16Aprilапреля · 16-е апреля
Признание достоинства человека в себе и других несовместимо ни с подчинением, ни с покровительством, ни с благодетельствованием одного человека другому.
Recognizing the dignity of the human being in oneself and in others is incompatible with one person’s submitting to another, patronizing another, or bestowing benefits on another.
1. Всякий человек может требовать уважения к себе и точно так же должен уважать ближнего.
Ни один человек не может быть ни орудием, ни целью. В этом состоит его достоинство. И как он не может располагать собою ни за какую цену (что было бы противно его достоинству), так же не имеет он права отступать от обязательного, равного уважения ко всем людям, т. е. он обязан в действительности признавать достоинство человеческого звания в каждом человеке и потому должен выражать это уважение по отношению к каждому человеку.
1. Every man may demand respect for himself, and in just the same way he must respect his neighbor.
No man can be either an instrument or an end. Therein lies his dignity. And as he cannot dispose of himself at any price (which would be contrary to his dignity), so he has no right to depart from the obligatory, equal respect for all men; that is, he is bound in actual fact to recognize the dignity of the human station in every man, and must therefore show this respect toward every man.
Kant.
From Die Metaphysik der Sitten, II: Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Tugendlehre · reworded by Tolstoy .
What changedThat man is to be used by no one “as a mere instrument, but is always to be regarded as an end” becomes “No man can be either an instrument or an end”: “mere” is lost, and the end Kant requires is denied; “equal” is added to the respect owed to all.
Original · GermanEin jeder Mensch hat rechtmäßigen Anspruch auf Achtung von seinen Nebenmenschen, und wechselseitig ist er dazu auch gegen jeden anderen verbunden.
Die Menschheit selbst ist eine Würde; denn der Mensch kann von keinem Menschen (weder von anderen noch sogar von sich selbst) bloß als Mittel, sondern muß jederzeit zugleich als Zweck gebraucht werden, und darin besteht eben seine Würde (die Persönlichkeit), dadurch er sich über alle anderen Weltwesen, die nicht Menschen sind und doch ‚gebraucht werden können, mithin über alle Sachen erhebt.
Gleichwie er also sich selbst für keinen Preis weggeben kann (welches der Pflicht der Selbstschätzung widerstreiten würde), …
… d.i. er ist verbunden, die Würde der Menschheit an jedem anderen Menschen praktisch anzuerkennen; …
Source text: archive.orgIn English · J. W. Semple, 1836Every man may justly pretend to be reverenced by his fellows, and he ought in turn to accord to them his.
… neither by others nor by himself, as a mere instrument, but is always to be regarded as an end ; …
And as he cannot dispose of himself for any price (which would be subversive of his own self-reverence), neither is he at liberty to derogate from the equally necessary self-reverence of others as men, …
Source text: archive.orgDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. Die Metaphysik der Sitten, II: Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Tugendlehre (1797), § 38, Akademie-Ausgabe vol. VI, p. 462; Vorländer's ed. (Philosophische Bibliothek 42, Leipzig 1907), p. 321; Semple (1871), Sec. 38, pp. 281–282.
Kant's section, shortened and changed. Kept: every man may rightly claim respect from his fellow men and is bound to respect every other; as he cannot give himself away for any price, he may not act against the respect due to others, and is bound to recognize the dignity of humanity in every other man in practice. Changed: Kant's “man can be used by no man (neither by others nor even by himself) merely as a means, but must always be used at the same time as an end, and in this his dignity consists” (bloß als Mittel, sondern muß jederzeit zugleich als Zweck gebraucht werden) becomes «Ни один человек не может быть ни орудием, ни целью. В этом состоит его достоинство» (no man can be either an instrument or an end; in this his dignity consists): “merely” is lost and the end, which Kant requires, is denied; Kant's “duty of self-esteem” (Pflicht der Selbstschätzung) becomes «его достоинству» (his dignity); “the equally necessary self-esteem of others as men” becomes «обязательного, равного уважения ко всем людям» (the obligatory, equal respect for all people), adding “equal”; and «звания» (rank, calling) is added to “the dignity of humanity”. Left out: that by his dignity man raises himself above all other beings in the world, which can be used, and so above all things. Not in Richter's Kant-Aussprüche (searched for Nebenmenschen, Mittel, Würde); how it reached Tolstoy is not known. Semple's translation was first printed in 1836; the saved text is Calderwood's edition of 1871.
2. В своих рассуждениях о благе трудящихся представители власти впадают в тон снисходительного покровительства. Людей, сознающих истинное достоинство труда, этот тон оскорбляет более, чем могло бы их оскорбить открыто выраженное презрение. Во всех изъявлениях их сочувствия слышится признание, что нищета есть естественное состояние трудящихся, в которое они должны впадать всюду, где им благосклонно не покровительствуют. Никто и вида не показывает, чтобы землевладельцы или капиталисты нуждались в покровительстве. Они, говорят нам, могут сами позаботиться о себе; лишь бедным рабочим надо покровительствовать.
2. In their discourses on the good of the working people, those in authority fall into a tone of condescending patronage. People who are conscious of the true dignity of labor are offended by this tone more than they could be offended by openly expressed contempt. In all their expressions of sympathy one hears the admission that poverty is the natural condition of the working people, into which they must sink wherever they are not graciously patronized. No one gives the least sign of thinking that landowners or capitalists need patronage. They, we are told, can take care of themselves; it is only the poor workers who must be patronized.
From Protection or Free Trade · reworded by Tolstoy .
What changedGeorge’s “protectionist professions of concern for labor” become the discourses of “those in authority” on the good of the working people, so the tone of patronage is laid on those who govern; “it is always assumed” becomes “we are told.”
Henry George’s own wordsThere runs through protectionist professions of concern for labor a tone of condescending patronage more insulting to men who feel the true dignity of labor than frankly expressed contempt could be — an assumption that pauperism is the natural condition of labor, to which it must everywhere fall unless benevolently protected.
It is never intimated that the land-owner or the capitalist needs protection.
They, it is always assumed, can take care of themselves.
Source text: archive.orgDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. Protection or Free Trade (1886), ch. II 'Clearing Ground', ch. II, p. 23 of the London printing of 1890 (Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner), the paragraph after the one on the 'protection' of the masses.
Changed in whom it speaks of. George's 'protectionist professions of concern for labor' become the reasonings of 'the representatives of power' about the welfare of the workers (В своих рассуждениях о благе трудящихся представители власти), so the tone of patronage is laid on those who govern. Otherwise close: the tone of condescending patronage, more insulting to those who feel the true dignity of labour than open contempt; pauperism taken for the natural condition of labour unless 'benevolently protected'; no one supposes that landowners or capitalists need protection; only the poor workingman must be protected. 'It is always assumed' becomes 'we are told' (говорят нам). In the Circle this paragraph comes first and George's paragraph before it second (4-16.3). The Jubilee list names S. D. Nikolaev's Russian, «Покровительство отечественной промышленности или свобода торговли?» (Posrednik, 1904). No printable.
Translation note. «Покровительство» means both “patronage” and “protection”, and the English follows Henry George: “patronage” here, as in his own words, and “protection” in entry 3.
3. Покровительство массам во все времена было предлогом к насилию — оправданием монархии, аристократии и преимуществ разного рода. Но есть ли хоть один пример в истории мира, когда, при монархическом ли, при республиканском ли правлении, покровительство рабочим массам не означало бы их угнетения? Покровительство, какое оказывали трудящимся люди, державшие в своих руках законодательную власть, в лучших случаях было лишь покровительством, какое человек оказывает скотине. Он покровительствует ей, чтобы пользоваться затем ее силой и мясом.
3. The protection of the masses has in all ages been a pretext for violence — the justification of monarchy, of aristocracy, and of privileges of every kind. But is there a single example in the history of the world when, whether under monarchical or under republican government, the protection of the working masses has not meant their oppression? The protection extended to the working people by those who held the lawmaking power in their hands has at best been only the protection that a man extends to cattle. He protects them so as to make use of their strength and their flesh afterward.
From Protection or Free Trade · reworded by Tolstoy .
What changed“The pretense of tyranny” becomes “a pretext for violence,” and George’s examples, slavery and British rule in Ireland, are left out.
Henry George’s own wordsThe protection of the masses has in all times been the pretense of tyranny — the plea of monarchy, of aristocracy, of special privilege of every kind.
But, whether under a monarchy or under a republic, is there an instance in the history of the world in which the " protection " of the laboring masses has not meant their oppression ?
The protection that those who have got the law-making power into their hands have given to labor, has at best always been the protection that man gives to cattle — he protects them that he may use and eat them.
Source text: archive.orgDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. Protection or Free Trade (1886), ch. II 'Clearing Ground', ch. II, p. 23 of the London printing of 1890 (Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner), on the word 'protection'.
Shortened, with one word changed in sense. George's 'the pretense of tyranny' becomes 'a pretext for violence' (предлогом к насилию). Tolstoy leaves out George's two examples: the slave owners who 'justified slavery as protecting the slaves', and British misrule in Ireland, 'upheld on the ground that it is for the protection of the Irish'. 'He protects them that he may use and eat them' becomes 'He protects it in order then to use its strength and its meat' (силой и мясом). The rest is close. In the Circle this paragraph follows George's next one (4-16.2). No printable.
4. Самые ничтожные мелочи содействуют образованию характера.
Не говори, что мелочи — пустяки. Только истинно нравственный человек видит всю значительность мелочей.
4. The most insignificant small things help to form character.
Do not say that small things are trifles. Only a truly moral person sees the full significance of small things.
5. Есть верующие люди, которые имеют обычай кланяться в ноги перед каждым человеком, с которым они входят в сношение. Они говорят, что делают это потому, что в каждом человеке живет дух божий. Как ни странен этот обычай, основание его глубоко истинно.
5. There are believers who have the custom of bowing to the ground before every person with whom they have dealings. They say they do this because the spirit of God lives in every person. Strange as this custom is, its ground is deeply true.
6. Человек робок и всё выпрашивает себе снисхождения. Он едва отваживается сказать: я есмь, я мыслю.
6. Man is timid and is forever begging indulgence for himself. He hardly dares to say: I am, I think.
From Self-Reliance, in Essays, First Series · reworded by Tolstoy .
What changed“Apologetic” is spelled out as “forever begging indulgence for himself,” “he dares not say” becomes “He hardly dares to say,” and Emerson’s “‘I think,’ ‘I am’” is turned round: “I am, I think.” †
† An intermediate translation may have made this change.
Emerson’s own wordsMan is timid and apologetic; he is no longer upright; he dares not say ‘I think,’ ‘I am,’ but quotes some saint or sage.
Source text: gutenberg.orgDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. Self-Reliance, in Essays, First Series (1841), After 'The centuries are conspirators against the sanity and authority of the soul'.
'Man is timid and apologetic' becomes 'Man is timid and keeps begging indulgence for himself' (всё выпрашивает себе снисхождения); 'he is no longer upright' is left out; 'he dares not say' becomes 'he hardly dares to say' (едва отваживается), and Emerson's 'I think,' 'I am' are given the other way round, 'I am, I think' (я есмь, я мыслю). Tolstoy stops before 'but quotes some saint or sage'. No printable. The Jubilee list names two Russian Emerson selections, Nakashidze's «Высшая душа» (Posrednik, 1902) and «О доверии к себе» (Posrednik, 1904), and two English ones, Garnett's Passages (1902) and Broadbent's An Emerson's Treasury (1903); none was found online, so whether a change is Tolstoy's or a translator's cannot be told.
Человек, служа другому, должен знать, что он не подчиняется, не покровительствует, не благодетельствует, а исполняет свою обязанность — не перед человеком, а перед вечным законом.
When we serve another, we must know that we are not submitting, not patronizing, not bestowing benefits, but fulfilling our duty — not to a person, but to the eternal law.
Tolstoy TodayТолстой сегодня · tolstoytoday.org/april/16