Baruch SpinozaБенедикт Спиноза

The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. Tractatus theologico-politicus (1670), ch. IV; Ethica (1677), Part V, Proposition 20, Scholium; Tractatus de intellectus emendatione (1677), § 10, TTP ch. IV, from "atque adeo tota nostra cognitio" to the four properties of the divine law (Elwes's sentences 29–48); Ethics V, prop. 20, schol.; TIE § 10.

Joined from three works. Paragraph 1 is the Scholium to Ethics V, prop. 20 (the related block). Paragraph 2 is On the Improvement of the Understanding, § 10: "Sed amor erga rem aeternam et infinitam sola laetitia pascit animum, ipsaque omnis tristitiae est expers ; quod valde est desiderandum totisque viribus quaerendum." (sources/spinoza-latin-wikisource/tie.html; Elwes: "But love towards a thing eternal and infinite feeds the mind wholly with joy, and is itself unmingled with any sadness, wherefore it is greatly to be desired and sought for with all our strength.", sources/spinoza-tie-elwes/pg1016.txt). Paragraphs 3 to 6 follow the Theological-Political Treatise, ch. IV, in order, with cuts. Changes: in paragraph 1 Spinoza's "chiefly" (potissimum) becomes «только» (only), "many variations" (multis variationibus) becomes «бесконечным изменениям» (endless changes), and the statement becomes a question and its answer. In paragraph 2 love of the eternal "feeds the mind with joy alone, and is itself free of all sadness"; Tolstoy: «дает нашей душе чистую радость» (gives our soul pure joy). In paragraph 3 Spinoza's most perfect man is he who "loves above all the intellectual knowledge of God, the most perfect being" (qui Dei, entis nimirum perfectissimi, intellectualem cognitionem supra omnia amat); Tolstoy's is he who «будет любить совершеннейшее существо, т. е. бога» (will love the most perfect being, that is, God): the love of God takes the place of the love of the knowledge of God. In paragraph 4 the means "can be called commands of God" (jussa Dei vocari possunt) becomes «могут и должны быть признаны заповедями божиими» (can and must be recognized as God's commandments), and "the knowledge and love of God is the ultimate end" becomes «чтобы любовь к нему была конечной целью» (that love of him be the final end). Spinoza's mind (mens) is «душа» (soul): "quatenus in nostra mente existit" becomes «поскольку он существует в нашей душе». In paragraph 5 those who know they have nothing better than intellect and a sound mind "will judge these things most solid" (solidissima judicabunt); Tolstoy: «не могут так думать» (cannot think so). In paragraph 6 Tolstoy leaves out Adam from the second property ("we can conceive it equally in Adam as in any other man") and Spinoza's remarks on the use of histories, and renders "the bondage of the flesh, that is, an inconstant and wavering mind" (carnis servitutem, sive animum inconstantem, et fluctuantem) as «рабство тела и души, всегда переменчивой и всегда смятенной» (the bondage of body and soul, ever changeable and ever troubled). The rest is close. Tolstoy's diary, as the Jubilee vol. 42 commentary quotes it: «Спинозу прочел и выбрал» (11 December 1904) and «вписал Спинозу» (22 December). The edition or translation he read is not named. Elwes's English of the Ethics passage is in sources/spinoza-ethics-elwes/pg3800.txt.

The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. Ethica (1677), Part V, Proposition 19, Ethics V, prop. 19 (Latin Wikisource, from Appuhn's edition of 1913); Elwes, Part V, Prop. XIX.

Spinoza's proposition, with a word and a sentence added. Spinoza: “He who loves God cannot strive that God should love him in return” (Qui Deum amat, conari non potest, ut Deus ipsum contra amet); Tolstoy: «Кто истинно любит бога, тот не будет стремиться к тому, чтобы бог любил его» (he who truly loves God will not strive that God love him), and then «Ему достаточно самому любить бога» (it is enough for him himself to love God), which has no counterpart in the proposition or its demonstration (which argues that such a striving would be a wish that God be not God, and so a wish for pain). The added «истинно» (truly) matches the «recht» (rightly) of Goethe's paraphrase in Dichtung und Wahrheit (related block), “Wer Gott recht liebt, muß nicht verlangen, daß Gott ihn wieder liebe” (he who loves God rightly must not ask that God love him in return); whether Tolstoy knew the line through Goethe is not known.

The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. Ethica (1677), Part V, Proposition 29, Scholium, Ethics V, prop. 29, schol. (Latin Wikisource, from Appuhn's edition of 1913); Elwes, Part V, Prop. XXIX, Note.

Spinoza's first sentence, closely, and his second replaced. Kept: things are conceived by us as actual in two ways, either as existing in relation to a certain time and place, or as contained in God and following from the necessity of the divine nature; Tolstoy writes «наблюдаем» (observe) and «думаем» (think) where Spinoza has “concipimus” (we conceive) for both. Replaced: Spinoza goes on that what we conceive in the second way as true or real we conceive under the form of eternity (sub æternitatis specie), and that their ideas involve the eternal and infinite essence of God; Tolstoy's second sentence is «Такими предметами мы признаем всё духовное» (as such things we recognize all that is spiritual), which has no counterpart in the scholium. Hence the signature «По Спинозе» (after Spinoza). The scholium closes Spinoza's argument that the mind conceives things under the form of eternity only by conceiving the body's essence so. How Tolstoy read Spinoza was not found.

The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. Ethica (1677), Part IV, Proposition 67, Ethics IV, prop. 67 and its demonstration (Latin text ed. G. Gentile, Bari 1915); Elwes, Part IV, Prop. LXVII.

Spinoza's proposition, changed: “a free man thinks of nothing less than of death, and his wisdom is a meditation not of death but of life” (Homo liber de nulla re minus quam de morte cogitat; et ejus sapientia non mortis, sed vitae meditatio est). Tolstoy writes «Разумный человек» (the rational man) for “Homo liber” (the free man), using the gloss of Spinoza's demonstration, where the free man is the one “who lives by the dictate of reason alone” (qui ex solo rationis dictamine vivit); and «думает больше о жизни, чем о смерти» (thinks more about life than about death) for “thinks of nothing less than of death”, joining the proposition's two clauses into one comparison. How the line reached Tolstoy was not found. The Gentile scan garbles the proposition's last words, so its second clause is shown from the demonstration.

The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. Tractatus theologico-politicus (1670), ch. XIV, TTP ch. XIV (Latin Wikisource); Elwes, A Theologico-Political Treatise, ch. XIV, §§ 15–18.

Three sentences of Spinoza's, one between them left out, the rest kept closely with small changes. Left out: that there is no need to heap up the texts of Scripture that commend obedience, and the clause that Scripture teaches what each must do to obey God “very clearly in a great many places”. Changed: “nihil praeter simplicem fidem continet” (contains nothing but simple faith) becomes «содержит простую веру» (contains a simple faith), without “nothing but”; “Deo obedire” (to obey God) becomes «послушание его закону» (obedience to his law); “ex Dei mandato” (by God's command) before loving one's neighbor as oneself is left out; “secundum legem beatus” (blessed according to the law) becomes «быть счастливым в исполнении закона» (to be happy in fulfilling the law); and “odio habet, vel negligit” (hates or neglects) becomes «презирать и ненавидеть» (to despise and hate). Kept: the whole law consists in this one thing, love towards one's neighbor; he who hates his neighbor is rebellious and obstinate («впасть в возмущение и упорство»). How Tolstoy read Spinoza was not found.

The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. Letter to Henry Oldenburg, late 1675 (Ep. 73 in Van Vloten and Land's numbering), Opera quae supersunt omnia, ed. C. H. Bruder, vol. II (Leipzig, 1844), Ep. XXI, pp. 195–196; Elwes, The Chief Works, vol. II, Letter XXI (LXXIII).

Spinoza's answer to Oldenburg's third question, its two sentences kept with one turn made stronger. Spinoza: “dico, ad salutem non esse omnino necesse, Christum secundum carnem noscere; sed de aeterno illo filio Dei … longe aliter sentiendum” (I say it is not altogether necessary for salvation to know Christ according to the flesh; but of that eternal son of God … one must think far otherwise). Tolstoy: «Нельзя сказать, чтобы для спасения души было безусловно необходимо признавать Христа во плоти; но для спасения души безусловно необходимо признавать сына божия» (one cannot say it is absolutely necessary for the soul's salvation to recognize Christ in the flesh; but for the soul's salvation it is absolutely necessary to recognize the son of God): Spinoza's guarded “far otherwise” becomes “absolutely necessary”, “noscere” (to know) becomes «признавать» (to recognize), and salvation becomes the soul's. Kept: the son of God is God's eternal wisdom, which has shown itself in all things, chiefly in the human mind («в душе человека», in the soul of man), and most of all in Jesus Christ; without it no one can reach the state of blessedness, since it alone teaches what is true and false, good and evil. Tolstoy has the wisdom «проявляется» (shows itself) in all things and «проявилась» (showed itself) in Jesus, where Spinoza has one past tense, “manifestavit”. Bruder's text crosses a page and a footnote after “bonum”, so the second excerpt stops there; its OCR reads “lesu” for “Iesu”. Elwes's English is from the 1898 reprint of his second edition (first edition 1884); its OCR reads “lalse” for “false”. How Tolstoy read Spinoza was not found.

The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. Ethica ordine geometrico demonstrata (1677), Part V, Proposition 42, Ethics V, prop. 42 (Latin text ed. G. Gentile, Bari 1915).

The first half of the proposition ("Blessedness is not the reward of virtue, but virtue itself"), reduced to "happiness, true happiness, is virtue itself": the contrast with reward, which is the point, is dropped, and the second half (we do not rejoice in it because we restrain our lusts, but can restrain them because we rejoice in it) is left out. Beatitudo is rendered «счастье», said twice for emphasis.