha “Beth yw dy enw?", etyb y cythraul Az-mothus, i ddechrau, "Lleng yw fy enw; am fod llawer ohonom.” (A sylwer ar yr hyn a ddigwyddodd iddo fe a'i frodyr a'i chwiorydd yn y pendraw: aethant i ymdrybaeddu mewn trythyllwch ar y Cyfandir Deheuol!) Ar adegau (neu, mewn rhai lleoedd), ceir Daud, Stjepan, Jelena, ac Ivan – yn rhywle arall, dyna Dave (Dai), Steffan (Steff, Stezza), Elen, a Jack – a hefyd, fe gwrddwch â David, Stevie, Helen, a John. Hyd yn hyn, yr wyf wedi bod yn sôn am gysgodion, lleisiau, ac enwau’n wir; ond rwy’n petruso ynghylch siarad am ddiawliaid yn y cnawd, er gwaethaf yr holl helbul i’w drafod (yn ogystal â’r daioni). Mater ichi yw derbyn neu beidio a yw'r fath bethau'n bodoli mewn gwirionedd.

 

Gyda’r holl gymhlethdod, rhaid gofyn: a allaf ddywed wrthych bwy yw pwy ar bob adeg? Na allaf, yn ddilys ddiamau – megis yn yr hen chwedlau Kimbreg, weithiau mae gwragedd yn flodau neu wdihŵiaid; ambell dro mae gwŷr yn dod yn eryrod, ceirw, bleiddiau, neu faeddod [4]. Ac yng Nghalon y Cyfandir, gall menywod fod yn ewigod, ac yn binwydd, hefyd. Mae wastad hud a lledrith ym mhob man yn yr hanes hwn fel y mae bob tro yn y byd go iawn (beth bynnag mae hwnna'n ei olygu), os medrwch ei glywed yn ddigon manwl. Yn ddiau, gweddnewidir y talpiau hyn o gnawd gan weithredoedd swynol, trwy enwi. Ni fedrant ddweud celwyddau, gan na wyddant y gwirionedd, ymddengys ar y wyneb. Ond, wedi archwilio’n fwy manwl, fe gyfeddyf dyn o bosibl yr adwaenant y gwir, ynteu na siaradant amdano gan eu bod yn fud. O’r herwydd, efallai, byddant yn celu pechodau o bob math, a ddatgelir yma o ganlyniad i’m cloddio, heb yn wybod iddynt eu hunain. Ewch ati’n ofalus, felly, pan ddewch chi i mewn i’r cysgodion fydd yn toddi a tholchennu fel trwyth yng nghrochan y Dewin.

 

Heb os nac oni bai, llawn cysgodion ydy’r hanes dadlennol hwn, sef cysgodion camdriniaeth, unigrwydd, a cholled, ynghyd â chysgod ansicrwydd sy’n hongion tros y gallu i feirniadu y tu hwnt i amheuaeth resymol. Sut y gallai sawl gohebydd ymddangos mor hwyliog, felly, wrth adrodd y chwedlau hyn i gyd, fel y gwelwch chi o’r nodiadau amgaeedig? Wel, deall i ryw raddau o leiaf a wna dyn, os derbyn ef mai myfi fy hunan sydd yn gwenu o glust i glust bob amser wrth weithio yn y madws hwn, yn enwedig pan fydd Swtach yn snecian i mewn i’r ystafell ymgynghori wrth imi bendwmpian, i gnoi fy mawd troed gowtog – yr hen gythraul blewog!

 

Eto i gyd, mae ein stori yn codi cwestiynau di-rif am y materion hyn; am hunan-anghofio a hunanddarganfod; am symbolau, delweddau, a realiti a sut y byddant yn rhyngweithio â’i gilydd, wrth holi am natur gwahaniaethau deuaidd megis goleuni a chysgod, gywir ac anghywir, da a drwg, rhesymu a theimlo, profi a gwybod, yr unigolyn a’r grŵp, yr ‘hunan’ a’r ‘arall,’ er enghraifft. Ond nid fy rôl i yw ateb y fath bosau, braidd y gallaf feddwl am y syniadau. Wedi’r cwbl rwy wedi blino’n lân ar ôl yr holl gyffro. Ni dderbyniaf fi byth ronyn o ddiolchgarwch yn y swydd hon, ychwaith. Soniaf mwyaf am hynny yn nes ymlaen, ond am y tro, rhaid cadw’n dawel.

 

Mae cyfeirio yma (yn aml yn wallus) ar achlysuron, at ffynonellau llenyddol, ac at ddiwylliant poblogaidd, ond nid wyf wedi ceisio egluro: cysgodion y peth go iawn, allem ddweud, yw’r camgymeriadau a hepgoriadau. Hefyd, mae ychydig iaith fras, rwy wedi’i adael yn gyfan, er mwyn cyflawnder: pwy sydd â hawl i roi taw ar y llwyth o leisiau a fydd yn cyfathrebu yma, p’un a fyddant yn goeth ai ynteu’n aflednais? A pha beth yw llefaru heddiw beth bynnag ond cysgod gwelw'r canu hudol a fodolai gyfnod Tŵr Biblael – y tŵr ifori cysefin hwnnw – sydd wedi dod bellach yn ddim ond mwmial cymysglyd?

 

Dyma’r defnyddiau crai. Ond rwy’n gorfod eich atgoffa y bydd pawb yn tueddu i ddioddef o’r un fath o bwysau i ryw fesur, ac o bryd i’w gilydd: pwy a ŵyr sut yr ymatebant? Cysgodion ein gilydd ydym ni i gyd, onid ife? I gloi, rwy’n holi: oes gwers i’w ddysgu o hyn oll? O’m profiad fy hunan, yr unig ateb y gallaf ei roi yw’r canlynol. Efallai gyda threigl amser fe fyddwn ni’n gweld y datblyga’r hunan, gan ymestyn i anwesu’r arall, a’i lapio i mewn i’w hanfod, nes y caiff eu gwahaniaethau sylfaenol – y rhai a ddaw rhyngof fi a ti, rhyngddi hi ac ef, rhyngom ni a chi – eu goresgyn mewn rhyw ffordd arwyddocaol a pharhaol [5]. Dyna oedd gobaith yr Hen Dduwiau Rhyfedd, o leiaf, hyd y gwn i, a ofynnai: Onid rhannau’r un dilechdid trofaus yw damnio a gwaredu? Pwy, felly a all ddosrannu clod a bai? A ddylem farnu, neu, a ddylem gael ein barnu? Gadawaf i chi benderfynu — D.B.P.

 

*             *             *             *             *             *             *             *

 

[1] Dw i’n credu ei fod e'n meddwl yma am stori fer Krayg at-Lugus o’r enw “Clwyfedigion Cythrwfl.” — P.M.

 

[2] Hoffwn i ychwanegu'r canlynol yma. Mae'r mythograffydd Bkink wedi sylwi ar y ffaith bod popeth yn bodoli'n gyfuniad cymhleth o "systemau clocwaith" y gellir eu mesuro a'u dadansoddi, a "systemau cwmwl" sy'n anrhagweladwy a yn llifo'n rhwydd. Ymhellach, nad oes neb yn gwybod beth yn enwedig yw "seice" y Thorlin, na pha mor bell mae'n ymestyn i'r Byd. Mae'n nodi serch hynny fod ymwybyddiaeth yn amlddimensiynol, yn uno agweddau cymdeithasol, diwylliannol, ffisiolegol, mytholegol, profiadaidd, seicolegol, storïol, symbolaidd, ac ysbrydol. Yn ei ôl ef, organ canfyddiad anlleol ydy'r dychymyg sy'n ymestyn trwy amser a'r gofod gan gofleidio mater ac egni. Ef a sylweddolodd fod syniadaeth dyn wedi'i chyfryngu a'i chyfyngu ar yr un pryd gan normau a disgwyliadau cymdeithas.

 

Mae'n honni bod rhannau'r anymwybod yn ymddangos dan yr amgylchiadau cywir fel personoliaethau annibynnol yn gwisgo cysgodion i ddatgelu gwirioneddau seicolegol. Yn enwedig pan fydd grŵp yn rhyngweithio, bydd yn bosibl ffocysu'r egni i greu ffurfiau meddyliol allanol, a'u presenoldeb ei hun yn anhrefnu'r rhith sy'n gwneud y tro am ddirwedd, heb sôn am eu geiriau na'u meddyliau. Maent yn bodoli y tu mewn i, ac yn agor llwybr at, le amwys, byrhoedlog, llithrig, paradocsaidd, trothwyol, ymylol, a gwrthstrwythurol, sy'n afresymegol yn y bôn. Gan hongian rhwng y Byd Hwn a'r Isfyd, mewn lle ble mae'r drefn arferol yn methu, maent yn diddymu gwahaniaethau deuol rhwng gwrthwynebau sy'n ymddangos yn anghydweddol fel arfer. Y rhain sy'n blendio gwahanol gysyniadau, gan ddadadeiladu 'r ffiniau cadarn rhwng y real a'r afreal, yr hunan a'r arall [X].

 

Mae ganddynt nodweddion y Twyllwr, yn cymysgu priodoleddau sy'n absẃrd ac ystyrlon iawn ar yr un pryd, a thrwy gael eich gorfodi i werthfawrogi gwahaniaeth ganddynt y dewch i amsugno cymaint trwy hap a damwain, y cymer fywydau i'w ddirnad. Yn aml byddant yn benthyg eu gwedd gan y mythau'n rhedeg yr ymennydd heb yn wybod inni. Gall yr endidau hyn feddiannu dyn ac achosi metaseicosis, effeithiau seiconiwroimiwnolegol, a symptomau fel amnesia, anaesthesia, anhwylderau trosi a somatoffurf, confylsiynau, dallineb, dermatoglyffau, hysteria, parlys, rhithweledigaethau, a stigmâu. Wedi'r cwbl, y prif ddull o hunanfynegiant ydy'r corff sy'n ffurfio'r rhyngwyneb rhwng y Ddau Fyd, ac yn cael ei drawsffurfio yn ystod y perfformiadau. Mae Tybwyr y Llwyn Goleuedig wedi datblygu egwyddorion seico-egnïeg i astudio'r ffenomenau hyn trwy fioadborth, electromyograffeg, electroenceffalograffeg, a mesuro gwrthiant y croen. — P.M.

 

[3]  Rwy'n teimlo y byddai'n ddefnyddiol crybwyll hyn yma. Rhaid cofio yma fod yna wreiddiau cyffredin i swyngyfaredd, crefydd, a meddyliaeth, ac mewn "hud bywyd" mae'r Gwragedd Mawr a'r Dynion Hysbys yn defnyddio gair, cyffyrddiad, ac emosiwn i beri newidiadau. Mae defodau'n cynnwys arteffactau yn ogystal â symbyliadau corfforol a symbolaidd priodol i  achosi cynhyrfiad seicoffisiolegol, ennyn parodrwydd i atal anghrediniaeth, a hybu cred enydaidd y llwydda'r perfformiad. Mae ganddynt y gallu i symud sylw o realedd bob dydd at synnwyr y niwminaidd, hynny yw parchedig ofn annaearol yn codi o ddirnad persbectif helaeth newydd ar fodolaeth sy'n aruthrol o ddirgel. Ailadrodd y patrymau sy'n symbylu synergedd rhwng ymwybod y cyfranogwyr a meysydd grym allanol ac felly yn gwneud yr effeithiau'n fwy debygol o ddigwydd.

 

Gall y fath ymarferion fod yn effeithiol iawn. Bydd angen parodrwydd ar y cyfranogwyr i dderbyn yr awgrymiadau, a bydd yn rhaid i ddyn fwrw bogail wrth berfformio er mwyn creu "bydysawd rithiol." Wedyn, dylai gymryd y profiadau o ddifrif a chofleidio'r digwyddiadau anomalaidd sy'n rhan bwysig o fywyd beunyddiol i lawer o gyfrinyddion, iachawyr, siamaniaid, a gweledyddion ledled y Byd Rhyfeddol, gan ddal ati i weithredu heb boeni a ydynt yn "real" neu beidio. Mae'r canlyniadau trawiadol fel ymatebion emosiynol trawsffurfiannol yn fwy pwysig o lawer na manylion y broses ei hun. Gallant fod yn dra anarferol, eithriadol o rhyfedd, absẃrd hyd yn oed, a bron yn anghredadwy, ond byddant yn wir serch hynny. Wedi'r cyfan, nid oes raid i Natur chwarae yn unol â rheolau'n gêm ni'r Thorlin (fel y dweud y paranthropolegwr heb ei hafal Rilfoh), on'd oes? — P.M.

 

[X] Efallai y byddai ychydig gyd-destun priodol yn ddefnyddiol yma. — Yr Athrawes J Pekar. Mae’r logoffilydd digynnig Derghída Shakí yn gwneud sylw o’r ffaith ei bod yn ymddangos y tynghedir y Thorlin i gysyniadu yn nhermau “cyferbyniadau deuaidd” megis “da/drwg” – “gŵr/gwraig” – “mewnol/allanol” – “presennol/absennol” – “resymeg/emosiwn” – “essentia/fōrma” – “llefaru/ysgrifennu.” Caiff un term (yr un gyntaf yn yr achosion hyn) ei freintio ar draul yr llall (fe’i ystyrir yn well, yn fwy dymunol, ac yn y blaen). Mae’n mynd yn ei flaen i ddangos, drwy ymchwilio’ drwyadl i lawer o esiamplau, nad yw’r “cyferbyniadau” hyn wedi’u sylfaenu’n galed mewn unrhyw nodweddion allanol ar y byd, ac felly yn simsan. Golyga hyn fod unrhyw destun yn defnyddio’r categorïau hyn (hynny yw, pob un testun i ryw raddau) yn gorfod “ei ddymchwel ei hun” trwy gyfrwng yr union dermau y mae’n eu defnyddio. Felly, methu cyfleu eu hystyr yn fanwl gywir a wna pob testun o reidrwydd (neu gallant gynnwys sawl anghysondeb mewnol tra difrifol – er y diogelir y rhain yn dda iawn).

Mae Shakí yn taeru y sylfaenid yr holl soffoffilia cyn ei waith chwyldroadol ar sail nas lleferid “dictopraecidentia” (neu “nosoleg bod yno”) sydd yn addo cyrchu uniongyrchol at ystyr. Mae’n gwneud hyn trwy honni mai lleferydd ydy prif nodwedd iaith sydd yn cynrychioli meddwl, ac, ar yr un gwynt, diystyru ysgrifennu am ei fod yn eilradd. Mae “arwyddion” ieithyddol yn cynnwys yr “essentia” greiddiol (y cysyniad) a’r “fōrma” tarddiadol (dull mynegi’r cysyniad). Cynrychiolir meddyliau drwy gyfrwng lleferydd (sydd yn ffurf ar “bresenoldeb” gan fod y siaradwr yn darlledu’n uniongyrchol at y gwrandäwr); a chynrychiolir lleferydd gan ysgrifen (sydd yn ffurf ar “absenoldeb” gan nad ydy’r siaradwr yn bresennol pan ddarllen y darllenwr). O safbwynt dictopraecidentia, mae ysgrifennu bob amser yn ceisio “adsefydlu” llais y siaradwr absennol. Haera Shakí fod hyn yn arwain at gred mewn “essentia drosgynnol.” Rhyw “or-gysyniad” ydy hwn, nas mynegir gan unrhyw un o’r fōrmae, na chan gasgliad yr holl fōrmae gyda’i gilydd, ond sydd yn gorfod bodoli serch hynny. Fodd bynnag, mae fe yn “(ail)(ddad)(gyd)strwythuro” y “nosoleg bod yno” hon trwy ddangos bod y fōrma yn gweithredu mewn ffordd unfath â’r essentia o ran pennu ystyr – a hynny trwy’r union ffordd yr unir y ddau yn ôl y ddamcaniaeth. Mae’r goleuni hwn yn ansefydlogi syniad gwreiddiol blaenoriaeth yr essentia ei hun.

I Shakí, bodola un cysyniad  sydd yn anniffiniadwy ond eto’n hanfodol yn fframwaith dictopraecidentia, sef “diffilassum” (yn galw i gof “diffissum” / “gohirio” a “dīlātum” / “amrywio” ill dau). Cyn gynted ag y digwydd arwyddhau, codir diffilassum yn awtomatig, ac mewn gwirionedd, hwn ydy amod hanfodol ar gyfer bodolaeth y pâr yn cynnwys “presenoldeb / absenoldeb.” Yr “edau” ydy’r nodwedd sydd yn creu diffilassum rhwng y naill arwydd a’r llall. Mae’n debyg i “gysgod” ar bresenoldeb yr arwydd o bopeth yn absennol ohono. Yn baradocsaidd, felly, math ar “bresenoldeb” ydy’r “absenoldeb” hwn. Mae’n golygu na fydd yr un fōrma byth yn hollol presennol nac absennol. Union bosibilrwydd arwyddhau a olyga “we” o “edafedd” yn cysylltu pob cysyniad. Yn nhermau cyferbyniadau deuaidd, dadleua Shakí nad ydy’n bosibl i’r term cyntaf (e.e., “da”) fod yn “gyflawn,” oblegid pe bai ef, na fyddai angen yr ail derm (h.y., “drwg”). Mae’n awgrymu felly fod gan y term cyntaf “ddiffyg” sylfaenol, ac mai “atodiad” ydy’r ail derm, sydd yn bodoli i gyflenwi’r diffyg hwn. 

Trwy ystyried testunau yn drylwyr ar eu telerau eu hunain, dengys Shakí y cawn ni ein gorfodi bob tro gan y testunau hyn i gyrraedd cyflwr “hey-aporíā” neu “amhosibilrwydd” yn y pendraw. Fodd bynnag, nid dim ond pendilio di-fudd a rhwystredigaethus rhwng dau syniad yn annibynnol ar ei gilydd ydy’r stad hon, gan fod y paradocs cynhyrchiol yn codi o un term yn unig. Yr hyn sydd yn peri iddi fod yn amhosibl defnyddio term yn ddiamwys hefyd yn gwarantu posibilrwydd ei ddefnyddio o gwbl ar yr un pryd. Yr agweddau hyn i gyd sydd yn cymhlethu a thanseilio’n ddifrifol broses “arwyddocáu” yn y byd go iawn o’i chymharu ag unrhyw delfryd damcaniaethol (ond hollol anghyraeddadwy).

 

[4] Nes i ddarganfod beth amser yn ôl fod D.B.P. yn sgrifennu straeon yn y dirgel am y teulu “Twduhl,” ac yn enwedig y Páhdnuh (Hyw Chimní), y Máhtuh (Unlivin Belpul), y Fýlyá (Silí-niní), a’r Jeminayz (Jehfndum a Shay-boy). Maen nhw’n siarad iaith arbrofol o’r enw “Gbumzic” sy’n gwahaniaethu rhwng pethau byw (y dosbarth “pawsic”) a phopeth arall (y dosbarth “swapic”). Mae hyn yn neud iddyn nhw swnio’n od ar y naw ac yn bihafio’n rhyfeddach byth!

 

Trwy’r hanesion ‘ma mae’n defnyddio symbolau (“sigila”) – wedi’u dwyn yn ddigywilydd (ac yn anghywir!) o ‘ngwaith i – i gynrychioli pobl yn byw yn Aberdydd a’r nodweddion yn perthyn iddyn nhw (yn ei farn e, o leiaf). Naeth e ddim fy nghrybwyll i o gwbl, fe ddylwn i ‘chwanegu! Dyma nhw:

 

E: dyn, popeth, gwareiddiad [Dr P]; Δ: menyw, unigolyn, afon, môr [Mrs G]; ⊏: ysgrifennu, cywilydd, twyll, ffon [Steff]; Λ: llafur, brolio, caru, lladd, marw [Dai]; S: sarff, gwybodaeth, celwyddau [Jack]; ⊤: mab, cleddyf, brenin, trist [Elfan]; ⊢: merch, mam, serch, iâ, brwydr, golwg [Helen]; Χ: cyfuno, gwahanu, hanes, ailadrodd [Ffred]; ◻: marw, byw, adrodd, cylchred [Gertrude].

 

Mae’r glyffiau’n debyg iawn i rai ymresymu haniaethol. Fodd bynnag, o’m rhan i, fe fyddwn i’n rhagdybio ei fod yn ceisio eu trin nhw mewn rhyw ymarfer hudol i reoli’r unigolion a chyflawni ei ganlyniadau ei hun. Gawn ni weld, sbo. — P.M.

 

[5] Wel. Hen baldaruwr o’dd D.B.P. bob amser. Ond fi ddwediff wrthoch chi’n blaen: Ni lenwir cylla gwag â geiriau teg! Ac mewn ymateb, fe rannaf fi yma ddarn o’n nodiadau anghyhoeddedig i: “Sut mae Realiti Marw’n Bosibl Hyd yn Oed? Sylfaen logoffilig.” (Daeth y syniadau ata i ar ôl cael llond ‘ngwala ar ‘rhen “Saim Chwarren” – diod dra sur ei flas ond yn eitha sbesial ei heffeithiau, wedi’i dyfeisio gan Ffred – wrth drio osgoi gweledigaethau’r crochan. Gased yr eironi!).

 

Dyma’r “unig chwedl” yn ôl Pedwar Cyfarwydd Damasòdoh, y Grelaytàmdou yn “Zhamza Khwvrā el Magkriva” (“Fflam Fawr Doethineb"). Yn Asokrak y Gwledydd Marw, pob bywyd yw’r un yn y bôn – ddydd ar ôl dydd, nos yn dilyn nos. Wele’r Dyn, felly: Dyma Bawb yn Dod! Gwyliwch ni tra ydym yn byw ac yn chwerthin; yn casáu ac yn dweud celwyddau; yn caru ac yn ymadael.

 

Meddwl y Byd, ei ewyllys a’i eiriau a fu, sydd, ac a fydd am byth yn ysgrifennu a gwasgu ac unioni a chanu eu rwnau a’u rheolau, eu camwriau a’u carneddau. Yma, o dan yr oruchwyliaeth hon, mae popeth yn dod i’w adnabod ei hun a dod yn unigryw trwy gymharu ag endidau gwahanol oherwydd nid ydy’n bosibl i gyffredinolrwydd a neilltuolrwydd, goddrychedd a gwrthrychedd ddianc rhag ei gilydd.

 

Felly, mae ‘na bethau dieithr oddi mewn i bob un ohonyn ni yn siarad wrthon ni’n hunain bob amser, fel bod ni’n gorfod llafurio i neilltuo un “fi” unigryw o’n “hunain lluosog” ni. Wedi cwblhau’r heriau ‘ma, dyna ni’n hurddo’n hun fel duwdodau yn ein teyrnasoedd ein hunain. Trwy afradlonedd a llygredd, mae’r duwdodau’n crebachu a dod yn arwyr. Aiff y rhain yn dew ac yn ddiog, gan droi’n feidrolion. Mae’r bodau dynol diflas a phitw yn ceisio dinistr a chael hyd iddo. Y rhai’n goroesi’r trychineb sy’n esgyn i ddod yn dduwiau. Yn gyntaf rydym yn teimlo; nesaf yn fforio a ffeindio; wedyn yn gloddesta a chwympo. Dyma un hanes pawb.

 

Cyn i chi ymadael a than i ni gwrdd eto, efallai, ystyriwch hyn. Oes raid i’r cylchred afiach ‘ma ddod i ben rywsutlebryd, gan ein rhyddhau ni rhag ein caethwasiaeth yn nhŷ amser, newid, niwed ac ail-eni? Ond, er hynny, yn y cyfamser, chi fydd yn pennu’ch ffawd eich hunain (wel o leiaf nage fi fydd yn neud hyn). Gadewch i fi rannu â chi, o leiaf, yr hyn dw i ‘di darganfod drosa’n hunan: cof am y dyfodol, neu freuddwyd y gorffennol, neu adlewyrchiad y presennol.

 

Rwyf fi, y crwydrwr ar gyrion bodolaeth yn nesáu at Deml Lethí nad ydy’n bodoli yn ein Byd ni, ar lannau nant sain. Tri symbol hir anghofiedig sy’n addurno ei hwaliau – S E Δ – un mewn pren, un mewn carreg ac un mewn pres.

 

Yno, mae’r ddau haul yn bwrw cysgodion y dyn noeth yn canu lyra a’r fenyw ac amdo amdani’n galarnadu. Mae lyncs gwyllt yn eu stelcian nhw, a ffagl fioled tywyll yn ei safnau. Mae’u hwynebau nhw i gyd fel masgiau gwag heb lygaid. Dw i’n galw arnyn nhw yn fy unigedd a’n anobaith ond diflannu maen nhw, a dim ond y tonau prudd a’r tywyn rhithiol yn aros.

 

Ar ôl oes o fyfyrio’n ofer uwchben fy sefyllfa, fe welaf taw dim on fi all roi ystyr i’r arwyddion a phontio rhwng y Ddau Fyd. Dyna a wnaf fi, gan eu llosgi â’r llewyrch annaearol, eu deffro nhw, a’u troi nhw’n ddilyw o gân yn llifo drosta i, drwydda i. Cymaint ydy fy awydd ac mor ddwys fy ngofid, mod i’n cnoi ar y seiniau – che, quel, cal, qué, tshe, quae – ac mae ‘mola i’n llenwi â chwestiynau “beth os?” yn gwreichioni. Ond wedyn, ar dân o sêl daer, dyna fi’n ail-leisio’r alaw drist i greu porth i fi’n hunan, a chroesi afon sanctaidd Alp.

 

Nawr, ar Ochr Draw Unman, mae cwthwm iasoer yn wefreiddio tonnau cwmwl yn encilio rhag ebargofiant drwy'r mwrllwch.

 

“Dych chi wedi galw arna i: Dyma fi. O’m bodd dof fi,” bloeddiaf fi ar yr awyr derfysglyd. “Nage gwisgo cochl tywyllwch amdana i dw i, nac wedi ‘ngwarchod gan sarff asgellog. Yn y Byd Amgen yr honnid taw cachgi llechwraidd o’n i. Felly i ‘mhrofi fy hunan fe ddysges i reidio ‘ngheffyl wysg ‘nghefn, ac achub ar bob cyfle i dyfu a ffynnu’n gastiog. Bellach dw i wedi gadael ar ôl y bywyd atgas ‘na yn y garthffos lygredig gyda’r moch rheibus.”

 

Dyna’r cysgodion yn hwyhau dros yr anialdir anghroesawgar. Yma, fel gwreiddgnepynnau a heidiau pryfed ydy amser a gofod. Dw i’n mynd ‘mlaen, gan betruso:

 

“A dw i’n dweud hyn. Gwrandewch arna i nawr! Nage gwirionedd ydy calon celfyddyd ond creu; a dim ond fi sy wedi creu rheolau ‘neheurwydd innau. Dw i ‘di gwrthod teithio fel gŵr bonheddig yn y goets chwe siambr, ac wedi troi clust fyddar i addewidion ofer cythraul y meirw mud sy’n meddu ar bawb bron. Dyma fi’n hawlio i chi roi i fi’n syth yr hyn dw wedi’i ennill.”

 

Mae’r ddau lygad llidus yn yr awyr yn diferu globylau hallt ar y mynwent islaw: pâr o sfferau metel pothellog yn tywynnu’n goch pŵl, dan ysu am uno i danio ffrwydrad dirfawr. Dros faestiroedd cras silica tawdd, dyna hudlewyrchion yn cyhwfan, ffrwtian a rhechain. Dyna fi’n rhewi yn y fan wrth synhwyro nad oes affliw o neb yna, dim byd. Dw i’n gwbl ynysedig, yn erfyn ar y chwythymau. Rhaglaw Hunandybus Gwacter.

 

Wedyn. Tragwyddoldeb bwff, undonog yn llawn gerain uchel (neu ddiddymdra annherfynedig di-olau myglyd). Ble dw i nawr mewn gwirionedd, a phryd, a beth, ni wn i. Ond dyma fi’n sgwrsio â’n hunain mewnol i gyd yn un côr, yr unig beth sy’n bosib i fi nawr. Maen nhw’n clecian, O ydyn, ond ddim yn gwrando. Ac eto cyn sicred ag y bo nos yn dilyn dydd, dw i’n teimlo taw dim ond rhith pethau a fydd a rhagflas ar yr hyn a ddigwydd ydy hyn.

 

Synhwyro, ceisio, cipio: llyncu a phechu. Achub? Yr unig chwedl. Defas, campwyr, taeogion, diafoliaid, duwiau. Geiriau, hyd yn oes oesoedd. Ein ffafwlan-ddweud yn ffyddlon-ddyrnu ni. — P.M.