14Aprilапреля · 14-е апреля
Не может быть благоустройства в обществе, разделенном на богатых — властвующих — и бедных — повинующихся.
There can be no good order in a society divided into the rich, who rule, and the poor, who obey.
1. Нужно сознаться, что мы с нашим поклонением маммоне пришли к странным заключениям. Мы говорим, что живем в обществе и, между тем, открыто проповедуем полнейшее разделение и крайнюю обособленность. Наша жизнь представляет не картину взаимной помощи, а поприще взаимной вражды, прикрытую строго точными законами войны, под именем честного соперничества и т. п. Мы совсем забыли то, что все междучеловеческие отношения не сводятся к плате наличными деньгами. «Что мне за дело до умирающих с голода рабочих? — говорит богатый фабрикант. — Разве я открыто не нанимал их на рынке и не уплатил им до последнего гроша всё, что следовало им по уговору. Какое же мне еще дело до них?» Да, поклонение маммоне очень грустная вера. Когда Каин из собственной выгоды убил брата своего Авеля и его спросили «Где твой брат?» — он тоже отвечал: «Разве я сторож брата моего?» Так же говорит и фабрикант: «Разве я не отдал брату его плату — всё, что он заслужил?»
1. It must be confessed that we, with our worship of Mammon, have come to strange conclusions. We say that we live in society, and meanwhile we openly preach the most complete separation and the utmost isolation. Our life presents a picture, not of mutual help, but of an arena of mutual hostility, covered over by strictly exact laws of war under the name of fair competition and the like. We have quite forgotten that not all relations between human beings come down to payment in cash. “What do I care about workers dying of hunger?” says the rich manufacturer. “Did I not hire them openly in the market and pay them, to the last penny, everything that was due to them by agreement? What more have I to do with them?” Yes, the worship of Mammon is a very sad faith. When Cain killed his brother Abel for his own profit and was asked, “Where is your brother?” he too answered, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” So too says the manufacturer: “Did I not give my brother his pay — all that he had earned?”
From Past and Present · shortened by Tolstoy .
Carlyle’s own wordsTrue, it must be owned, we for the present, with our Mammon- Gospel, have come to strange conclusions. We call it a Society; and go about professing openly the totalest separation, isolation.
Our life is not a mutual helpfulness; but rather, cloaked under due laws-of-war, named 'fair competition' and so forth, it is a mutual hostility. We have profoundly forgotten everywhere that _Cash-payment_ is not the sole relation of human beings; we think, nothing doubting, that it absolves and liquidates all engagements of man.
"My starving workers?" answers the rich Mill-owner: "Did not I hire them fairly in the market? Did I not pay them, to the last sixpence, the sum covenanted for? What have I to do with them more?"--Verily Mammon-worship is a melancholy creed.
When Cain, for his own behoof, had killed Abel, and was questioned, "Where is thy brother" he too made answer, "Am I my brother's keeper?" Did I not pay my brother _his_ wages, the thing he had merited from me?
Source text: gutenberg.orgDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. Past and Present (1843), Book III 'The Modern Worker', ch. II 'Gospel of Mammonism', Book III, ch. II, after 'There is endless hope in work, were it even work at making money'.
Close sentence by sentence, with one clause left out and one phrase added. 'with our Mammon-Gospel' becomes 'with our worship of mammon'; 'We call it a Society' becomes 'We say that we live in society'; 'We have profoundly forgotten everywhere that Cash-payment is not the sole relation of human beings' becomes 'We have quite forgotten that all relations between people do not come down to payment in cash', and the clause after it, 'we think, nothing doubting, that it absolves and liquidates all engagements of man', is left out. The mill-owner's words and Cain's are kept. Carlyle's last sentence follows Cain's answer with no speaker; Tolstoy gives it one, 'So too says the mill-owner' (Так же говорит и фабрикант). Not faithful throughout, so no printable. The Jubilee list names L. P. Nikiforov's Carlyle selection «Загадка сфинкса» (1900), not found.
Translation note. Cain’s answer is from Genesis 4:9, where the KJV has “Where is Abel thy brother?”
2. Так как человек может жить лишь от земли и на земле, то, сделав землю, на которой он должен существовать, собственностью другого, мы столь же полно поработим его, как сделав собственностью другого его плоть и кровь. И в конце концов, на известной степени общественного развития, рабство, вытекающее из захвата земли, в силу того, что отношения между хозяином и рабом бывают при нем менее прямыми и явными, становится более жестоким и более развращающим, чем рабство, делающее собственностью тела людей.
2. Since man can live only from the land and on the land, by making the land on which he must exist the property of another we shall enslave him as completely as by making his flesh and blood the property of another. And in the end, at a certain stage of social development, the slavery that follows from the seizure of land, because under it the relations between master and slave tend to be less direct and evident, becomes crueler and more corrupting than the slavery that makes men’s bodies property.
From Property in Land: A Passage-at-Arms between the Duke of Argyll and Henry George · close to the original .
Henry George’s own wordsSince it is from land and on land that man must live, if he is to live at all, a human being is as completely enslaved when the land on which he must live is made the property of another as when his own flesh and blood are made the property of that other.
And at least, after a certain point in social development is reached, the slavery that results from depriving men of all legal right to land is, for the very reason that the relation between master and slave is not so direct and obvious, more cruel and more demoralizing than that which makes property of their bodies.
Source text: archive.orgDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. Property in Land: A Passage-at-Arms between the Duke of Argyll and Henry George (1884), George's 'The Reduction to Iniquity', 'The Reduction to Iniquity' (The Nineteenth Century, July 1884), p. 70 of the New York printing of 1893, on the Duke's views of negro slavery and of property in land.
A close translation of two sentences. Tolstoy turns George's passive into 'we': 'a human being is as completely enslaved when the land on which he must live is made the property of another' becomes 'by making the land on which he must live the property of another we enslave him as fully' (мы столь же полно поработим его). 'If he is to live at all' is folded into 'only' (может жить лишь от земли и на земле). 'And at least' is read as 'and at last' (И в конце концов), and 'the slavery that results from depriving men of all legal right to land' becomes 'the slavery that comes from the seizure of land' (рабство, вытекающее из захвата земли). The Jubilee list names six of George's books in S. D. Nikolaev's Russian, among them «Земельный вопрос» (1908); they were not consulted. George's two sentences are printed here; the reviewer may keep Tolstoy's version because of 'at last' and 'the seizure of land'.
3. Сколько средств, чтобы быть счастливым, сколько удобств, о которых не имели понятия наши предки! И что же, счастливы ли мы? Если малое число более счастливо, то большинство тем более несчастно. Увеличивая средства жизни для малого числа богатых, мы заставили большинство быть и считать себя несчастными. Какое может быть счастие, которое приобретается в ущерб счастию других!
3. How many means of being happy, how many comforts of which our ancestors had no idea! And what then — are we happy? If the few are happier, then the majority are all the more unhappy. By increasing the means of life for the small number of the rich, we have forced the majority to be unhappy and to think themselves unhappy. What happiness can there be that is acquired at the expense of the happiness of others!
Source not found yet .
Not found yet.
Not found. The thought (so many means of happiness unknown to our fathers, and are we happier? enlarging the means of life for the rich few has made the many unhappy) is in the vein of the Discours sur les sciences et les arts and the Préface de Narcisse, but no sentence with its wording was found in the texts searched.
Searched: Émile, Books II, III, and IV (1782 text) and Book IV (1852); Julie, Parts II, V, and VI; the Préface de Narcisse with the Dupont edition's 'Résumé de la querelle'; Masson's edition of the Profession de foi (1914) with its appendices; for «commodités», «nos pères», «plus heureux»; a web search for the French.
4. Положим, что я спас утопающего, но перед этим я выговорил у него большую часть его собственности. Тут, очевидно, услуга за услугу. Он ценит свою жизнь дороже своей собственности. Но что сказать о таком уговоре? А между тем так отбирается собственность людей, потому что миллионы людей владеют или самым малым или ничтожным, и им за их труды, т. е. за их собственность, дают средства существования.
4. Suppose I saved a drowning man, but before doing so I had made him promise me the greater part of his property. Here, evidently, it is service for service. He values his life more highly than his property. But what is to be said of such an agreement? And yet this is how people’s property is taken from them, because millions of people own either the very least or a mere trifle, and in return for their labors, that is, for their property, they are given the means of existence.
From Ethical Religion · reworded by Tolstoy .
What changedTolstoy adds that the millions are given the means of existence “in return for their labors, that is, for their property,” spelling out Salter’s point that “strength of hand and limb” is all they own; “the bare means of subsistence” loses “bare.”
What Tolstoy read · The Message of Man: A Book of Ethical Scriptures, gathered by Stanton CoitSuppose that I succour a drowning man, …
So there are those who take the possessions of men to-day ; for myriads possess little or nothing but strength of hand or limb, …
Source text: archive.orgSalter’s own wordsSuppose that I succor a drowning man, and before doing so, exact of him the greater part of his possessions.
That is undoubtedly service for service ; his life he plainly values more than his possessions.
So there are those who take the possessions of men to-day, often the entire possessions, — for myriads possess little or nothing but strength of hand and limb, — and in return give them but the bare means of subsistence.
Source text: archive.orgDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. Ethical Religion (1889), 'Does the Ethics of Jesus Satisfy?', pp. 216–217 of the Boston printing (Roberts Brothers, 1889), on the claim that the present industrial order always means 'service for service'.
Close in the first three sentences, recast in the last. Tolstoy follows Coit's abridgement, which leaves out Salter's 'often the entire possessions' and turns 'give them but the bare means of subsistence' into 'are given but the bare means' (Coit notes '"are given" sub. "give them"'). The man saved from drowning, 'service for service', and his life valued above his possessions are kept; 'what should you say of my exaction?' becomes 'what is to be said of such a bargain?' (о таком уговоре). 'So there are those who take the possessions of men to-day' becomes 'And yet this is how people's property is taken'; 'myriads possess little or nothing but strength of hand or limb' becomes 'millions own either very little or next to nothing'; and Tolstoy adds that they are given the means of subsistence 'for their labour, that is, for their property' (за их труды, т. е. за их собственность), which carries Salter's point that hand and limb are all they own. 'Bare' is left out. Coit's chapter has three verses of Ruskin just before (vv. 11–13). «Сольтер» is William Mackintire Salter, as Coit's signature shows; the Jubilee name index takes him for «Солтер Самуил (ум. 1778)», an English divine, which does not fit. No printable.
5. Бродяга есть необходимое дополнение к миллионеру.
5. The tramp is the necessary complement of the millionaire.
From Social Problems · close to the original .
Henry George’s own wordsThe tramp is the complement of the millionaire.
Consider this terrible phenomenon, the tramp — an appearance more menacing to the republic than that of hostile armies and fleets bent on destruction.
Source text: archive.orgTolstoy’s own version · Путь жизниБродяга — необходимое дополнение к миллионеру.
Source text: tolstoy.ruDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. Social Problems (1883), ch. XIII 'Unemployed Labor', Opening paragraph of ch. XIII, p. 179 of the New York printing of 1886.
Close. Tolstoy adds 'necessary' (необходимое дополнение, 'the necessary complement'). The sentence closes the chapter's opening paragraph, after 'from the same cause spring poverty and pauperism'. Tolstoy reprinted it in The Path of Life. The Jubilee list names S. D. Nikolaev's Russian, «Общественные задачи» (Posrednik, 1906). George's sentence is printed here.
6. Вы не можете основать Христова братства там, где, с одной стороны, невежество, нищета, рабство и развращенность, а с другой стороны, культура, богатство и власть мешают взаимно уважать и любить друг друга.
Иосиф Мадзини.
Быть угнетателем-господином хуже, чем быть покорным рабом. Не тяготись бедностью, тяготись излишеством.
6. You cannot found the brotherhood of Christ where, on the one side, ignorance, poverty, slavery, and depravity, and on the other, culture, wealth, and power stand in the way of mutual respect and love.
Giuseppe Mazzini.
To be an oppressor and master is worse than to be a submissive slave. Do not let poverty weigh on you; let excess weigh on you.
Если ты получаешь доход, не заработавши его, то кто-нибудь другой зарабатывает его, не получая.
If you receive an income without having earned it, then someone else is earning it without receiving it.
Source not found yet .
Not found yet.
No passage of Maimonides with this thought was found. The Jubilee name index identifies «Маймонид» as Moses ben Maimon (1135–1204), with this closing thought as his only place in the Circle (т. 41: 246). The line is not in Thoughts of Wise Men (1903).
Searched: Thoughts of Wise Men (1903) and its commentary (Jubilee vol. 40); the Jubilee vols. 41–42 (text, name index, attribution corrections); every saved source for "Maimonides" (Conway's Sacred Anthology, Coit, Southgate, Tileston among them); web searches for the English wording ("without earning it", "without receiving it"), which found it only in modern quotation pages that give no source.
Translation note. The Russian italic is broken only at the comma before «то», “then”; it is set here as one span.
Tolstoy TodayТолстой сегодня · tolstoytoday.org/april/14