3. From one to allОт одного ко всем
22 passages. Each date opens its day beside the list, with the passage marked.Отрывков: 22. Каждая дата открывает свой день рядом со списком, где отрывок отмечен.
Conway’s “Let every Brahmin” becomes “Let each one,” so a rule for the priestly caste becomes a rule for all; acts from “selfish views” become “always self-interested,” and an act done with a knowledge of God, “abstract and disinterested” in Conway, becomes the only one “worthy of him”; he who “cannot give his heart to iniquity” becomes one who “can no longer give himself up to evil thoughts.”
Original · translated by G. Bühler
acts performed without any desire (for a reward), preceded by (the acquisition) of (true) knowledge,
He who sacrifices to the Self (alone), equally recognising the Self in all created beings and all created beings in the Self, becomes (independent like) an autocrat and self-luminous.
for he who recognises the universe in the Self, does not give his heart to unrighteousness.
TolstoyТолстой
Религиозные действия, вытекающие из себялюбивых целей, как молитвы о дожде или жертва для награды в будущем мире, всегда корыстны, и только поступок, совершенный вследствие познания бога, достоин его.
Признавая высший разум во всех существах и вещах, истинный верующий приносит в жертву свой ум, направляя его к духу божьему, и приближается к природе того, кто светит своим собственным светом.
Пусть каждый внимательно рассматривает природу, видимую и невидимую, как существующую в божественном разуме, потому что, созерцая бесконечный мир в божественном разуме он не может уже отдаваться злым помыслам.
Religious acts that spring from aims of self-love, such as prayers for rain or sacrifice for a reward in the world to come, are always self-interested, and only an act performed out of the knowledge of God is worthy of him.
Recognizing the supreme reason in all beings and things, the true believer offers up his mind in sacrifice, directing it toward the spirit of God, and draws near to the nature of the one who shines with his own light.
Let each one attentively regard nature, visible and invisible, as existing in the divine reason, because, contemplating the infinite world in the divine reason, he can no longer give himself up to evil thoughts.
From Manusmriti · reworded by Tolstoy .
What Tolstoy read · The Sacred AnthologyA religious act proceeding from selfish views in this world, as a sacrifice for rain, or in the next, …
… but an act performed with a knowledge of God, and without self-love, is abstract and disinterested.
Equally perceiving the supreme mind in all beings, and all things in the supreme mind, the true worshipper sacrifices his own spirit by fixing it on the Spirit of God, and approaches the nature of the One, who shines by his own effulgence.
Let every Brahmin with fixed attention consider all nature, visible and invisible, as existing in the divine mind ; for when he contemplates the boundless universe existing in the divine mind, he cannot give his heart to iniquity.
Source text: archive.orgOriginal · Sanskritइह चामुत्र वा काम्यं प्रवृत्तं कर्म कीर्त्यते
निष्कामं ज्ञातपूर्वं तु निवृत्तं उपदिश्यते
सर्वभूतेषु चात्मानं सर्वभूतानि चात्मनि
सर्वं ह्यात्मनि संपश्यन्नाधर्मे कुरुते मनः
Source text: sa.wikisource.orgIn English · G. Bühler, 1886… acts performed without any desire (for a reward), preceded by (the acquisition) of (true) knowledge, …
He who sacrifices to the Self (alone), equally recognising the Self in all created beings and all created beings in the Self, becomes (independent like) an autocrat and self-luminous.
… for he who recognises the universe in the Self, does not give his heart to unrighteousness.
Source text: archive.orgDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. Manusmriti (Laws of Manu), XII.89, 91, 118; Conway (1874), p. 81, no. CXXXI, Theism, margin 'Hindu. Code of Manu. (Brighu.)'.
The first three paragraphs of Conway's 'Theism' (no. CXXXI), which are Manu XII.89, 91, and 118 in Sir William Jones's English (Works, 1807, vol. VIII, saved as sources/jones-works-1807-v8/; Conway's list of authorities names Jones's Works), lightly edited: Jones's 'supreme soul' is Conway's 'supreme mind', and his 'that sole divinity' Conway's 'the One'. Tolstoy changes each. (1) 'is concrete and interested; but an act performed with a knowledge of God, and without self-love, is abstract and disinterested' becomes «всегда корыстны, и только поступок, совершенный вследствие познания бога, достоин его» (are always self-seeking, and only an act done from the knowledge of God is worthy of him): 'always' and 'worthy of him' are his, 'without self-love' and the pair concrete/abstract go; 'a sacrifice for rain' becomes «молитвы о дожде» (prayers for rain). (2) 'Equally perceiving the supreme mind in all beings, and all things in the supreme mind' becomes «Признавая высший разум во всех существах и вещах» (recognizing the supreme reason in all beings and things), without the reverse half, and 'sacrifices his own spirit' becomes «приносит в жертву свой ум» (sacrifices his mind). (3) 'Let every Brahmin' becomes «Пусть каждый» (let everyone), and 'he cannot give his heart to iniquity' becomes «он не может уже отдаваться злым помыслам» (he can no longer give himself to evil thoughts). The Sanskrit has no rain and no God: 12.89 calls acts done with desire (kāmya) for this world or the next pravṛtta, and acts without desire, preceded by knowledge, nivṛtta; 12.91 says that he who sees himself in all beings and all beings in himself, sacrificing to the self, attains self-rule (svārājya), Bühler's 'an autocrat and self-luminous', Jones's 'the One, who shines by his own effulgence'; 12.118 asks every one, Bühler's '(every Brâhmana)', to see all things in the self, 'for he who recognises the universe in the Self, does not give his heart to unrighteousness'. Not in Thoughts of Wise Men (1903).
“The verdict of science,” the sentence of Amiel’s doctors on him in his last illness, becomes “our knowledge that death is inevitable,” so the hope that doubted one man’s sentence doubts the death of all, and the hope “forever springing up afresh” becomes one that “never leaves us.”
Original · translated by Mrs. Humphry Ward
Life has no sense of kinship with death. This is why, no doubt, a sort of mechanical instinctive hope is forever springing up afresh in us, troubling our reason, and casting doubt on the verdict of science.
All life is tenacious and persistent. It is like the parrot in the fable, who, at the very moment when its neck is being wrung, still repeats with its last breath: “Cela, cela, ne sera rien.”
TolstoyТолстой
Жизнь не имеет ничего общего со смертью. Поэтому-то, вероятно, никогда не оставляет нас смутная надежда, затемняющая разум и заставляющая сомневаться в верности нашего знания о неизбежности смерти. Жизнь стремится упорствовать в бытии. Она повторяет, как попугай в басне, даже в ту минуту, когда его душат: «Это, это ничего!»
Life has nothing in common with death. That is probably why a vague hope never leaves us, a hope that darkens reason and makes us doubt the truth of our knowledge that death is inevitable. Life strives to persist in being. It repeats, like the parrot in the fable, even at the moment when the bird is being strangled: “That, that’s nothing!”
From Fragments d'un journal intime · reworded by Tolstoy .
Original · FrenchLa vie ne se sent aucune parenté avec la mort. C'est pourquoi sans doute une sorte d'espérance machinale, instinctive, renaît toujours en nous pour offusquer la raison et faire douter de la sentence scientifique.
La vie tend à persévérer dans l'être. Elle répète comme le perroquet de la fable, même au moment où on l'étrangle : Cela, cela ne sera rien.
Source text: archive.orgIn English · Mrs. Humphry Ward, 1885Life has no sense of kinship with death. This is why, no doubt, a sort of mechanical instinctive hope is forever springing up afresh in us, troubling our reason, and casting doubt on the verdict of science.
All life is tenacious and persistent. It is like the parrot in the fable, who, at the very moment when its neck is being wrung, still repeats with its last breath: “Cela, cela, ne sera rien.”
Source text: gutenberg.orgTolstoy’s own version · На каждый деньЖизнь не имеет ничего общего со смертью. Поэтому-то, вероятно, всегда и возрождается в нас неосмысленная надежда, затемняющая разум и заставляющая сомневаться в верности нашего знания о неизбежности смерти.
Source text: tolstoy.ruDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. Fragments d'un journal intime, Journal, 23 janvier 1881 (7th ed., Geneva 1897, t. II, p. 319, its scan reading “2S janvier”); Ward's translation, January 23, 1881.
Amiel's four sentences, made general. Amiel, in his last illness and 'condamné à courte échéance' (condemned at short notice), writes that life feels no kinship with death, 'ne se sent aucune parenté avec la mort'; in Tolstoy life «не имеет ничего общего со смертью» (has nothing in common with death). Amiel's 'une sorte d'espérance machinale, instinctive, renaît toujours en nous pour offusquer la raison et faire douter de la sentence scientifique' (a sort of mechanical, instinctive hope is always reborn in us to cloud reason and cast doubt on the scientific verdict, his doctors' sentence on him) becomes «никогда не оставляет нас смутная надежда, затемняющая разум и заставляющая сомневаться в верности нашего знания о неизбежности смерти» (a vague hope never leaves us, darkening reason and making us doubt the truth of our knowledge that death is inevitable). The parrot's 'Cela, cela ne sera rien' (that, that will be nothing) is «Это, это ничего!» (this, this is nothing). In На каждый день (29 February, no. 4) Tolstoy kept Amiel's 'renaît toujours' closer, «всегда и возрождается в нас неосмысленная надежда» (a senseless hope is always reborn in us) (tolstoy).
“Your brother” becomes “men are your brothers.”
Original · translated by George Long
But if you go and blame your brother, I say to you, You have forgotten who you are and what is your name.
and if you have forgotten the brother and instead of a brother have become an enemy, would you appear not to have changed one thing for another in that case? And if instead of a man, who is a tame animal and social, you are become a mischievous wild beast, treacherous, and biting, have you lost nothing? But, (I suppose) you must lose a bit of money that you may suffer damage? And does the loss of nothing else do a man damage?
TolstoyТолстой
Когда ты бранишь человека и враждуешь с ним, ты забываешь, что люди — твои братья, и ты делаешься им врагом, вместо того чтобы быть их другом. Этим ты сам себе вредишь, потому что когда ты перестал быть добрым и общительным существом, каким тебя бог создал, и вместо того стал диким зверем, который подкрадывается, раздирает и губит свою жертву, — тогда ты потерял самую дорогую свою собственность. Ты чувствуешь потерю кошелька с деньгами, почему же ты не чувствуешь своего убытка, когда ты потерял свое лучшее богатство: доброту души?
When you abuse a man and are at enmity with him, you forget that men are your brothers, and you become their enemy instead of their friend. By this you harm yourself; for when you have ceased to be the kind and sociable creature God made you, and have become instead a wild beast that stalks, tears and destroys its prey, then you have lost your most precious possession. You feel the loss of a purse of money; why do you not feel your loss when you have lost your best wealth — goodness of soul?
From Discourses · reworded by Tolstoy .
Original · Ancient Greek… ἐὰν δʼ ἀπελθὼν ψέγῃς σου τὸν ἀδελφόν, λέγω σοι …
… ἐπελάθου, τίς εἶ καὶ τί σοι ὄνομα.
… εἰ δὲ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ ἐπελάθου καὶ ἀντὶ ἀδελφοῦ ἐχθρὸς ἐγένου, οὐδὲν ἀντʼ οὐδενὸς ἠλλάχθαι φανεῖ σεαυτῷ;
… εἰ δʼ ἀντὶ ἀνθρώπου, ἡμέρου ζῴου καὶ κοινωνικοῦ, θηρίον γέγονας βλαβερόν, ἐπίβουλον, δηκτικόν, οὐδὲν ἀπολώλεκας; ἀλλὰ δεῖ σε κέρμα ἀπολέσαι, ἵνα ζημιωθῆς, ἄλλου δʼ οὐδενὸς ἀπώλεια ζημιοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον;
Source text: raw.githubusercontent.comIn English · George Long, 1890But if you go and blame your brother, I say to you, You have forgotten who you are and what is your name.
… and if you have forgotten the brother and instead of a brother have become an enemy, would you appear not to have changed one thing for another in that case? And if instead of a man, who is a tame animal and social, you are become a mischievous wild beast, treacherous, and biting, have you lost nothing? But, (I suppose) you must lose a bit of money that you may suffer damage? And does the loss of nothing else do a man damage?
Source text: raw.githubusercontent.comDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. Discourses, II.10.12-14.
Epictetus speaks of one's own brother, in a discourse on the duties each role ('son', 'brother', 'citizen') names; Tolstoy makes it 'people are your brothers' and adds that God made man good and social. The 'bit of money' becomes a lost purse, and the losses Epictetus lists (modesty, self-restraint, gentleness) are gathered into 'goodness of soul'.
Translation note. The Jubilee text reads «Когда ты бранить» — a misprint for «бранишь» (you abuse); translated as the latter.
Those who die for their country become those who die for the truth.
Original · translated by Emilie Ashurst Venturi
From Socrates to Jesus, from Jesus down to the men who from time to time still die for their country, all the martyrs of Faith protest against the servile doctrine, and cry aloud unto you:
From Cain down to the vulgar spy of the present day, all the betrayers of their fellows, all the men who have chosen the path of evil, have heard and hear in the depths of their secret soul, a voice of blame, disquiet, and reproof
TolstoyТолстой
Вы — свободные деятели, и вы это чувствуете. Все возможные софизмы той жалкой философии, которая старается противопоставить фаталистическое учение громкому голосу человеческой совести, человеческого сознания, не в силах были заставить замолчать двух неподкупных свидетелей человеческой свободы: укоров совести и величия мученичества. Начиная с Сократа и до Христа и от Христа вплоть до тех людей, которые из века в век умирают за истину, все мученики веры протестуют против этого рабского учения и громко говорят нам: «Мы тоже любили жизнь и всех людей, которыми жизнь наша была красна и которые умоляли нас прекратить борьбу. Каждое биение нашего сердца громко взывало к нам: живи! но ради исполнения долга мы предпочли смерть». И начиная с Каина и вплоть до самого жалкого шпиона наших дней, все изменники и предатели, избравшие путь зла, слышат в глубине души голос осуждения, укора, голос, не дающий им покоя, который вечно твердит им: «Зачем вы свернули с истинного пути? Вы деятели свободные, а, стало быть, ответственны за свои поступки».
You are free agents, and you feel it. All the possible sophistries of that pitiful philosophy which tries to set a fatalist doctrine against the loud voice of the human conscience, of human consciousness, have not been able to silence the two incorruptible witnesses to human freedom: the reproaches of conscience and the greatness of martyrdom. From Socrates to Christ, and from Christ down to the men who from age to age die for the truth, all the martyrs of faith protest against this slavish doctrine and say to us aloud: “We too loved life and all the people who made our life beautiful and who begged us to give up the struggle. Every beat of our heart cried out to us: live! But to fulfill our duty we chose death.” And from Cain down to the most wretched spy of our day, all the traitors and betrayers who have chosen the way of evil hear in the depth of their souls the voice of condemnation, of reproach, a voice that gives them no rest and keeps on repeating to them: “Why did you turn aside from the true way? You are free agents, and therefore answerable for your deeds.”
From Doveri dell'uomo · reworded by Tolstoy .
Original · ItalianVoi siete e vi sentite liberi. Tutti i sofismi d'una misera filosofia, che vorrebbe sostituire una dottrina di non so quale fatalismo al grido della coscienza umana, non valgono a cancellare due testimonianze invincibili a favore della libertà: il rimorso e il Martirio.
Da Socrate a Gesù, da Gesù fino agli uomini che muoiono a ogni tanto per la Patria, i Martiri di una Fede protestano contro quella servile dottrina, gridandovi: «noi amavamo la vita; amavamo esseri che ce la facevano cara e che ci supplicavano di cedere: tutti gl'impulsi del nostro core dicevano vivi! a ciascuno di noi; ma per la salute delle generazioni avvenire, scegliemmo morire».
Da Caino alla spia volgare dei nostri giorni, i traditori dei loro fratelli, gli uomini che si son messi sulla via del male, sentono nel fondo dell'anima una condanna, una irrequietezza, un rimprovero che dice a ciascun d'essi: perché t'allontanasti dalle vie del bene? Voi siete liberi e quindi responsabili.
Source text: it.wikisource.orgIn English · Emilie Ashurst Venturi, 1862From Socrates to Jesus, from Jesus down to the men who from time to time still die for their country, all the martyrs of Faith protest against the servile doctrine, and cry aloud unto you: …
From Cain down to the vulgar spy of the present day, all the betrayers of their fellows, all the men who have chosen the path of evil, have heard and hear in the depths of their secret soul, a voice of blame, disquiet, and reproof …
Source text: archive.orgDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. Doveri dell'uomo (The Duties of Man), Chapter VII, "Doveri verso se stessi" (Doveri dell'uomo, London 1860).
Otherwise close, but Tolstoy changes the martyrs' cause: Mazzini's men who die 'per la Patria' become those who die 'for the truth' («за истину»), and 'for the salvation of the generations to come, we chose to die' becomes 'for the fulfilment of duty we chose death'. He adds 'conscience' to 'remorse' and the closing «Вы деятели свободные, а, стало быть, ответственны».
“The evil-minded condemn evil” becomes “man condemns evil.”
Original
the exaltation of the good, is the way to individual and universal harmonization. The evil-minded condemn evil, and this of itself is the worst of evils, for its condemnation stimulates its growth, whereas the ignoring of evil, and the cultivation of the good, causes evil to die.
of endeavor.--Lucy A. Malloby.
TolstoyТолстой
Не осуждение зла, а возвеличение добра устанавливает согласие и единение в личной и мировой жизни. Человек осуждает зло и творящего его, а это самое осуждение зла и тех, кто его делают, только содействует росту зла, тогда как пренебрежение к злу и забота только о благе уничтожают зло.
It is not the condemnation of evil but the exalting of good that establishes harmony and unity in personal life and in the life of the world. Man condemns evil and him who does it, and this very condemnation of evil and of those who do it only helps evil to grow; whereas paying no heed to evil and caring only for the good destroy evil.
From The World's Advance-Thought and the Universal Republic · reworded by Tolstoy .
Lucy Mallory’s own words… the exaltation of the good, is the way to individual and universal harmonization. The evil-minded condemn evil, and this of itself is the worst of evils, for its condemnation stimulates its growth, whereas the ignoring of evil, and the cultivation of the good, causes evil to die.
… of endeavor.--Lucy A. Malloby.
Source text: iapsop.comDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. The World's Advance-Thought and the Universal Republic (Portland, Oregon), vol. XIV, New Series, no. 6, May-June 1901: an editorial paragraph, In a run of the editor's short paragraphs that ends "--Lucy A. Mallory", before the notice of the journal "Peace".
The paragraph reads "Not the condemnation of the evil, but the exaltation of the good, is the way to individual and universal harmonization...". The first sentence is close ("harmonization" becomes "concord and union in personal and world life"). The second is changed: Mallory's "The evil-minded condemn evil" becomes "Man condemns evil and the one who does it", so Tolstoy turns a reproach of the evil-minded into a warning to everyone and adds the evildoer; "and this of itself is the worst of evils" is dropped; "the ignoring of evil, and the cultivation of the good" becomes "disregard of evil and care only for the good". The run of paragraphs is signed at its end "Lucy A. Mallory".
“The social community” becomes “all mankind”; brotherhood and reconciliation are added.
Original · translated by George Long
A branch cut off from the adjacent branch must of necessity be cut off from the whole tree also. So too a man when he is separated from another man has fallen off from the whole social community.
Now as to a branch, another cuts it off; but a man by his own act separates himself from his neighbor when he hates him and turns away from him, and he does not know that he has at the same time cut himself off from the whole social system.
Yet he has this privilege certainly from Zeus, who framed society, for it is in our power to grow again to that which is near to us, and again to become a part which helps to make up the whole.
TolstoyТолстой
Ветвь, отрезанная от своего сука, тем самым отделилась и от целого дерева. Человек при раздоре с другим человеком отрывается от всего человечества. Но ветвь отсекается посторонней рукой, человек же сам отчуждает себя от ближнего своего ненавистью и злобой, не ведая, правда, что он тем самым отрывает себя от всего человечества. Но божество, призвавшее людей, как братьев, к жизни общей, одарило их свободой после раздора снова примириться между собою.
A branch cut off from its bough has by that very act been severed from the whole tree as well. A man at strife with another man tears himself away from all mankind. But the branch is cut off by another’s hand, whereas a man estranges himself from his neighbor by his own hatred and malice, not knowing, it is true, that he thereby tears himself away from all mankind. But the deity that called men, as brothers, to a common life has endowed them with the freedom to be reconciled with one another again after strife.
From Meditations · reworded by Tolstoy .
Original · Ancient GreekΚλάδος τοῦ προσεχοῦς κλάδου ἀποκοπεὶς οὐ δύναται μὴ καὶ τοῦ ὅλου φυτοῦ ἀποκεκόφθαι. οὕτω δὴ καὶ ἄνθρωπος ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἀποσχισθεὶς ὅλης τῆς κοινωνίας ἀποπέπτωκε.
… κλάδον μὲν οὖν ἄλλος ἀποκόπτει· ἄνθρωπος δὲ αὐτὸς ἑαυτὸν τοῦ πλησίον χωρίζει μισήσας καὶ ἀποστραφείς, ἀγνοεῖ δὲ ὅτι καὶ τοῦ ὅλου πολιτεύματος ἅμα ἀποτέτμηκεν ἑαυτόν.
… πλὴν ἐκεῖνό γε δῶρον τοῦ συστησαμένου τὴν κοινωνίαν Διός· ἔξεστι γὰρ ἡμῖν πάλιν συμφῦναι τῷ προσεχεῖ καὶ πάλιν τοῦ ὅλου συμπληρωτικοῖς γενέσθαι.
Source text: raw.githubusercontent.comIn English · George Long, 1862A branch cut off from the adjacent branch must of necessity be cut off from the whole tree also. So too a man when he is separated from another man has fallen off from the whole social community.
Now as to a branch, another cuts it off; but a man by his own act separates himself from his neighbor when he hates him and turns away from him, and he does not know that he has at the same time cut himself off from the whole social system.
Yet he has this privilege certainly from Zeus, who framed society, for it is in our power to grow again to that which is near to us, and again to become a part which helps to make up the whole.
Source text: gutenberg.orgDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. Meditations, XI.8.
The first half of XI.8, close in structure, but reworded: 'the whole social community' (κοινωνία, πολίτευμα) becomes 'all mankind'; 'hates him and turns away' becomes 'hatred and malice'; and 'Zeus, who framed society' gives the power 'to grow again to what is near us' becomes 'the deity, who called men as brothers to a common life, gave them the freedom to be reconciled again after a quarrel'. The brotherhood and the reconciliation are Tolstoy's. The second half (repeated separation makes reunion hard; the grafted branch is not like the one that grew with the tree) is dropped.
“Disciples of the wise” become “those who live a spiritual life.”
Original · translated by S. H. Glick, En Jacob (Ein Yaakov), 1916 (via Sefaria)
The older the disciples of the wise grow, the more wisdom they acquire;
As to the ignorant, the older they grow, the more foolish they become;
TolstoyТолстой
Чем старше становятся люди, живущие духовною жизнью, тем больше расширяется их умственный кругозор, тем более яснеет их сознание; люди же, живущие мирской жизнью, с годами тупеют всё больше и больше.
The older those who live a spiritual life become, the wider their mental horizon grows and the clearer their consciousness becomes; but those who live a worldly life grow duller and duller with the years.
From Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat · reworded by Tolstoy .
Original · Aramaicתלמידי חכמים כל זמן שמזקינין חכמה נתוספת בהם
ועמי הארץ כל זמן שמזקינין טפשות נתוספת בהן
Source text: sefaria.orgIn English · S. H. Glick, En Jacob (Ein Yaakov), 1916 (via Sefaria), 1916The older the disciples of the wise grow, the more wisdom they acquire; …
As to the ignorant, the older they grow, the more foolish they become; …
Source text: sefaria.orgRelated · Mishnah, ed. Romm, Vilna 1913זקני עם הארץ. כל זמן שמזקינין. דעתן מיטרפת עליהן.
אבל זקני תורה אינן כן. אלא כל זמן שמזקינין. דעתן מתישבת עליהן.
Source text: sefaria.orgTolstoy’s own version · «Мысли мудрых людей на каждый день»Чем старше становятся люди, живущие духовной жизнью, тем больше расширяется их умственный кругозор, тем более яснеет их сознание; невежды же с годами тупеют еще больше.
Source text: tolstoy.ruDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, 152a (baraita); Mishnah Kinnim 3:6 (R. Simeon b. Akashya).
'Disciples of the sages, the older they grow, the more wisdom is added to them; the ignorant (am ha-arets), the older they grow, the more folly is added.' Tolstoy turns Torah scholars into 'people living a spiritual life' and, in the Circle, the ignorant into 'people living a worldly life' (1903: 'the ignorant'); 'their consciousness grows clearer' is closer to the Mishnah's 'their mind grows more settled' (Kinnim 3:6). The proof texts from Job 12 are dropped.
“The land, which God has given to our nation” becomes simply “land.”
Original
History and Nature of Landed Property and of Rent.
Here is the fundamental error, the crude and monstrous assumption, that the land, which God has given to our nation, is or can be the private property of any one. It is a usurpation exactly similar to that of Slavery.
TolstoyТолстой
Причина величайших бедствий — это грубое и чудовищное утверждение о том, что земля может быть чьей-нибудь частной собственностью. Это так же несправедливо и жестоко, как и рабство.
The cause of the greatest calamities is the gross and monstrous assertion that land can be anyone’s private property. This is as unjust and as cruel as slavery.
From Lectures on Political Economy · reworded by Tolstoy .
Newman’s own wordsHistory and Nature of Landed Property and of Rent.
Here is the fundamental error, the crude and monstrous assumption, that the land, which God has given to our nation, is or can be the private property of any one. It is a usurpation exactly similar to that of Slavery.
Source text: archive.orgDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. Lectures on Political Economy (London, John Chapman, 1851), Lecture VI 'History and Nature of Landed Property and of Rent', pp. 132-133, after the Sutherland clearances.
Changed. Newman's 'Here is the fundamental error, the crude and monstrous assumption' becomes 'the cause of the greatest calamities is the crude and monstrous assertion'; 'the land, which God has given to our nation' becomes 'the land'; and 'It is a usurpation exactly similar to that of Slavery' becomes 'it is as unjust and cruel as slavery'. The author is Francis William Newman, professor of Latin and land reformer; the Jubilee name index takes «Ньюмэн» for his brother, Cardinal John Henry Newman. Tolstoy's name is right.
“The Over-Godhead is my life, my light” becomes what man can understand in God and cannot express, which “every man needs.”
Original · translated by Paul Carus
What has been said of God Does not suffice, I claim. The Over-Godhead is My life, my light, my aim.
TolstoyТолстой
Всё, что было сказано о боге, и всё, что можно сказать о нем, всё это не удовлетворяет. То, что в боге может понять человек и чего не может выразить, — это-то нужно всякому человеку и это только дает жизнь ему.
All that has been said about God, and all that can be said about him — all this fails to satisfy. What man can understand in God and cannot express — that is what every man needs, and that alone gives him life.
From Cherubinischer Wandersmann, Book I, 15 · reworded by Tolstoy .
Original · GermanWas man von Gott geſagt, das g'nuͤget mir noch nicht: Die Ueber⸗Gottheit iſt mein Leben und mein Licht.
Source text: archive.orgIn English · Paul Carus, 1909What has been said of God Does not suffice, I claim. The Over-Godhead is My life, my light, my aim.
Source text: archive.orgDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. Cherubinischer Wandersmann, Book I, 15 (Die Ueber-Gottheit), Cherubinischer Wandersmann, ed. Bölsche (Jena, 1905, after the 1675 ed.), I, 15; Carus (1909), "The Over-God".
A free version of the couplet, signed "after Angelus Silesius". Angelus: "What has been said of God does not yet suffice me: the Over-Godhead is my life and my light." Tolstoy adds «и всё, что можно сказать о нем» (and all that can be said of him), and puts in place of "the Over-Godhead" (die Ueber-Gottheit) «То, что в боге может понять человек и чего не может выразить» (what man can understand in God and cannot express); "is my life and my light" becomes «нужно всякому человеку и это только дает жизнь ему» (is needed by every man and alone gives him life). The identification rests on the first line, which Tolstoy keeps.
“Treat the servant kindly” becomes “Treat people well,” and the gratitude Ruskin withholds is promised: “all economical purposes will be answered” becomes “you will gain both gratitude and benefit.” †
Original
Treat the servant kindly, with the idea of turning his gratitude to account, and you will get, as you deserve, no gratitude, nor any value for your kindness; but treat him kindly without any economical purpose, and all economical purposes will be answered; in this, as in all other matters, whosoever will save his life shall lose it, whoso loses it shall find it.
TolstoyТолстой
Относитесь хорошо к людям в расчете получить выгоду от их благодарности, и вы не получите ни малейшей отплаты за вашу доброту; но относитесь к ним хорошо без всяких корыстных соображений — и вы достигнете и благодарности и пользы. И так во всем: «Кто хочет душу свою сберечь — потеряет ее, а кто потеряет душу свою ради меня, тот обретет ее».
Treat people well in the reckoning that you will profit by their gratitude, and you will not receive the slightest return for your kindness; but treat them well without any mercenary considerations — and you will gain both gratitude and benefit. And so it is in everything: “Whoever wants to save his soul will lose it, and whoever loses his soul for my sake will find it.”
From Unto This Last · reworded by Tolstoy .
John Ruskin’s own wordsTreat the servant kindly, with the idea of turning his gratitude to account, and you will get, as you deserve, no gratitude, nor any value for your kindness; but treat him kindly without any economical purpose, and all economical purposes will be answered; in this, as in all other matters, whosoever will save his life shall lose it, whoso loses it shall find it.
Source text: gutenberg.orgTolstoy’s own version · Мысли мудрых людей на каждый деньОтноситесь хорошо к людям в расчете получить выгоду от их благодарности, и вы не получите ни малейшей отплаты за вашу мнимую доброту; но относитесь к ним хорошо без всяких корыстных соображений, и вы достигнете и благодарности и пользы.
Source text: tolstoy.ruDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. Unto This Last (1860–62), Essay I 'The Roots of Honour', Essay I, on the master and his domestic servant, the paragraph on the affections as a motive power.
Changed in its scope and in its promise. Ruskin's servant becomes people in general ('Treat the servant kindly' becomes 'Treat people well', Относитесь хорошо к людям). 'you will get, as you deserve, no gratitude, nor any value for your kindness' becomes 'you will get not the least return for your kindness'; 'all economical purposes will be answered' becomes 'you will gain both gratitude and profit' (вы достигнете и благодарности и пользы), so the gratitude Ruskin withholds is promised. 'in this, as in all other matters' becomes 'And so in everything', and Ruskin's Gospel words are given in full, close to the Synodal wording of Matthew 16:25, with 'for my sake' (ради меня). The 1903 version (Thoughts of Wise Men, 19 July) has 'your sham kindness' (вашу мнимую доброту), which the Circle shortens to 'your kindness'. The Jubilee commentary on Thoughts of Wise Men names the source of its Ruskin: L. P. Nikiforov's Russian selection, «Избранные мысли Джона Рёскина» (Posrednik, 1902); the Circle's list adds its third part (1904). The saved text is the Ward Lock printing (1912). No printable.
Translation note. Matthew 16:25, where the KJV has “whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.” The Russian «душа» means both “soul” and “life”.
“I shall not live to see the harvest” becomes “We will not live to see the harvest,” “glorious times in one respect” become “an important time,” and sowing in faith, “no mean privilege or happiness,” becomes “a great happiness.”
Original
the longer I live, the more I have to do ; but other fields of labor are open to me. We live in glorious times in one respect.
Our age is a revolutionary one, in the best sense of the word, — not of physical, but moral revolution. Higher ideas of the social state and of human perfection are at work. I shall not live to see the harvest, but to sow in faith is no mean privilege or happiness.
TolstoyТолстой
Чем дольше я живу, тем больше дела передо мной. Мы живем в важное время. Никогда людям не предстояло столько дела. Наш век есть век революции в лучшем смысле этого слова — не материальной, но нравственной революции. Вырабатывается высшая идея общественного устройства и человеческого совершенства. Мы не доживем до жатвы, но сеять с верою есть великое счастье.
The longer I live, the more work there is before me. We live in an important time. Never have people had so much work before them. Our age is an age of revolution in the best sense of the word — not a material but a moral revolution. A higher idea of social order and of human perfection is being worked out. We will not live to see the harvest, but to sow in faith is a great happiness.
From Letter to Dr. Charles Follen, July 1838, in Memoir of William Ellery Channing, with Extr… · reworded by Tolstoy .
Channing’s own words… the longer I live, the more I have to do ; but other fields of labor are open to me. We live in glorious times in one respect.
Our age is a revolutionary one, in the best sense of the word, — not of physical, but moral revolution. Higher ideas of the social state and of human perfection are at work. I shall not live to see the harvest, but to sow in faith is no mean privilege or happiness.
Source text: archive.orgDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. Letter to Dr. Charles Follen, July 1838, in Memoir of William Ellery Channing, with Extracts from his Correspondence and Manuscripts, ed. W. H. Channing (1848), vol. III, Vol. III, Part Third, ch. III 'Social Reforms', p. 127 (10th edition, Boston, American Unitarian Association, 1874).
Close sentence by sentence, with changes. 'the longer I live, the more I have to do' is kept, and 'but other fields of labor are open to me' left out. 'We live in glorious times in one respect' becomes 'We live in an important time' (в важное время). 'Was there ever so much to do?' becomes 'Never have people had so much to do'. 'Higher ideas of the social state and of human perfection are at work' becomes 'A higher idea of the social order and of human perfection is being worked out'. 'I shall not live to see the harvest' becomes 'We shall not live to the harvest' (Мы не доживем до жатвы), and 'no mean privilege or happiness' becomes 'a great happiness'. The scan reads 'do }' for 'do?'. No printable. Broadbent's Channing selection (London, 1903), on the Jubilee list, is not online.
Ruskin’s young painter, “if he does deserve it,” becomes anyone: “If a man deserves praise”; “the happiest privilege you will ever have of rewarding his labour” becomes “the joy of giving a man his due for his labor.” †
Original
and it is only by the fact of his seeming not to seek your approbation that you may conjecture he deserves it.
But if he does deserve it, be sure that you give it him, else you not only run a chance of driving him from the right road by want of encouragement, but you deprive yourselves of the happiest privilege you will ever have of rewarding his labour.
TolstoyТолстой
Если человек заслуживает похвалы, старайтесь не отказывать ему в ней, иначе вы не только можете этим отклонить его от настоящего пути, лишая его поддержки и одобрения, в которых он нуждается, но и сами лишаетесь радости воздать человеку должное за его труд.
If a man deserves praise, try not to deny it to him; otherwise not only may you thereby turn him aside from the true path, depriving him of the support and approval he needs, but you are yourselves deprived of the joy of giving a man his due for his labor.
From The Political Economy of Art · reworded by Tolstoy .
John Ruskin’s own words… and it is only by the fact of his seeming not to seek your approbation that you may conjecture he deserves it.
But if he does deserve it, be sure that you give it him, else you not only run a chance of driving him from the right road by want of encouragement, but you deprive yourselves of the happiest privilege you will ever have of rewarding his labour.
Source text: gutenberg.orgTolstoy’s own version · Мысли мудрых людей на каждый деньЕсли человек заслуживает похвалы, старайтесь не отказывать ему в ней, иначе вы не только рискуете отклонить его от надлежащего пути, лишая его поддержки и одобрения, в котором он нуждается, но и сами лишитесь лучшего преимущества — воздать человеку должное за его труд.
Source text: tolstoy.ruDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. The Political Economy of Art (1857; reissued as A Joy for Ever, 1880), Lecture I, Lecture I, under 'Discovery', on how the public should treat the work of young painters.
Ruskin speaks of a young painter, and of the praise his careful work deserves; Tolstoy makes it any man: 'if he does deserve it' becomes 'If a man deserves praise'. 'be sure that you give it him' becomes 'try not to refuse it to him'; 'by want of encouragement' becomes 'by depriving him of the support and approval he needs'; 'the happiest privilege you will ever have of rewarding his labour' becomes 'the joy of giving a man his due for his work' (радости воздать человеку должное за его труд). Thoughts of Wise Men (1903, 14 July) has the same sentence nearer Ruskin, with 'you risk' (рискуете, 'run a chance') and 'the best privilege' (лучшего преимущества); the Circle has 'you may' (можете) and 'the joy'. The Jubilee commentary on that book names the source of its Ruskin: L. P. Nikiforov's Russian selection (Posrednik, 1902), not found online, so the first changes may be Nikiforov's. No printable.
Herzen’s last words, “для освобождения человека,” for the freeing of man, become “to free humanity,” repeating the word of the sentence’s first half.
Original · Russian
Мы не сыщем гавани иначе, как в нас самих, в сознании нашей беспредельной свободы, нашей самодержавной независимости.
Когда бы люди захотели вместо того, чтоб спасать мир, спасать себя, вместо того, чтоб освобождать человечество, себя освобождать, — как много бы они сделали для спасения мира и для освобождения человека.
TolstoyТолстой
Когда бы люди захотели, вместо того чтобы спасать мир, спасать себя; вместо того чтобы освобождать человечество, себя освобождать, — как много бы они сделали для спасения мира и для освобождения человечества!
If only people were willing, instead of saving the world, to save themselves; instead of freeing humanity, to free themselves — how much they would do to save the world and to free humanity!
From С того берега · reworded by Tolstoy .
Original · RussianМы не сыщем гавани иначе, как в нас самих, в сознании нашей беспредельной свободы, нашей самодержавной независимости.
Когда бы люди захотели вместо того, чтоб спасать мир, спасать себя, вместо того, чтоб освобождать человечество, себя освобождать, — как много бы они сделали для спасения мира и для освобождения человека.
Source text: ru.wikisource.orgDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. С того берега (From the Other Shore), «Omnia mea mecum porto», Собр. соч. в 30 т., т. 6 (1955), as on Wikisource; Сочинения А. И. Герцена, vol. V (St Petersburg, 1905), p. 252.
Herzen's sentence, word for word but for its last word: Herzen ends «для спасения мира и для освобождения человека» (for the saving of the world and the freeing of man); Tolstoy writes «человечества» (mankind), the word of the sentence's first half, and ends with an exclamation mark. The 1905 edition (saved: sources/herzen-sochineniia-1905/sochineniia05herz_djvu.txt, vol. V, p. 252) also reads «человека». The sentence follows Herzen's argument that, with the world around us shifting, we will find no harbor except in ourselves, in the consciousness of our boundless freedom (first excerpt). The Circle sets it on June 30, which the Jubilee commentary (vol. 42) says was given to Tolstoy's views on the reconstruction of society. No public-domain English was found.
Translation note. The Russian italic is broken only at the comma and the dash; it is set here as one span.
The thoughts of “the man of genius,” whose elements exist in “his humbler brethren,” become the thoughts of “every man,” so the contrast of genius with common men is lost; “A true philosophy of the mind,” the journal’s words, becomes “True wisdom.”
Original
The true view of great men is, that they are only examples and mani- festations of our common nature, show- ing what belongs to all souls, though unfolded as yet only in a few. The light which shines from them is, after all, but a faint revelation of the power which is treasured up in every human being. They are not prodigies, not miracles, but nat- ural developments of the human soul.
of the man of genius exist in his hum- bler brethren, and that the faculties which the scientific exert in the pro- foundest discoveries are precisely the same with those which common men employ in the daily labors of life.
TolstoyТолстой
Истинная мудрость учит нас тому, что основы мыслей всякого человека живут в его более скромных братьях и что те свойства, которые выказывает ученый в своих глубочайших открытиях, совершенно те же самые, как и те, которые обыкновенный человек употребляет в своих ежедневных жизненных трудах.
Истинное понимание великих людей состоит в том, что они только примеры и проявления нашей общей природы, показывающие то, что свойственно всем душам, хотя оно и раскрывается еще лишь в немногих. Свет, исходящий от них, есть не что иное, как слабое откровение той силы, которая таится в каждом человеческом существе. Они не диво, не чудо, но естественное развитие человеческой души.
True wisdom teaches us that the foundations of every man’s thoughts live in his humbler brothers, and that the qualities a scholar displays in his deepest discoveries are exactly the same as those an ordinary man uses in his daily labors of life.
The true understanding of great men lies in this: that they are only examples and manifestations of our common nature, showing what is proper to all souls, though as yet it has unfolded in only a few. The light that comes from them is nothing other than a faint revelation of the power that lies hidden in every human being. They are not a marvel, not a miracle, but the natural development of the human soul.
From “World’s Advance Thought” [Channing].
From Honor Due to All Men · reworded by Tolstoy .
What Tolstoy read · The World's Advance-Thought and the Universal RepublicA true philosophy of the mind is beneficial because "it teaches us that the elements of the greatest thoughts of the man of genius exist in his humbler brethren; …
The true view of great men is, that they are only examples and manifestations of our common nature, showing what belongs to all souls, though unfolded yet in only a few.
They are not prodigies-- not miracles; but natural developments of the human soul.
Source text: iapsop.comFrom “World’s Advance Thought”’s own wordsThe true view of great men is, that they are only examples and manifestations of our common nature, showing what belongs to all souls, though unfolded as yet only in a few. The light which shines from them is, after all, but a faint revelation of the power which is treasured up in every human being. They are not prodigies, not miracles, but natural developments of the human soul.
… of the man of genius exist in his humbler brethren, and that the faculties which the scientific exert in the profoundest discoveries are precisely the same with those which common men employ in the daily labors of life.
Source text: archive.orgDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. Honor Due to All Men (sermon on 1 Peter 2:17), Two passages about a page apart, the later one first; The Works of William E. Channing (Boston: American Unitarian Association, 1890), pp. 68–69.
Channing's words, which Mallory's journal printed in its September 1904 number as an unsigned paragraph: 'A true philosophy of the mind is beneficial because "it teaches us that ..."', with Channing's two passages joined by asterisks and set in the reverse of the sermon's order (What Tolstoy read). Tolstoy follows the journal's order. The Jubilee editors supplied the signature: the printed editions of the Circle have none (vol. 42, the list of corrected signatures, «1 июля, 6»: «Подписи нет», corrected to «Из «Передовой мысли мира»»). July 1's other journal entry (7-1.7) is in the same number, p. 122. Changed in one place: 'the elements of the greatest thoughts of the man of genius exist in his humbler brethren' becomes 'the foundations of the thoughts of every man live in his humbler brothers' (основы мыслей всякого человека живут в его более скромных братьях): Channing's 'man of genius' becomes 'every man' and 'greatest' is gone, so the contrast of genius with common men is lost from the first clause. 'A true philosophy of the mind' (the journal's paraphrase of Channing's 'the philosophy of mind') becomes 'True wisdom' (Истинная мудрость). The rest is close: 'the faculties which the scientific exert in the profoundest discoveries' are 'the qualities which the scholar shows in his deepest discoveries'; 'The light which shines from them is, after all, but a faint revelation of the power which is treasured up in every human being'; 'They are not prodigies, not miracles, but natural developments of the human soul' (Они не диво, не чудо, но естественное развитие человеческой души). The attribution is correct as to the route; the author is Channing. No printable, for the change in the first sentence.
Mallory’s individual becomes a generation: the moment “the individuality asserts” itself becomes the time when “the distinctive traits of the new generation ought to have shown themselves,” and its thought has already ossified “in these molds.”
Original
Church, State and Society have their specified moulds, into which the minds of the young are run, and when the individuality asserts itsself the mind has become ossified and cannot take in anything new.
TolstoyТолстой
У церкви, у государства, у общества имеются известные типичные формы, в которые отливается мысль молодежи. И когда приходит время, в которое должны бы были проявиться особенности нового поколения, оказывается, что мысль его уже окостенела в этих формах и не может принять в себя ничего нового.
The church, the state, and society have certain typical molds into which the thought of the young is cast. And when the time comes at which the distinctive traits of the new generation ought to have shown themselves, it turns out that its thought has already ossified in these molds and can take in nothing new.
From The World's Advance-Thought and the Universal Republic · reworded by Tolstoy .
Lucy Mallory’s own wordsChurch, State and Society have their specified moulds, into which the minds of the young are run, and when the individuality asserts itsself the mind has become ossified and cannot take in anything new.
Source text: iapsop.comDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. The World's Advance-Thought and the Universal Republic (ed. Lucy A. Mallory, Portland, Oregon), vol. XII, no. 12, October 1899, p. 186, among the editor's paragraphs signed 'L. A. M.'.
One sentence made two, and changed in its middle. 'Church, State and Society have their specified moulds, into which the minds of the young are run' is close ('certain typical forms, into which the thought of the young is cast'). 'when the individuality asserts itself' becomes 'when the time comes in which the particular traits of the new generation ought to show themselves' (когда приходит время, в которое должны бы были проявиться особенности нового поколения): Mallory's individual becomes a generation. 'the mind has become ossified and cannot take in anything new' becomes 'its thought has already ossified in these forms and cannot take in anything new', with 'in these forms' added. The signature 'L. A. M.' is Mallory's. The scan reads 'itsself'. Found in the text layer of IAPSOP's PDF of the issue (saved). No printable, for the change in the middle.
“Every strong and wise man” becomes simply “man,” the weak become one, and strength given that he may “support and guide them” becomes might given that he may “support him and help him,” so Ruskin’s guidance of the weak drops out.
Original
They were made that wise people might take care of them.
That is the true and plain fact concerning the relations of every strong and wise man to the world about him.
He has his strength given him, not that he may crush the weak, but that he may support and guide them.
TolstoyТолстой
Мощь дана человеку не для того, чтобы он давил слабого, а чтобы он поддерживал его и помогал ему.
Might is given to man not that he may crush the weak, but that he may support him and help him.
From The Political Economy of Art · reworded by Tolstoy .
John Ruskin’s own wordsThey were made that wise people might take care of them.
That is the true and plain fact concerning the relations of every strong and wise man to the world about him.
He has his strength given him, not that he may crush the weak, but that he may support and guide them.
Source text: gutenberg.orgDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. The Political Economy of Art (1857; reissued as A Joy for Ever, 1880), Lecture II, Lecture II, part IV, 'Distribution', after 'What do you suppose fools were made for?'; the Ward Lock printing of 1912, with Unto This Last.
Changed in one word and made general. Ruskin speaks of 'every strong and wise man', whose strength is given him 'not that he may crush the weak, but that he may support and guide them'; the weak are the fools that 'wise people' were made to 'take care of', and the next sentences make the strong man the guide and father of the poor. Tolstoy writes 'Power is given to man not that he should crush the weak, but that he should support him and help him' (Мощь дана человеку не для того, чтобы он давил слабого, а чтобы он поддерживал его и помогал ему): 'strong and wise man' becomes 'man', the weak become one, and 'guide' becomes 'help' (помогал), so Ruskin's fatherly authority over the weak drops out. No printable.
Translation note. The Russian italic is broken only at the commas; it is set here as one span.
“What he believes” becomes “some action,” and “Every time he speaks it, the tendency to do it will grow less” becomes a rule for all: “the more people talk, the less inclined they are to act.”
Original
Do you want a man not to practise what he believes, then encourage him to keep often speaking it in words.
Every time he speaks it, the tendency to do it will grow less.
TolstoyТолстой
Если вы желаете удержать человека от какого-нибудь поступка, заставьте его разговориться на эту тему: чем больше люди говорят, тем меньше у них склонности делать.
If you wish to keep a man from some action, get him to talk about it: the more people talk, the less inclined they are to act.
From Latter-Day Pamphlets, No. V, Stump-Orator · reworded by Tolstoy .
Carlyle’s own wordsDo you want a man _not_ to practise what he believes, then encourage him to keep often speaking it in words.
Every time he speaks it, the tendency to do it will grow less.
Source text: gutenberg.orgDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. Latter-Day Pamphlets, No. V, Stump-Orator (1 May 1850), The paragraph after 'Words will not express what mischiefs the misuse of words has done'.
The same advice, made general. 'Do you want a man not to practise what he believes, then encourage him to keep often speaking it in words' becomes 'If you wish to keep a man from some act, get him to talk on the subject': what he believes becomes 'some act' (какого-нибудь поступка). 'Every time he speaks it, the tendency to do it will grow less' becomes 'the more people talk, the less inclined they are to do': one man's repeated speech of his belief becomes a rule about all talk and all doing. Carlyle goes on to the 'insincere speech' of Parliament, which Tolstoy leaves out. The passage was found by its sense; no closer wording was found in the saved Carlyle (Past and Present, Sartor Resartus, Heroes, the Critical and Miscellaneous Essays). No printable.
“The Evangelists and Apostles” become “holy men,” so what Lessing says of the authors of the Gospels is said of holy men in general, and “taught” becomes “preached.”
Original · translated by H. H. Bernard
Religion is not true, because the Evangelists and Apostles taught it: but they taught it because it is true.
TolstoyТолстой
Религия не потому истина, что ее проповедывали святые люди, а святые люди проповедывали ее потому, что она истина.
Religion is not the truth because holy men preached it, but holy men preached it because it is the truth.
From Axiomata · reworded by Tolstoy .
Original · GermanDie Religion iſt nicht wahr, weil die Evangeliſten und Apoſtel ſie lehrten: ſondern ſie lehrten ſie, weil ſie wahr iſt. Aus ihrer innern Wahrheit müſſen die ſchriftlichen Ueberlieferungen erklärt werden, und alle ſchriftliche Ueberlieferungen können ihr keine innere Wahrheit geben, wenn ſie keine hat.
Die Religion iſt nicht wahr, weil die Evangeliſten und Apoſtel ſie lehrten: ſondern ſie lehrten ſie, weil ſie wahr iſt.
Source text: archive.orgIn English · H. H. Bernard, 1862Religion is not true, because the Evangelists and Apostles taught it: but they taught it because it is true.
Source text: archive.orgTolstoy’s own version · Путь жизниРелигия не потому истинна, что ее проповедовали святые люди, а святые люди ее проповедовали потому, что она истинна.
Source text: tolstoy.ruDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. Axiomata (1778), IX; first in the Gegensätze des Herausgebers (1777), Sämmtliche Schriften, ed. Lachmann, vol. X (Berlin, 1839), p. 10 (Gegensätze, opening remarks) and p. 154 (Axiomata IX); Bernard, Letters on Bibliolatry (1862), Axiom IX, p. 45.
Lessing's antithesis with its subject changed. Lessing: “Die Religion ist nicht wahr, weil die Evangelisten und Apostel sie lehrten: sondern sie lehrten sie, weil sie wahr ist” (religion is not true because the Evangelists and Apostles taught it, but they taught it because it is true). Tolstoy: «Религия не потому истина, что ее проповедывали святые люди, а святые люди проповедывали ее потому, что она истина» (religion is not truth because holy men preached it, but holy men preached it because it is truth). “Die Evangelisten und Apostel” (the Evangelists and Apostles) becomes «святые люди» (holy men), so the Christian Scriptures' authors become the holy men of any faith, and “lehrten” (taught) becomes «проповедывали» (preached); the Circle prints the thought in italics. Lessing first wrote the sentence in the editor's opening remarks to the fragments of the Unnamed (1777), where it goes on that the written traditions must be explained from religion's inner truth and cannot give it an inner truth it lacks; he repeated it alone as the ninth of his Axiomata (1778), against Pastor Goeze (both in the original). Tolstoy printed it again, with «истинна» (true) for «истина», in «На каждый день» (1 January, no. 8) and «Путь жизни» (tolstoy). His listed sources for Lessing, Blumenau's Lessing-Perlen and Posrednik's «Избранные мысли Шиллера и Лессинга» (1903), were not found online. Bernard's English translates the Axiomata.
Translation note. The Russian italic is broken only at the commas; it is set here as one span.
“The Torah” becomes “learning,” so the warning against making it a crown or a tool covers all learning, and a tool “to dig with” becomes one “to earn your bread with,” the sense the commentators give it. †
Original · translated by Joseph I. Gorfinkle
make not of the Torah a crown wherewith to aggrandize thyself, nor a spade wherewith to dig
TolstoyТолстой
Не смотри на ученость, как на корону, чтобы ею красоваться, ни как на топор, чтобы добывать им пропитание.
Do not look upon learning as a crown to show yourself off in, nor as an ax to earn your bread with.
From Pirkei Avot · reworded by Tolstoy .
Original · Hebrewרַבִּי צָדוֹק אוֹמֵר, אַל תַּעֲשֵׂם עֲטָרָה לְהִתְגַּדֵּל בָּהֶם, וְלֹא קַרְדֹּם לַחְפֹּר בָּהֶם.
Source text: sefaria.orgIn English · Joseph I. Gorfinkle, 1913… make not of the _Torah_ a crown wherewith to aggrandize thyself, nor a spade wherewith to dig …
Source text: gutenberg.orgDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. Pirkei Avot (Mishnah), 4:5 (Gorfinkle's 4:7).
R. Zadok: 'do not make them (the words of the Torah) a crown to magnify yourself with, nor an axe (kardom) to dig with'. Tolstoy: «Не смотри на ученость, как на корону, чтобы ею красоваться, ни как на топор, чтобы добывать им пропитание» (do not look on learning as a crown to show off with, nor as an axe to earn your food with). The Torah becomes «ученость» (learning) in general; 'to dig with' becomes 'to earn your food with', the sense the commentators give it; «топор» (axe) is closer to kardom than Gorfinkle's 'spade'. Whether the widening to learning is Tolstoy's or that of the Russian Talmud anthology he read (Gurvich, 1901, or «Мировоззрение талмудистов», neither online) is not known. Not in Thoughts of Wise Men (1903). The words are the Mishnah's (Avot), which the Talmud contains; 'Talmud' stands.
Lamennais’s Jewish references are made general: “la fin prochaine de la société juive,” the approaching end of Jewish society, becomes “the end of the old society,” and the temple, “signe matériel de l’institution mosaïque,” the material sign of the Mosaic institution, becomes “the material sign of the order of life instituted by men”; “les hommes de bonne volonté,” men of good will, become people who come “of their own free will.” *
Original · French
Jésus prévoyoit la fin prochaine de la société juive, ruinée dans ses bases morales, et qui, dans ses rapports avec les destinées générales de l'humanité, avoit accompli sa mission.
Il annonce à ses disciples la chute du temple, signe matériel de l'institution mosaïque,
Mais, comme la ruine de Jérusalem et de son temple, d'où s'étoit retiré le Dieu vivant, annonça, prépara l'érection d'un temple nouveau et d'une cité nouvelle, où, de toute tribu et de toute nation, afflueroient les hommes de bonne volonté;
Ne vous effrayez ni des combats ni des bruits de combats, lutte dernière du mal contre le bien qui va naître : loin de là, votre devoir est de combattre vous-même.
TolstoyТолстой
Иисус предвидел конец старого общества, уже потрясенного в своих нравственных основах. Он делает ученикам предсказание о том, что храм, вещественный знак учрежденного людьми строя жизни, должен быть разрушен, чтобы быть замененным установлением более совершенным. И к этому предсказанию, долженствовавшему сбыться вскорости, он прибавляет предсказание подобных же событий, которые совершатся в позднейшие времена, и представляет эти события в тех знакомых образах, в каких конец мира представлялся его современникам.
Мы живем теперь в предсказанное им время. От одного конца земли до другого всё расшаталось. Во всех учреждениях, каких бы то ни было, во всех различных системах, на которых основалась общественная жизнь народов, нет ничего твердого. Все чувствуют, что всё это скоро должно разрушиться, и в этом храме также не останется камня на камне. Но как разрушение Иерусалима и храма его, из которого удалился бог живой, предуготовляло сооружение нового града и нового храма, куда по своей воле стекутся люди всех колен и всех народов, — так и из развалин нынешних храмов и городов воздвигнется новый город и храм, предназначенный стать всемирным храмом и общей родиной рода человеческого, теперь еще разъединенного враждебными друг другу учениями, делающими братьев чужими и сеющих среди них безбожное ненавистничество и отвратительные войны. Когда придет тот, знаемый одним богом час соединения народов в одном храме и в одном граде, тогда наступит воистину воцарение Христа, окончательное выполнение его божественного дела. Ведь он и пришел научить людей только тому, чтоб они соединились в законе любви. Пусть зарождение этого святого общества будет болезненно, что же в этом? Вы не должны страшиться последней борьбы зла с добром, которая готова уже возродиться: ваш долг бороться. Каждый из вас — воин божий. Но в наше время ошаления и безумной гордости берегитесь лже-христов и лжепророков. Христос не в пустыне. Он не в скрытых местах и уже, конечно, ни в одном из собраний тех людей, которые, отделяясь от других, думают, что им одним предназначено спасение, и этим самым отрицают Христа, разрушившего все преграды между людьми и обещавшего мир и радости вечные всякому, кто, любя бога больше всего и ближнего, как самого себя, воплотит в делах своих эту двойную любовь. Где эта любовь, там и Христос. Не ищите его в другом месте: вы найдете лишь обманчивую тень.
Jesus foresaw the end of the old society, already shaken in its moral foundations. He makes a prediction to his disciples that the temple, the material sign of the order of life instituted by men, must be destroyed in order to be replaced by a more perfect institution. And to this prediction, which was soon to come true, he adds a prediction of like events that will come to pass in later times, and he presents these events in those familiar images in which his contemporaries pictured the end of the world.
We are living now in the time he foretold. From one end of the earth to the other, everything has been shaken loose. In all institutions whatsoever, in all the various systems on which the social life of the nations has been founded, there is nothing firm. Everyone feels that all this must soon be destroyed, and that in this temple too not one stone will be left upon another. But as the destruction of Jerusalem and of its temple, from which the living God had withdrawn, prepared the building of a new city and a new temple, to which people of all tribes and all nations will flow of their own free will, so from the ruins of the present temples and cities a new city and temple will arise, destined to become the universal temple and the common homeland of the human race, which is now still divided by doctrines hostile to one another, doctrines that make brothers strangers and sow among them godless hatred and abominable wars. When that hour, known to God alone, has come, the hour of the union of the nations in one temple and in one city, then will truly begin the reign of Christ, the final fulfillment of his divine work. For he came only to teach people to unite in the law of love. Let the birth of this holy society be painful: what of it? You must not fear the last struggle of evil with good, which is ready even now to be reborn: your duty is to fight. Each of you is a soldier of God. But in our time of frenzy and mad pride, beware of false Christs and false prophets. Christ is not in the desert. He is not in hidden places, and certainly not in any of the assemblies of those people who, separating themselves from others, think that salvation is destined for them alone, and by this very thing deny Christ, who destroyed all the barriers between people and promised peace and eternal joys to everyone who, loving God above all and his neighbor as himself, embodies this twofold love in his deeds. Where this love is, there is Christ. Do not seek him elsewhere: you will find only a deceptive shadow.
From Les Évangiles, traduction nouvelle, avec des notes et des réflexions à la fin de chaque … · reworded by Tolstoy .
Original · FrenchJésus prévoyoit la fin prochaine de la société juive, ruinée dans ses bases morales, et qui, dans ses rapports avec les destinées générales de l'humanité, avoit accompli sa mission.
Il annonce à ses disciples la chute du temple, signe matériel de l'institution mosaïque, …
Mais, comme la ruine de Jérusalem et de son temple, d'où s'étoit retiré le Dieu vivant, annonça, prépara l'érection d'un temple nouveau et d'une cité nouvelle, où, de toute tribu et de toute nation, afflueroient les hommes de bonne volonté; …
Ne vous effrayez ni des combats ni des bruits de combats, lutte dernière du mal contre le bien qui va naître : loin de là, votre devoir est de combattre vous-même.
Source text: archive.orgDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. Les Évangiles, traduction nouvelle, avec des notes et des réflexions à la fin de chaque chapitre (1846), The reflection after Matthew, chapter XXIV (Paris, 1846, second edition, pp. 96–98).
The whole reflection on Matthew XXIV (the destruction of the temple), translated closely in most sentences, with its Jewish references made general and two misreadings. Changed: 'la fin prochaine de la société juive' (the approaching end of Jewish society) becomes «конец старого общества» (the end of the old society), and the clause 'et qui … avoit accompli sa mission' (which had accomplished its mission) is left out; the temple, 'signe matériel de l'institution mosaïque' (the material sign of the Mosaic institution), becomes «вещественный знак учрежденного людьми строя жизни» (the material sign of an order of life set up by men). Misread: 'les hommes de bonne volonté' (men of good will) become people who will come «по своей воле» (of their own will); 'lutte dernière du mal contre le bien qui va naître' (the last struggle of evil against the good that is about to be born) becomes «последней борьбы зла с добром, которая готова уже возродиться» (the last struggle of evil with good, which is ready to be reborn). Smaller changes: 'l'avènement du Christ' (the coming of Christ) is «воцарение Христа» (the reign of Christ); 'N'êtes-vous pas soldat dans l'armée de Dieu?' (are you not a soldier in God's army?) is «Каждый из вас — воин божий» (each of you is a soldier of God); 'ce double amour, qui est la vie même' loses 'qui est la vie même' (which is life itself); 'dans les choses du passé' and 'trop souvent' are left out. No public-domain English of Lamennais's Évangiles was found.
Translation note. The Russian has «сеющих», a slip of the ending for «сеющими»; it is the doctrines that sow the hatred, and the slip is read so. Not one stone left upon another, the false Christs and false prophets, and the desert and hidden places where Christ is not are from Matthew 24:2, 24, and 26; for the hidden places the KJV has “the secret chambers.”
What Kant says of a church whose faith in statutes is a fetish-faith, Tolstoy says of every church: “The constitution of such a church” becomes “The government of the churches by a hierarchy,” and the fetish-faith is left out, so the church “always remains despotic” under every form; the clergy that believes it can do without reason and in the end even “biblical learning” becomes one that “considers itself entitled to do without either reason or science.”
Original · translated by J. W. Semple
The constitution of such a church may be hier- archical or democratical ; that is a matter of utter indif- ference, and concerns only the mode of its organization.
The administration is, under every form of fetiche creed, out and out despotic ; and wherever statute articles of be- lief are interwoven with the constitutional charters of the church, there the clergy have usurped the sway, and domineer.
They think to trample on the understandings of their fellows, and even by degrees attempt to get rid of biblical learning : for, being the alone patenteed in- terpreters and expounders of the will of the Unseen Law- giver, to them belongs exclusively the right of dealing out the rules of the faith ; whence, armed with this authority, they fancy they have not to convince, but only to com- mand.
TolstoyТолстой
Управление церквей иерархией может быть монархическое, аристократическое или демократическое; это касается только внутреннего устройства. Сама церковь остается при всяких формах всегда деспотична. Там, где постановления веры считаются основным законом, там царствует клир, который считает себя вправе не нуждаться ни в разуме, ни в науке, потому что он единый имеющий власть хранитель и толкователь воли невидимого законодателя и, имея власть, может не убеждать, но предписывать.
The government of the churches by a hierarchy may be monarchic, aristocratic, or democratic; this concerns only their internal organization. The church itself, under every form, always remains despotic. Wherever the statutes of faith are held to be fundamental law, there the clergy reigns, which considers itself entitled to do without either reason or science, because it is the sole guardian and interpreter, invested with authority, of the will of the invisible lawgiver, and, having authority, it need not persuade, but may prescribe.
Kant.
From Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der bloßen Vernunft · reworded by Tolstoy .
Original · German… genug, wenn ſie für unbedingt noth⸗ wendig erklärt werden, ſo iſt das immer ein Fetiſchglauben, durch den die Menge regiert, und durch den Gehorſam unter eine Kirche (nicht der Religion) ihrer moraliſchen Freiheit beraubt wird.
Die Verfaſſung derſelben (Hierar⸗ chie) mag monarchiſch, oder ariſtokratiſch, oder demokratiſch ſein: das betrifft nur die Organiſation; die Conſtitution derſelben iſt und bleibt doch unter allen dieſen Formen immer despotiſch.
Wo Statute des Glaubens zum Con⸗ ſtitutionalgeſetz gezählt werden, da herrſcht ein Clerus, der der Vernunft, und ſelbſt zuletzt der Schriftgelehrſam⸗ keit gar wohl entbehren zu können glaubt, weil er als ein⸗ zig autoriſirter Bewahrer und Ausleger des Willens des unſichtbaren Geſetzgebers die Glaubensvorſchrift ausſchließ⸗ lich zu verwalten, die Autorität hat, …
Source text: archive.orgIn English · J. W. Semple, 1838The constitution of such a church may be hierarchical or democratical ; that is a matter of utter indifference, and concerns only the mode of its organization.
The administration is, under every form of fetiche creed, out and out despotic ; and wherever statute articles of belief are interwoven with the constitutional charters of the church, there the clergy have usurped the sway, and domineer.
They think to trample on the understandings of their fellows, and even by degrees attempt to get rid of biblical learning : for, being the alone patenteed interpreters and expounders of the will of the Unseen Lawgiver, to them belongs exclusively the right of dealing out the rules of the faith ; whence, armed with this authority, they fancy they have not to convince, but only to command.
Source text: archive.orgDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der bloßen Vernunft (1793), Book IV, Part 2, § 3 (Vom Pfaffentum als einem Regiment im Afterdienst des guten Prinzips), 2nd ed. (1794), pp. 277–278; Kehrbach's edition (Leipzig: Reclam, [1879]), p. 195; Semple's English (1838), p. 242.
Kant's two sentences, closely in wording, with their subject widened. Kant speaks of a church whose principle is obedience to statutes as compulsory service, a “Fetischglauben” (fetish-faith) by which the multitude is governed and robbed of its moral freedom: “Die Verfassung derselben (Hierarchie)” (the constitution of such a church, its hierarchy) may be monarchic, aristocratic, or democratic. Tolstoy: «Управление церквей иерархией» (the government of churches by a hierarchy), leaving out the fetish-faith, so that the judgment falls on every church. “die Konstitution derselben ist und bleibt doch unter allen diesen Formen immer despotisch” (its constitution is and remains despotic under all these forms) becomes «Сама церковь остается при всяких формах всегда деспотична» (the church itself remains despotic under all forms); a clergy that believes it can do without “der Vernunft und selbst zuletzt der Schriftgelehrsamkeit” (reason, and in the end even scriptural scholarship) becomes one that does without «ни в разуме, ни в науке» (reason or science); “die Glaubensvorschrift ausschließlich zu verwalten die Autorität hat” (has the authority to administer the prescriptions of faith exclusively) is folded into «единый имеющий власть хранитель и толкователь» (the sole keeper and interpreter having power); “nicht überzeugen, sondern nur befehlen darf” (need not convince but only command) becomes «может не убеждать, но предписывать» (may prescribe instead of convincing). The passage is not in Richter's Kant-Aussprüche; Kehrbach's text of the first edition is quoted, its OCR breaking off the second sentence at “sondern” (read “NET”), so the last excerpt ends there. Semple's English is free.
Lichtenberg says religion has little influence on men “die sonst kein Gesetz über sich erkennen,” who otherwise recognize no law above them, meaning states and their rulers; Tolstoy leaves out the clause, so what Lichtenberg says of them is said of people at large, “How little influence religion has on people,” and the remark becomes an exclamation.
Original · German
Wenn man auf einer entfernten Inſel einmal ein Volk antraͤfe, bey dem alle Haͤuſer mit ſcharf geladenem Gewehr bes haͤngt waͤren und man beſtaͤndig des Nachts Wache hielte, was würde ein Reiz ſender anders denken koͤnnen, als daß die ganze Juſel von Raͤubern bewohnt wäre?
Iſt es aber mit den Europaͤiſchen Reichen anders?
Man ſteht hieraus von wie we— nigem Einfluß die Religion Überhaupt auf Menſchen iſt, die ſonſt kein Geſetz uͤber ſich erkennen, oder wenigſtens, wie weit wir noch von einer wahren Religion entfernt ſind.
TolstoyТолстой
Если бы путешественник увидал на каком-нибудь отдаленном острове людей, дома которых были бы обставлены заряженными орудиями и вокруг этих домов ходили бы днем и ночью часовые, он не мог бы не подумать, что на острове живут одни разбойники. Разве не то же с европейскими государствами?
Как же мало влияния имеет на людей религия, или как мы еще далеки от истинной религии!
If a traveler saw on some remote island people whose houses were set about with loaded cannon, with sentries walking around these houses day and night, he could not help thinking that the island was inhabited only by robbers. Is it not the same with the European states?
How little influence religion has on people, or how far we still are from true religion!
From Vermischte Schriften, vol. II · reworded by Tolstoy .
Original · GermanWenn man auf einer entfernten Inſel einmal ein Volk antraͤfe, bey dem alle Haͤuſer mit ſcharf geladenem Gewehr bes haͤngt waͤren und man beſtaͤndig des Nachts Wache hielte, was würde ein Reiz ſender anders denken koͤnnen, als daß die ganze Juſel von Raͤubern bewohnt wäre?
Iſt es aber mit den Europaͤiſchen Reichen anders?
Man ſteht hieraus von wie we— nigem Einfluß die Religion Überhaupt auf Menſchen iſt, die ſonſt kein Geſetz uͤber ſich erkennen, oder wenigſtens, wie weit wir noch von einer wahren Religion entfernt ſind.
Source text: archive.orgDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. Vermischte Schriften, vol. II (1801), Bemerkungen vermischten Inhalts, 7: Politische Bemerkungen, Vermischte Schriften II (Göttingen, 1801), p. 205.
Lichtenberg's remark, closely in its first half, its conclusion widened. Lichtenberg: if one found on a distant island a people with every house hung with loaded guns, keeping watch constantly at night, what could a traveler think but that the whole island was inhabited by robbers? And is it otherwise with the European states? “Man sieht hieraus von wie wenigem Einfluß die Religion überhaupt auf Menschen ist, die sonst kein Gesetz über sich erkennen, oder wenigstens, wie weit wir noch von einer wahren Religion entfernt sind” (one sees from this how little influence religion has on men who otherwise recognize no law above them, or at least how far we still are from a true religion). Tolstoy leaves out “die sonst kein Gesetz über sich erkennen” (who otherwise recognize no law above them), so that what Lichtenberg says of states and their rulers is said of people at large, and turns the sentence into an exclamation. He also writes «ходили бы днем и ночью часовые» (sentries would walk day and night) for “man beständig des Nachts Wache hielte” (they kept watch constantly at night) and «заряженными орудиями» (loaded guns) for “mit scharf geladenem Gewehr behängt” (hung with muskets loaded with ball). Lichtenberg goes on that it is abominable that religion itself has caused wars. The scan's OCR reads “steht” for “sieht”. The Jubilee commentary (vol. 42) records that on 20 February 1905 Tolstoy and F. A. Strakhov corrected the Circle's Lichtenberg thoughts; his listed source, Lichtenberg's Ausgewählte Schriften (Leipzig, 1879), was not found online, so the first edition stands in, as in earlier months. No public-domain English was found.
† An intermediate translation may have made this change.Это изменение мог сделать промежуточный перевод. * Possibly Tolstoy’s misreading.Возможно, Толстой неверно прочел подлинник.