8Octoberоктября · 8-е октября
Только люди, никогда не думавшие о главных и существенных вопросах жизни, могут думать и говорить, что всё доступно человеческому разуму.
Only people who have never thought about the chief and essential questions of life can think and say that everything is within the reach of human reason.
1. Люди бывают трех родов: одни не верят ни во что, чего нельзя выразить ясными словами; другие верят только в те учения, в которых они воспитаны; третьи верят в тот закон, который они сознают в своем сердце. Такие люди самые разумные и самые твердые. Те люди, которые верят в те учения, в которых они родились, менее разумные и менее твердые, но все-таки не лишены главного человеческого свойства: признавать нечто высшее, непостижимое, требующее от нас доброй жизни. Баба, призывающая бога, даже Николая Чудотворца, как нечто высшее, духовное, требующее самоотвержения, добрых дел, ближе к истине, чем люди первого рода, не признающие ничего непостижимого рассуждением.
1. People are of three kinds: some believe in nothing that cannot be expressed in clear words; others believe only in the teachings in which they were brought up; and the third believe in the law that they are conscious of in their hearts. Such people are the most reasonable and the most steadfast. Those who believe in the teachings in which they were born are less reasonable and less steadfast, but all the same they are not without the chief human quality: recognizing something higher, incomprehensible, which demands of us a good life. A peasant woman who calls on God, even on Nicholas the Wonderworker, as on something higher, spiritual, which demands self-denial, good deeds, is nearer the truth than people of the first kind, who recognize nothing that reasoning cannot comprehend.
Translation note. Saint Nicholas, whom the Orthodox call the Wonderworker.
2. Все начала — тайны; причина всякой индивидуальной или коллективной жизни — тайна, т. е. нечто не поддающееся разуму, неизъяснимое, неопределенное. Одним словом, всякая индивидуальность есть неразрешимая загадка, и никакое начало не может быть объяснено. В самом деле, всё то, что сделалось, объясняется прошедшим, но начало чего бы то ни было не сделалось. Оно представляет всегда начальное чудо творения, потому что оно не есть следствие чего-либо другого: оно является только между прежними вещами, которые составляют ему среду, случай, обстановку, которые сопутствуют его появлению. Само же появление остается непонятно.
2. All beginnings are mysteries; the cause of every individual or collective life is a mystery, that is, something that does not yield to reason, inexplicable, indeterminate. In a word, every individuality is an insoluble riddle, and no beginning can be explained. Indeed, all that has come to be is explained by the past, but the beginning of anything whatever did not come to be. It always represents the initial miracle of creation, because it is not the consequence of anything else: it merely appears among earlier things, which make up its medium, its occasion, its setting, which accompany its appearance. But the appearance itself remains incomprehensible.
From Fragments d'un journal intime · close to the original .
Original · FrenchToutes les origines sont des secrets ; le principe de toute vie individuelle ou collective est un mystère, c'est-à-dire quelque chose d'irrationnel, d'inexplicable, d'indéfinissable.
Allons jusqu'au bout : toute individualité est une énigme insoluble, et aucun commencement ne s'explique.
En effet, tout ce qui est devenu s'explique rétrospectivement, mais le commencement de quoi que ce soit n'est pas devenu.
Il représente toujours le fiât lux, la merveille initiale, la création, car il n'est la suite de rien d'autre, il apparaît seulement entre les choses antérieures qui lui font un milieu, une occasion, un entourage, mais qui assistent à son apparition sans comprendre d'où il est venu.
Source text: archive.orgIn English · Mrs. Humphry Ward, 1885All origins are secret; the principle of every individual or collective life is a mystery--that is to say, something irrational, inexplicable, not to be defined. We may even go farther and say, Every individuality is an insoluble enigma, and no beginning explains it.
In fact, all that has _become_ may be explained retrospectively, but the beginning of anything whatever did not _become_. It represents always the “_fiat lux_,” the initial miracle, the act of creation; for it is the consequence of nothing else, it simply appears among anterior things which make a _milieu_, an occasion, a surrounding for it, but which are witnesses of its appearance without understanding whence it comes.
Source text: gutenberg.orgDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. Fragments d'un journal intime, Journal, 26 octobre 1875 (5th ed., Geneva 1887, t. II, p. 198); Ward's translation, October 26, 1875.
The entry's first paragraph, closely. 'Allons jusqu'au bout' (let us go to the end) becomes «Одним словом» (in a word); Amiel's three names, 'le fiat lux, la merveille initiale, la création' (the fiat lux, the initial marvel, the creation), become one phrase, «начальное чудо творения» (the initial miracle of creation); his close, 'mais qui assistent à son apparition sans comprendre d'où il est venu' (but which witness its appearance without understanding whence it came), becomes «которые сопутствуют его появлению. Само же появление остается непонятно» (which accompany its appearance. The appearance itself remains incomprehensible). Amiel's next paragraph (perhaps there are no true individuals, and so only one beginning) is left out. The scan prints 'fiât' for 'fiat'.
3. Благодаря твоему превосходному воспитанию, ты можешь измерять круги и квадраты и все расстояния между звездами. Всё стало достижимо для твоей геометрии. Если ты такой прекрасный механик, измерь же ум человеческий. Скажи мне, как он велик или как он мал. Ты знаешь, что такое прямая линия. Какая тебе в этом польза, если ты не знаешь прямого пути в жизни. Все свободные науки оказываются несостоятельны для научения добродетели. Если они и пригодны для чего другого, для добродетели они ничего не стоят. Они не приводят ум к добродетели: они лишь расчищают путь.
3. Thanks to your excellent education, you can measure circles and squares and all the distances between the stars. Everything has become attainable for your geometry. If you are so fine a mechanic, then measure the human mind. Tell me how great it is or how small. You know what a straight line is. What use is that to you if you do not know the straight path in life. All the liberal arts prove powerless to teach virtue. Even if they are of use for something else, for virtue they are worth nothing. They do not lead the mind to virtue: they only clear the way.
From Epistulae morales ad Lucilium · joined by Tolstoy from several places .
Original · LatinO egregiam artem! scis rotunda metiri, in quadratum redigis quamcumque acceperis formam, intervalla siderum dicis, nihil est quod in mensuram tuam non cadat: si artifex es, metire hominis animum, dic quam magnus sit, dic quam pusillus sit.
Scis quae recta sit linea: quid tibi prodest, si quid in vita rectum sit ignoras?
Ad alia multum, ad virtutem nihil; …
… sic liberales artes non perducunt animum ad virtutem sed expediunt.
Source text: thelatinlibrary.comIn English · Richard Mott Gummere (Loeb), 1920O what marvellous skill! You know how to measure the circle; you find the square of any shape which is set before you; you compute the distances between the stars; there is nothing which does not come within the scope of your calculations.
But if you are a real master of your profession, measure me the mind of man! Tell me how great it is, or how puny! You know what a straight line is; but how does it benefit you if you do not know what is straight in this life of ours?
Very much in other respects, but nothing at all as regards virtue.
… so the liberal arts do not conduct the soul all the way to virtue, but merely set it going in that direction.
Source text: en.wikisource.orgDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. Epistulae morales ad Lucilium, 88.13 and 88.20.
Joined from two places in Letter 88, on the liberal studies. The first half is 88.13, Seneca's address to the geometer: "O what marvellous skill! You know how to measure the circle; you find the square of any shape which is set before you; you compute the distances between the stars; there is nothing which does not come within the scope of your calculations. But if you are a real master of your profession, measure me the mind of man! Tell me how great it is, or how puny! You know what a straight line is; but how does it benefit you if you do not know what is straight in this life of ours?" Seneca's ironic "O egregiam artem!" (O excellent art!) becomes «Благодаря твоему превосходному воспитанию» (thanks to your excellent upbringing); «Всё стало достижимо для твоей геометрии» (everything has come within reach of your geometry) renders "nihil est quod in mensuram tuam non cadat" (there is nothing that does not fall within your measuring); "si artifex es" (if you are a master of your craft) becomes «Если ты такой прекрасный механик» (if you are such a fine mechanic); and "quid in vita rectum sit" (what is straight in life) becomes «прямого пути в жизни» (the straight path in life). The second half is 88.20: «Если они и пригодны для чего другого, для добродетели они ничего не стоят» renders "Ad alia multum, ad virtutem nihil" (much for other things, nothing for virtue), and «Они не приводят ум к добродетели: они лишь расчищают путь» renders "liberales artes non perducunt animum ad virtutem sed expediunt" (the liberal arts do not lead the mind to virtue but clear the way). The sentence between them, «Все свободные науки оказываются несостоятельны для научения добродетели» (all the liberal sciences prove unable to teach virtue), states the letter's argument in Tolstoy's words. The intermediary was not established; Letter 88 is not in Ramage's Latin Authors.
4. Тайна жизни растения — такая же, как тайна нашей жизни, и физиолог напрасно надеется объяснить ее механическим законом так же, как он объясняет машину, которую сам сделал. Мы не должны щупать пальцами святую святых жизни животной или даже растительной. Делая это, мы ничего не откроем, кроме внешности.
4. The mystery of a plant’s life is the same as the mystery of our life, and the physiologist hopes in vain to explain it by mechanical law, in the same way as he explains a machine that he has made himself. We must not finger the holy of holies of animal or even of vegetable life. In doing so we shall discover nothing but the outside.
From Journal, as printed in Early Spring in Massachusetts, ed. H. G. O. Blake · reworded by Tolstoy .
What changedThoreau’s caution, that the physiologist “must not presume to explain” the growth of plants by mechanical laws, becomes a verdict that he “hopes in vain to explain it,” and the mystery of plant life, “kindred with” ours, becomes “the same as” ours; “must not expect to probe with our fingers” becomes “must not finger,” and “even” is added to vegetable life.
What Tolstoy read · Every Day with Thoreau, in The Coming DayThe mystery of the life of plants is kindred with that of our own lives, and the physiologist must not presume to explain their growth according to mechanical laws, or as he would explain a machine of his own making.
If we do we shall discover nothing but surface still.
Source text: archive.orgThoreau’s own wordsThe mystery of the life of plants is kindred with that of our own lives, and the physiologist must not presume to explain their growth …
We must not expect to probe with our fingers the sanctuary of any life, whether animal or vegetable.
If we do, we shall discover nothing but surface still.
Source text: archive.orgDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. Journal, as printed in Early Spring in Massachusetts, ed. H. G. O. Blake (Boston, 1881), pp. 82–83, a paragraph without a date of its own, after the entry of 7 March 1859 on the shrike and the robins.
Close in its images, changed in its verbs. 'Kindred with' becomes «такая же, как» (the same as). 'The physiologist must not presume to explain their growth according to mechanical laws' becomes «физиолог напрасно надеется объяснить ее механическим законом» (the physiologist hopes in vain to explain it by mechanical law): Thoreau's caution, 'must not presume', becomes a statement that the attempt is futile. 'We must not expect to probe with our fingers the sanctuary of any life, whether animal or vegetable' becomes «Мы не должны щупать пальцами святую святых жизни животной или даже растительной» (We must not finger the holy of holies of animal or even vegetable life), without 'expect to' and with 'even' added. 'If we do, we shall discover nothing but surface still' becomes «Делая это, мы ничего не откроем, кроме внешности» (Doing so, we shall discover nothing but the outside), without 'still'. Tolstoy's route was the calendar 'Every Day with Thoreau' in The Coming Day, which prints the three sentences for May 11, credited to 'Spring'; the next thought of the day, 10-8.5, comes from the same calendar. The Jubilee list of the Circle's sources names 'Every day with Thoreau', bound sheets from an unidentified book. No printable.
5. Вещь, которую мы видим через микроскоп и телескоп, становится незначительной.
5. A thing that we see through the microscope and the telescope becomes insignificant.
From Journal, 1 May 1859, as printed in 'May Days: Extracts from the Journal of Henry D. Thor… · reworded by Tolstoy .
What changedThoreau’s “begin to be insignificant” becomes “becomes insignificant,” and the telescope is added to the microscope, so his remark on things seen under the microscope covers the telescope as well; “Science is inhuman” is left out.
What Tolstoy read · Every Day with Thoreau, in The Coming DayScience is inhuman. Things seen with a microscope begin to be insignificant.
If you would obtain insight, avoid anatomy.
Source text: archive.orgThoreau’s own wordsScience is inhuman. Things seen with a microscope begin to be insignificant.
So described, they are monstrous, as if they should be magnified a thousand diameters.
Source text: archive.orgDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. Journal, 1 May 1859, as printed in 'May Days: Extracts from the Journal of Henry D. Thoreau', The Atlantic Monthly, vol. 41 (May 1878), pp. 569–570, the paragraph beginning 'Science is inhuman', under the date 1 May 1859.
Changed. 'Things seen with a microscope begin to be insignificant' becomes «Вещь, которую мы видим через микроскоп и телескоп, становится незначительной» (A thing that we see through the microscope and the telescope becomes insignificant): 'and the telescope' is Tolstoy's, and 'begin to be' becomes «становится» (becomes). Tolstoy's route was the calendar 'Every Day with Thoreau' in The Coming Day, which prints 'Science is inhuman. Things seen with a microscope begin to be insignificant. If you would obtain insight, avoid anatomy' for July 19, credited to 'May Days', the journal extracts printed under that title in The Atlantic Monthly of May 1878; there the third sentence stands a few paragraphs later, in the entry of 2 May 1852. Tolstoy left out the first and third sentences. The Jubilee list of the Circle's sources names 'Every day with Thoreau', bound sheets from an unidentified book. No printable.
6. Большая библиотека скорее рассеевает, чем поучает читателя. Гораздо лучше ограничиться несколькими авторами, чем необдуманно читать многих.
6. A large library distracts the reader rather than instructs him. It is far better to confine oneself to a few authors than to read many heedlessly.
From De tranquillitate animi · close to the original .
What Tolstoy read · Beautiful Thoughts from Latin AuthorsOnerat discentem turba librorum, non instruit …
A large library is apt to distract rather than to instruct the learner; it is much better to confine yourself to a few authors than to wander at random over many.
Source text: archive.orgOriginal · LatinQuo innumerabiles libros et bibliothecas, quarum dominus uix tota uita indices perlegit? Onerat discentem turba, non instruit, multoque satius est paucis te auctoribus tradere quam errare per multos.
Source text: thelatinlibrary.comIn English · Aubrey Stewart, 1889What is the use of possessing numberless books and libraries, whose titles their owner can hardly read through in a lifetime? A student is overwhelmed by such a mass, not instructed, and it is much better to devote yourself to a few writers than to skim through many.
Source text: gutenberg.orgDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. De tranquillitate animi, 9.4.
Tolstoy translates Ramage's English closely: «Большая библиотека скорее рассеевает, чем поучает читателя» is "A large library is apt to distract rather than to instruct the learner", and «Гораздо лучше ограничиться несколькими авторами, чем необдуманно читать многих» is "it is much better to confine yourself to a few authors than to wander at random over many". Ramage, on Tolstoy's list of sources (Jubilee vol. 42), prints the sentence alone under the heading "Books", with "librorum" added to Seneca's "turba"; his "a large library" for turba (the mass of books) and "distract" for onerat (burdens) are what the Russian follows. In Seneca the sentence answers his question about owners of countless books and libraries who hardly read the titles in a lifetime: "Onerat discentem turba, non instruit" (the mass burdens the learner, it does not instruct him). «Рассеевает» is the Jubilee text's spelling.
Лучше не знать многого из того, что можно знать, чем пытаться познать то, что не может быть познано.
Ничто так не развращает и не ослабляет умственной силы и не возбуждает так самомнения, как витание в областях непознаваемого. Хуже всего притворяться, что понимаешь то, чего не понимаешь.
It is better not to know much of what can be known than to try to know what cannot be known.
Nothing so corrupts and weakens the strength of the mind, and nothing so arouses conceit, as hovering in the realms of the unknowable. Worst of all is to pretend that you understand what you do not understand.
Translation note. The Russian italic of each paragraph is broken only at the commas; each paragraph is set here as one span.
Tolstoy TodayТолстой сегодня · tolstoytoday.org/october/8