17Septemberсентября · 17-е сентября
Владение землей, как собственностью, так же, даже более несправедливо, чем рабство, т. е. владение человеком, как собственностью.
Owning land as property is as unjust as, and even more unjust than, slavery, that is, owning a human being as property.
1. Тот, кто первый, огородив кусок земли, решился сказать: «Эта земля моя», и встретил людей столь простых, что они могли поверить этому, — этот человек был первый основатель того гражданского общества, которое существует теперь. От скольких преступлений, войн, убийств, несчастий, ужасов избавил бы человечество тот, кто, вырвав колья и заровняв канаву, сказал бы: «Берегитесь, не верьте этому обманщику; вы пропали, если забудете, что земля не может принадлежать никому и что плоды ее принадлежат всем».
1. He who first fenced off a piece of land and made bold to say, “This land is mine,” and found people simple enough to believe it — that man was the first founder of the civil society that exists now. How many crimes, wars, murders, miseries, and horrors would humanity have been spared by one who, pulling up the stakes and filling in the ditch, had said: “Beware, do not believe this impostor; you are lost if you forget that the earth can belong to no one and that its fruits belong to all.”
From Discours sur l'origine et les fondements de l'inégalité parmi les hommes · close to the original .
Original · FrenchLe premier qui, ayant enclos un terrain, s’avisa de dire : Ceci est à moi , et trouva des gens assez simples pour le croire, fut le vrai fondateur de la société civile.
Que de crimes, de guerres, de meurtres, que de misères et d’horreurs n’eût point épargnés au genre humain celui qui, arrachant les pieux ou comblant le fossé, eût crié à ses semblables : Gardez-vous d’écouter cet imposteur ; vous êtes perdus, si vous oubliez que les fruits sont à tous, et que la terre n’est à personne !
Source text: fr.wikisource.orgIn English · G. D. H. Cole, 1913The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society.
From how many crimes, wars and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows, "Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth, belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody."
Source text: gutenberg.orgDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. Discours sur l'origine et les fondements de l'inégalité parmi les hommes (1755), Part II, opening paragraph; Cole's translation, The Second Part.
The first two sentences of the second part of the Discourse on Inequality, translated closely. Two changes: 'le vrai fondateur de la société civile' (the true founder of civil society) becomes «первый основатель того гражданского общества, которое существует теперь» (the first founder of the civil society that exists now), and Rousseau's last clause is turned around, 'les fruits sont à tous, et que la terre n’est à personne' (the fruits are everyone's and the earth is no one's) becoming «земля не может принадлежать никому и что плоды ее принадлежат всем» (the earth cannot belong to anyone and its fruits belong to all).
2. Простая справедливость не допускает права земельной собственности, потому что если одна часть земельной поверхности может справедливо быть собственностью одного лица и может быть удерживаема им для его личной выгоды и употребления, как вещь, на которую он имеет исключительное право, то и другие части земельной поверхности могут сделаться такой же собственностью, и возможно, что таковою сделается вся земельная поверхность, и потому земной шар сделается частной собственностью.
2. Simple justice does not admit the right of property in land, because if one portion of the earth’s surface may justly be the property of one individual and be held by him for his own private benefit and use, as a thing to which he has an exclusive right, then other portions of the earth’s surface may become property in the same way, and it is possible that the whole of the earth’s surface may become such property, and so the globe will become private property.
From Social Statics · close to the original .
Herbert Spencer’s own wordsEquity, therefore, does not permit property in land.
For if one portion of the earth's surface may justly become the possession of an individual, and may be held by him for his sole use and benefit, …
… then other portions of the earth's surface may be so held; and eventually the whole of the earth's surface may be so held; and our planet may thus lapse altogether into private hands.
Source text: archive.orgDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. Social Statics (London, John Chapman, 1851), ch. IX 'The Right to the Use of the Earth', § 2, p. 114.
Close: the opening two sentences of § 2, which January's 1-30.2 continues (the dilemma that follows). 'Equity, therefore,' becomes 'Simple justice' (Простая справедливость): Tolstoy adds 'simple' and drops 'therefore', which ties the sentence to § 1. 'Eventually the whole of the earth's surface may be so held' becomes 'and it is possible that the whole of the earth's surface will become such property'; 'our planet may thus lapse altogether into private hands' becomes 'and therefore the globe will become private property'. Spencer left the passage out of the abridged and revised Social Statics of 1892 (January's 1-30.2). The Jubilee list of sources names Ernest Crosby's Earth for All Calendar, not found online, where Tolstoy may have found this and the other land thoughts of 17 September. No printable, for the added 'simple' and the dropped 'therefore'.
3. Само собою разумеется, что тот факт, что какой-нибудь начальник или землевладелец купил какую-нибудь привилегию или унаследовал ее от отцов, не дает ему еще никакого нравственного права на нее. Вопрос в том, справедливо ли, разумно ли его требование само по себе? Потому что неправда и зло — тем более неправда и зло, чем долее они продолжаются.
3. It goes without saying that the fact that some chief or landowner has bought some privilege or inherited it from his fathers does not of itself give him any moral right to it. The question is: is his claim just, is it reasonable, in itself? For wrong and evil are only the more wrong and evil the longer they go on.
From The British Barbarians: A Hill-Top Novel · reworded by Tolstoy .
What changed“Doesn’t give him any better moral claim to it” becomes “does not of itself give him any moral right to it”: Allen’s purchase gives no better claim, Tolstoy’s no right at all; “species of taboo,” Allen’s figure for property, is left out, and “a wrong” becomes “wrong and evil.”
Grant Allen’s own wordsOf course, the fact that a chief or a landowner has bought and paid for a particular privilege or species of taboo, or has inherited it from his fathers, doesn't give him any better moral claim to it.
The question is, " Is the claim in itself right and reasonable?"
For a wrong is only all the more a wrong for having been long and …
… persistently exercised.
Source text: archive.orgDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. The British Barbarians: A Hill-Top Novel (London: John Lane; New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1895), ch. IV, pp. 67–68, spoken by Bertram Ingledew, the novel's visitor from the future, on the 'taboos' of English property.
Three consecutive sentences of a speech in Allen's novel: the words are a character's, Bertram Ingledew, who has just described how Polynesian chiefs could 'taboo almost anything they liked' and goes on to the English 'land-taboo'. Tolstoy keeps the order and changes the claim. 'Has bought and paid for a particular privilege or species of taboo' becomes 'bought some privilege', the taboo, Allen's figure for property, left out. 'Doesn't give him any better moral claim to it' becomes 'does not yet give him any moral right to it' (не дает ему еще никакого нравственного права на нее): Allen's purchase gives no better claim, Tolstoy's no right at all. 'Is the claim in itself right and reasonable?' becomes 'is his claim just, is it reasonable, in itself?' 'For a wrong is only all the more a wrong for having been long and persistently exercised' becomes 'For untruth and evil are the more untruth and evil the longer they continue' (неправда и зло — тем более неправда и зло, чем долее они продолжаются): 'and evil' is added. May's 5-30.4 came from Allen's essay 'Individualism and Socialism' (1889), which makes the same argument in his own voice. The Jubilee name index calls Allen an American novelist; he was Canadian-born and wrote in England. No printable.
4. Нельзя утверждать, чтобы существующие права на землю были законны. Пусть тот, кто думает так, просмотрит хроники. Насилие, обман, власть, хитрость — вот те источники, из которых исходят эти права.
4. It cannot be maintained that the existing rights to land are legitimate. Let anyone who thinks so look through the chronicles. Violence, fraud, power, cunning — these are the sources from which these rights proceed.
From Social Statics · shortened by Tolstoy .
Herbert Spencer’s own wordsIt can never be pretended that the existing titles to such property are legitimate.
Should any one think so, let him look in the chronicles.
Violence, fraud, the prerogative of force, the claims of superior cunning — these are the sources to which those titles may be traced.
Source text: archive.orgDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. Social Statics (London, John Chapman, 1851), ch. IX 'The Right to the Use of the Earth', § 3, p. 115.
Three consecutive sentences of § 3, the list shortened. 'It can never be pretended' becomes 'One cannot maintain' (Нельзя утверждать); 'titles to such property' becomes 'rights to land'. 'The prerogative of force, the claims of superior cunning' become two words, 'power, cunning' (власть, хитрость), so the list reads 'Violence, fraud, power, cunning'. 'The sources to which those titles may be traced' becomes 'the sources from which these rights come'. No printable.
5. Люди, владеющие земельной собственностью, и на словах и в судах осуждают людей за присвоение чужой собственности.
Неужели они не понимают, что им, не переставая отнимающим у народа самую неотъемлемую собственность, надо сгореть со стыда, как только будет упомянуто слово воровство, а не осуждать и карать за то, в чем они сами, не переставая, кругом виноваты.
5. People who own landed property condemn others, in words and in the courts, for appropriating what belongs to someone else.
Can it be that they do not understand that they, who never cease taking from the people the most inalienable property of all, ought to burn with shame the moment the word theft is mentioned, instead of condemning and punishing others for what they themselves are unceasingly and wholly guilty of?
6. Взгляните с точки зрения наблюдателя природы на безземельного человека, на существо, имеющее возможность и способность пользоваться землей, вынужденное своими потребностями пользоваться ею и вместе с тем лишенное права на землю. Это так же неестественно, как птица без воздуха или рыба без воды
6. Look, from the standpoint of an observer of nature, at the landless man, at a being that has the opportunity and the capacity to use the land, that is compelled by its needs to use it, and that is at the same time deprived of the right to the land. This is as unnatural as a bird without air or a fish without water.
From Property in Land: A Passage-at-Arms between the Duke of Argyll and Henry George · close to the original .
Henry George’s own wordsLet me ask the Duke to consider, from the point of view of an observer of Nature, a landless man — a being fitted in all his parts and powers for the use of land, compelled by all his needs to the use of land, and yet denied all right to land.
Is he not as unnatural as a bird without air, a fish without water?
Source text: archive.orgDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. Property in Land: A Passage-at-Arms between the Duke of Argyll and Henry George (1884), George's 'The Reduction to Iniquity', 'The Reduction to Iniquity' (The Nineteenth Century, July 1884), p. 55 of the New York printing of 1893.
Close, with the address and the question turned. 'Let me ask the Duke to consider' becomes 'Look' (Взгляните), addressed to the reader; 'a being fitted in all his parts and powers for the use of land' becomes 'a being having the means and the ability to use land'; 'Is he not as unnatural as a bird without air, a fish without water?' becomes a statement, 'This is as unnatural as a bird without air or a fish without water'. The same reply to the Duke of Argyll gave April's 4-14.2. The Jubilee list of sources names S. D. Nikolaev's Russian of George's 'Selected Speeches and Articles' (Posrednik, 1905). No printable, for the changed address and the question made a statement.
7. Частная собственность на землю, никогда не возникавшая из естественных отношений людей, а всегда в истории являвшаяся следствием захвата и грабежа, представляется такой крайней нелепостью, такой грубой несправедливостью, таким явным расточением производительных сил и такой преградой к наиболее выгодному пользованию естественными богатствами, такой противоположностью здравой общественной политике и таким тормозом к истинному улучшению быта человечества, что она терпится только потому, что большинство людей никогда не думает о ней и не слышит, чтобы они рассуждали.
7. Private property in land, which has never arisen from the natural relations of people, but has always, in history, been the consequence of seizure and plunder, appears so extreme an absurdity, so gross an injustice, so manifest a waste of productive forces, and so great an obstacle to the most advantageous use of natural wealth, so contrary to sound social policy, and so great a brake on the true betterment of the condition of humanity, that it is tolerated only because the majority of people never think about it and never hear people reason about it.
From The Land Question: What It Involves, and How Alone It Can Be Settled · close to the original .
Henry George’s own words… for private property in land, which never arises from the natural perceptions of men, but springs historically from usurpation and robbery, is something so utterly absurd, so outrageously unjust, so clearly a waste of productive forces and a barrier to the most profitable use of natural …
… thoroughly opposed to all sound maxims of public policy, So glaringly in the way of further progress, that it is only tolerated because the majority of men never think about it or hear it questioned.
Source text: archive.orgDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. The Land Question: What It Involves, and How Alone It Can Be Settled (1881), ch. IX 'Principle the Best Policy', p. 41 (New York: Charles L. Webster & Co.).
Close: the second half of one sentence, George's list kept in order (the scan garbles 'opportunities, so'). Small shifts: 'the natural perceptions of men' becomes 'the natural relations of men' (естественных отношений людей); 'springs historically from usurpation and robbery' becomes 'always in history was the consequence of seizure and robbery', with 'always' added; 'so glaringly in the way of further progress' becomes 'such a brake on the true improvement of the condition of mankind'; 'hear it questioned' becomes 'hear them reason about it' (не слышит, чтобы они рассуждали). The Jubilee list names S. D. Nikolaev's Russian of the book («Земельный вопрос», Posrednik, 1908). No printable, for these changes.
Translation note. The Russian has «не слышит, чтобы они рассуждали», “does not hear them reason”; «они», “they,” is read as people in general.
8. Из двух систем рабства, при одном и том же уровне нравственного развития, та система, которая превращает в собственность людей, без сомнения, является более гуманной, чем система, которая превращает в частную собственность землю. При признании земли частной собственностью людей изнуряют работой и голодом, лишают всех радостей и прелестей жизни, обрекают на невежество и скотское существование и доводят до преступлений и самоубийства, как будто без участия чьей-либо воли, а в силу как будто роковой необходимости, за которую никто не ответственен.
8. Of the two systems of slavery, at one and the same level of moral development, the system that turns people into property is without doubt more humane than the system that turns the land into private property. Where land is recognized as private property, people are worn out with toil and hunger, deprived of all the joys and charms of life, condemned to ignorance and a brutish existence, and driven to crime and suicide, as though without anyone’s will having a part in it, by force of what seems a fatal necessity, for which no one is answerable.
From Social Problems · shortened by Tolstoy .
Henry George’s own wordsOf the two systems of slavery, I think there can be no doubt that upon the same moral level, that which makes property of persons is more humane …
… than that which results from making private property of land.
Human beings are overworked, are starved, are robbed of all the light and sweetness of life, are condemned to ignorance and brutishness, and to the infection of physical and moral disease ; are driven to crime and suicide, not by other individuals, but by iron necessities for which it seems that no one in particular is responsible.
Source text: archive.orgDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. Social Problems (1883), ch. XV 'Slavery and Slavery', pp. 218–219.
Two sentences of one paragraph, the four between them (the cruelties of chattel slavery are more striking because they are the conscious acts of individuals; the burning of one man and the railroad accident) left out. 'I think there can be no doubt' becomes 'without doubt'. Tolstoy opens the second sentence with 'Where land is recognized as private property' (При признании земли частной собственностью), which George's sentence had from the context; 'robbed of all the light and sweetness of life' becomes 'deprived of all the joys and charms of life'; 'the infection of physical and moral disease' is left out; 'not by other individuals, but by iron necessities for which it seems that no one in particular is responsible' becomes 'as if without anyone's will, by as if a fateful necessity for which no one is responsible'. The Jubilee list names S. D. Nikolaev's Russian of the book («Общественные задачи», Posrednik, 1906). No printable.
Несправедливость владения земельной собственностью, как всякая несправедливость, неизбежно связана с целым рядом несправедливостей и злых дел, нужных для охранения ее.
The injustice of owning landed property, like every injustice, is inevitably bound up with a whole series of injustices and evil deeds needed to protect it.
Translation note. The Russian italic is broken only at the commas; it is set here as one span.
Tolstoy TodayТолстой сегодня · tolstoytoday.org/september/17